Skip to content

Jacksons – AEG trial DAY 56. NURSE ANESTHETIST DAVID FOURNIER and ‘NARCAN’ IMPLANTS. part 1

August 9, 2013

The two parts of this post are about many things at once – one of which is the importance of reading full transcripts. This I made sure of myself when reading the testimony of David Fournier, the nurse anesthesiologist, the transcript of which was recently obtained thanks to TeamMichaelJackson again.

Though Fournier testified as long ago as Friday, July 25th, week 13 of the trial to my utter surprise I found there things not reported by anyone at all – neither by the tweets from the court, nor the media.

And these things are crucial.

CHARACTER ASSASSINATION OF THE HERO

living-with-michael-jackson

“Living with Michael Jackson”, 2002. The years of struggle took a toll on him

David Fournier is one of those medical professionals who are brought in by AEG to speak about the early 2000s in Michael’s life.

The selection of that period by AEG is deliberate as their goal is character assassination of Michael Jackson and this is when Michael was at his worst, and you can see it even by the pictures of him of that time.

These were several years when the exhaustion from all those ailments, his helplessness against the media and public hate all around him, his financial setbacks, his ruined hopes and the whole anguish of his life finally caught up with him and led him to the brink of a full breakdown.

We know that he managed to overcome it but it took him several years and all his incredible willpower, overwhelming sense of responsibility and birth of his third child Blanket to regain some stability in life (only to be ruined again by the 2003 allegations) and overcome the dependency on Demerol that developed in early 2000s.

The fight Michael was waging against Demerol is seen best in his song Morphine which is the most powerful anti-drug propaganda I’ve ever heard. This song should be taught at school to show the power the narcotic can have even over the most responsible and God-abiding of all people and the dead of a fight one has to wage to be able to win in a game against this devil.

Opioids are extremely addictive even when given for legitimate use and Michael is a hero that he not only completely opened up about his problem but frankly spoke about the difficulty of fighting the drug thus warning us against it. No one asked him to open up about all that ‘morphine’ and by writing that song he only made his life more difficult and vulnerable for criticism, but Michael was just like that  – he spoke his mind freely and tried to warn others, even not knowing yet whether he would be able to beat this evil himself.

David Fournier said that he considered Michael’s TV announcement about his drug dependency heroic. So he perfectly knew about his problem with painkillers and they even discussed it before every procedure:

A.  I think it was 1993 he went on public television and, quite heroically, I thought, made an announcement that he was dependent on medications and was seeking therapy.
Q.  Did you see or hear that announcement around the time that it was made?
A.  I believe so, yes.
Q.  Did you continue treating Mr. Jackson after he made; that announcement?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Did you talk to him about his issues with narcotic painkillers after the announcement?
A.  Every time we met, yes.
Q.  And what would you ask him?
A.  Always what’s — “Anything new medicationwise? Any new treatments? Are you on any medication? Are you taking anything that I need to know about?”
Q.  And that was before every procedure?
A.  Before every procedure.

I have no doubt whatsoever that it was his true faith in God that helped Michael to overcome his dependency, so it isn’t a chance occurrence that he began to recover only when he entered that 12-step program focusing on God that was central to his treatment provided by Dr. Farshchian.

Judging by that TV announcement made in 1993 and the Morphine song written by Michael of his own free will, his dependency was actually never a secret, so what was really new to us in David Fournier’s and Dr. Farshchian’s testimonines was the way Michael managed to beat his dependency.

However this beastly AEG pretends that drugs were a big and dark secret of Michael Jackson and imposes on us this most difficult period of Michael’s life as if it were something that can exonerate them of their guilt. No dear AEG, your guilt is still there and will be there for thousands of years now, because it is white-collar nobodies like you who managed to drive Michael Jackson into the ground – Michael Jackson, the man who could not be broken even by the many decades of most vicious harassment by the whole world around him.

It is a sort of a record for AEG – “we managed to do what no one was able to before us”.

KENTUCKY CHICKEN AS THE GRAVEST OFFENCE

David Fournier

David Fournier

David Fournier produced on me the impression of a conscientious nurse anesthetist who is very thorough in his work but is extremely fearful that any problem he had with Michael might have a negative effect on the success of his medical practice.

Therefore even simple questions about the difficulty to set an IV on Michael Jackson’s veins frighten him out of his wits and are regarded by him as an embarrassment to him and his skills:

Q. Are you nervous today?

A. I’m terrified.

….Q. How is propofol administered?

A. Intravenously.

Q. That means you’re putting it into somebody’s veins?

A. Right.

Q. Through an iv?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever have trouble starting an iv on Mr. Jackson?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that something that happened more than once?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you sometimes have to try multiple times to place an iv for Mr. Jackson?

A. You’re embarrassing me, but, yes.

Q. Is it embarrassing to you, as you’re pretty good as placing ivs?

A. I’m pretty good.

Q. Something you do on a daily basis?

A. Yes.

…Q. And you said there were some times it was hard for you to start an iv in Mr. Jackson. Did that require multiple attempts?

A. Yes.

Q. Using locations other than what’s typical?

A. It would be — you would start low, and if you missed once — I think the most I ever had to stick him was three times, but usually once or twice.

With the exception of the above ‘embarrassment’ Furnier is indeed extremely good at his work – his standards are top notch and would be a great example for Conrad Murray had he be willing to listen.

However as it is often the case with those who keep to strict rules themselves Fournier’s problem is that he sets top requirements not only for himself but for his patients too and regards any step taken by them to the right or to the left from the recommended path as a capital offence requiring a firing squad.

Alan Duke also noticed that eating Kentucky chicken instead of a soup after anesthesia or going to a rehearsal instead of going home are regarded by David Fournier as the worst offences possible. He collected this and other Michael Jackson’s misbehavior in one short article:

Michael Jackson’s drug use explored in trial

By Alan Duke, CNN

July 26, 2013 — Updated 0847 GMT (1647 HKT)

Los Angeles (CNN) — A nurse who administered propofol to Michael Jackson more than a dozen times said the pop star did not appear to be a drug-seeker.

David Fournier was called as a witness Thursday by AEG Live in an effort to convince jurors that Jackson was so deceptive and secretive about his drug use that its executives had no way of knowing his health was in danger as he prepared for his comeback concerts.

An economist hired by the concert promoter’s lawyers will testify Friday in an effort to downplay how much money Jackson might have earned had he not died at age 50 — an important issue if the jury decides AEG Live is liable in his death.

Michael Jackson’s mother and three children contend the company negligently hired, retained or supervised the doctor convicted of involuntary manslaughter in his death — which the coroner ruled was caused by an overdose of the surgical anesthetic propofol.

AEG Live argues that Jackson chose and controlled Dr. Conrad Murray, who told investigators he gave Jackson nightly infusions of propofol to treat his insomnia.

Fournier, a certified nurse anesthetist, testified about an incident on June 3, 2003 in which Jackson stopped breathing while under sedation for a procedure with Beverly Hills dermatologist Dr. Arnold Klein. After Jackson suffered a “somewhat bizarre reaction” during the sedation, Klein told Fournier it might be because the singer had an “opioid antagonist” implant. It was intended to help treat a dependence on Demerol, he said.

“You expect your clients and doctors be honest with you and I felt ambushed and was upset,” Fournier testified. The nurse said it made him angry at both Klein and Jackson.

AEG Live lawyers hope jurors see the incident as evidence that Jackson was dishonest about his drug use, which would support their contention that their executives had no way of knowing about the dangerous treatments he was getting from Murray.

Fournier also testified that Jackson failed to follow his instructions in two instances after being sedated for procedures.Jackson went to a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant for a bucket of chicken instead of going home and eating crackers, he testified. Another time he went to a rehearsal for a Grammy show performance and sprained his ankle, he said.

Every instance where Jackson was given propofol was medically justified, Fournier said. The 14 times he administered it between 2000 and 2003 involved plastic surgeries, dermatological procedures and oral surgeries, he said.

He first sedated Jackson in 1993 when he was being treated for serious scalp burns suffered while filming a Pepsi commercial several years earlier, he said.

Some of the 25 times he was hired to assist with Jackson’s procedures no drugs were given, he said. He would just hold his hand and assure him it would be all right.

Jackson never asked for specific drugs and never quarreled with him, he said. All of the doctors who treated him were respected physicians, he said.

Fournier’s friendly relationship with Jackson ended in November 2003 when he canceled a procedure because Jackson was “a little goofy, a little slow to respond.” Fournier said he refused to sedate Jackson because he suspected he was lying to him about his use of drugs.

“Despite 10 years of good quality care and taking good care of him for a long period of time, he never called me,” he said.

AEG Live’s lead lawyer has said he would call as witnesses “many, many, doctors” who have treated Jackson to make their case that he was a secretive drug addict.

The trial in a Los Angeles court concludes its 13th week Friday and is expected to last into September.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/26/showbiz/jackson-death-trial/index.html

 At the trial the AEG lawyers spoke about all those Kentucky chicken instances in full seriousness:

Q. Do you think it’s possible that there are other times when Mr. Jackson wasn’t completely honest with you about his health status?

Mr. Panish. Same objection. No foundation, speculation.

The judge. Overruled. You may answer.

The witness. I felt that this period here in June, he wasn’t honest with me, and was not honest with me in September.

Q. Were there any instances where Mr. Jackson didn’t comply with instructions you gave him about his medical care?

A. Yes.

Q. And what happened there?

A. Well, post-operatively, we always want — I can think of two instances. Post-operatively, we want patients to go home with an adult to keep an eye on them and stay with them for the first 24 hours. And after a procedure, I told him, “go home.” he had a caregiver and a bodyguard and a driver. And instead of going home, he went to rehearsal. And he sprained his ankle, and it was the night before or the day before the Grammies. And instead of doing his routine on television, he had to be carried on the stage in kind of a rickshaw deal.

Q. And what was the other instance where you’re aware that Mr. Jackson didn’t follow your instructions?

A. After anesthesia, we usually like people to resume a normal diet slowly. So I told him to “go home. Have some crackers, piece of toast, some soup.” he left with his caregivers, and I cleaned up the operating room. And then on my way home, I happened to drive by Kentucky Fried Chicken, and there was Michael’s limo. So I tapped on the glass, the window came down, and he was having — he and his bodyguard and driver were sharing a bucket of chicken and some biscuits. He was embarrassed; the window rolled up.

Well, I can assume that even Michael could on occasions feel hungry especially since very often he said to Fournier that the last time he ate before a procedure was lunch the prior day:

Q. In your experience, did Michael have much of an appetite?

A. Not really. I’d ask him, you know, “what did you have” — you know, “when is the last time you had anything to eat or drink?” and he would say, “lunch the prior day,” which was not unusual.

Q. Did you observe whether there were periods of time when Mr. Jackson would tend to lose weight?

A. Well, we’re talking plus or minus five pounds here, so, no, not a particular period.

Q. Is there anything that you attributed, any small fluctuation in his weight, to?

A. One time I asked him why he was down to, like, 130, and he said he’d been on tour and dancing a lot, and that’s why.

Q. Were you concerned about Mr. Jackson’s weight when it was in the 130-pound range?

A. No. He’s lean, muscular, in good shape. No.

10 YEARS OF WORK FOR MICHAEL JACKSON

The first time Mr. Fournier met Michael Jackson and assisted a doctor working on him was January 1993 which is an awfully important date for us as it shows that immediately upon arrival from the second leg of the Dangereous tour Michael underwent some serious medical procedure requiring anesthesia.

This was just on the eve of his disaster with the Chandlers whom he had the misfortune to invite to his ranch in February 1993, so let us remember the date and the two events accompanying each other. Unfortunately Fournier does not have all the records because many were destroyed due to the 7 year time limit:

Q. When did you first actually meet Michael Jackson?

A. I think because I’d established with this doctor that I was, you know, willing and available to help, three to six months later I was called to take care of Michael.

Q. So that would be — are you able to estimate what year that was?

 A. I think it was January of 1993.

Q. And did you provide medical treatment to Mr. Jackson for the first time in January of 1993?

A. Most of the records have been destroyed because of the legal time limit. But to the best of my estimate, it was January of 1993.

Q. Do you have some records?

A. I have some.

Q. And did you produce those records of treatment in this case in response to a subpoena?

A. Yes, I did.

All in all Fournier attended to Michae’s medical needs for 10 years within which he provided anesthesia on perhaps 25 occasions. To a layperson this number may seem too big, but Fournier said that burn victims have hundreds of medical procedures requiring anesthesia, and Michael’s grave injuires and totally inhuman procedures like tissue expanders under his scalp made him well above an average case:

Q. And you know that Michael had had a lot of anesthesia; that he had had — he had that terrible burn that caused ongoing problems; is that right?
A.  Correct.
Q.  He had had — he needed a lot of surgery to repair the burn, the scars from the burn and —
A.  Correct.
Q.  Is that right? And did you know that he’d had tissue expanders placed in his skull, which were these — this sort of balloon device that expands and is extremely painful?
A.  Correct.
Q.  And so you were not, again, surprised that it was difficult finding vascular access?

A.  No.

Q.  By the way, you were asked — you were asked on this — by counsel about a normal number of incidences of having received anesthesia, correct?
A.  Yes.

Q.  There’s no normal, is there?
A.  I guess I’m saying an average.
Q.  Yeah. Some people never get anesthesia their whole lives? Other — right?
A.  And some burn patients get hundreds.
Q.  And some burn patients get hundreds. And Michael was a burn patient, wasn’t he?
A.  Correct.
Q.  And Michael needed — you don’t quarrel with any of the anesthesia Michael ever got in his life. You said that earlier; isn’t that correct?
A.  Correct.
Q.  It was all necessary because he had severe burns and he wasn’t a normal patient for that, was he? So he wasn’t normal in the sense of the average patient, an average number of —
A. 
Correct.

Q.  And you knew that he had numerous procedures related to the burns after 1994 with hair transplants, tissue expanders and other procedures?
A.  Correct.
Q.  And that’s what you attributed the — the lack of access to — the fact that he had had numerous anesthetic procedures?
A.  Correct.
Q.  And these are burn injuries that we’re talking about that he had suffered from?
Ms. Cahan:  Objection; vague.
Q.  And those are painful, correct?
Judge:  Overruled.

The witness:  Correct.

Each time before starting the anesthetic job Fournier gave Michael a long talk which within a 10 year old time of their interaction was gradually reduced to 5 minutes or so. After hearing it multiple times Michael would usually say “You’ve done enough. I’ve got it”:

Q. Can you estimate how many times you treated Mr. Jackson over the about 10-year period when he was your patient?

A. Well, it depends on what you mean by “treatment.” some of the times I just did not give him any medication, I just observed him to make the surgeons happy. But in terms of total time interactions, probably 35. 30 or 35.

Q. Are you able to estimate, of that 30 or 35, how many times you actually provided anesthesia to Mr. Jackson?

A. Perhaps 25.

Q. Do you generally take a patient’s medical history prior to administering anesthesia?

A. Yes.

Q. Why?

A. Well, it’s important to know what is going on with the patient in terms of allergies, medications, medical conditions, prior history, weight, whether they’ve had anything to eat or drink. And it’s recommended that you take 10 or 20 minutes and sit down with the patient and gather that information. Allows you to provide a safe anesthetic.

Q. And you do that? Take — routinely take 10 or 20 minutes and talk through with someone all those pieces of information you just mentioned?

A. Yes, yes. I think, though, with Michael, in later years, as we got to know each other better, it cut down to maybe 10 minutes, 5 minutes.

Q. In addition to having a patient like Mr. Jackson sign this form, do you also discuss the risks of anesthesia with your patient before you administering anesthesia?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you discuss the risk of death, among others?

A. I have a little speech that I give, yes, and that’s at the tail end.

Q. And do you go over these risks with your patients before every procedure?

A. Yes. However, some people, when you start the risks, they go, “I don’t want to hear about it anymore.” and you’ll see another box that says, “I don’t want to hear the specifics.”

Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever do that? Say, “stop, I don’t want to hear it”?

A. He never said, “stop, I don’t want to hear it.” he just would say, “You’ve done enough. I’ve got it.” He heard it multiple times.

Q. So you did go through the full speech with him a number of times?

A. Many times. Sometimes we wouldn’t see each other for six months or a year, so I’d go through it with him.

On many occasions during those 10 years Mr. Fournier was just standing there and literally holding Michael by the hand and doctors were happy to have him monitor Michael because if something happened to Michael it would be the end of their career. (I wish AEG had looked upon Michael in the same way and not as a ‘freak’ or some third-rate beginner who could be totally neglected, and also bullied and insulted at their pleasure).

Michael never asked for any drugs and was quite happy even if Fournier was simply there holding his hand. And he valued his safety well enough to pay Fournier for just standing there and keeping an eye on him.

The drugs were always chosen by Fournier and even by his top high standards Micahel never displayed a drug-seeking behavior:

Q. I think that’s what you said there, too, was that approximately — you said maybe like 25 times, you actually gave him some medication; and the rest 10 times were not for medication; is that right?
A.  That’s an approximation, a guess, yes.

Q.  And I think — I think what you may have said is that part of that was just to basically hold his hand. I don’t know if you meant that literally or figuratively, which —
A.  It’s literal, and it’s not the only hand I was holding. The doctors appreciated having someone monitor Michael. He was a very important person. He was at the peak of his career. If anything had happened to him — and there are deaths in dental chairs and outpatient surgeon surgery centers. It’s very rare. But if something had ever happened to Michael, it would have been the end of their career, so they were very happy to have me there. Especially since they didn’t have to pay me, Michael paid me, they were very happy to have me there to keep him safe.

Q.  And so a lot of the times when you were there, you were there just to make sure everything went okay from an anesthesia point of view?
A.  Correct.
Q.  And you also said that you literally held his hand sometimes?
A.  Correct.

Q.  By that, do you mean you literally held his hand?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Okay. And what kinds of circumstances was that?
A.  Painful injections, “squeeze my hand if you’re feeling any pain or discomfort,” just sometimes — especially with patients under light sedation, just holding a hand, having a contact, is a good thing.

Q.  It is — and it — and that was important to Michael, too, wasn’t it?
A.  Very.
Q.  Having that reassurance that somebody was there who he could trust?
A.  Correct.
Q.  And you felt, by the way, that he did trust you?

A.  Yes.
Q.  And the times — those times that you saw him, you didn’t give him any medication and he didn’t ask for any, right?
A.  Correct.

Q.  And he just wanted the reassurance that a qualified person was there?
A.  Correct, should something go wrong, like a dental epinephrine injection, or something like that.
Q.  And while you treated him, it was you who always chose the drugs that were given, administered, for anesthesia, correct?
A.  Correct.

Q.  Michael never chose them, right?
A.  Correct.

Q.  Michael never asked for them, correct?
A.  Correct, correct.
Q.  Michael never asked for more, did he?
A.  Correct.

Q.  Michael never asked for — he never complained that he was in such pain, “you have to give me more, you have to give me more,” correct?
A.  Correct.

Q.  You gave him Propofol. Michael never asked you for Propofol, did he?
A.  Correct.
Q.  You felt that Propofol was the right drug to give, to administer, for these procedures?
A.  Correct.

Q.  And every single procedure that you did in those 25 procedures, in each and every one of them, you called the shots as far as the medication that was being administered —
A.  Correct.
Q.  — isn’t that correct. And Michael never quarreled with you about it, did he?
A.  Never.
Q.  So if anyone was going to say that Michael had drug-seeking behavior, you didn’t see it?
A.  Correct.

David Fournier enumerated the procedures Michael underwent during those 10 years. Most of them were related to the burn on his head, then came dental procedures, Botox and collagen injections, some permanent tattoo, part of which were again made in the area of his burn, but what’s surprising is that neither Fournier, nor anyone at all say a word about any plastic surgery proper the media so much screamed about when Michael was alive!

All these procedures were actually a medical necessity, and no propofol was ever given to Michael for reasons other than his medical needs:

Q. Did you take Mr. Jackson’s medical history every time you treated him?

A. Yes.

Q. In the instances where you provided anesthesia to Mr. Jackson, was there always a doctor, physician, involved in the treatment?

A. Always.

Q. What types of procedures were these physicians performing on Mr. Jackson for which you administered anesthesia?

A. One of the first ones was a scalp reduction for a burn he suffered on his head, and, subsequently, a number of treatments for that. He had a couple times an abscessed tooth and root canal and some dental procedures. He had extensive tattooing of his lips, his eyes, the burn area on his head. And he had Botox and collagen and filler injections to some of the areas in his face that he wasn’t happy with.

In all fourteen cases when Fournier administered propofol it was done only in the presence of doctors and for medical procedures too, which makes roughly 1,4 occasions of propofol per year:

Q. I counted 14 different occasions on which you administered propofol. Does that sound about right to you?

A. Yes.

Q. So you began treating Mr. Jackson in 1993. And I — you have records available for 2000, 2002 and 2003?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. And those are the dates on which you gave Mr. Jackson propofol in connection with medical procedures in the years 2000, 2002 and 2003?

A. Correct.

…. Q. You spoke a bit earlier about every time you gave Mr. Jackson medical care there was a physician present doing some kind of procedure on him.

A. Correct. I cannot give anesthetic without a physician’s order.

Q. You said there were also times where you would go with Mr. Jackson to either make him, or the person performing the procedure, feel comfortable, where you didn’t actually administer anesthesia?

A. Correct.

Q. Can you tell me the names of the doctors that you remember performing — either performing anesthesia with Mr. Jackson or being — attending a procedure?

A. Well, initially it was Dr. Arnold Klein; then there was a dentist, I think — I believe Dr. Baxley. Some of the hair transplants and scalp-reduction work, the painful procedures were done by a Dr. Bosley. There was also one who took care of him, a very well-known plastic surgeon, Dr. Gary Tearston. And towards the end of our relationship, I worked with a Dr. Lawrence Koplin.

Q. Do you know whether the people listed on this slide all treated, gave medical care to Mr. Jackson?

A. I believe they did.

Q. And do you know that either because you were present for procedures where they were taking care of Mr. Jackson, or Mr. Jackson told you they were his physicians?

A. Correct. I was either present or Michael told me about it.

Then David Fournier gives us a full breakdown of which doctor did what and even the specialty of these doctors tells us of the specifics of medical procedures Michael had:

  • Klein is a dermatologist and treated Michael for his vitiligo, lupus, etc.
  • Hoefflin is a plastic surgeon who took care of Michael’s broken nose, then made a plastic operation on the nose, then treated Michael’s burn and did some reconstructive surgery on his scalp.
  • Dr. Metzger, an internal medicine physician and rheumatologist whose specialty is systemic lupus.
  • Dr. Koplin and Dr. Tearson are board testified in general surgery, and plastic and reconstructive surgery.
  • Dr. Bosley is a (famous) specialist on hair restoration who helped to restore some of Michael’s burned area. We learn that it was Dr. Bosley and not Hoefflin who was doing sculp reduction of Michael Jackson in 1993 and it could be Bosley (?) who hit the nerve on Michael’s head and sent him on the third leg of Dangerour tour with a neuroma on his head.
  • Dr. Baxtey and Dr. Levin are both dentists and oral surgeons.

Q. Okay. So what kind of doctor was Dr. Klein?

Mr. Koskoff. Object to the form. What does that mean, “what kind of doctor”?

Ms. Cahan. Does he have a specialty?

The judge. Okay.

Q. I’m sorry. Does he have a specialty?

A. Dr. Klein is a dermatologist and medical doctor and surgeon.

Q. Dr. Hoefflin?

A. Dr. Hoefflin is a board certified plastic and reconstructive surgeon.

Q. Dr. Metzger?

A. Dr. Metzger is an internal medicine physician.

Q. Dr. Koplin?

A. Dr. Koplin is board certified in general surgery and board certified in plastic and reconstructive surgery.

Q. Dr. Baxley is a dentist?

A. I believe he’s an oral surgeon.

Q. Okay. What about Dr. Levine?

A. Dr. Levine, unfortunately, passed away. He was a fine and wonderful dentist and oral surgeon.

Q. Dr. Bosley, you said, did some work on Mr. Jackson’s scalp?

A. Dr. Bosley is famous — his specialty is hair restoration. And in Michael’s case, Michael received a burn, I think, in 1984 during the filming of a commercial, was badly burned. And Dr. Bosley helped to restore some of that area and cover that up.

Q. And is he the person you worked with on the initial — during the surgeries you talked about where you provided anesthesia in 1993 for a reduction of the scalp?

A. Yes. I believe it was Dr. Bosley.

Q. Okay. And you said Dr. Tearston, the plastic surgeon?

A. Dr. Tearston, I believe, is board certified in general surgery and a very well-known plastic and reconstruction surgeon.

Mr. Panish. What’s the exhibit number on this?

Ms. Cahan. 13,474.

Mr. Panish. Thank you.

Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever tell you that he had a primary care doctor?

A. Dr. Allan Metzger, I believe, was his primary care doctor.

Mr. Koskoff:  Let’s go through these people one at a time.
Q.  These were not bottom-of-the-barrel doctors, were they?
A.  They were well-known physicians.
Q.  They were well-known physicians. They were very prominent Los Angeles — mostly Los Angeles, but very prominent California physicians, correct?

A.  Correct.

Q.  Okay. Let’s not talk about him. Metzger. Did you know Dr. Metzger?
A.  I met him once or twice, I spoke to him many times on the phone about Michael.
Q.  And he was an internist and specialist in the field of rheumatology, correct?
A.  I believe so.
Q.  And then you have Dr. Lawrence Koplin. Who was Dr. Koplin?
A.  Koplin.
Q.  Koplin? Sorry.
A.  Larry Koplin is a board certified general surgeon and very prominent and good plastic surgeon, reconstructive surgeon.
Q.  And Dr. Edward Baxley, he was the dentist?
A.  Correct.

Q.  And what — did you know Dr. Baxley before Michael?
A.  No, no. I only met him through Michael.
Q.  Okay. And Dr. Levine, who you said passed away —
A.  Leslie Levine, yes.
Q.  And he was a prominent person in the field of — what was his real specialty?
A.  Multiple dental procedures.
Q.  He was a real specialist, wasn’t he?
A.  He treated a number of patients in his area. He did a lot of different things like gum and teeth work.
Q.  And how about Dr. Bosley?
A.  Dr. Bosley’s specialty is hair restoration.
Q.  And Dr. Tearston?
A.  Dr. Tearston is a very well-known senior member of the plastic surgery community, good surgeon.
Q.  And each and every time you were present when one of these doctors was administering surgery — administering a procedure on Michael, did you ever, in — did you ever, in observing it, feel that the doctor was not paying attention to the procedure that he was doing?
A.  No.
Q.  And did you ever once, when they were ordering anesthesia for him, feel that it was inappropriate for him to get anesthesia?
A.  No.
Q.  And you’ve mentioned one of the times that you thought was a very — I think counsel asked you about Botox — Botox, why do you need it for that. And you started to talk about the use of the needle during these Botox injections. Were there hundreds and hundreds, sometimes, of needle sticks that would occur during these?
A.  Correct.
Q.  During one session?
A.  Correct.
Q.  And some of these were right next to the eye; isn’t that right?
A.  Correct, quarter of an inch.
Q.  And just the slightest motion of Michael could have caused him to lose an eye; is that right?
A.  It could have caused damage to the eye, yes.
Q.  And so he had to be anesthetized for those, didn’t he?
A.  That is why I was requested to be there, yes, keep him still.
Q.  And some of these procedures were right next to the nose, which is a very nerve-centered area; is that correct?
A.  Correct.
Q.  And he needed anesthesia for those procedures?

A.  Correct.
Q.  So that — so that you were not — so that as far as the doctors that you saw here, did you — would you have thought that any of these doctors would be like doctor shopping, that he was going to different types of the same people?
A.  No.
Q.  Question — well, did he ever request to remain under anesthesia longer than you thought was necessary?
Ms. Cahan:  Objection; asked and answered.

Judge:  Overruled.
The witness:  No.

Fournier also explained why they had to resort to aliases for Michael Jackson. The alias were used for their own staff because if the medical personnel saw the real name on their charts the next morning after the procedure, the news of it would have immediately hit the media.

So they let him in and out at night and before he left the building the whole staff would go out and check if paparazzi were not there. The way he described it the secrecy of those medical procedures was akin to secret operations they show in spy films.

So most of all that activity was at night… And after that someone wonders why he had to have a nocturnal way of life?

Q. In your experience, Mr. Fournier, was Mr. Jackson concerned about his privacy?

A. Very concerned.

Q. Why do you say that?

A. Because he was hounded continuously by the paparazzi. He could barely ever go shopping without being in disguise. He had to have people to protect him, to keep people away from him. I mean, he loved people, but people could be overbearing because he was so famous.

Q. Did he ever do anything to maintain his privacy when he would come for medical appointments where you were accompanying him or taking care of him?

A. We would do things in the evening. We’d have to hire staff to come in the evening, because during the day his comings and goings would be too obvious. He would come in the back way. One of his bodyguards would put an umbrella in front of the video camera so he wouldn’t be photographed. We used aliases to protect him. And before we left, we all went outside and checked to make sure there was no paparazzi or photographers there.

Q. And I think we talked earlier about other uses of names on the forms for, or at the request of Mr. Jackson, or physicians he was working with?

A. Correct.

Q. Saw that Omar Arnold name. Were there other aliases that you used for Michael Jackson at his request, or the request of the physicians you were working with?

A. Yes. I remember Michael James, Jack James. I’d have to look at the records, but those come to mind.

Q. And that was, to your understanding, to preserve Mr. Jackson’s privacy?

A. Yes. We were doing these procedures after hours to protect his privacy and protect for his safety, too, just for the crowds. And there’s a surgical log at every institution where we keep track of every patient, and if the staff came by the next morning and saw the name “Michael Jackson,” then it would be out that he had been there. So an alias was used.

HE PUT HIM TO “SLEEP”

When talking about propofol anesthesia Fournier makes a very common mistake made by all anesthesiologists – they usually tell their patients that they will put them to sleep. It never occurs to them that an ordinary patient understands these words literally and think that the sleep under anesthesia is the same as normal biological sleep.

This is how Michael’s confusion of propofol sleep with usual sleep most probably started. Fournier repeated the word sleep so often even during his relatively short testimony at the trial that I am absolutely sure that in all 10 years of working for Michael all that talk about “sleep” was constant.

In his testimony Fournier described the propofol procedure in much detail as well as the speech he usually gave before putting Michael to “sleep”. Let us note and remember that Fournier did not speak of the specific agents to Michael (or anyone at all), so for him it was “sleep” no matter what agent was delivered during anesthesia – Demerol, Propofol or any other.

This is important as different agents produce different kinds of “sleep” – Demerol, for example, produces biological sleep, while Propofol absolutely does not (it is a coma where the brain does not undergo the usual stages of restorative sleep), however the patient doesn’t know this difference – for him any anesthesia is “sleep”, especially when the anesthetist himself says so:

A. If it’s in the operating room, an ambu bag and mask would be backup to an anesthesia machine that’s been checked out and ready to go. And or prior to 2005, a capnograph actually was suggested but not required. It’s been required since july 1, 2011. So now that’s — during the care of Michael, it was not required. And this would be just to give a bolus of propofol. I mean, to put someone to sleep. But if I was going to maintain them safely, I would add to this a computerized infusion pump that’s dedicated to delivering propofol.

Q.  And you would say, “I’m going to be administering certain drugs to you”; is that right?
A.  Correct.
Q.  “I’m going to put you to sleep,” correct?       
A.  Correct.
Q.  “But I’m going to be with you monitoring you,” correct?

A.  Correct.
Q.  “And there is always a risk that something bad can happen, but I am going to be monitoring you very carefully so I feel comfortable about — about doing this, if you do feel comfortable,” right?
A.  Something like that, correct, yes.

A.  I don’t necessarily discuss the agents. Most people wouldn’t understand.
Q.  Okay. But you tell them that — you do tell them that you’re going to put them to sleep?   

A.  Correct.
Q.  And after they’re — you put them to sleep, you tell them that you’re going to give them — that you’re going to be there and you’re going to carefully monitor them?
A.  I tell them I’m going to listen to every beat of their heart and every breath they take, and I mean it.

When Fournier says that he doesn’t necessarily discuss the agents he is explaining to us one extremely important detail.

When we agree to a narcosis we are under the impression that we will be given some substance to make us “sleep” but generally we have no idea what substance is to be given. And we are all the more unaware of the fact that they are going to give us a mixture of different drugs. Most of us think that they will give us just “something” and if they tell us that the average anesthesia contains “11, 12, 14 different drugs” as Fournier says we will jump in sheer surprise.

Fourteen different drugs? Well, this we absolutely could not expect! However this is what Fourier is saying:

Q. And has a patient ever asked you to provide particular anesthetics to him or her or to provide anesthesia in a particular way? Do they ever say, “doctor, I think I know” or “Mr. Fournier, I think I know what kind of anesthesia I’d like, and I’d like you to give me x, y and z”?

A. Yes, people have sometimes. What people don’t realize is the average anesthetic is 11, 12, 14 different drugs. So they may — they’ll say pentothal, but they can’t do pentothal for a 4-hour case. It’s just the beginning drug. So I try to explain to them that based on their medical history and their physical exam, I’ll be picking things out.

Q. Do you let patients ever dictate what anesthesia you provide to them?

A. No.

Why is it so important that none of us know that anesthesia is actually a mix of a great many drugs? Because Michael was no different from us and he also thought that he was being given a one-component anesthesia, and if he said that he did not want Demerol he was sure that he warned his anesthetist well enough. Now he will receive something different from Demerol and if it is different it will not interfere with the anti-Demerol implant he is carrying in his skin.

Like all of us it never occurred to him that in an operation involving Propofol, for example, this anesthetic may be accompanied by a mixture of 13 other drugs some of which may be similar to Demerol – other opioids, for example, and that the anti-opioid implant given to him by Dr. Farshchian could in any way interfere with the anesthesia provided by nurse anesthetist Fournier.

This is actually what must have happened when Fournier had the fright of his life when at some point he gave Michael his mix and Michael suddenly had apne (stops in breathing). Up till today he doesn’t know why it happened and he thinks it is because Michael didn’t disclose to him that information about an implant.

Could it be the reason? I think it could. But was Michael to blame for it? I doubt it – because like all of us he had no idea why he should babble about his anti-Demerol implant if he knew he would be given Propofol. He told the nurse that he didn’t want any Demerol and thought his job done at that. And if this was just not enough to know, wasn’t the doctor doing the procedure to help and inform the anesthetist about all the rest?

“NARCAN” IMPLANTS

MJ in 2002Now we know from Dr. Farshchian testimony that for nine months between November 2002 and July 2003 he gave to Michael five anti-Demerol implants together with a 12-step pray or medidation program to follow.

Michael was absolutely determined to get rid of his dependency and this is probably why the treatment worked. Michael went clean of Demerol though it was one of the toughest periods of his life – in February 2003 Bashir showed his terrible film and this raised an incredible new wave of hatred towards Michael which ended in his trial in 2005.

Incidentally, this also means that while Bashir was making his film in 2002 Michael was exactly at his worst because the implant treatment had not yet started – and it was when the film was shown in February 2003 that Michael was already undergoing his treatment.

The last or fifth implant was placed on April 4th, 2003 and over here let me repeat Susanne’s great observation that if those Arvizo bastards had indeed seen Michael without clothes (as they claimed they did), they should have noticed the implant too, especially since in Michael’s case it was accompanied by a rash and covered by a patch as Dr. Farshchian made a note of in his records.

No, those bastards never saw anything and this is just another of those numerous arguments to prove that the Arvizos were just some vicious clowns playing in a dirty circus staged by its director Tom Sneddon, the D.A.

While carrying that implant placed under his skin in April 2003 Michael had three medical procedures done on him.

The first two were on April 24 and May 13, 2003. Before they began Michael informed Fournier that he didn’t want any Demerol, and the anesthesia went without a hitch except that Fournier noted that he had an high tolerance to a certain drug he used. Saying that he didn’t want Demerol was Michael’s tacit but clear way of warning Fournier that Demerol was not to be used because of the implant.

Before the third procedure on June 2, 2003 Michael said to Fournier the same, that he didn’t want Demerol, and stopped at that thinking he had fulfilled his responsibility and warned the anesthetist, especially since the previous two procedures went fine – however this time there was a brief stop in breathing which Fournier could not understand. He coped with it but had the fright of his life:

A.  Towards the end of our working relationship, there was one point where I asked about any new allergies or anything like that, and he said no Demerol.  
Q.  He said no —
A.  — Demerol.
Q.  Okay. Did he tell you he was allergic to Demerol?
A.  No; he just said no Demerol.
Q.  Did you ask him why no Demerol?

A.  He said he didn’t like it.
Q.  He said he didn’t like it?

A.  Did not like it.
Q.  Did he tell you that he had had a problem with Demerol?

A.  No.
Q.  When you had that conversation, did you recall the announcement he had made in 1993?
A.  I don’t know.
Q.  Did Mr. Jackson ever tell you that he had sought any help or received any medical treatment to assist him in not using Demerol?

A.  No.
Q.  He just told you at some point in — toward the end of your relationship that he didn’t want to use Demerol?
A.  Didn’t like it, didn’t want it.
Q.  Did you ever have a conversation with Mr. Jackson where he told you that he had had a procedure to block the effects of opioids?

A.  No.
Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to whether Mr. Jackson told you in connection with the June 2nd, 2003 procedure that he didn’t want Demerol?
A.  Correct.

It is interesting that in medical issues certain evasiveness is always present. When Michael somewhat evasively said to Fournier that he didn’t want Demerol not disclosing the reason for it Fournier equally evasively put it down into his notes as “allergic to Demerol” which he said was his clue to avoid certain drugs.

But what Michael did not know that instead of Demerol Fournier used another opioid, and the implant was evidently working against all of them. That other opioid did not work and that is why Fournier noted “a high tolerance” to it. It wasn’t the case of any high tolerance of course – opioids simply were not effective due to the anti-opioid implant MJ had under his skin, but Fournier didn’t know about it and Michael didn’t know that it was important:

Mr. Koskoff:  After he started — assume the implant was in April, that one of the implants was in April of 2003. … And after that, he starts telling you that he’s allergic to Demerol?
A.  He never told me he was allergic to it. He told me he didn’t like it and didn’t want it.
Q.  He said, “I don’t like it,” but you wrote it in the form —

A.  Didn’t want it.
Q.  — where the official record says — what you wrote in the official record, it says “allergies,” and you wrote “Demerol”?
A.  That’s my clue to avoid those, to avoid those drugs.
Q.  And as far as — to avoid those drugs. And you would avoid drugs which have similar characteristics; is that right? Other opiates?

A.  If the patient doesn’t like Demerol, you can use another drug.
Q.  Yes. But — and you didn’t use an opiate with him, did you?
A.  Which date are we talking about.
Q.  You didn’t use any op- — did you use any opiates on June 2nd?
A.  Yes; remifentanil.
Q.  And that’s after he told you he was allergic to Demerol, you went ahead and gave him another opiate?
Ms. Cahan:  Objection; misstates the testimony.
The witness:  He told me he didn’t like Demerol.
Judge:  Sir, if there’s an objection, you need to let me rule on it.
The witness:  Sorry.
Judge:  I think it was compound. Why don’t you re-ask —
Mr. Koskoff:  I’ll start over again.
Q.  Didn’t you write in the section of the form that says “allergies,” “Demerol”?
A.  Correct.

Q.  Did you give him an opiate on the visit in May of 2003?
A.  Remifentanil.
Q.  And he had no reaction, no negative reaction, that time, did he?
A.  Correct, except a high tolerance was noted.
Q.  High tolerance. He could take a lot of it. And that’s because — and if a person had had a drug dependency in the past, they develop a tolerance for these drugs; isn’t that right?

A.  Correct.
Q.  And you knew that Michael had had — come out publicly, you said, and stated that he had a drug dependency problem in the past?
A.  Correct.

When the fright took place on June 2, 2003 Klein was also stressed and told Fournier about the Narcan implant. He himself didn’t know what it was. Afterwards Fournier discussed the matter with Klein but not with Michael, because talking to him was useless – he was waking up from anesthesia and “would not remember anything” anyway.

The way he describes the incident nothing terrible happened – it was just a case of apne (gap in breathing happening to those who snore), but for conscientious Fournier it was like the end of the world.

I wish Conrad Murray were at least a bit like Fournier and had at least a fraction of his thoroughness and care:

Ms.Cagan. And who was the doctor performing the procedure on Mr. Jackson on June 2nd, 2003?

A. Dr. Arnold Klein.

Q. What type of procedure was he performing?

A. Multiple derm procedures.

Q. Did anything neurological happen at this procedure?

A. Yes.

Q. What happened?

A. If you look —

Q. Go ahead.

A. I think there’s some little marks there for blood pressure and pulse rate marks in the middle of the page on that graph. But below that, there are some boxes. And to the left there’s three letters: s, a and c. That stands for ventilation. Spontaneous ventilation is s; assisted ventilation is a; controlled ventilation is c. And you’ll see the case starts out with spontaneously ventilating, which is what we do for monitored anesthesia care. And then at some point Michael has what, for me, was an unusual reaction in that he became apnea, not breathing enough, so I controlled his ventilation for a period of a minute or a couple minutes. We continued the procedure. It happened again. I lightened him up, and we continued with the procedure. And then there was a third point where I assisted ventilation, just placing the oral airway, or lifting his chin, and we continued the rest of the procedure spontaneously ventilated.

Q. Okay. I see three spots in here where there’s sort of a line that’s generally continuous, and it sort of dips down. Are those the three times you’re talking about where you had to assist his breathing?

A. That’s where — what I’m referring to, yes.

Q. And this is just a “yes” or “no” question. Did Dr. Klein say something to you during the procedure when Mr. Jackson stopped breathing about why Dr. Klein believed he might have stopped breathing?

A. Yes.

Q. After Michael Jackson woke up from this procedure, did you speak to him about what had happened during the procedure where he stopped breathing?

A. He was just waking up. There was no point in discussing it with him. He had 3 1/2 milligrams of versed. He wouldn’t remember anyway.

Q. At some point did you talk with him about the fact that he had stopped breathing on his own during the procedure?

A. I didn’t speak with him, but I spoke with Dr. Klein.

When asked about changes in his medication from the previous visits Michael was correct – there were no changes from the previous two visits which were perfectly fine, so any questions can be raised only about the first procedure done in April 2003, but considering that Michael did inform Fournier “No Demerol, please” all this story looks like a mountain made out of the molehill and describing Michael as a “terrible liar” on this basis is a big exaggeration.

Mr. Koskoff:  April — April 3rd, 2003, the implant had been put in. And, sir, isn’t it true that you actually had seen Michael twice — you saw him on April 24th, 2003; and you saw him on may 13th, 2003, and he did perfectly well; is that right?
A.  Correct.
Q.  So that as far, at least, as the Narcan is concerned, there had been no change in his medications from the previous visit; is that correct?
Ms. Cahan:  Objection; calls for speculation.

Judge:  Overruled.
The witness:  Correct; but I didn’t know — I did not know a Narcan implanted existed.
Mr. Koskoff:  You didn’t know that. I know that.

Q.  And as far as you know, there was no other medication that was — that was added between the previous visit and the visit in June, correct?
A.  Correct.
Q.  So if Michael was asked at the beginning of the procedure in June, “Have you had any changes in your medication from the last visit?” and he said no, he was telling the truth; isn’t that correct?
A.  Correct.

Q.  And then you — by the way, you have no knowledge as to whether the Narcan implant, if there ever was a Narcan  implant — whether the Narcan  implant had anything to do with the reaction in June, do you?
A.  No.

Actually even the doctors doing the procedures confirmed to Fournier that there was no change:

Q.  In fact, sir, do you have any evidence at all that there had been a change in his medication from the previous visit? Do you have any evidence, one shred of evidence, that there was a change in medication?
A.  The patient denied it; and I spoke with his doctors, and they said there was no change.
Q.  So you have no evidence that there was a change in his medication?
A.  No.

Q.  So wherefore do you call her son a liar?

Fournier was furious with both Michael and Klein for not disclosing it earlier. As regards Klein I agree – he should have foreseen some complications as a doctor, but as regards Michael I am not so sure. He obligingly told Fournier what Dr. Farshchian evidently told him that Demerol was not to be used and he thought that he already warned his anesthetist well enough, especially since two times before that everything was okay.

In fact all Dr. Farshchian had to do to avoid this situation was giving Michael more general instructions that no opiates were to be used, and then MJ would have said to the anesthetist “no opiates please, I don’t like them”, Fournier would have made a note that Michael was “allergic to opiates” and the matter would have been settled then and there.

In addition to all this we also learn that Dr. Farshchian confused one implant name with another and even if Michael repeated its name to Fournier it could have probably only complicated matters (as no one knows what Narcan implant is), and from all this mess we understand that a patient is very often absolutely incapable to inform doctors correctly of what he has or hasn’t in his body, and things like that should be decided between doctors only:

Mr. Panish (sidebar):  And he didn’t have a Narcan  implant to begin with. It isn’t even a Narcan  implant that they’re getting into.
Mr. Koskoff:  And counsel knew that, too.
Judge:  It’s not a Narcan  implant?
Mr. Panish: 
No.

Ms. Cahan:  I have no idea what they’re talking about.
Mr. Putnam:  I have no idea what they’re saying.
Mr. Panish:  It’s not a Narcan  implant.
Mr. Koskoff:  The Narcan  implant was never put in. There are different types of implants. Narcan —
Mr. Putnam:  They’re the same —

Mr. Panish:  No, they’re not the same as the one that he had. This witness keeps saying Narcan, counsel keeps saying Narcan. He never had a Narcan  implant. He had a different implant that has different adverse effects than a Narcan , and he didn’t even know that.
Mr. Koskoff:  Dr. Farshchian didn’t know the difference. Farshchian said, on two occasions, “I put in a naloxone implant”; and then he said, “well, is that known by any –” and he said, “I think that’s Narcan .” it’s not Narcan . They’re two different entire drugs.

So a Narcan implant was not a Narcan but was something different and it was simply Dr. Farshchian who didn’t know the difference…. well, the more we look the greater it sounds.

Q.  When you — when Dr. Klein said to you that he thought that Michael had had a Narcan implant in him, you had never heard of such a thing, correct?
Fournier:  Correct.
Q.  And you went home, correct?
A.  Correct.
Q.  And you went and looked up — you looked it up?
A.  I tried to.
Q.  And you couldn’t find it?
A.  Couldn’t find it.

Q.  And as far as you know, there is no such thing as a Narcan  implant, right?
A.  I was told by two of his physicians there was one.
Q.  Yeah. Well, you were told by Dr. Klein, correct?
A.  And Dr. Metzger.
Q.  And Dr. Metzger. Because they were told by the gentleman who testified, Dr. Farshchian?  He’s the origin of it, isn’t he?
A.  I have no idea.
Q.  Okay. So you have no idea. That’s why I guess we have rules against hearsay. But it’s okay.

No, if even doctors don’t know what they are talking of the matter should have been surely discussed between themselves and well in advance too.

Mr. Koskoff of the Plaintiffs also thinks that the doctor doing the procedure would be in a better position to know about all these things, as well as which information is important to disclose and which has nothing to do with the procedure and can be kept private.

And matters of privacy were no small matter to Michael Jackson. The community of anesthetists is a very small one, and there is some “chatter” going on between them about who gave what anesthesia to whom, so Michael had every reason to be fearful that the story of his implants would be disclosed to the media with all the resulting consequences of it:

The witness:  Yes, it’s a small community, and people did mention that they had taken care of him before.
Q.  In fact, it’s a small community and you talk amongst yourselves about who you’re treating; is that right? And who you’re giving anesthesia to, you talk amongst yourselves, don’t you?
A.  Very rarely.
Q.  That’s not what you said at your deposition, is it? Didn’t you say under oath — “have you ever heard in the course of your four years of treating Mr. Jackson that he was receiving anesthesia from anyone other than yourself?” and you said, “a number of people in the community — it’s a small community, we talk amongst ourselves — told me over the years, yes, that they had anesthetized Michael Jackson.”
A.  Correct.
Q.  And that’s true, isn’t it?
A.  Yes.
Q.  But you do agree, sir, that when you’re treating someone like Michael, there is chatter in the community?
A.  I would not characterize it as chatter. It’s personal, it’s private.

Mr. Koskoff:  Let me show you —  (reading): Do you know of any other people he called? 

A.  I think I know of two for sure, but it’s my impression that a lot of people in town have anesthetized Michael over the years.
Q.  What gave you that impression. Your answer, “Chatter in the community.”
The witness:  Okay.

Klein apologized to Fournier for his blunder. When the matter was raised with Michael he apologized too:

Q. And you don’t know whether, when Dr. Farshchian put that Narcan  implant in — you don’t know what Dr. Farshchian told Michael about what the implant was, do you?
A.  No.
Q.  You don’t know whether he told him that there was medication in it, do you?
A.  No.
Q.  The doctor would be in a better position than Michael to know what’s important to tell you, isn’t he? … The doctor who is doing the procedure, first of all, is the person who — and who knows about the implant would be in the best position to know whether it’s important to tell you or not?
A.  Correct.
Q.  Because he is a physician and he will know whether this implant even contains medication?
A.  Correct.
Q.  And you — in fact, Dr. Klein apologized to you afterwards for not having told you?
A.  Yes, he did.
Q.  He accepted responsibility, didn’t he?
A.  He and Michael both accepted responsibility.
Q.  But Dr. Klein said to you that — he told you afterwards, didn’t he, that “I apologize”? That’s what he said?
A.  Yes.
Q.  “I’m sorry,” didn’t he?
A.  Yes.
Q.  You talked to Dr. Klein about it at that point, didn’t you?
A.  Yes.

Q.  And you didn’t recall ever talking to Michael about that at that time in your deposition, did you?
A.  That day, we did not talk about it.
Q.  Okay. So it was later on that you had some conversation?
A.  Yes.

Before the next procedure in September 2003 Michael truthfully said to Fournier that previously he had had that implant but it was no longer there and he was clean. The procedure went great:

Ms. Cahan:  I would just like to know what Mr. Jackson said to you with respect to Narcan implants.
The witness:  He said he had had one, but it was out, and that he was clean and he didn’t need it anymore.
Q.  Do you remember approximately when you had this conversation with Mr. Jackson?
A.  Late August or September of 2003.
Q.  So that was after the June 2nd procedure that we’ve discussed where he had that adverse effect —
A.  Correct.

A.  I asked him about that, what was going on.
Q.  And is that because it was relevant to how you would provide anesthesia to him and the procedure that you were planning for the next day?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And so he said to you he had had one but it had been taken out and he was clean and fine?
A.  Yes.
Q.  And did you go forward with the procedure the following day?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Did he do okay?
A.  Great.

AEG lawyers call this incident “drug concealment” while Panish said that it was exactly the opposite case – there were no drugs to conceal as Michael had been clean of them for nine months by that time. He was slightly evasive about the anti-drug type of treatment he was receiving – that’s true, but he openly told Fournier what drug was not to be used and didn’t know that all the rest of it was also important.

In fact if Klein did not know, how could MJ know that it was important?

The reason why Fournier was furious is because even now he is afraid that this incident will cost him a career, so he is trying his hardest to explain that it was none of his fault.

Okay, we got it, it was none of your fault, Mr. Fournier, but calling Michael a liar for so small a thing is a big exaggeration.

I cannot even imagine what Mr. Fournier would have said had he heard the lies told by the AEG bosses! Someone should explain to him that with so meticulous an approach to matters of truth he should not be testifying for the worst of all possible liars…

As to that situation with the implant all questions should please go to Dr. Klein:

Q.  But you were more concerned because Dr. Klein didn’t tell you; is that correct?
A.  Correct.
Q.  And, in fact, it was clear that Michael had confided — had told that to Dr. Klein, right?
A.  Correct.
Q.  And so he wasn’t keeping it a secret from his primary treating physician, correct?

Ms. Cahan:  Objection; assumes facts not in evidence as to who his primary treating physician was. There’s testimony it was Dr. Metzger.
Judge:  Sustained.
Q.  Well, Dr. Klein was the surgeon in this case; is that right?
A.  Correct.
Q.  He was the captain of the ship, correct?
A.  Correct.
Q.  And Michael had told the captain of the ship that he had had this drug and the captain of the ship didn’t tell you –

A.  Correct.
Q.  — until midway through the procedure, or until the procedure was almost over?
A.  Correct.
Q.  And that was very upsetting to you; is that right?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Part of the reason it was upsetting to you is that you felt your whole career was on the line there?
A.  Yeah. Anesthesia is, you know, an interesting business, and you expect your clients and their doctors to be honest with you, and I felt ambushed, and I was upset.

Q.  And you felt that your career was on the line. That’s the reason you felt upset, is your career was on the line?

A.  I could handle the situation.
Q.  Well, didn’t you say in your deposition — this is the — the Lloyd’s deposition, page 73 — Didn’t you say, under oath, Michael Jackson was at the peak of his career, he was getting Grammy awards by the armload, he was probably the most recognizable person on the planet, and I’m anesthetizing him. My whole career is on the line“?

A.  Correct.
Q.  And that’s — and that’s — and that was in response to the question about what Dr. Klein told you. You were angry at Dr. Klein for that, weren’t you?
A.  I was angry at Dr. Klein, I was angry at Michael, and I was angry at anybody that was involved that didn’t tell me what was going on.
Q.  And you’re still mad?
A.  No. Got over it.

TIRED? THEN THE AEG CASE IS NOT FOR YOU

I know that you are tired after reading so long about nothing. But we must understand AEG too – they are making the most of the little they have. They have nothing else to say – so Fournier’s story does not stop at that but proceeds to one more moment in autumn 2003 when Fournier thought that Michael spoke too slowly to him, and suspected him of being untruthful and cancelled the procedure scheduled for that day after which they never saw each other again.

However at that moment Michael was indeed clean as he had just successfully finished the anti-drug treatment given to him by Dr. Farshchian. To place things in time let me say that it was exactly the moment when Larry Feldman was taking the Arvizo case to Tom Sneddon and Sneddon was already harboring his revenge plans against Michael.

Michael was making One More Chance video in Las Vegas when police raided Neverland in November 2003

Michael was making One More Chance video in Las Vegas when police raided Neverland in November 2003

Michael didn’t know about it yet, was full of hopes for the future and was getting ready to release the Number Ones album in November that year. In October 2003 he went to Las Vegas to shoot a video with a telling name “One More Chance” and by the time the new nightmare chapter opened in his life he stayed there for almost 4 weeks (so the Neverland raid was not in his presence).

And though sometime in August-September 2003 Fournier actually refused to work for Michael due to some unsubstantiated suspicions (or being again just frightened for his career) his refusal to give Michael anesthesia looks to me like a model example of how a really independent contractor should behave.

An independent contract like Fournier (or Conrad Murray for example) should be able to make his own decisions and refuse any pressure from the outside, no matter who it is – Michael Jackson, Doctor Klein or even an entity like AEG Live, for example.

Fournier’s example is actually a good argument to those of Michael’s haters who say that Michael could always have his way – first of all he absolutely could not as the example of Fournier shows it (even despite the 10 years of their close association), and secondly the responsibility for all decision-making in the medical profession always rests with the doctor, and not the patient or someone who hired Conrad Murray like AEG did.

The patient cannot always know what’s best for him and it wasn’t the patient who gave a Hippocratic oath – it is the doctor who did. And in this respect the nurse anesthetist David Fournier is a real model to follow.

Q.You said earlier — Mr. Koskoff was asking you about west side anesthesia. That’s your company?
A.  Correct.
Q.  You’re the sole employee of that company?
A.  Correct.
Q.  So when you work with physicians to provide anesthesia, what is that working relationship? Are you employed by the physicians?
A.  No. I’m an independent contractor.

* * *

The second part of this post will cover the sidebar that followed David Fournier’s testimony. Over there a good deal of new information was revealed and I find it totally incredible that up till now no one has yet noticed it.

Here is the full transcript of David Fournier’s testimony from the great TeamMichaelJackson:

View this document on Scribd

* * *

Alice alerted us to the problem – TeamMJ need our help!

TeamMJ say they have run out of funding as of this week – so these next few will be their last unless more funding comes through. We know how valuable their work and the transcripts are, so if you can, please donate. Every little bit helps. To donate via Paypal, email manager@teammichaeljackson.com

60 Comments leave one →
  1. August 13, 2013 7:25 am

    “The relationship had already soured with the 50 concerts and pressure to rehearse with the crew, so tough love was quite an insult to Michael to take from his business partner and it only increased the stress. Who takes responsibility for causing that?” -Sina

    That is why I always said that the main insult to Michael was AEG’s contract. Especially if it was not a valid one. Especially if it was not even signed as the two dates of “signing” it make me think.

    It started with a fraud and it went all the way down to Michael’s death with a fraud too. When the beginning is rotten the end cannot be any better, it can be only worse.

    Katherine’s lawsuit is about AEG’s neglect for Michael, but it is only a tiny fraction of all the damage AEG did to Michael by their “business”. The neglect stemmed from their total disregard for him from the beginning of it and their desire to simply use him for making them billions. No one really bothered about rendering him real help – it was not even an issue.

    And the more I look the more I think that the only person who really wanted to help Michael was Branca. He definitely stands apart from all these people. If Michael had lived they could have probably overturned the situation for the better. I hope very much that I’m not mistaken.

    Like

  2. August 13, 2013 6:03 am

    Helena ,someone changed the music to the videos you had put in.” -kaarin

    Kaarin, which ones? I have limited possibility to check them now but the ones I did (Morphine in this post, and Behind the mask video in the comments) seem to be okay. Can anyone tell me which video has the wrong music in it?

    Like

  3. August 12, 2013 7:28 pm

    Pseudoremedy is too soft a word for what they were doing.Any grown up person would know that Michael was not well.And further pushing only made it worse. So much worse as is now known.Earlier on K.O. was also pushing, but near the end he woke up to see the beginning of the catastophy.Then nobody listened.Or cared.

    Like

  4. August 12, 2013 7:19 pm

    Thank you Alice for the videos, songs&dance! Helena ,someone changed the music to the videos you had put in.
    While reading court transscripts I have noted that at times the jury is treated to some video clips.They sure deserve some enjoyment and a more direct knowledge of MJ`s art.
    Seems AEG does not like this too much.

    Like

  5. Sina permalink
    August 12, 2013 7:15 pm

    Frankly, I don’t see any points for dispute between us – it seems to me that we are talking about one and the same thing. Or did I miss something? -Helena

    No dispute at all. Only confirmed their line of thinking.
    They can twist and turn it how they want but .their rethoric says enough . ‘intervention, tough love , now or never card’ , all synonyms of one and the same thing, blatant invasion of a mans personal space and bullying as a pseudo remedy.

    Like

  6. August 12, 2013 6:23 pm

    Sina, the instances you mentioned as regards AEG’s thoughts of drug abuse are absolutely correct and I know of them, but the very “encrypted” nature of those pieces shows that officially it was a taboo. It was the knowledge only for the initiated, for the inside circle with nothing to leak into the outside world.

    Branca by the way was a novice to this situation and was the most outspoken of them all – said it directly, while all the rest of them are extremely evasive.

    ALL of them thought that MJ was taking demerol and denied him help because they thought too bad of him. But his “drug addiction” issue was a great fallacy and their huge misconceptions of him resulted in his death. But instead of admitting that they denied him help because they thought him to be a junkie (though he was not) and therefore all their actions were totally inadequate (isolating them from everyone around, playing tough love on him, yelling, slapping, etc.) they prefer to turn him into a junkie NOW to justify themselves for their mistreatment of him and their negligence.

    This won’t exonerate them of their guilt because even the worst of junkies needs help, but some psychological support from the public they may easily get.

    Frankly, I don’t see any points for dispute between us – it seems to me that we are talking about one and the same thing. Or did I miss something?

    Now it is too late here, so I will reread your comment again tomorrow.

    I think not only the 50 concerts bothered him, but he realized that he was cheated and lied to. Without decent representation he had signed an intentionally bad contract that benefitted anyone else but him. That Dileo had not managed to change the terms . That there was no film project for him and that he would have to do show after show without the prospect of doing the projects he was promised. Without sleep that would kill him. That his hard earned money would pay for everything and he would be left with the crumbs . More than the financial disaster he feared the anger and disappointment of the fans and the mocking of the tabloids. This man died under extreme pressure and AEG held the key. It would be a gross injustice if they walk away.

    EXACTLY.

    Like

  7. Sina permalink
    August 12, 2013 5:12 pm

    “They suspected them all right, but OFFICIALLY they did not know, and they never discussed drugs – either in their emails or at the trial. The only exception is an email where they said they were frightened to death about what “Klein was giving him”. However when Panish asked what Randy Phillips meant by an “intervention” they arranged for MJ sometime on June 16-18 he replied with some nonsense, but vehemently denied that it had to do with their suspicions of drugs. – Helena

    Helena the possibility of drug abuse was brought up by Branca in the email chain ‘trouble at the front’/Confidential”, june 20 and before that in the ‘tough love’ they played on Michael, which is a typical expression used for intervention on drug abuse or other addiction.

    KOs message in reply to RP :” Randy I will do whatever I can to be of help with this situation If you need me to come to the house just give me a call in the morning …….My concern is now that we’ve brought the doctor in to the fold and have played tough love , now or never card, is that the artist may be unable to rise to the occasion due to real emotional stuff.
    He had a terrible case of the chills, was trembling and obsessing. Everything in me says he should be psychologically evaluated . ……..I was told by our choreographer that during the artist costume fitting with designer tonight they noticed he s lost more weight . ………Tonight I was feeding him, wrapping him in blankets to warm his chills. massaging his feet to calm him and calling his doctor………..There still maybe a chance he can rise to the occasion IF WE GET HIM THE HELP HE NEEDS.”

    Branca’s email to TL, KO, RP, JK, PG, FdL MK :
    “ I have the right therapist/spiritual advisor/substance abuse counselor who could help(recently helped mike tyson get sober and paroled ) Do we know whether there is a substance issue involved (perhaps better discussed on the phone ) “

    The email chain tells us a few things
    1. Drugabuse was definitely brought up by KO and Branca later on , but then Katz mailed back : “yes, let us talk on the phone we should keep email to minimum” . And we don’t know the follow up.
    2. KO says that they should get him the help he needs, implying that the doctor was not delivering. This was after RPs ‘intervention’, so intervention was not working, he got worse. And at that point they knew the doctor was not helping to say the least.
    3. KO said in cross that it was Michaels responsibility to take care of his health. Yet they has staged an intervention,( tough love, now or never card)which is totally inappropriate for a business partner to do, more so since there was no love between them and they were not qualified to do it .The relationship had already soured with the 50 concerts and pressure to rehearse with the crew, so tough love was quite an insult to Michael to take from his business partner and it only increased the stress. Who takes responsibility for causing that?
    4. The fact that KO says ‘they brought the doctor in the fold,’ means they involved the doctor in an unpleasant way to have Michael follow their orders. Which eventually he did becaus he went to rehearsal .
    But why would a doctor follow orders of an entity who says they didnt hire him?

    What they failed to do was the most obvious, talk to Michael and hear him instead of discussing among each other and deciding for him that the show must go on. I think not only the 50 concerts bothered him, but he realized that he was cheated and lied to. Without decent representation he had signed an intentionally bad contract that benefitted anyone else but him. That Dileo had not managed to change the terms . That there was no film project for him and that he would have to do show after show without the prospect of doing the projects he was promised. Without sleep that would kill him. That his hard earned money would pay for everything and he would be left with the crumbs . More than the financial disaster he feared the anger and disappointment of the fans and the mocking of the tabloids. This man died under extreme pressure and AEG held the key. It would be a gross injustice if they walk away.

    Like

  8. Caro Attwell permalink
    August 12, 2013 11:27 am

    Thank you very much for all your hard work. Living in South Africa I don’t have access to what is going on – though it seems that you don’t in terms of the press either, but then who would want their lies anyway!! – and this blog is my only source of information. I am very grateful for all the time and effort you are putting in, and the love for Michael that is so evident throughout your comments.
    Keep up the good work.

    Like

  9. alice permalink
    August 12, 2013 10:20 am

    Hey everyone,

    Just something else I’ve found that I wanted to share.
    I was youtubing to see all of CNN reporter Alan Duke’s coverage on Michael and the trial as well, and stumbled across this.
    Alan volunteers in Panama regularly and recently he happened across acclaimed primatologist and animal rights activist Jane Goodall – and he discovers an amazing story and connection she had with Michael. It’s lovely hearing her speak.

    -alice

    Like

  10. August 12, 2013 2:39 am

    “I have no doubt he loves you all very much for what you are doing for him. GOD Bless you!!” – Mary

    Mary, this is the best encouragement you could have given us. Thank you so much. God bless you too.

    Like

  11. August 12, 2013 2:35 am

    “just a update of translations of the trial question you do when at the end of week or as and I look forward to Ortega.” – Jimmy

    I had to google translate Jimmy’s request about the summary for the whole week and now realize that summaries are indeed helpful to those who cannot read the ABC tweets in English. Okay, I wanted to do something different but will now change plans – I’ll try to make a summary of week 15 as soon as I can.

    Like

  12. August 12, 2013 2:25 am

    “An addict is also a normal person, one with an illness. It should not matter.” – Sina

    I know that addicts are normal people and used that word for lack of a better one. What I meant is the big contrast between what AEG is doing now with what they did and said at the beginning of the trial.

    At that moment they tried their best to feign no knowledge of Michael’s past use of Demerol. Gongaware “never knew” until he watched Michael on TV though he was with him on the Dangerous tour, Randy Phillips never staged any “interventions” in the middle of June 2009 though this is the name he himself gave to a meeting with Murray, etc.

    So much time has passed since their testimonies that everyone forgot what they said at the very beginning – and they totally denied any knowledge that MJ ever had a problem with prescription medicine. This was a clear lie, but this is what they said.

    Now they have changed their strategy and want to portray him as a complete junkie, but I want to remind everyone of their initial statements and repeat my question – if they thought that he was free from any drugs, why did they deny him any help? Isn’t it even worse – knowing that a person has absolutely no reason to display all those symptoms and still deny him help? If he didn’t have drugs in his system his grave deterioration could be attributed only to some internal disease or grave exhaustion, couldn’t it? But despite all that they insisted that he should rehearse? And never listened to anyone who cried for help?

    To me it sounds as an even worse scenario, and this is probably after realizing it that AEG made their U-turn.

    “They suspected drugs and even discussed it.”

    They suspected them all right, but OFFICIALLY they did not know, and they never discussed drugs – either in their emails or at the trial. The only exception is an email where they said they were frightened to death about what “Klein was giving him”. However when Panish asked what Randy Phillips meant by an “intervention” they arranged for MJ sometime on June 16-18 he replied with some nonsense, but vehemently denied that it had to do with their suspicions of drugs.

    “Even if he was a raving addict they should have helped him. If they thought he was addicted, as a concert promotor they have enough experience with artists who take drugs to know that you cannot go on tour with them, let alone pressure an ALLEDGED addict to do something he is not fit to do.”

    I agree. They should have given him help in any case, and they should have never exerted pressure on him in respect of rehearsals – even if he looked completely healthy. They simply did not have the right to do it. But if he looked ill it makes things even worse.

    Like

  13. mary permalink
    August 12, 2013 12:29 am

    I wanted to say thank you so much to you all for such an incredibly comprehensive, effective, and love filled site for Michael. I have no doubt he loves you all very much for what you are doing for him. The blog is exquisitely written and so inforrmative.
    I am sorry about Randy’s testimony and how disappointing he is. There is no sugar coating it. He is on the wrong side of this whole situation in my opinion. Sad, but true. He also lied about being in the Carolwood house in the VERY early hours the day our beloved passed, ….or should I say night.

    The whole ‘drug addict’ defense has no merit in this the case, and AEG has had their pants down for months. All for naught and a sickening display.

    Keep up the great work…Helena, every word you write has impact..GOD Bless you!!

    Like

  14. Jimmy permalink
    August 11, 2013 4:16 pm

    Bonsoir juste une question la mise à jour des traductions du procès vous la faites quand en fin de semaine ou au fur et à mesure j’attends avec impatience celle de Ortéga. merci de vous en occuper c’est gentil et les rubriques sont superbes

    * * *
    Translation: Good evening just a update of translations of the trial question you do when at the end of week or as and I look forward to Ortega. Thanks take care it is nice and the topics are superb

    Like

  15. Sina permalink
    August 11, 2013 11:14 am

    In other words why didn’t they help a normal person when he suddenly dropped on the ground looking extremely ill and everyone cried about the need to help him? And why didn’t they allow others to give him help?- Helena

    An addict is also a normal person, one with an illness. It should not matter.
    Its our own perception of an addict that causes the spastic reaction . Even if he was a raving addict they should have helped him. They suspected drugs and even discussed it . If they thought he was addicted, as a concert promotor they have enough experience with artists who take drugs to know that you cannot go on tour with them, let alone pressure an ALLEDGED addict to do something he is not fit to do.

    And in contrast to Sina I think that the family IS obliged to know the technicalities. If they do not is shows that they lost contact with him, and this is what Randy demonstrated by his deposition’- Helena

    What I do know is that substance abuse often leads to isolation and losing contact with family and friends. But I do not see what not knowing the technicalities of substance abuse has to do with losing contact. It would be sad if we need a masters on addiction in order to have contact with our loved ones who are struggling ( or not) with addiction. Even the experts disagree on many things let alone a layman. Imo the most important is compassion , determination and get them professional help asap.

    Like

  16. alice permalink
    August 11, 2013 7:57 am

    Hey all!

    Another thing, I have just found an excellent interview with the young blonde girl, Kelley Parker, who we will remember from the Smooth Criminal video.

    She says some very important and lovely things about Michael, which I’m sure you would all love to read.

    If anyone prefers I can post the whole interview here – I’m just trying to be conscious of keeping my comments a little shorter, where possible!

    Here is the link: http://noblemania.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/the-girl-in-video-smooth-criminal-1988.html

    And I really just adore her description of being in Michael’s presence:

    “Michael was the kindest man I have ever met. I was so lucky to have not just worked with him, but worked with him for months and [go on to be] friends with him for years. He took the time to really get to know me. He was lighting in a bottle; the air was different when he was around. It’s hard to explain, but you could feel him before you saw him.”

    Gives me chills.
    -alice

    Like

  17. August 11, 2013 7:39 am

    “Did Randy want to testify in court or not? I am confused over this. Or is this AEG´s wishes that are expressed.Panish should question him in court.” – kaarin

    Kaarin, I can’t answer this question as I have to look into all the information around that deposition and this really needs time. But if Panish is given a chance to examine Randy in court the matter will surely be corrected. By the way the Plaintiffs’ lawyers must have the full video of his deposition as they must have attended it too.

    Though this conversation is very interesting you must excuse me as I really have to go now to be able to look into every detail of what happened.

    Like

  18. alice permalink
    August 11, 2013 7:39 am

    Hey Kaarin,

    Yes Randy wanted to testify in court. AEG lied and said he couldn’t make it, even though they prepared his video deposition and scheduled it a few days previously (but did not discuss in open court, instead in a sidebar with the court for witness scheduling purposes).
    Panish could not re-direct what was shown in court because, of course, he can’t examine a plasma television lol.
    This is why I really hope Randy can be welcomed in to testify on the stand under Panish’s direction.
    -alice

    Like

  19. alice permalink
    August 11, 2013 7:36 am

    Thankyou so much for your response Helena!
    I agree with a lot of your opinions and expressions, and I also suggest they are prime examples of how Randy’s deposition does not solely work to AEG’s case advantage.
    The immediate and instant reaction, and the media slant, both imply the opposite, of course. And a lot of what he said does not directly work for the case of painting Michael in a positive light. But at the same time it also highlights the fact that this is not what this case SHOULD be about – but what AEG want it to be, simply because they have little else to base their case on. The fact the AEG attorneys fought so hard at the beginning of this trial to have Michael’s involvement in his death as something the jury should consider in their decision-making process is incredibly, incredibly telling for this point.
    If, by the end of the trial, the judge reverses her ruling against this inclusion, only then will all this irrelevant character assassination and insinuation of addiction have any relevance to the verdict – though not, of course, relevance to the real truth of AEG’s responsibility and culpability in his death. But both of these are, of course, important.
    I still think that Grace’s role in the use of medication and the interventions needs to be explored more, to better understand and explain the actions of Randy and those who made the interventions – and to understand more of Michael’s dependency.
    Hopefully her testimony (or deposition) will allow this and much more to come to the fore.
    I am just reluctant to be harsh on anyone with love for Michael in their hearts, to judge too too quickly, regardless of what I think of their methods and actions from my own ethical and moral standpoint. This is why I am still not 100% certain on how to view Kenny or Travis, for example. And I may never be.
    -alice

    Like

  20. August 11, 2013 7:33 am

    “I just found it interesting that this version still remains online despite the rest being taken down.” – Alice

    Well, now that the damage is done they are probably testing the reaction of the public. My opinion is that the video is magnificent. The only thing I would change if I could is the “Beat it” episode where the dance moves do not look sharp enough to me.

    Like

  21. August 11, 2013 7:30 am

    Did Randy want to testify in court or not? I am confused over this. Or is this AEG´s wishes that are expressed.Panish should question him in court.

    Like

  22. alice permalink
    August 11, 2013 7:02 am

    Hey everybody,

    Just a quick update on the Behind the Mask video leaked recently. Sorry it’s off topic!
    The video is still available to watch on youtube on the mexican MJ profile.
    Since I saw it last, they have just added this to the information section:

    “Music video by Michael Jackson performing Behind The Mask.
    (C) 2013 Optimum Productions. Second Version of the Official Video.

    Number of Official Website MJJP/A/8854325/SMGMEXPUE-201-R-25. Welcome to the Official Youtube Channel of Michael Jackson México®.

    The official site number is granted by The Official Online Team of The Michael Jackson Estate, for using the name of Michael Jackson in México.”

    There are a couple of different links to Optimum Productions so I’m not sure which is the correct one, but they are also attributed to the production of the version of Behind the Mask which was released publicly first – with fans contributing.
    I just found it interesting that this version still remains online despite the rest being taken down.
    -alice

    Like

  23. August 11, 2013 6:54 am

    “That is why the fact the media and AEG are bleating about the interventions like they are some sort of supporting evidence to the fact that AEG had no responsibility or influence in Michael’s death is such a horrible, careless and cruel insult to the whole spectrum of health issues – beyond drug dependency – that need to be addressed no matter the consequences. It is an insult and a damaging attitude to those who do the right thing by treating health issues with compassion. This disgusts me beyond measure.” – Alice

    But all this crazy talk about Michael’s drugs and the need for “interventions” presupposes that everyone including AEG thought Michael to be an addict.

    But this is exactly what AEG say they never thought.

    So they never thought him to be an addict but seeing him in a terrible condition he was in they still denied him help? It is the same as denying help to a passer-by in the street who is lying on the ground unable to move, and the crowd says he should be taken to the hospital and you say – no need to worry, no ambulance, no nothing, you know better, he will be okay – and after that you send him rehearsing!

    We should not be simplistic and should not take one thing for another – the family interfered even when it was not necessary while AEG did not interfere even when it was top necessary. The family was over-protective and did him harm, and AEG did not render even the basic help and did him harm too.

    By their fuss about ‘interventions’ the family directly contributed to all those unnecessary drug stories which were readily picked up by the press thus doing MJ enormous harm and creating the impression that he was a drug-addict.

    And AEG listened to all those stories and thought of him as the worst of junkies, denying him help for the very reason that they thought that he was displaying ‘withdrawal’ symptoms. Only now the do not admit it because it does not suit their purposes.

    But Michael was NOT a drug addict – that’s the point!

    He was dependent on drugs due to his numerous ailments, but he was a responsible person who could and should have been talked to. By thinking him as an addict his own family hugely let him down and created a false impression of him.

    And in contast to Sina I think that the family IS obliged to know the technicalities. If they do not is shows that they lost contact with him, and this is what Randy demonstrated by his deposition.

    By the time Michael was associating with AEG he had got rid of that habit long ago, was a normal person like all of us and should have been given help by AEG when everyone around screamed that he was dying. And since AEG says that they never knew of Michael’s dependency it only makes them all the more responsible for not taking action when he needed it most.

    Now they are probably changing their strategy, but in this case they should be reminded of what they said at the beginning of the trial – he was top healthy, they never knew, never heard, etc.

    At the beginning all this talk was needed by them to explain why they set up 50 shows for him. But if they thought him to be top healthy and never having a dependency problem why didn’t they help this totally non-dependent-on-any-drugs person when everyone was telling them that they should?

    In other words why didn’t they help a normal person when he suddenly dropped on the ground looking extremely ill and everyone cried about the need to help him? And why didn’t they allow others to give him help?

    Like

  24. alice permalink
    August 11, 2013 6:23 am

    ps, I should probably add one more clarification to my last comment (again, a new habit of mine! it seems haha!)
    I say that “He is doing such a fantastic job.”
    I mean Panish, here, not Randy.
    Thanks everyone.
    -alice

    Like

  25. alice permalink
    August 11, 2013 6:17 am

    Hey Sina,

    Just wanted to say your words are a great summary of what I wanted to express.

    “It is not an excuse, but an explanation.
    But its really trivial in the scheme of things and only enlarged to distract from the real issue,
    It is not what Randy or the family did, because Michael didnt die then, but what AEG did or did not do , because in their hands Michael did die.
    And it had everything to do with their relationship with him.
    And guess what, AEGs politricks works because you are falling for it.”

    I’m not sure it’s trivial because we have learnt some great stuff about Grace from his deposition, which I am not sure was AEG’s intention, but in the big scheme yes, we know it has little relevance in AEG’s role in Michael’s death.
    -alice

    Like

  26. alice permalink
    August 11, 2013 6:13 am

    Hey all🙂
    Yes, I do agree with everyone’s sentiments that Randy showed inexcusable ignorance during his deposition. Earlier on in a previous comment I said he is not a child, but in some senses I suggest there are similarities in the manner of his deposition as to Paris’s.
    And I do agree and am aware there are a lot of things Randy definitely could have shown much more consideration towards, such as his phrasing or even what he decided was worth mentioning. But I do not think he would have offered these things to intentionally dismantle the case against AEG. He has said this case was what he wanted all along. He announced when it first began on his twitter. It’s very unfortunate that his history of going into situations without much information has backfired on him now.
    I of course wholeheartedly agree, though, that in one sense it has not helped the case – at least as it is currently being portrayed in the media. And there is no denying that he was poorly educated and weakly informed when it came to Michael’s health situation.
    This is not defendable, but it does gives us a little insight into his answers during deposition. He clearly is not an active seeker of information – right up until deposition.
    He prefers to wait as the circumstances unfold and he assesses the information as it comes to him. If he was different and wanted to take a more proactive approach to his deposition, then yes, he should have made a considerable attempt to be as informed as possible in the lead up to his deposition. I also do not want to excuse his answers purely because he is a family member. As Helena explains, it is often family who can hurt us the most because of their ignorance and brashness – even though this is not their intention.
    With a person like Randy, this is why I feel he will be much more effective under testimony doing what he intends – with someone who will understand and know what topics and areas and questions to ask to work to the case’s benefit… someone like Panish.
    He is doing such a fantastic job.
    I’d also like to take a moment to thank everyone. Thankyou so much to all of you for providing such a wonderful, considerate and civil environment where we can all express our views, perceptions, information and opinions in a welcoming circumstance. This is how the best discussion happens, and through that we are getting closer to understanding more about Michael, human conditions, and life itself.
    -alice

    Like

  27. August 11, 2013 5:51 am

    Thanks Helena. Sure please take your time. I am just happy to read your posts where you cover the transcripts in any case.🙂

    Like

  28. Sina permalink
    August 11, 2013 5:38 am

    Ofcourse family dynamics , jealousy , overreacting and prejudice because you have seen the same kind of behavior before and expect the same outcome and those kind of feelings play a big role in a family of 9. It was vice versa.
    And Randy displays a lot of it that people who do not have a perfect family, which is 90% of us, will recognize. It is not an excuse, but an explanation.
    But its really trivial in the scheme of things and only enlarged to distract from the real issue,
    It is not what Randy or the family did, because Michael didnt die then, but what AEG did or did not do , because in their hands Michael did die.
    And it had everything to do with their relationship with him.
    And guess what, AEGs politricks works because you are falling for it.

    A question for everyones conscience : what if Randy had succeeded in breaking into Michaels Carolwood home had found Murray there and had confronted him.
    Would you blame him for invading Michaels privacy?

    Like

  29. August 11, 2013 5:30 am

    “I hope Randy’s testimony is redirected. I am unable to view the transcripts on the teammichaeljackson website. The pages just come up blank with very tiny fonts which are totally illegible. Any suggestions as to what I can do about it?” – Suparna

    I’m afraid I will have to post it here. Just give me some time, please. Reading those pdf files are a big problem for me too, and even a bigger problem is turning them into a word format which is required for posting here. In many cases scribbd encodes their letters, so the text has to be retyped.

    Like

  30. August 11, 2013 4:56 am

    “They have a right to better explain the limited sections of his testimony that AEG showed yesterday. To effectively counteract the argument. To offer more. But they couldn’t – because AEG lied and said Randy did not want to come on the stand. Because you can’t re-direct a video deposition. And that suits AEG right down to the ground.” – Alice

    Alice, I perfectly agree with your analysis, but AEG are no fools and everything you described could be easily expected of them. This is why all self-education Randy had to do as regards Michael’s real circumstances of life and health conditions should have been done before that deposition and not after. Then his answers would have been different and would not have turned into so perfect fodder for the media speculations.

    He could have at least had his dates straight as the timing often makes all the difference in the world.

    Since that video seems to be so big news I think I will have to skip the whole week and make a post straight about Randy’s deposition.

    Like

  31. August 11, 2013 4:27 am

    “I have just made my donation to Team Michael Jackson. Thanks Alice for letting us know that they needed it. I have no words to describe how I feel about Randy Jackson’s video deposition.There is simply no excuse for what he did.” – Suparna

    Suparna, thank you very much for the help. As to Randy I feel the same – he was truthful and this is what was expected of him at his deposition, but there is no excuse for his IGNORANCE about Michael. So much prejudice and stereotyped thinking, so many misconceptions and wrong conclusions made – and all of it is so typical of relatives!

    Their very love for their sibling and worry about his well-being often make them his worst enemy. They are the first to believe every lie about him and often the last to listen to any explanations. That is why a person will often tell a friend much more than to his close relatives who, for some reason, always think that they know best.

    Randy disclosed his complete ignorance about his brother – and that’s the worst part of it. And now this ignorance will be propagated by the media as the final “truth” because it comes from a sibling, and “who knows better than he?”

    But Randy never looked into the reason why Michael had to take those prescription drugs (and MJ had a thousand reasons for that) while all he knew was that Michael was “under the influence of something”.

    SO WHAT OF IT? Michael was indeed going through unspeakable pain (from that neuroma, for example) and took medicine because he had every ground for it! And even if he was “under the influence of something” it was absolutely no reason for grabbing him and taking him to a rehab!

    Yes, at a rehab they would have probably “cleaned him up”, but the underlying problem would still remain and require treatment again with the same drugs!

    Taking Michael to a rehab at those moments would be like breaking oneself upon a cancer patient who is given painkillers to dull his never-ending torture and take him for a “clean-up” without listening to any remonstrations from the sufferer.

    In that video deposition Randy betrayed that he did not know a thing about Michael’s real problems and had absolutely no understanding for them. This explains Michael’s conflicting feelings about his siblings – he loved them but tried to stay away from them. They did not understand and most probably didn’t want to know.

    From this trial Randy learned about Michael and his problems more than in his entire life beside him. No wonder that now he wants to testify and no wonder AEG does not allow him to do it. They want Randy in his “raw condition” while he was still unaffected by any knowledge about Michael.

    And now all those Randy’s misconceptions will be repeated a million times by the media as the “final truth”. This is the most disgusting part of it.

    Like

  32. August 11, 2013 4:21 am

    Thanks, alice, for your good description of the situation and Randy’s character. All of what you wrote I took into account, but I still see things he didn’t have to tell under oath, like Michael “sweet-talking” his mother – “He was good at that” etc. (to me this indicates jealousy).
    He also several times told his conclusions that Michael kept his family away because he didn’t want them to see him “like that” – meaning on drugs, which is pure speculation on his side.
    These are things he wasn’t forced to say, and they were said despite the editing of the video.
    I understand what AEG did and intended with this video, but I also don’t want to excuse everything Randy said just because he is a family member.
    I still think he damaged the case more than anyone else so far, and I think his mother is also not very happy about it.

    Like

  33. August 11, 2013 3:59 am

    That is just so sweet of you Alice! I have been experiencing this problem for a while now but did not take it too seriously as Helena discusses the major ones in her posts. Thanks so much for offering to download them for me:) I will keep you posted as to how this goes.

    Like

  34. alice permalink
    August 11, 2013 3:54 am

    Hi Suparna,

    Oh, that’s my pleasure! Although I don’t think I was really much help, unfortunately, haha🙂 I hope it is just the internet speed that is making it difficult. I wonder if this is an issue that more people are experiencing, and perhaps could be taken to teamMJ so they are aware of it? I think I would have a nervous breakdown if I couldn’t read the transcripts, lol. The idea of trusting the media tweets as some kind of reliable source is laughable.
    Hope you are able to get access to them quickly. If you still have troubles I will see if I am able to download some directly.
    -alice

    Like

  35. August 11, 2013 3:51 am

    “Randy reminds me a lot of one of my relatives – his heart is in the right place but he certainly doesn’t waste time going into things too gently or rationally.” – Alice

    Everyone’s relatives must be the same. They think they know but sometimes they turn out the worst prejudiced people of all. This reminds me of Jesus’s experience:

    Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family[a] heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”
    [Mark 3:20-21]

    Like

  36. alice permalink
    August 11, 2013 3:43 am

    ps, sorry everyone, an amendment to my comment below!
    where I say: ” But I’m worried that the jury will make this comparison.”
    I should have said: “But I’m worried that the jury will NOT make this comparison.”
    A very, very important clarification!
    Clearly I am getting too swept up in it all to carefully proofread my comments, haha🙂
    -alice

    Like

  37. alice permalink
    August 11, 2013 3:40 am

    Hey Sina, thanks for your response!🙂

    RE:
    “YOU HAVE TO BE CONCERNED AND THAT IS WHAT THE FAMILY DID , EVEN IF THEY DIDNT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING ON AND EVEN AT THE RISK OF BEING WRONG.
    AND that is WHAT AEG FAILED TO DO.”

    Exactly, exactly, exactly.
    You have got it in a nutshell. And your personal experience speaks volumes.
    That is why the fact the media and AEG are bleating about the interventions like they are some sort of supporting evidence to the fact that AEG had no responsibility or influence in Michael’s death is such a horrible, careless and cruel insult to the whole spectrum of health issues – beyond drug dependency – that need to be addressed no matter the consequences. It is an insult and a damaging attitude to those who do the right thing by treating health issues with compassion. This disgusts me beyond measure.
    Randy and other family members may have gone into their actions with or without a LOT of information or understanding. We know that and he knows that, and does not deny it. Yet it’s as you say – at least they did something. It may or may not have been justified. It may or may not have been necessary. It may or may not have been met well by Michael, for a variety of reasons. It also may or may not have been Grace’s doing that got Michael into a position of possible dependency beyond need. We still do not know – and I wonder if, even when we do hear her own testimony, whether this will enlighten us or instead muddy the waters further. I think the best person to answer to the real nature, regularity and consistency of Grace’s actions with his medication would be Michael.
    But even then we would not get the full picture. We would need to put both testimonies together to have some sort of understanding.
    I digress again! Haha, a habit of mine it seems.
    The point I wanted to make and expand upon your comments with is this;
    Despite all the above variables I mentioned, the fact that Randy, Janet, Rebbie, etc acted in a similar (note, similar, not exactly the same) circumstance where AEG did not speaks volumes to AEG’s incompetence, negligence, cruelty and criminal disregard for Michael’s wellbeing. But I’m worried that the jury will make this comparison.
    True also, in this sense, would be that Grace – for all her potential actions as being seen as the enabler and partly responsible for Michael’s dependency – still did more to help him than AEG. She still called Randy. She still tried to make the family aware. And this is exactly what AEG should have done in 2009 but didn’t. What a lot of people should have done but didn’t. But so many people were fired and removed, so many people who may have had the ability or foresight to do so. Even those who remained that cared and worried for Michael did not take it this far, because they were lied to by AEG and put in their place by AEG. Kenny, Alif, Karen. The list goes on. Even Travis Payne. They could have taken things further but were either directly repressed by the ‘chain of order’, the lies of AEG, the total corruption of the entire situation, or blindly trusted those above them out of fear, or a reluctance to delve further. Those who did the most they could were Alif and Karen, I feel. We have heard testimony to the effect that Kenny did a lot also – but not enough, in light of his position. Of course, we must rely on Alif’s testimony and Kenny’s version of events for this. There are parts of his testimony that I find strangely subversive, too. He comes across as unbiased, but he is still listed in the case as a defendant, even though he is not directly of AEG. TeamMJ note he is what the court terms a hostile witness. I believe he loved and cared deeply for Michael. But he also does not want to damage his career. In light of this, Travis is also someone else who I am yet to come to a full judgement on.
    Regardless, the scope of who is to blame here goes wider than AEG. Much wider. And higher up. We are only scratching the surface.
    The latest updates to the TeamMJ transcripts for Kathy Jorrie’s testimony a few days ago also make for incredible reading. I cannot believe her conduct in court and the doors (to borrow legal phrasing we have heard in court) that are being opened by her during cross-examination with Panish, in terms of payments post Michael’s death.
    I wish he was being given more capabilities to question her as to the validity of that damn contract. I was also particularly excited to read where Panish managed to get Jorrie to enunciate that there is NO WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION anywhere that Tohme was an officer of the MJJ company until after Michael’s death – and even then, this evidence is based purely on Tohme’s own word, his signature on a document that Jorrie and Trell of AEG prepared in advance for him to sign a mere three days after Michael’s death, and in the presence of multiple other AEG members AND the Estate’s John Branca! Very very interesting, and a real victory for Panish there to get that one over the net.
    Good to see the judge also acknowledged his shock at this during a sidebar. She sees it.
    What worries me though is that the jury may not be assessing what they hear to the extent we do. The fact they do not read testimony also comes into play – it is much harder to focus on something that is being said, to remember it, once it has been spoken and moved on from. We have the ability to read slowly, carefully, to understand. Of course we are also missing out on the mannerisms, the inflections, the tone, the credible behaviour of witnesses as they speak. So there is meaning lost on both sides, unfortunately.
    -alice

    Like

  38. August 11, 2013 3:34 am

    Hi Alice,

    Thanks so much for taking out your precious time and then try and explain all the possible reasons as to why I am unable to view the transcripts. I truly appreciate it. I am trying to access them on my laptop. I do have Adobe installed and view multiple PDF docs v. often. I think the problem could have something with the internet speed- though I can access every other site without any hassles. Don’t worry- I will figure out something- and no you did not sound condescending at all- but came across as someone who was doing her best to help.🙂

    Like

  39. August 11, 2013 3:29 am

    “I made my donation to TeamMichael. What a worthy, worthy cause!!! TeamMichael: major player in vindicating Michael. I hope everyone takes a moment to make their donation. This is a crucial time.” – Jolie

    Thank you very much Jolie. Yes, it is crucial and also a big honor to be the ones who take the truth to the people.

    Like

  40. Sina permalink
    August 11, 2013 3:00 am

    Alice thank you for breaking the video deposition and putting it in the right perspective.
    I see that people do not make too much an effort to look into the facts and how words are manipulated to create bias and a seed of doubt.

    “Yet they asked the questions, and under oath he must answer. This is important to note – we must remember that it is AEG bringing up these questions and topics, not Randy.
    Why? What relevance do they have to the matter of whether AEG were negligent and in the past is somehow indicative that he was also being ‘secretive’ about his medication in 2009 and subsequently, AEG had no way of knowing anything about his health one way or the other. Which is absolute rubbish, as we know. There is considerable testimony from many people how much his health was declining”.

    This is key, and what people should always have in mind. You are under oath and HAVE TO answer to the best of your knowledge. The answers will not always fit our way of thinking or what we want to hear. No one wants to be caught lying under oath , impeached. So far AEG has evaded the most important questions or pretend amnesia to avoid that. They knew otherwise they would be lying so its better to say you dont remember.

    ‘They wanted the video, not Randy on the stand. But why? He is not a child, and he was not unable to attend. He is not Paris Jackson.
    The way his video was chopped, reorganised and assembled to suit AEG’s arguments does, I agree, suit their purposes of hindering Katherine’s case.’

    Exactly, They blatantly lied that Randy didnt want to testify and Imo the judge should reprimand them for doing that.

    “Susanne mentions that Randy doesn’t seem to have enough personal knowledge about Michael and his prescription drug problems”
    “To clarify, I’m not trying to defend Randy as having great knowledge of Michael’s personal life or health or use of medication and surgeries”

    Prior to this case and the testimonies none of us knew anything . We didnt know about interventions, drug use and dependency, many things the family did know. For years there had been discussions in the fan community and a lot of speculation especially after Michael for the first time sang about addiction .( AEG he SANG about it, secret much???)

    But as a family member you do not have to know all the technicalities. When you are told that your family member is in danger the last thing you think about is their privacy. I have been there with my own brother and I say unless you are someone’s brother, sister parent you dont know what you are talking about. If even the doctors didnt have full knowledge re the confusion about the narcan implant, scalpstretching, lupus etc,
    YOU HAVE TO BE CONCERNED AND THAT IS WHAT THE FAMILY DID, EVEN IF THEY DIDNT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING ON AND EVEN AT THE RISK OF BEING WRONG.
    AND that is WHAT AEG FAILED TO DO.
    THEY SAW THE SIGNS DIDNT KNOW WHAT IT WAS, SUSPECTED DRUGS, BUT KEPT PUSHING AND EVEN ENCOURAGED THE DOCTOR TO GO ON WITH HIS TREATMENT INSTEAD OF TAKING A BREAK AND EVALUATE.
    MICHAEL WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO GO AGAINST THEM. HE WAS TRAPPED, SCARED AND ALONE, CUT OFF FROM THE OUTSIDE WORLD AND THEY TOOK ADVANTAGE OF IT.

    Like

  41. alice permalink
    August 11, 2013 2:35 am

    Thankyou, Suparna!
    That’s not good that you are having difficulty reading the transcripts on TeamMJ’s site.
    What device are you using to read them? Are you on a computer or iPad or your phone?
    I’ve noticed a difference in how to read them depending on whether I am using my mac pro, my imac or my ipad. when I’m on my ipad, I have to tap the transcript with my finger as it appears on the page in order for it to open. I also have to swipe sideways rather than scroll to read the documents once they open.
    TeamMJ use a service called ‘scribd’ to relay their direct transcripts. These are different to their summaries, which are direct text on the page usually shown below the transcript. when I’m on either of my computers, there are a number of options at the bottom of the scribd document as it appears on the website (before you open the document itself) – sometimes you can actually download the transcript directly to your computer, via one of these options. I personally do not read them this way, I just open them directly in the site via scribd (by tapping on my ipad or clicking directly), but perhaps you could try downloading them directly, so your computer is able to open it in a format that suits it?
    this option to download, though, is not always there. I can see it on Kathy Jorrie’s transcript from a few days ago, but not on Randy’s. I checked scribd’s website and they say in their FAQ that this is a choice of the uploader to make it available for download or not.
    are you able to read the transcripts when Helena embeds them directly onto her site here? Just by opening them? this may be one option for you to read them here instead – although you would have to ask Helena if this is okay for her to do on a regular basis – she usually embeds some at the end of her posts anyway🙂 but I don’t want to speak on her behalf.
    you also mentioned the issue of just blank pages appearing – this is something I have encountered a couple of times but I can assure you, in my experience, it is not a fault of TeamMJ’s transcription. I’ve found it’s usually just a matter of the document not loading properly, either due to its size or my internet’s capacity. it could also be something, a kind of bug in the scribd system. but it has never been a permanent thing for me – I simply just refresh the page and the full page with text appears.
    if this is something you are experiencing regularly though, it may be an issue with your internet capacity and how much your connection’s downloading capabilities is. also check what software your device has installed in terms of what it is capable of reading – it may not be capable of recognising the format in which scribd presents the transcripts – PDF or .txt
    I have also noticed a few of teamMJ’s earlier transcripts are indeed illegible as text does appear but is not formatted correctly and instead appears all jumbled across each other and squashed up to one side, but this goes back many weeks and is not a regular occurrence. probably just a formatting issue that they have since ironed out. I do not have my own twitter account, so I have not been able to tell teamMJ directly of this issue. if you do have twitter, you could explain your difficulty to them and ask that they make all transcripts available for direct download (scribd offers this in either PDF or txt format) and then ensure your device has the capability to read PDF documents, by downloading Adobe PDF reader. if you don’t want to download that, you shouldn’t need any downloads to be able to read them in a txt format – but I personally prefer seeing them in PDF. it tends to bypass any formatting issues and makes it easier to remember what page you were on and return to a section with ease.
    sorry for the long response, and I hope I don’t come across as condescending in case these are things you already know, I just want to make sure I cover all possibilities to ensure you are able to get access to these wonderful pieces of information and insight.
    -alice

    Like

  42. August 11, 2013 12:28 am

    Thanks Alice. I hope Randy’s testimony is redirected. I am unable to view the transcripts on the teammichaeljackson website. The pages just come up blank with very tiny fonts which are totally illegible. Any suggestions as to what I can do about it?

    Like

  43. alice permalink
    August 11, 2013 12:10 am

    Thankyou so much for donating, everyone. I think it’s a good idea that TeamMJ have started including this note at the top of all their transcripts. This way people who are reading them without donating will realise that the transcripts actually cost money. These are readers who probably don’t notice the button on the site to donate, or fully comprehend how the donations are helping the cause of truth.
    I understand the team are probably hesitant to continue asking for funds on their twitter to not incite unrest in their more unruly followers (people who might start thinking they have too much than necessary – a ridiculous notion anyway).
    But if they were at all able to keep a sort of tally of how much they need each week for their efforts (and not just for transcripts – in my opinion what they are doing is so incredible we should be generous enough to contribute for their meals, transport, etc, but others may not) it might boost the numbers.
    It’s as you say, Jolie, now is such a crucial time for us to be getting the full transcripts.
    Sidebars and discussions are paramount to getting the full picture, too. This just doubles or even triples their worth. Thank you for donating too, Jolie🙂

    Now, to the matter of Randy’s deposition.
    I personally have a feeling the inference we are expected to draw from Randy’s deposition is not so much a matter of what HE was projecting, but what AEG wanted to project. We must remember Randy was a part of getting Katherine to take this case to trial.
    It is not in Randy’s interests to hurt the case, and I personally do not consider the sole reasoning behind his answers to be a means of giving AEG any ammunition during his videotaped deposition for their argument. The manner of his answers, short, sharp and somewhat defiant also, I feel, speak to the effect he did not want to serve their purposes.

    Yet they asked the questions, and under oath he must answer. This is important to note – we must remember that it is AEG bringing up these questions and topics, not Randy.
    Why? What relevance do they have to the matter of whether AEG were negligent and responsible for Michael’s death in 2009? Their attorneys are trying to claim that Michael’s ‘secretive’ behaviour (using excerpts of Randy’s deposition to argue this) in the past is somehow indicative that he was also being ‘secretive’ about his medication in 2009 and subsequently, AEG had no way of knowing anything about his health one way or the other. Which is absolute rubbish, as we know. There is considerable testimony from many people how much his health was declining. In fact there is considerable testimony to refute many of the arguments AEG are trying to make – we know this. We must hope the jury see this.
    But still, this angle is what AEG are basing their argument, in part, upon. So this is why asking questions about interventions and secrecy and family divisions serve their purpose.

    The fact Randy said he wanted to testify in person yesterday but AEG lied and said he did not want to, so they would use video instead, is something to consider for this perspective.

    We know that AEG were preparing this video days in advance – something we only know from reading sidebars in transcripts, where Kenny Ortega’s days and scheduling of witnesses was discussed. AEG would have been preparing and editing the video deposition well in advance. We must ask ourselves why – and why Randy was not given the opportunity to testify on the stand. The fact they had told the court in sidebar, discussed with the judge when to show the video, earlier in the week, tells us they intended this to happen and had plenty of time to collate the parts of the deposition that suited them. They wanted the video, not Randy on the stand. But why? He is not a child, and he was not unable to attend. He is not Paris Jackson.

    The way his video was chopped, reorganised and assembled to suit AEG’s arguments does, I agree, suit their purposes of hindering Katherine’s case.
    But that’s why they showed it. That’s why they chopped it up and chose those certain parts. That’s why parts were shown out of order. There is a LOT more that I am sure he was asked about – and I hope he is asked about by Panish later on. But AEG declined to use other material, as it was clearly not to their purpose.

    Discovering the truth is a process which must, in some situations, involve thinking about what it is that AEG are not showing us.
    It’s also like Paris Jackson’s testimony – back then it suited them to show parts where she discredits Grace, because at the time it was in their interests to use her to contradict the plaintiffs counsel position.

    But – I wonder is discovering more about Grace going to assist us, now?
    This is something that we can now see in a different light, as Randy has offered testimony to the effect that Grace was a key factor in Michael’s medication consumption. An enabler.
    This is critical to our case of how much influence Michael had on his own health.
    It does not, I believe, show Michael as weak or not wanting to overcome dependency.
    It instead strengthens the idea that overcoming the dependency was something Grace’s actions posed a very big obstacle in the way of his achieving. Randy testified this.
    She may also have been a key part in creating a dependency – we are yet to know for sure.

    Susanne mentions that Randy doesn’t seem to have enough personal knowledge about Michael and his prescription drug problems. Yes, this was fairly evident in his deposition – not so much that he didn’t know about the problems, but that he had little personal knowledge. He also understood very little about the medications themselves, or seemed to have extensive knowledge of the surgeries. Few did – except perhaps Karen Faye and, of course, the doctors who performed them and nurse Fournier. I doubt Randy even understands or appreciates the difference between dependency and addiction. But this does not mean he is out to attack his mother’s case against AEG – rather it simply helps us understand the natural flaws of his human character and how they worked in various situations regarding Michael’s health.

    AEG used some deposition to imply that Michael was evasive (and thus expect us to infer that he was hiding drug-seeking and using behaviour because he was an addict). But if we consider Randy’s actual words, this is not that great an anomaly of behaviour; their whole family do not speak regularly. Michael did not speak regularly to them, just as they did not speak regularly to each other. And Michael liked his privacy. I’m sure Janet liked her privacy too. There is no query of that in the family – other than AEG trying to isolate Michael’s desire for privacy as different to the way the rest of the family interacted, and somehow imply it is connected with the behaviour of a drug addict? Preposterous.

    These are all things we must consider when we see and read the chunks of deposition prepared by AEG. In fact, when either side prepares deposition. It’s selective, as we know. The judge oversees all of this, too. We are not being given everything, but we are seeing more than the jury.
    Also, it suits AEG’s argument to have the media babbling about how Randy thinks (and thinks is a key word here, he was only guessing the reasons why Michael did not want to speak to the family) Michael would ‘hide’ from the family while on medication.

    These statements alone, when coming from the media, carry the inference that Michael was a drug-seeker. An addict. A liar. These views all suit AEG’s argument. They are not necessarily the truth – they are only Randy’s testimony guessing towards reasons (which AEG asked him to do), which the media then redirect and stage to appear as fact. “It’s in a newspaper, it must be true.” Ha! ☺
    Also, I personally did not interpret Randy’s statements as to intentionally contradict Michael’s efforts to get over his dependency, or that they are evidence that Michael was weak.

    Personally, I actually interpreted it differently. As isolated statements (which is how they would have been presented to the jury by AEG, in ten second grabs all connected together in one big chunk), yes, I agree they do not read well. In this sense they are perfect fodder for the media feeding frenzy. But Randy was not testifying in ten second grabs, and would not have been thinking of it this way. Yet showing them in this way suits AEG & the media. Who go hand in hand.

    To clarify, I’m not trying to defend Randy as having great knowledge of Michael’s personal life or health or use of medication and surgeries. He didn’t. That is clear, very clear by his own testimony and highlighted by the fact he only acted these interventions out when Grace, Michael’s source for his medication, called him. Randy is not denying this. He admits his only reason for concern was Grace calling him, and occasionally hearing Michael slurring his words and the one instance where he was directed to ‘sleep it off’ by Randy’s doctor friend.

    I don’t think Randy purports to have a great knowledge of medications.
    And this is something I believe is crucial to how much credibility in his perception of events.
    Yet, this doesn’t mean Randy does not and did not have good intentions about his brother’s wellbeing.
    I think he is, as Helena terms, it, a bit of a bulldozer.
    He acts out of love for his brother, but he doesn’t do it carefully or gently or rationally.
    Subtlety is not his strong point.
    He doesn’t know everything, and does not try to pretend he does – and sometimes he acts anyway. This is a trait of his personality.
    And this suits AEG’s purposes, to utilize that trait and angle it as expertise.

    Now – this is where the role of the Plaintiff attorneys, Panish et al, is SO important.
    It is Randy’s right, any witnesses’s right, to be directed by the opposing council (in this case, plantiffs), to better explain their initial testimony in re-direct.
    After being offered to the jury by AEG, it is Panish et al’s role and right to step in and re-direct Randy’s testimony, on the stand, to help the jury understand, in greater context, the truth of his answers while under cross.
    And also to go into other crucial evidence beyond past interventions and other areas that do not just suit AEG solely.

    Panish also needs to question, for the purposes of dismantling AEG’s argument, Randy’s expertise and understanding of information on Michael’s situation. In this respect, discussing Randy’s views and his understanding of Michael’s health (as we know, he was not exactly well-versed on many things) may not put Randy’s testimony in the greatest authority, but it will also discredit AEG’s argument by their using his deposition to certify one part of their argument. Putting Randy’s credibility and ability to comment and guess on Michael’s health situations and state of mind into context and into question will effectively discredit AEG’s choice to use him as a strong source on which to comment on this. It won’t make Randy look great, but that is not the purpose of this case. I’d hope Randy would understand this, too. He knows Panish is fighting for Katherine, and against AEG. This is what he said he wants.

    On a personal level, he may not like the way that particular sort of re-direct from Panish could make him look to the jury and in what may be reported, but how he looks should not be considered as relevant to the ability of his mother winning this case. He should understand this.
    Now, this chance to re-direct, contextualize and further question Randy’s testimony, plus encourage discussion on other topics, is the right of both Panish and of Randy following AEG’s argument.

    They have a right to better explain the limited sections of his testimony that AEG showed yesterday. To effectively counteract the argument. To offer more.
    But they couldn’t – because AEG lied and said Randy did not want to come on the stand.
    Because you can’t re-direct a video deposition.
    And that suits AEG right down to the ground.
    -alice

    Like

  44. August 10, 2013 9:23 pm

    Thanks Sina. I have not read the transcripts as yet- just saw the video snippets. Michael sure had a problem with prescription medicines. But that was something he admitted before the world and then tried hard to get over. He was a very responsible father and hence was more determined to get over the problem for the sake of his children. But his family kept doubting his own efforts. It seems like there was no proper communication between them. I feel that Michael did not need these interventions- he knew what needed to be done and was doing everything he could. This is also very evident in the nurse’s testimony. His family members should do more research in what actually happened before uttering anything as then it defeats the very purpose of the trial.

    Like

  45. Sina permalink
    August 10, 2013 9:02 pm

    I read Randy’s deposition transcripts and saw snippets of the video. It shows once again that it is best to read the transcripts and not only rely on the media. Subtlety is not Randy’s forte, however there is nothing in his deposition that does not corroborate with what was stated before . The only part that I had not expected is that he named Grace as an enabler pointblank. Though there had been rumors a long time ago about her feeding Michael drugs and it was discussed a lot on fan forums. Imo other than that Randy more or less confirmed most of what was said before
    – Michael had a presmed problem at certain times between 1993 and 2005. This was confirmed by his doctors , re cancelling the Dangeous tour, implant and the doctors time line in sync with Randy’s timeline. RJ most of the times was called by Grace , he didn’t go there for no reason. Q:‘You believed that he had a problem with them, what problem do you think he had ?” A: “Just excessive use maybe I guess, I mean I dont know if I would call that an addict . I am not a doctor. “
    Frank Cascio s book elaborately addresses Michaels problem with pres-med so it is not the first time that it is mentioned. Franks father also knew.
    The family has said before that they had staged interventions so that is no news either. You don’t have to agree with the way they did it, but they tried.
    It was always Randy, Janet and Rebbie who were involved and sometimes other siblings but Jermaine was hardly ever with them. Btw ,Janet didn’t need Michaels money , . so the accusations that it was about money or business is bogus
    Randy said his mother came along only once, at Neverland . She didnt know of other interventions because they didn’t tell her. Frank Cascio also said he called Randy and Janet , in 2001 ,but didn’t tell KJ because he didn’t want to burden her . This corroborates what KJ said herself.
    The number of interventions depends on how often they tried, not how often they got to Michael which was only a few times. The interventions were at times that Michael did have problems according to the doctors timeline and treatment : Taiwan, Neverland, Las Vegas and Carolwood because of Murray. “
    He said at some time Michael had overcome his problem and had cleaned up.
    He didn’t see Michael a lot from 2005 on, so he wouldn’t or couldn’t know whether he had addiction problems or not . If I remember well, he was not at their parents anniversary in May 09
    By the time he tried to get to Michael at Carolwood , there were indeed alarming signs that Michael was not well . This was when Murray had started his treatment. Leonard Rowe, who only saw Michael incidentally noticed right away that he was not well , yet AEG people who saw him on a daily basis saw nothing or want us to believe they didn’t.

    I was actually more shocked by Le Perruque’s testimony about the children calling 911 than by Randy;s deposition. I have my doubts about it, because Le Perruque also lied about talking to the media.
    I had a personal experience with someone close who had an addiction. Unless you are a parent, a child, a brother or a sister of that person, you don’t know what you are talking about.
    But when all is is said and done, Michael had a doctor with him to take care of him . So he did take responsibility for his health. And then he died at the hand of the doctor.

    Like

  46. August 10, 2013 8:55 pm

    Hi All,

    I have just made my donation to Team Michael Jackson. Thanks Alice for letting us know that they needed it. I have no words to describe how I feel about Randy Jackson’s video deposition.There is simply no excuse for what he did. He could not have harmed the case more. AEG is elated for sure. Is he on the side of the Jacksons or AEG? Randy’s statements contradict Michael’s own efforts to get over his dependency . The statements make Michael appear as a weak human being who was evasive and was constantly seeking drugs. They contradict the very essence of who Michael was. This is insane. It reminds me of Latoya Jackson’s outburst before the media siding with the molestation charges just when it was so not needed. As they say, history repeats itself.

    Like

  47. alice permalink
    August 10, 2013 7:39 pm

    ps, aww thanks for your kind words Helena🙂
    and yes, there is always lots to catch up on! a tide of information that we are lucky to have throughout this process, thanks to both yourself and TeamMJ.
    pps, something I wanted to suggest also, was that you could maybe consider making a backup copy of all your posts and everyone’s comments. (you may have already done this I am not sure!) and also maybe consider opening a ‘backup’ blog of these, as well as keeping them saved on your computer. just for safety.
    I don’t like to sound paranoid, I’m sorry, but considering how many efforts have been made to shut down TeamMJ’s site from outsiders, I would personally hate to see your blog deactivated or infiltrated by an outside source. This would also give your followers a chance to stay informed of the incredibly valuable work you do, so you are able to redirect us to a new site if, god forbid, such a situation should happen.
    just a thought. hope you are well.
    -alice

    Like

  48. alice permalink
    August 10, 2013 7:28 pm

    The most valuable things I’ve taken away from Randy’s deposition video are how much was cut out by AEG, how totally irrelevant the entire questioning is for the case at point except to gain disgusting media coverage and spread character assassinating stories, the fact that AEG wouldn’t let him testify on the stand, and lastly how often Randy mentions that Grace was a crucial factor in obtaining Michael’s prescription medications and patches for him. Randy reminds me a lot of one of my relatives – his heart is in the right place but he certainly doesn’t waste time going into things too gently or rationally. He loved Michael but their personalities sound like oil and water. I’m sure Michael knew his family were doing these interventions out of love, but it must have frustrated him to no end to constantly have them turning up unannounced. There are different ways to consider the fact security guards would not let them into the various properties at certain times, too. Sometimes it may have been Michael behind those orders. But other times the orders could have been coming from higher above. From who the guards were hired by, and who they still work for now that they are guarding Katherine and the children. Perhaps… but I digress.
    The story with Grace is troubling me a bit, too. I know she was invaluable to raising the children, but something about things we have heard of her behaviour with Michael interest me. I take Paris’s deposition video with a big grain of salt, of course. But despite the many times AEG cut and chop his deposition, Randy always mentions the ironic point (in his terms) that Grace was the one calling him saying Michael had a problem, yet she was also the one giving him the medications. We must consider her possible motivations and how they impact our view of the circumstances. Of course the medications in and of themselves were completely justified to treat Michael’s pain. We know and understand that. But there’s a phrase that keeps popping up in my mind when Grace’s position in the situation; an enabler. If we consider Paris’s deposition and her view that Grace was obsessed with her father, plus Grace’s love for Michael dating back to her own yearbook, can we see Grace as though she put herself in this role of the medication source to ensure Michael’s dependancy upon her? Consciously or subconsciously?
    Also, what were Grace’s qualifications to be giving these drugs to Michael?
    How do we know if she was giving him the correct amount and the right amount of dosages? Did she give him more than was scripted or too often – for whatever purpose?
    In a situation like Michael’s, it is not unusual for the prescription meds to be filled under another name; this is a necessary precaution to ensure Michael’s privacy. So in one sense it is not necessary for Randy to be alarmed by this. And we know Michael did need the medication. But how much of it and how often he needed it is another layer to this incredibly dense cake of backstory. If we consider his concerns about Grace being the direct reason Michael may have had a growing problem with the meds, it changes the reasoning behind his alarm at seeing her at the pharmacy refilling prescriptions.
    Getting to the truth of Michael’s life is like looking at a finely-cut diamond.
    With many intricate carvings and shapes all intersecting to create a thing of beauty, it is always very hard to see clearly into the centre.
    Yet it is when we turn it up to the light, carefully assess and appreciate each plane of its surface, that the truth – as whole as it can be through our collective view – can shine.
    -alice

    Like

  49. Jolie permalink
    August 10, 2013 3:39 pm

    I made my donation to TeamMichael. What a worthy, worthy cause!!! TeamMichael: major player in vindicating Michael. I hope everyone takes a moment to make their donation. This is a crucial time.

    Like

  50. August 10, 2013 1:15 pm

    teamMJ say they have run out of funding as of this week – so these next few will be their last unless more funding comes through. we know how valuable their work and the transcripts are, so if you can, please donate. I’ve made my third donation tonight, and suggested they post something on their twitter explaining how much they need per week, so fingers crossed the community pull together for Michael’s sake. every little bit helps.- alice

    Yes, I’ve also sent some. Let us help TeamMJ with whatever we can. If we do not work for the truth no one will.
    We can rely on ourselves only.

    To donate via paypal, email manager@teammichaeljackson.com

    Like

  51. August 10, 2013 12:25 pm

    “I just read the transcript of his deposition and, OMG, I must say this is a slap in his mother’s face. My conclusion is that Randy really doesn’t know very much, he mixed up dates and made very vague statements, but the media immediately jumped on it to spread their addiction stories. The good points these doctors made in their testimonies for Katherine’s case were ruined by Randy Jackson in a minute. What a wonderful brother!” – Susanne

    Oh, I’ve just read it too and must say that Randy is a bulldozer running at full speed with no driver in the cabin.

    He does not know a thing, the last time he heard of his brother’s burn was when he visited him in the hospital (1984), has no idea what he was prescribed and why he took prescription medicine at all, but is always ready to “jump in” and make an “intervention”. God save us from such ‘interventionists’.

    This reminds me of a story I once read about him and his girlfriend who was working for Tina Turner. They quarrelled, he wanted to speak to his girlfriend, she didn’t want it and then he took a car and drove it into Tina Turner’s door (or window, don’t remember which one). Tina Turner took a gun and fired at him.

    All Randy’s interventions were the same type of driving into the window with no reason at all and Michael’s reaction to him was exactly like that of Tina Turner. But if you ask Randy now he will probably say that he “just wanted to talk”.

    Randy is a no nonsense man. Subtlety is the word he never heard. He is a man of action who does not need to think or even know.

    Thank God that He did not allow him to run Michael’s estate. With this man at the steering wheel Michael’s children would be paupers now begging for money in the street.

    His deposition is incredible, and is a perfect find for the media:

    http://ru.scribd.com/doc/159299754/Jackson-V-AEG-Live-TRANSCRIPTS-of-Randy-Jackson-Video-deposition-August-9th-2013

    Like

  52. August 10, 2013 10:27 am

    Well, today there is a lot of media covering of the trial thanks to Randy Jackson’s deposition testimony. I just read the transcript of his deposition and, OMG, I must say this is a slap in his mother’s face. My conclusion is that Randy really doesn’t know very much, he mixed up dates and made very vague statements, but the media immediately jumped on it to spread their addiction stories. The good points these doctors made in their testimonies for Katherine’s case were ruined by Randy Jackson in a minute. What a wonderful brother! He even accused Michael of “sweet-talking” his mother. I know he tweeted that he wants to come to the stand personally to testify and that videos can be manipulated, but I still wonder if it would be a good idea to let him testify, because I doubt that he would be helpful. He doesn’t seem to have enough personal knowledge about Michael and his prescription drug problems.

    Like

  53. alice permalink
    August 10, 2013 10:24 am

    ps, just a note to everyone that in the latest transcripts from TeamMJ of Kenny Ortega’s second testimony, teamMJ say they have run out of funding as of this week – so these next few will be their last unless more funding comes through. we know how valuable their work and the transcripts are, so if you can, please donate. I’ve made my third donation tonight, and suggested they post something on their twitter explaining how much they need per week, so fingers crossed the community pull together for Michael’s sake. every little bit helps. to donate via paypal, email manager@teammichaeljackson.com
    hope everyone is well.
    -alice

    Like

  54. August 10, 2013 10:16 am

    Oh, Alice, I see that I have to catch up with a lot!

    P.S. By the way your comment on all those endorsement deals was fantastic.

    Like

  55. alice permalink
    August 10, 2013 9:51 am

    Again, a wonderful analysis and update Helena, thankyou so, so much.
    Like you say, I’ve also been more and more aware lately of just how important it is for us to consider and pay close attention to everything that is said and argued and disclosed/concealed in sidebars. They give us us far more than even the jury are being told.
    This is why it is invaluable to us to have the transcripts so wonderfully supplied by TeamMJ.
    I believe that so far the judge is doing a good job of allowing information into the case presentations that is relevant to the proceedings – unfortunately this is why a lot of other important information is not being made more evident to the public. Or perhaps the majority do not even care. I would like to think if they understood the gravity of the situation, they would. We may never know.
    To be honest, I find it astounding that there is no media company is dedicated to purchasing and running the transcripts for their readers. Surely a case of this profile would demand it?
    The lack of what is being said in the media says, ironically, volumes.
    Though I am greatly appreciative of Alan Duke’s articles of late, in particular.
    He is doing an excellent job, one of the few credits to his company CNN. On another note, I find it a little unusual, to read what TeamMJ reported from inside the courtoom just recently though; an unprecedented first in the courtroom where the jury actually applauded Kenny Ortega as he wrapped up his testimony (he returned again after a month overseas). Why exactly they clapped at the end is still a mystery to me.
    He then kissed Katherine Jackson after court, but also shook hands with AEG’s Shawn Trell.
    Hmm. I wonder what this tells us about the jury’s frame of mind.
    Interesting also is that AEG attorneys tried to stop Randy Jackson from testifying on the stand today. They wanted to run his deposition video, even though he told them he wanted and was able to testify. Curioser and curioser.
    -alice

    Like

  56. August 10, 2013 8:55 am

    “Interesting that he was a witness for AEG, since he seemed to verify even more that Michael did not shop for drugs. He sounds like a very caring and honest anesthetist. If only Murray had half of this guys ethics Michael would still be alive. Fournier cared about his patient where Murray cared about the money.”- Linda

    I also like him despite the fact that he was testifying for AEG. It is always a pleasure to meet a real professional. And if a person like Fournier did not have anything bad to say about Michael though he observed him for 10 years (!) then AEG’s case is hopeless. The more they try the better we learn what a great human being Michael was.

    “Too bad the media doesn’t dare cover this trial. That alone speaks volumes, and shows what cowards they are. For so many years, anything to do with Michael Jackson was all over the news in every paper. Now suddenly, there’s almost nothing. All the media is strangely quiet

    This trial exposes the media lies about Jackson, so the truth revealed at this trial is like washing their dirty linen in public.

    Like

  57. August 10, 2013 8:04 am

    “Defence witnesses aid the prosecution. But and why the silence in the press?” – kaarin

    The answer is easy – because they don’t want the public to know the truth.
    It is a question why they don’t want the public to know the truth which is difficult to answer.

    Like

  58. August 10, 2013 2:46 am

    ” If the forces of law are not to defer to the desires of business,then surely the Republic is in
    danger”. I truly hope the case in not as above.The same thing happens as in the Murray trial.
    Defence witnesses aid the prosecution. But and why the silence in the press?

    Like

  59. Linda permalink
    August 9, 2013 11:31 pm

    Interesting that he was a witness for AEG, since he seemed to verify even more that Michael did not shop for drugs. He sounds like a very caring and honest anesthetist. If only Murray had half of this guys ethics Michael would still be alive. Fournier cared about his patient where Murray cared about the money. This trial still reminds me of the Arvizo one where the prosecution should be hanging their head in shame. I’m sure the truth will come out now just like it did then.

    Too bad the media doesn’t dare cover this trial. That alone speaks volumes, and shows what coward’s they are. For so many years, anything to do with Michael Jackson was all over the news in every paper. Now suddenly, there’s almost nothing. All the media is strangely quiet.

    Like

  60. August 9, 2013 6:50 pm

    A very useful article- thanks Helena. This gives a fair idea of the actual doctors that were involved in Michael’s life and the reasons for them being there. The testimony only vindicates Michael as not being a drug ‘user’ and should work in the favour of Mrs Jackson’s case.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: