Jacksons – AEG trial Day 56. The SIDEBAR at D.Fournier’s testimony, Michael Jackson’s NIGHTMARE and Jordan Chandler’s HUMOR. part 2
THE SIDEBAR ABOUT NEVERLAND
During the sidebar that followed David Fournier’s testimony on July 25, 2013 (see the previous post for the full of it) the first thing the AEG lawyers did was disclosing their strategy regarding Michael’s doctors.
This is how we find out the reason why they ask each and every doctor whether Michael socialized with them and invited them to Neverland.
The reason why they are asking is because they are going to claim that by making friends with doctors he was ensuring himself a steady supply of drugs!
So it is the same Neverland story all over again… Only previously it was ‘boys’ and now it will be ‘doctors’.
Why can’t these people interpret Michael’s behavior from any point of view other than some criminal gain? Is it because they are that way themselves? But Michael was different and this is why he could not survive among these people!
AEG’s idea is exactly the same as the one we previously heard about ‘boys’ – only then he “invited families in order to lure boys into his lair of sin” and on the basis of those crazy assumptions they made some crazy conclusions about him, and now Michael Jackson “cultivated unusually close relationship with doctors and invited them to Neverland” and on this basis the AEG experts are again claiming something totally outrageous!
Goodness gracious, will there ever be a time when all these people realize that Michael invited everyone to his place only because he was open and hospitable, selfless and generous, and wanted others to enjoy themselves in Neverland in the same way he enjoyed himself there?
These AEG beasts know perfectly well that on most occasions when the doctors came to Neverland Michael was not even there but even this does not prevent them from making up all those devilish stories!
David Fournier was naturally examined by AEG lawyers on the issue of Neverland too and from him we find that within a 10-year long period of their friendship Michael invited him to Neverland twice. On one occasion Michael was present and on the second he was not.
No propofol or other drugs were ever asked for or even discussed:
Q. So your professional relationship with Mr. Jackson spanned about a decade. Did you also have a personal relationship with him?
A. Well, after the first bunch of interactions with him, he was a very warm, likable guy, I’d characterize him. We became friends.
Q. Did you socialize with him from time to time?
Q. Did you ever visit Neverland?
A. I visited Neverland twice. He was there once; there was another time when he wasn’t there. I was just there with family, showing them around.
Q. In all the years that you knew Michael, both as someone who provided him anesthesia and as a friend, did you ever know that he was using propofol to help him sleep?
Q. Is that something he ever discussed with you?
Q. Is that something you had any suspicion of?
Q. So fair to say that that’s something that you learned about after Mr. Jackson passed away?
Mr. Panish. Objection. Objection. Calls for hearsay.
The judge. Sustained.
IS BIBLE TALK RELEVANT FOR THE CASE?
Michael Jackson was a giver and not a taker. When he invited people to Neverland he didn’t want anything of anyone – all he wanted of people was to treat him like he was treating them.
“Do to others what you would have them do to you”. Exactly as the Bible says.
But even the bible reading which evidently took place often in Neverland is now disputed, doubted and twisted by these AEG beasts.
The Bible was raised in connection with Dr. Sasaki who treated Michael in 1993. It turns out that Michael spoke to him about God as the strength, solace and foothold the Almighty gave Michael helped him to overcome his dependency on Demerol.
A similar 12-step program centering on faith in God similarly helped him in 2003 when Dr. Farshchian introduced him to that program.
To this news the AEG lawyers replied some crap that if Michael talked with Dr. Sasaki about the bible in 1993 it does not mean that bible reading was necessary for the 12-step program in the 2000s. That is why the talk about the bible “is not fair inference” for them and they evidently want all of it excluded in further court proceedings.
Well, for them it is no fair reference and for me it is and even looks crucial to the whole problem, because in both cases Michael was praying to God to help him overcome his dependency on drugs and in both cases it helped.
What’s interesting is that while Michael’s conversations with his doctors about God are considered irrelevant by AEG lawyers, the fact of inviting these doctors to his ranch is not irrelevant to them because their experts will say that such invitations were his “subconscious motivation to protect his drug supply”!
Michael was speaking about one thing to his doctors and they discern some “subconscious motivations” behind these words – no, the whole absurdity of it is really crossing the line!
And while the AEG lawyers want to introduce invitations to Neverland as an opening to all those ‘drug supplies’ they simultaneously want to exclude as irrelevant the same doctors’ observations about what a good dad Michael was for his children.
Indeed, why should his great love for children and fantastic parental skills be relevant for AEG? It is okay to insinuate that he was an irresponsible drug addict but saying that he was a responsible and dedicated parent is absolutely irrelevant for their case….
Oh, Lord, why don’t you turn these liars and hypocrites into pillars of salt?
And why is AEG raking all this Neverland business at all? Neverland was over for Michael in 2005, so how are the friendships formed at the time relevant for what AEG did to Michael Jackson in 2009? Or are these desperate attempts and crazy maneuvers the only arguments they can give in their defense?
And why do they bring up all this crap even though the doctors tell them that he never asked them for any drugs? No, the further we look the more absurd and Sneddon-Arvizo-like this case is turning into…
Ms. Cahan: (reading from Dr. Sasaki’s deposition at the sidebar):
Q. Did you ever have any communications with Michael Jackson outside of your treatment with him?
Q. How so?
A. “I have to look at my chart on this.” And then he refreshed himself. “He was kind enough to invite myself and family to Never NeverLand.” “Is that it, Neverland?” And he confirms he went to Neverland.I don’t think there’s a hearsay objections there.
Ms. Cahan: What is goes to, your honor, is that our addiction experts are going to talk about the unusually close relationships Michael cultivated with physicians as consistent with addiction and keeping supply lines to drugs open; and so it’s necessary for us to address the testimony, and we’ve designated just relevant portions so the concept is there because it’s foundation.
Judge: But then you want to keep out the fact that when he was at Neverland there were observations about what a good dad he was, and –
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, and we discussed when we were talking about this with Dr. Farshchian, in every single one of these medical depositions there’s a portion at the end where plaintiffs’ counsel asks about, “Did you observe Michael with his children? What kind of a dad was he?” And it’s really outside the scope. And as we discussed with Dr. Farshchian and your honor ruled, that’s something plaintiffs could have designated in their case. Maybe there will be a reason to address it on rebuttal, although they’ve certainly presented plenty of testimony to that effect in their case in chief. They chose not to designate it, and it’s really outside the scope, and it’s going to make all these depositions run long.
Judge: If you want to designate this, then I guess now it is, though. I don’t know how it would be outside the scope if we’re talking about communications and “He invited me to Neverland,” so what went on at Neverland would now become relevant.
Mr. Boyle: Can I be heard on this? Your honor, so she’s made clear they want to now put on this thing that Michael gets close to doctors. Okay? So that’s part of their case, apparently. So I think it’s totally fair that we show what that relationship was with the doctors. It’s not like Michael was taking them out drinking, buddying up to them so he could get more drugs on the side. I mean, he’s inviting them to Neverland; sometimes Michael is there, sometimes he’s not.
Judge: Right. Sasaki I think said he wasn’t even there at the time.
Mr. Boyle: Exactly. And then also what I would like to add.
Judge: It’s still an invitation to the ranch.
Mr. Boyle: Fine.
Ms. Cahan: The fact that he’s socializing with his doctors is relevant to our experts in assessing whether he had addiction issues. We think it’s something the jury should be able to consider.
Judge: Although it’s something interesting that he never asked for — at least according to this person, he never asked for drugs from this particular person. [ Fournier]
Ms. Cahan: And you’ll hear inconsistent things from other people.
Mr. Boyle: Nor did he ask for any from Dr. Sasaki, who is a highly respected plastic surgeon, one of the best in country. So that’s fine if they want to try to make that inference, but we should be allowed to say, “okay. What happened at Neverland?” so it’s not just hanging out there for the jury in some ominous – He was invited to Neverland and he went. So he went there, he saw Michael’s kids, he ate a salad for lunch, Michael talked to him about the bible.
Here’s why that’s relevant; because you’ve heard from Dr. Farshchian now that they played that Michael was going through a 12-step program. God is always involved in those things. The fact that he was talking to Dr. Sasaki about the bible is relevant to the fact that Michael was trying to get off these drugs. And so they’re trying to keep out all that stuff and put in this implication that Dr. Sasaki gets invited to Neverland like that’s somehow a bad thing. If we’re going to Neverland, let’s go to Neverland.
Ms. Cahan: Dr. Sasaki went to Neverland in 1993. That’s when he was treating Mr. Jackson. Dr. Farshchian was talking about 2002/2003, in that time period. There’s no testimony that there is a 12-step program that Mr. Jackson is working in 1993, nor, based on my understanding of 12-step programs, is reading the bible necessarily a part of that. I don’t think that that’s a fair inference.
Mr. Boyle: You’re right about that.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, we don’t have a problem with, “you were invited to Neverland ranch, I went to Neverland ranch, here’s what you did there.” but then when it gets into, you know, “and did you observe Michael with his children? And was Michael a good and loving father, from what you saw?” that’s all — that’s the same issue that we addressed with Dr. Farshchian that’s really outside the scope of the designation. Just because that observation happened at Neverland doesn’t make it within the scope.
Judge: Maybe I should have excluded it altogether for everyone, because now it just — it’s expanding this thing.
Mr. Boyle: I mean, I’m — I just don’t want to — a strange inference about an invitation to Neverland and then no followup. Our designation is probably about 25 seconds on their — on their —
Ms. Cahan: What is it specifically that you want in that was excluded? Your honor, while he’s looking, the testimony that follows that was allowed in says, “We went up there, he wasn’t there, he wasn’t supposed to be there. Staff served us lunch and showed us around.” “You went with your family to Neverland Ranch?” “Yes.” That gives the context of why he went to Neverland Ranch. I think the very fact that Michael’s cultivating these close relationships with his doctors is something that other addiction experts have told us is quite relevant to the diagnosis that they’re going to be rendering.
Mr. Boyle: Okay. So, again, your honor, they’re clearly putting Mr. Jackson’s character in issue here. They’re talking about — they’re basically saying that he is creating false relationships in an effort to get drugs.
Ms. Cahan: Not false.
Mr. Boyle: Drug-seeking behavior, getting close to these doctors. She just said it. So, for example, we designate on page 203, line 8 — “Simple question, sir. In all your dealings with Michael Jackson, did he seem like a kind person?” “Yes.”
I mean, why can’t we talk about what the guy’s impression of Mr. Jackson was if they’re bringing out a case that he’s befriending them only to get drugs? I mean, it’s like —
Ms. Cahan: That’s not what we’re saying, and that’s not what our addiction experts say. They say it’s usually a subconscious motivation for people to protect their supply of drugs, whatever that supply is.
So Michael befriended doctors only to be able to obtain drugs from them? And how about hundreds if not thousands of ordinary people he befriended and invited to Neverland too? Many of them were ill or crippled children who came there as their dying wish! Or did those families come there as sources for drug supply too?
Can anyone tell me how much longer we will have to listen to all this AEG crap?
MICHAEL’S NIGHTMARE IN 1993
But the sidebar was thunderous not only because of all the AEG craziness about Neverland. The reason why I think the sidebar was a true sensation is because during their discussion we learned that Michael was given two major scalp surgeries in February and March 1993 – which was exactly the time when the Chandlers claimed that he was extremely busy with them and their boy.
The one done on March 16, 1993 was a big scalp surgery which was very painful even according to AEG’s assessments. The post-operative period required a good deal of opioid painkillers, so it was then that all those patches of opioids were placed on Michael’s body – most probably on the lower abdomen as is usually the case, so that no one sees them.
But if those patches of painkillers were placed somewhere on Michael’s body why did our good boy Jordan Chandler not notice them though he said he repeatedly had hot baths with Jackson??? Or did MJ have baths fully clothed and in his hat too?
See for yourself the eye-opening revelations at that sidebar – the conversation is revolving there around what can be admitted in court and what can’t, while the facts of absolutely historic significance are going absolutely unnoticed!
Ms. Cahan: The next one I have is more in the nature of the physician issues, your honor. And it’s page 61, line 25, to page 62, line 7.
Judge: Beginning “So Dr. Klein”?
Ms. Cahan: Yes. Right. So it says so Dr. Klein and Dr. Hoefflin indicated that Dr. John Borenstein would be Mr. Jackson’s anesthesiologist for the procedure. This is the procedure that happened in March of 1993. And he affirms that, that’s a procedure that Dr. Sasaki did. This is the scalp surgery. So he saw that John Borenstein was there, so I don’t think that there’s any hearsay issue with that. He was told this would be the anesthesiologist, this is the anesthesiologist, this is one of the people that Mr. Fournier just referenced. I don’t think that there’s a problem with reliability of that statement. It’s not being offered for the truth. The guy actually showed up and performed the anesthesia at the surgery on March 16, 1993.
Mr. Boyle: If it’s not being offered for the truth, I don’t know what it’s being offered for. It says these two doctors indicated that a third — it’s hearsay.
Ms. Cahan: I think it’s relevant to the fact that this was a big, painful surgery for which anesthesia was required and appropriate.That’s something that plaintiffs were addressing today with Mr. Fournier. If they really wanted to keep that out, if they feel so strongly about it, I could let that one go; but I don’t think it’s hearsay and I don’t think there’s a problem with the reliability of that statement.
Mr. Boyle: I really don’t care. I mean, I just don’t want to open the door to hearsay.
Judge: Okay. So what portion did you want in? 25 through what?
Ms. Cahan: Line 7 on page 62.
Judge: And you want that in because there’s no other way to show what, that Borenstein was his anesthesiologist?
Ms. Cahan: And I think it references — I think it is at this point of the designated testimony in which it’s referenced that this was a procedure that required anesthesia. There’s then subsequent discussion about all the pain medication that was prescribed afterwards. I actually think it’s probably something plaintiffs would not object to given that it shows that Mr. Jackson had a really painful procedure that required anesthesia and he subsequently was given pain medication for it.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, this seems like Ms. Cahan and I could just talk about these things rather than forcing this all on the court. We could figure this out.
Ms. Cahan: And I emailed Mr. Boyle about this and didn’t get a substantive response.
Judge: To be honest with you, I don’t see how this adds anything.
Ms. Cahan: That’s fine, your honor. We can keep it out. It might be a little confusing for the jurors.
Judge: It just doesn’t add anything to the testimony, as far as I can tell, but —
Ms. Stebbins: I think it’s more in the matter of explaining the chain of events so there’s not gaps and the jurors aren’t confused, we had this change, we needed an anesthesiologist, we brought him in and did the procedure. Sometimes it’s easier if you tell those in order. I noticed in the one we watched yesterday at the beginning I was confused as to what was happening, and then it kind of smoothed this stuff out. I think that’s all this is.
Funny that the judge says the information about that surgery doesn’t add anything to the testimony and rules that it “should not be in”. So if it were not for this sidebar we would never know…
But what they consider “not adding to any testimony” is in fact adding a whole lot to exonerating Michael of all those crazy molestation suspicions in the Chandler case!
March 1993 was the very midst of the so-called “molestation” period and looking into the context for the surgery we recollect that sometime in April that year Michael went with the Chandlers to Las Vegas and they allegedly saw the “Exorcist” movie, and Jordan was allegedly afraid to sleep alone and allegedly asked for a permission to stay in Michael’s room, and this is when all of it allegedly started.
And then came the beginning of May and their visit to Monaco where prior to the ceremony of getting the Millenium award from the Prince of Monaco our good little boy described in that fake declaration of his how they allegedly took a bath together and all the other horrors of it.
But if this was the case why didn’t this lovely boy say that Michael should have had either some bandages on his scalp from a recent surgery or should have been wearing a hat even when in a bath?
And why didn’t the boy notice any opioid patches on Michael’s abdomen or anywhere else on his body which Michael absolutely had to carry due to the terrible pain he was in – beginning with the surgery and up to November 1993 when he went to a rehab? I mean those very opioid patches Karen Faye and Dr. Farshchian were talking about?
Quote from Ms. Cahan:
“And, your honor, this portion of the deposition was my cross, but this had been elicited ondirect. At page 45 of the transcript, Dr. Finkelstein is talking about why he had concerns about Mr.Jackson potentially having an opiate dependency at that time, and he explained the bases for that included that Michael Jackson had a 100 microgram duragesic patch, a pain patch on...”
Of course the judge does not remember any of this and she is presiding over a totally different case, but as to us we absolutely cannot leave this information unnoticed.
Mr. Boyle: Do you know that, Jessica, or are you just saying that?
Ms. Stebbins: I’m saying that, but that’s my understanding from what Ms. Cahan was saying.
Ms. Cahan: It requires the context of it being a big deal surgery that required — if your honor wants to keep that out, I don’t think we need to spend more time on that one.
Judge: I don’t think it needs to be in. Okay. What’s next?
Ms. Cahan: Okay. The next is page 89, line 25, to page 90, line 22.
Okay, let’s see what is next. And next comes a revelation that Michael was in so much pain that at some point Dr. Sasaki refused to administer him any more pain medication and Dr. Hoefflin and Dr. Klein said that they would manage it themselves.
- To us it means that Michael was indeed in terrible pain after March 16th scalp surgery and this went on and on for months well into the beginning of the third leg of the Dangerous tour in August 1993.
- It also means that it was evidently Dr. Sasaki who hit the nerve on Michael’s head and not Hoefflin as I previously thought (my apologies to him), so the neuroma they sent Michael to the tour with was evidently Dr. Sasaki’s doing.
- Thirdly, it means that without opioids Michael was unable to function and painkillers were given to him on a continuous basis. The Jacksons’ lawyers say that Michael first had multiple appointments with Dr. Sasaki who began to prescribe him Percocet (a pill of opioid combined with Paracetamol), but since this was evidently not enough Hoefflin and Klein gave Michael Demerol too.
As Hoefflin and Klein were also providing Michael with pain medication they evidently felt responsible for what was done to poor Michael’s scalp, so now they were trying to relieve his pain, especially since it was necessary to prepare him for the last leg of the tour.
And when everyone thought that things couldn’t get any worse, those horrid allegations also broke out and this must have made Michael’s life totally unbearable.
In short once you put everything together and place it into a proper historical context all those events begin to look like a complete nightmare.
Frankly I didn’t understand much of what they discussed at that sidebar, except that the AEG lawyers are insinuating that Hoefflin and Klein were acting as Michael’s drug suppliers. However the main idea of it is that the doctors went into a panic themselves and were trying to shift the responsibility for the unsuccessful surgery on each other. Hence all this talk about who will prescribe what and why some of them are washing their hands of what they did.
I wonder if you will get the same impression of that period as I did when you read this? The impression that it was the worst of all nightmares?
Judge: “Do you understand whether Dr. Klein had ever prescribed pain medication to Michael Jackson before July 3rd?“ And he says, “I don’t know.” Okay.
Ms. Cahan: And then he talks about —
Judge: So does it lack foundation, or you just — what was the objection?
Ms. Cahan: Relevance, hearsay, calls for speculation.
Judge: Well, he answers, “I don’t know,” so I think —
Mr. Boyle: The designation goes all the way down to page 22 where he’s asked about conversations with Debbie Rowe. That’s clearly hearsay, out-of-court statement.
Judge: Did I just do a general sustaining? Is that what happened? I didn’t break it down?
Mr. Boyle: Yes, your honor.
Ms. Cahan: That’s right. And here we’re offering the part about what he was informed about by Ms. Rowe about Mr. Jackson’s pain management. If you may remember, your honor, he performed the surgery. In an unusual turn of events Dr. Hoefflin and Dr. Klein said, “we’ll manage his pain medication,” he didn’t come to Dr. Sasaki for follow-up visits, so Dr. Sasaki was — needed to speak with Hoefflin and Klein and Ms. Rowe, who was functioning as Mr. Jackson’s nurse at the time, about how he was doing, basically had to manage him remotely. And he was asked several times to prescribe additional pain medications for Mr. Jackson even though he wasn’t seeing him in office. So this isn’t used for the truth of the increase of the pain medication, but it goes to Dr. Sasaki’s understanding of Mr. Jackson’s health status in prescribing medication for him because he wasn’t getting the information directly, he was getting it from other healthcare providers who were seeing Mr. Jackson directly. It’s a little bit of a unique situation. It’s not something we have with any of the other doctors who had direct access to Mr. Jackson when they were taking care of him.
Mr. Boyle: It’s straight-up hearsay.
Judge: What I hear you saying is you’re saying —
Ms. Cahan: We’re not offering it for the truth —
Judge: To show that —
Ms. Cahan: — of Mr. Jackson’s need for pain medication, we’re offering it for Dr. Sasaki’s understanding that Mr. Jackson — of Mr. Jackson’s health status and subsequent plan about how to care for his health.
Judge: Well, I thought what you were offering it for is to show that that’s why Sasaki didn’t manage his pain or give him pain medication, is because others were doing it; but that would be offered for the truth.
Ms. Cahan: It’s really the effect on the listener, your honor.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, may I suggest that maybe — now that we have some time, we know that this is not being played tomorrow, make Ms. Cahan and I can just talk and get to an agreement on some of these?
Ms. Cahan: I tried, your honor.
Mr. Boyle: Well, no. We just didn’t have time. You sent me an email last night. What am I supposed to do? You’re putting on a witness today.
Judge: Well, it sounds like you’re offering it for the truth.
Ms. Cahan: We aren’t. We’re offering it for the effect on the listener.
Judge: Which is the effect of what?
Ms. Cahan: That he prescribed Percocet to Mr. Jackson because he understood that it was an appropriate treatment for pain.
Judge: See, but I thought Sasaki wasn’t doing the pain management, it was somebody else.
Ms. Cahan: So Dr. Hoefflin and Dr. Klein —
Judge: They’re responsible.
Ms. Cahan: — even though they have prescribing abilities, they themselves were administering Demerol to Mr. Jackson, but then they came to Dr. Sasaki and said, “will you write Mr. Jackson a prescription for 45 Percocet, and another prescription for 45 Percocet, and another prescription for 45 Percocet?” and Dr. Sasaki wasn’t able to see Mr. Jackson directly for follow-up visits during that time. He was just hearing from Dr. Klein and Dr. Hoefflin that Mr. Jackson was having his pain and that was his reason for prescribing. He’s a very reputable doctor, and I’m afraid it’s going to look suspicious to the jury if they hear that he’s prescribing Percocet to this patient who he is not seeing for follow up appointments because if they don’t know that he’s relying on the physicians who are taking care of Michael directly, or —
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, there are multiple follow up appointments. It’s hard to argue against this. And Dr. Sasaki did a major surgery on Michael, and I don’t think it’s unusual for him to prescribe some Percocets. I don’t — they’re just trying to get hearsay stuff from other doctors on — and non-doctors on drug use. That’s all they’re doing. I mean, but, again, if I could just talk to Ms. Cahan, it’s like, you know -
Ms. Cahan: I’m happy to speak with Mr. Boyle about it. We don’t have a great track record on agreeing to any of these things. I had asked him to agree to them and explain the non-hearsay justification for this before we filed the combined chart with your honor and didn’t get a substantive response. If he’s saying he’ll talk to me now, I’m happy to do that.
Mr. Boyle: Ms. Cahan, please, you never agreed to one proposed —
Judge: All this stuff about, “Did he tell you whether Michael Jackson had ever taken Percocet before?” I don’t know why that would be relevant. “Did he tell you if Michael Jackson had taken any medication prior to July 3rd, 1993?” What does that have to do with a simple request, “Can you prescribe him with Percocet now?”
Ms. Cahan: It goes to whether it’s appropriate for him to be prescribing it because if it’s a medication he’s not taken before, it could have adverse health effects. And it goes to his understanding and why he would do anything in terms of prescribing Mr. Jackson any kind of pain medication.
Judge: Okay. I’m going to sustain the objection. I’m sure there’s something in here you could find where, you know, some — they called — Dr. So and so called, asked for Dr. Sasaki to prescribe Percocet or some type of pain medication to Mr. Jackson, and that’s fine. But all this other stuff about has he ever used it in the past, and how many times, did you ever know about it — I mean, all of that is just — it’s hearsay.
Ms. Cahan: I’m just looking through to see if there are any other —
Judge: You two will have to sift through that to find that relevant portion.
Mr. Boyle: I think your honor’s rulings so far take care of the rest that she was going to argue. For example, the 93-22, which is simply saying what Ms. Rowe said to him, that’s hearsay.
Ms. Cahan: Okay. We can ask Ms. Rowe about some of these things when she comes — if she comes to testify.
Mr. Boyle: That’s fine.
Ms. Cahan: Sorry, your honor. One other I was considering. Then the only other one, your honor, that I wanted to address is on page 127.
Judge: “Why were –” on page 94, “Why were you speaking to Debbie Rowe?” “I have no idea. She just calls.” “Did she explain why she was calling?” “No.” “So this was the first time Debbie Rowe had called you?” “If it’s in the chart, that’s the first time.”
Ms. Cahan: If your honor would turn to page 126 and 127, there’s three lines on 127, lines 5 to 8, that were excluded. And this is the discussion back and forth about the prescription of Percocet. And it’s generally included at 126, you included — allowed significant portions of that. The portion of 127 is “what was Dr. Klein’s response when you told him you would no longer prescribe more Percocet for Michael Jackson?” answer, “I’ll take care of it.” and I think that that’s a relevant part of the prior testimony that’s been allowed in about, you know, can you please prescribe Percocet, yes, I’ll prescribe it, can you please prescribe some more, yes, I’ll prescribe some more, can you please prescribe again, this is the last time I’m doing it, I’m not doing it anymore. And then the response, I think, is appropriate to include. It’s not for the truth of the ongoing medical care but to understand that Dr. Sasaki was relinquishing the pain medication going forward to the care of other physicians. It’s just those three lines on 127.
Mr. Boyle: Well, no. Your honor, that’s a hearsay statement. “What was his response?” And then the response was given, an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. And previously they have the testimony where Sasaki says, “I stopped prescribing Percocet.” That’s the end. Why do we need then a hearsay statement after that to put an exclamation point on it? I don’t understand why —
Judge: The inference is when Klein says, “I’ll take care of it” — the inference is that Klein is going to prescribe him more, I think.
Mr. Boyle: Or take care of the pain management.
Ms. Cahan: Right. Which is not a — it’s not being offered for the fact that he then did take care of pain medication, but just that Dr. Sasaki was relinquishing that part of Michael Jackson’s medical care to somebody else.
Judge: And isn’t that already in here somewhere?
Mr. Boyle: Yes.
Judge: “Did you, in fact, inform both Dr. Klein and Michael Jackson that you would no longer prescribe him Percocet because of the frequency of his requests on August 10, 1993?” “If I wrote it, yes.”
Mr. Boyle: Right. So that’s — that ends it. Now they want to get something in about Klein. I don’t know why they’re tarnishing Klein. They can bring Klein in to testify.
Ms. Cahan: It’s not tarnishing Klein, your honor. We’re only offering it to show that Dr. Sasaki didn’t say, “I’m sorry. I’m washing my hands of you. Tough. Good luck with your pain.” he transferred care back to somebody else, and he doesn’t know what happened after that. He was doing what a responsible physician would do, which is not to leave a patient who is in pain without recourse to medical care.
Judge: Well, okay. The problem is it has an inference — a different type of inference that could be drawn. When he says — Well, okay. You read on, it says, “I’ll take care of it.” “Uh-huh.” “Did you ask him what he meant by that?” “No.” So nobody knows what —
Mr. Boyle: Just hanging out there.
Ms. Cahan: He didn’t need to ask him because he understood that it meant Dr. Klein would be handling his pain management going forward.
Judge: Where does he say that, though?
Ms. Cahan: There’s testimony throughout about that they were sort of jointly managing the pain. He wasn’t seeing Mr. Jackson directly, and then there came a time when he wasn’t comfortable prescribing more Percocet, and he said, “I’m — you know, I’m essentially turning over Mr. Jackson’s future pain management to you” and Dr. Klein said, “I’ll take care of it.”
Mr. Boyle: It’s just a hearsay statement that’s unnecessary. There’s no exception, as we’ve talked about. I mean, this is Klein talking to Sasaki for — and it’s clearly not in furtherance of any treatment because Sasaki just said, “I’m out of here.”
Ms. Cahan: We’re not offering it for the truth of the fact that Dr. Klein then took care of it.
Judge: It’s being offered for — to show that Sasaki transferred the care?
Ms. Cahan: Right; that he wasn’t irresponsible in just washing his hands of Michael Jackson, saying, you know, “you’re just going to have to tough it out or you can’t get any pain medication,” or “good luck with that.” he did what’s appropriate, which is to make sure that there was a physician that would take care of Michael going forward. He’d had a major surgery, he was taking quite a lot of pain medications. It would not have been appropriate to just cease all medical care for Mr. Jackson, so he was transferring the care.
Mr. Boyle: I’m glad they’re so concerned about Dr. Sasaki’s reputation now when they’re also trying to infer that he’s one of Michael Jackson’s buddies at Neverland all in an effort to get drugs.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, that is really not a fair characterization of what I’ve said.
Judge: I sustained this objection, didn’t I?
Mr. Boyle: Yes, you did, your honor. All of these were sustained and have been reargued here.
Ms. Stebbins: And I think what Ms. Cahan is saying is that’s the purpose she’s offering it for here.
Judge: To show the conduct of —
Ms. Cahan: Dr. Sasaki.
Ms. Stebbins: That he was passing it off in a responsible manner. It’s not offered for anything about what Dr. Klein did or didn’t do afterwards, which would be offering it for its truth.
Ms. Cahan: And it’s such a general statement, your honor, “I’ll take care of it.” it’s an acceptance of transfer of care; it’s not, you know, “I’m going to give him 300 milligrams of demerol tomorrow.” it’s not anything specific, not something from which anybody would infer a specific conduct or specific continuing care. It’s the idea of the transfer of care in a responsible manner.
Mr. Boyle: It’s irrelevant.
Ms. Cahan: There wasn’t a relevance objection to this, your honor.
Mr. Boyle: There is now. Relevance.
Judge: All right. I’ll reverse myself on it. But it’s just really pushing it. What’s the next one?
Ms. Cahan: That was all I had, your honor.
Though AEG’s lawyers insist that Dr. Sasaki did not wash his hands of all he had done to Michael’s scalp it very much looks like he did – the surgery went not quite like he expected, he probably hit the nerve and was forced to give Michael more painkillers than he should but when nothing worked and the scar turned into a neuroma he relinguished the pain management, refused to prescribe more medication and thus washed his hands off his patient.
This is when Klein had to take over and for this I respect him very much – actually he drew fire against himself though it seems that none of it was his doing.
BUT THIS IS NOT ALL
At this point of the nightmare we find that not only the scalp surgery was very painful, but there was absolutely no agreement between Hoefflin and Sasaki about the “recommended techniques”. From the quotes they read at the sidebar from Dr. Sasaki’s deposition it looks like he didn’t recommend the technique used on Michael’s scalp and this is probably why the two surgeons started to shift the blame onto each other.
But even this is not all.
In the course of the sidebar we also learn that there was another surgical procedure done on Michael in the same period and you know when it took place?
It took place on February 16, 1993.
This was a week after Michael’s interview with Oprah and exactly at the time when he was allegedly courting the Chandlers in order to lure Jordan Chandler into his ‘lair of sin’.
Oh my God, those of us who ever had some acute pain – even if it was only toothache – will understand that all those thoughts about ‘boys’ attributed to Michael at that period of time were nothing but fantasy on the part of these liars! With so much pain Michael could not have anything else on his mind but his never-ending medical troubles and the total disaster that scalp surgery turned into.
However the moment I’ve written it I also recollected that it was in 1993 that the short films for the Dangerous album were released, weren’t they? So being in a condition he was in he still managed to work??
At the sidebar they said that only the description of the procedure done on Jackson by Dr. Sasaki took 4 pages, and there were so many procedures done that it became confusing even for the judge:
Mr. Boyle: I’ll talk to Ms. Cahan about the Michael was a good father stuff. But, your honor, on page 31, there’s — 31, you sustained an objection. The stated grounds were unduly prejudicial, undue consumption of time. What 31 through 34 is is the description of the procedure that Dr. Sasaki did on Mr. Jackson, and so we think that’s totally within the scope because they’re designating Sasaki for his treatment of Mr. Jackson, and that it was a very painful procedure.
Judge: I thought this was a different procedure.
Mr. Boyle: No. This is the description of the one that was actually done.
Judge: I thought he said, “This is not the one that I did.”
Mr. Boyle: I don’t think so. I tried to designate the one that was actually done.
Judge: Because he talks about two different procedures, so I had the impression this was the one that he didn’t do. But —
Mr. Boyle: You’re right that he does do that. But this is the one that I think ultimately was decided on and was done. And that comes out later in the designation.
Ms. Cahan: He says, “But this was not the technique that I recommended.”Page 33, line 2.
Mr. Boyle: Then he goes on and described this technique.
Ms. Cahan: He’s talking about Dr. Hoefflin at the bottom of that page — what Dr. Hoefflin thought, which is hearsay. If we want to live by plaintiffs’ interpretation of hearsay, this is about this meeting of the minds between Dr. Sasaki and Dr. Hoefflin and going back and forth about which of these surgical procedures would be more appropriate for Mr. Jackson. I don’t know why that would come in if the statements about Dr. Hoefflin and Dr. Sasaki conferring about Michael’s treatment on a going-forward basis were disallowed.
Judge: “Well, so what technique did you ultimately use for Michael Jackson’s scalp surgery?” isn’t that in? That’s fine. But the one before it which talks about, “this is the procedure I used on jessica lapure, that’s not the one I used for Michael Jackson, that’s not the one I recommended,” why are we going to discuss that one?
Mr. Boyle: I agree, your honor. I was going to direct your attention to 35, line 13. “and all these steps that you have just outlined occurred during the surgery on Michael Jackson on February 16?“ “that’s correct.” that’s all. So we can go back and pick out the ones — that’s all I meant to do, is whatever was done on the 16th.
Judge: Right. There’s a combination of something that wasn’t used. My concern is get rid of the one that wasn’t used.
Ms. Cahan: And your honor correctly allowed the part beginning at page 34, line 3, when he talks about what he actually did use, and that part is all in.
Mr. Boyle: Done. Never mind. I agree with you. You’re right.
Ms. Cahan: Thank you, your honor.
Ms. Stebbins: Did you say 9:30 tomorrow?
Judge: I did.
Mr. Putnam: Thank you.
(Court adjourned to Friday, July 26, 2013, at 9:30 am)
Unbelievable. So now it turns out that it wasn’t only March 16th but February 16th 1993 too, and that the whole recess period between the second and third legs of the Dangerous tour was spent by Michael’s doctors on certain procedures on his scalp.
Considering that they started in January 1993 where David Fournier was giving his anesthesia it means that all that treatment was going almost non-stop in the first half of 1993.
He might have probably even had a technical reason for it – dancing with a hairpiece on his head was terribly uncomfortable and potentially exremely embarrassing, and this is probably why it was so urgent a matter for Michael to restore his hair in the time remaining before the last leg of the tour.
They started early to be able to finish before the tour resumed. As David Fournier testified the first procedure was sometime in January 1993, then came the surgery on February 16, 1993 and the next job, a big and very painful one, took place on March 16, 1993 all of which was followed by a good deal of painkillers prescribed by different doctors.
From Karen Faye’s testimony we also know that just several days before leaving on the third leg of the tour Michael had a balloon removed from his scalp which adds another procedure done to Michael, probably sometime in August 1993.
And the drug specialist Dr. Schnoll testified that during one of those surgeries Michael also formed a neuroma which gave him acute pain similar to that of a lightning bolt.
Let me remind everyone of Dr. Schnoll’s testimony about the neuroma on Michael’s head and Dr. Sasaki, and what all that surgery resulted in. For those of you who missed the picture of the pain neuroma is associated with I’m posting it here again from the respective medical site:
Q. Prior to the Dangerous tour, in the very beginning of it, did he have scalp surgery?
Q. And what kind of surgery — tell the jury a little bit about what that surgery was for.
A. Well, that surgery was to repair the damage to his scalp. There was some contractions, and so they inserted a balloon under the scalp to stretch the scalp back to a normal configuration and remove the scar tissue.
Q. And did you — based on your review of the records, your knowledge of this condition, is this a painful condition?
A. Yes. And in addition, I think — I might not pronounce it properly — Dr. Sasaki reported he had neuroma formation at the time.
Q. Tell the jury what a neuroma is.
A. A neuroma is like a scar that forms on a nerve. When a nerve is damaged — just if your skin is cut, and you form a scar on your skin, if you have damage to a nerve, you can have a scar form, and that’s a neuroma. And that is excitable tissue, just like the nerves. And so it can be firing, just as the nerve does, but it fires in an abnormal way. And so that can be very painful and disconcerting to the person who has that neuroma. And it’s often sort of like a burning kind of pain. I guess the best example would be, I think most people have fallen asleep on their arm in a funny position, and you wake up and have that tingling and everything. Well, that’s what it can be like, but it’s persistent. It doesn’t go away. And also it can be a sharp shooting kind of pain at the same time. So it’s very uncomfortable and one of the most difficult kinds of pain to treat.
Q. And there are Opioids — appropriate drugs to use to treat a neuroma, this type of pain?
A. They can be used for that, yes.
Q. And in Michael Jackson’s case, were they?
Q. And, then, this is just prior to beginning the Dangerous tour; is that right?
Q. And then they went on the Dangerous tour. And did you review the testimony of Dr. Finkelstein?
Q. And doctor — and based on that testimony, did you have an opinion as to whether Michael Jackson was receiving opioid drugs during that period of time?
Q. During the Dangerous tour?
Q. And is it following that time that he went into — he publicly announced that he felt he had a problem with these drugs and wanted to become free of them?
Q. Based upon your review of the medical literature, the charts, the depositions, the investigation, do you have an opinion as to whether the evidence establishes that Michael Jackson was a drug addict?
A. Yes, I do have an opinion.
Q. What is the opinion?
A. The opinion: I don’t know if he was an addict.
Q. When you say you don’t know, what do you mean by that?
A. Well, I haven’t seen any evidence that would give me the information that would allow me to make a diagnosis of addiction.
Q. Is there evidence that would allow you to make a diagnosis of his being drug dependent at some period of time?
Q. What evidence is lacking for considering him to be a drug addict?
A. It would be taking drugs when not prescribed by a medical professional; taking larger amounts that were prescribed; drug-seeking behavior; taking drugs that were not — were not prescribed for him.Those kinds of behaviors.
Q. And when you talk about “drug-seeking behavior,” does that have a very special meaning for a physician who is an addiction specialist?
Q. And what is drug-seeking behavior? Suppose I have a headache, and I go to the doctor, and I say,”give me a drug.” Is that drug-seeking behavior?
A. That could be drug-seeking behavior.
Q. Is that the kind of drug-seeking behavior that is an addict’s drug-seeking behavior?
Q. Okay. What is the difference?
A. If you’re seeking a drug to treat a legitimate medical problem, that’s drug-seeking behavior, but it’s not inappropriate and not part of addiction. However, if you’re seeking drugs outside of a medical need, that drug-seeking behavior is inappropriate and can be part of addiction.
Q. And in Michael Jackson’s case, was there evidence that Michael Jackson had Demerol for treatmentof his back pain?
Q. Is there evidence that he had — that he got Demerol for treatment of his scalp pain?
Q. Is there evidence that he got treatment for his — for his dermatologic condition where he was being treated by a dermatologist to get ready for these tours?
Q. And are all of those — the use of Demerol, can Demerol be an appropriate agent to use under those circumstances at that period of time?
Q. Was there any evidence that you saw that he was engaged in that kind of drug-seeking behavior that you described?
A. Which type are you referring to?
Q. The addiction type of drug-seeking behavior.
Q. So that the — you mentioned that he did from time to time have these dependencies, these two periods of time where he went and sought treatment?
Q. Was that the nature of his drug problem? That he would sometimes get dependent?
UNCOMFORTABLE SCIENTIFIC FACT
I know that my next statement will be terribly unpopular with Michael’s fans but I will still allow myself to make this point because it is a scientific fact though a very uncomfortable one too.
Opioids are universally known to dull the sex drive, so since they were given to Michael to help him cope with the excruciating pain all those scalp experiments were giving him in 1993, calling Michael asexual at that moment would be appropriate and even medically correct.
It does not mean that the opiates fully killed his sex drive – no, nothing of the kind. All it means that it was greatly diminished as the most common effect of opiates is dulling human libido. It simply could not be any different for him at that moment as it is the same for all others, and does not mean that Michael turned “less sexy” – no, he was simply not thinking about that side of life because all patients who are given opiates do not think of it either.
Even our big ‘friend’ and real specialist on boys Victor Gutierrez made an observation in his book that there is a big difference between a suppressed desire and having no desire at all:
“There had been speculation about Jackson’s sex life for years. Stories about him being homosexual or asexual had been heard worldwide . According to psychiatrists, asexuality means that a person doesn’t have sex because they don’t desire it. Asexuality is a rare occurrence — not being sexually active is quite a bit different from not thinking about it at all.”
And not thinking about it at all is actually what must have been happening to Michael at that very difficult period of his life.
Though asexuality is actually a very rare occurrence for patients taking opiate painkillers this situation is standard. The asexual effect of opiates is described in numerous books, scientific articles and by patients themselves – and though opiates depress the sexual desire forutunately they do not damage the sexual function:
“The study found that decreased libido in male heroin users was due to a suppression of the luteinizing hormone (LH) from the pituitary gland, which was then followed by a drop in plasma testosterone levels.” http://www.opiates.com/newsletters/link-between-opiate-dependency-libido.html
My critics will probably be happy to hear that anti-opioid Narcan implants or whatever their name is, like the one given to Michael by Dr. Farshchian, drastically improve this sad condition (sorry for the details provided by the next source):
Early clinical studies suggested that opiates may interfere with sex hormone secretion.” Van Ahlen et al found “early-morning erections increased significantly under naltrexone therapy”. Brennemann et al concluded “treatment with naltrexone significantly raises the rate of spontaneous early morning erections when compared to controls.” In chronic pain patients receiving opiate therapy, Finch et al found “Men and both premenopausal and postmenopausal women had evidence of hypogonadism”, and Paice et al cited “loss of libido” as a common side effect of such therapy, concluding “Patients should be queried regarding sexual function and should be cautioned regarding the possibility of these adverse effects prior to initiating spinal opioids. Supplemental testosterone should be considered to treat this dysfunction.”
In human subjects opiate therapy or abuse is widely associated with loss of libido (sex drive). Given the documented effects on libido of opiate agonists, a rebound effect of enhanced sexual arousal during abstinence or upon administration of opiate antagonists would normally be expected.
I hope you understand that by the “rebound effect of enhanced sexual arousal after administration of opiate antagonists” or after a simple stop of using opiates, the scientists mean a sharp increase in a male’s sex drive which in the case of Michael Jackson was demonstrated by his immediate marriage to Lisa Marie Presley as soon as his Demerol dependency was over and her following him for four years all over the world even after their divorce.
Anyone interested can read about both effects in this forum: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=184812#ixzz2YuShXI8k while I would like to return to the Chandlers.
JORDAN CHANDLER’S HUMOR
Now that we know that the whole period of winter/spring 1993 was almost a non-stop scalp surgery for Michael Jackson which resulted in his imminent asexuality, I see Michael’s relationship with the Chandlers in a somewhat different light.
I can easily imagine that Michael had so much pain to cope with at the time that all he sought in the rare moments of comfort and ease from the pain was some innocent fun and an extra laugh.
He also probably needed someone to lean on and the Chandlers family could very well look like the best candidate for it. June was glamorous, charming and hospitable – she invited Michael to her home and he even stayed there for 30 days if we are to believe these liars.
She made him cosy and comfortable there, cooked them dinner, and all this could have spinned his head into thinking that she and her family could make him a perfect life companion.
As to Michael’s friendship with Jordan it was most probably based on one trait of Jordan’s character which up till now no one has really paid attention to.
Victor Gutierrez writes that Evan Chandler used to admire his son’s sense of humor and was told by Evan that Michael was attached to Jordan because he constantly made him laugh.
Well, a good laugh was what Michael needed most during that torturous period of his life and it does perfectly explain why Jordan indeed turned into Michael’s best friend at that time. See this piece about Jordad’s humor from VG’s otherwise totally disgusting book:
Jordie is intelligent and Michael has great respect for bright people. My son danced well and they had great fun showing each other their moves. Jordie is also creative, and Michael was convinced that he was going to be one of the greatest film directors of all time.”
Evan knew that Jackson’s obsession for Jordie was due to these qualities, but he further knew that there was one quality in particular that made the most famous person in the world want to be with his son. According to Evan, that quality was Jordie’s sense of humor.
“On many occasions, I thought that Michael was never so happy as when Jordie made him laugh, occasionally at the expense of Michael. I remember very well one time at my house Jordie made Michael laugh so hard that his makeup began to smear. I thought that Michael wanted to be like Jordie for his great sense of humor.”
.. People close to Jordie are familiar with his sense of humor and how uncontrollable it is. He at times makes fun of whoever he is with, but does it with such a style that the person is not insulted, and ends up laughing at themselves. This works, according to his father, as a defense mechanism against people who get close and try to control him. “It’s a unique talent with which he was born and it’s almost impossible to explain it…”
When I recall what allegations this boy eventually made against Jackson all this talk about Jordan’s “humor” begins to acquire for me a somewhat sinister meaning – after all different people have a different sense of humor and what’s humor for one may be bitter tears for another, especially if it is a laugh at the expense of another person.
In this connection it is also interesting to read another VG’s story about Jordan and his father immensely enjoying themselves in May 1992 when they were writing a script for the movie “Robin Hood: Men in Tights”.
The bright boy wrote that script full of salacious humor even before he met Michael Jackson, at the age of 12, so it gives us some impression of what Jordan could be like when he became close friends with Michael in the winter of 1993. This was absolutely not a naïve boy we imagine ourselves when we look at those innocent pictures of him – no, it was a 13 year old teenager with a keen sense of humor who liked making laugh of other people according to his own father’s recommendations.
We can even get the idea of his humor from the tentative names he and his father gave to the scripts there were writing. The first script was “Robin Hood: Men in Tights” which was followed by “James Bunny in Humor Terminal: The Last Laugh,” and then by “The Sleazoids vs. The Schulmbergers.”
Gutierrez’s book says about it:
“In May of 1992, Jordie had not yet turned twelve when he had created the idea for and assisted his father in the writing of the movie “Robin Hood: Men in Tights.” The movie, directed by Mel Brooks, was a satire of the Kevin Costner Robin Hood film “Prince of Thieves.”
Jordie and his father found themselves writing two other screenplays, which they tentatively called “James Bunny in Humor Terminal: The Last Laugh,” and “The Sleazoids vs. The Schulmbergers.” They laughed together as they thought about how wonderful it would be to do this all the time, and on top of it all get paid for it.
“Jordie liked the cinema and the business of cinematography, to which he had been exposed thanks to my new wife Nathalie, who was working in a cinematography production company,” his father said. “I remember that was the first time Jordie spoke of having a profession, and he loved the idea. He made his decision with a lot of enthusiasm: ‘I am going to do something in the movies!’ I was happy.”
Of course, Evan didn’t know what his son was going to be, whether a writer, director or CEO. It didn’t matter to Evan. What mattered was only that his son was making responsible decisions and thinking about his future.
“Here we were, having written one screenplay and now writing two more. We were on our way! That was truly one of the best moments of my life and I savor it until now.”
So it was the Humor Terminal? The Last Laugh? The Sleazoids vs. the Schulmbergers?
Why do these titles make me so uneasy?
* * *
If you also want to work for the truth and get the transcripts please donate to email@example.com via Paypal.
If we don’t take care of the truth no one will. Who else but us?