Skip to content

Jacksons – AEG trial. KATHY JORRIE, Dr. GARY GREEN and IVY of MJJCommunity all in one pack

August 29, 2013

THEY THRIVE WHILE HE IS DEAD

It’s Michael’s birthday today and while all these AEG people are going about their day-to-day activities it is especially today that you feel that he is gone.

All of them are going on with their lives and it is only Michael who is no longer here and will never return. He will never see his children, will never see them grow up, will never share their joys and their worries and he will never go on a vacation with his grandkids.

This “going on vacation with grandkids” point was mentioned in Kathy Jorrie’s testimony and was used as a reason why her cross-examination had to be short – she had to catch a plane to go on vacation with the grandkids so everyone in court went out of their way to adjust to her plans.

When this remarkable lady was making her remarkable contract for Michael Jackson which lied to him in each of its sentences, no one was trying to adjust it to Michael Jackson. And when they were setting 50 concerts for every other day with only one day break between the concerts no one was thinking of his interests and that he needed time to recuperate between the shows.

It is only Kathy Jorrie who doesn’t have time for this court and should leave at noon because five hours later she has a plane to take her on vacation, and the court system should please hurry up and cut on her questioning. And it is only when it came to Michael Jackson that no one looked into his needs – over there “it was solely business” and he was to be run as a machine.

However Michael was a human being and (surprise-surprise) he needed time for rest too, and he also had kids and he also wanted to go on vacation with them one day.

But Michael Jackson had a special treatment. Michael Jackson could be set harsh terms, could be put into impossible conditions, could be slapped, humiliated and put into a ‘straight jacket’, and what’s surprising about it all is that everyone thinks that it is perfectly okay – but when it comes to Kathy Jorrie, a bosom friend-lawyer of AEG of 14 years and her precious plans to go on vacation, everyone is expected to understand and the whole court system should please stop and adjust to this woman’s plans.

Really, these double standards and outlandish hypocrisy is something that makes me complete mad about this AEG business. We are supposed to understand everyone – Kathy Jorrie, AEG, Ortega, irresponsible doctors who ruined MJ’s hard work to end his dependency on  medications back in 1993,  Conrad Murray with all his problems, etc.  – and it is only Michael Jackson who is never to be understood or listened to, who is to be handled with tough love and is obligated to each and everyone on this planet.

He was to do this, he was to do that … isn’t it time for everyone to do a reality check and realize that he wasn’t obligated to any of us at all?

He wasn’t obliged to give explanations about his lifestyle, about his skin, about his dermatological issues, about why he kept giraffes in Neverland, about his wives and his sex life, and about why he didn’t want to do rehearsals, and why he didn’t sing there in full voice and why he walked on the stage and not danced.

He didn’t owe any explanations to anyone at all, and it was AEG that should have please adjusted to him in the same way the US court is now adjusting to the plans of one woman who is going on vacation with her grandkids.

But the unobtrusive and humble Michael Jackson is now dead, while these arrogant and self-centered people are going on vacations and are utterly enjoying themselves. This is what makes Michael’s death so unbearable – all these people are going on with their lives not feeling even a morsel of guilt for what they did, but they nevertheless think they deserve a life full of comfort, happiness and delight. If only these nice people were so nice as to say a word of compassion to Michael’s mother and his kids….

I suspect that if AEG bosses had gone to Michael’s mother and cried on her shoulder frankly explaining how all this nightmare was evolving and what mistakes they made, and how terribly sorry they were, she would have forgiven them,  because she is gentle and is like Michael and really believes in God and does what He tells her to do. But seeking forgiveness from Michael’s mother was never an option for AEG and instead they chose to dance a rite of hate on Michael’s bones which is what they are doing now at this trial.

It isn’t enough for them that they humiliated him beyond measure while he was alive. No, they want to humiliate him even more when he is dead – and this doesn’t prevent them from being perfectly satisfied with their precious selves. And a lot of their helpers are smugly observing the process of mudding MJ further and are even throwing in some of their own mud hoping that we wish we had never got into this.

No, these people do not deserve compassion. They never regretted what they did, they never sought forgiveness, they never wanted to make it up for Michael’s mother and children at least in some way, they never showed compassion for her and the kids (and for Michael when was alive), and this terrible lack of self-reflection and total absence of guilt is probably the worst of what we see in this AEG pack. Letting these people get away with what they did to Michael will be our heavy guilt towards Michael Jackson.

KATHY JORRIE AS ONE OF THEM

kathy-jorrieI read Kathy Jorrie’s testimony quite by chance as I really didn’t want to. She drafted a totally dreadful contract with Michael which is structured in such a way that it can be turned any way you want and each time it will be for the benefit of AEG only, so listening to more of her meanness was really too much.

But it just happened that her testimony was suddenly brought to my attention and the circumstances under which it happened were rather interesting too.

Since going on vacation with her grandkids is the most important aspect of Jorrie’s testimony over which everyone in that courtroom was fussing, let us start with the sweet, old-fashioned and sentimental picture of civility and kindness displayed towards Kathy Jorrie and her grandkids.

The additional benefit of the show is a surprise that so young a woman already has grandkids – be like them and you won’t be tired and penniless, but will be healthy, young and enjoy vacations with your grandkids. The scene is a model of care and concern about another human being:

Q. I understand that you are not available to testify for most of this afternoon, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And is that because you have a family vacation with your grandchildren?

A. Yes.

Q. I do not want to keep you from that, so I’m going to go as quickly as possible as I can this morning.

A. Thank you.

….Ms. Bina. I’m happy to move on, your honor, in the interest of saving time and letting this witness go on vacation with her grandchildren.

Mr. Panish. She’s not going on vacation. Your honor, she’s not going on vacation.

Judge. Mr. Panish, you’re interrupting. Remember everybody gets a chance? It’s Ms. Bina’s chance.

Mr. Panish. Well, I don’t want to have to come back because now they’re running out my time. They said she’s going on vacation. She’s going to the airport at 5:00 o’clock, she has to pick up her grandkids, she said. Okay? At 5:00 o’clock. So now the implication is now we’re going to be at 11:00 something, my cross- examination is going to be interrupted.

Judge. How much longer do you have, Ms. Bina?

Ms. Bina. I have about four pages left, your honor. I’m going as fast as I can. Mr. Panish is objecting a lot.

Mr. Panish. Because you’re asking improper questions.

Ms. Bina. Anyway, your honor, I’m trying to move things on. If he would make shorter objections, it might go faster. But the point is I’m nearly done.

What a nauseous civility at the expense of courtroom time for Brian Panish! And it gets especially nauseous when you recall how this very Kathy Jorrie treated Michael Jackson in that dreadful contract of hers – she was not giving him a single chance up to a degree which is simply unacceptable between civil people.

For example if Michael was not giving his approval to something and his disagreement was ‘unreasonable’ (it was AEG who was to decide that) Michael’s disapproval was actually considered to be his approval, or in other words his opinion did not matter irrespective of what he said.

If he approved it was okay, but if he disapproved it was okay too, because it simply did not matter – AEG would still do as they pleased. With such a contract what’s the use of discussing AEG’s cooperation with MJ at all? Whichever way you look at it it will never be in favor of Michael Jackson!

What she is saying here is very typical of the terms she set for MJ in AEG’s contract:

Q. Now let’s go on to paragraph 11, which is approvals. Ms. Jorrie, can you give me a brief understanding in laymen’s terms of what this provision is about?

A. The provision, in laymen’s terms, provides that no party can refuse to give its approval unreasonably; and then the next sentence says if a party is unreasonable, if they — they won’t give an approval that they reasonably should have given, the approval will be deemed to have been given.

Q. In the event the Michael Jackson Company unreasonably withholds delays or qualifies its approval over any such matter, the Michael Jackson company shall be deemed to have given its approval over such matter?

A. Yes.

Who was to decide whether the refusal was reasonable or not? AEG of course, who else? The above paragraph has a direct bearing on those disputed extra millions of production costs – in Kathy Jorrie’s opinion even if MJ did not give his written approval for them, he was still the responsible party as in AEG’s contract even a disapproval is considered approval for reasons stated above.

Kathy Jorrie also thinks they did not require Michael’s approval for 50 shows. Her explanation is that AEG increased the number of shows because AEG needed to recoup the tour expenses:

 Q. I’m speaking just of the idea of approving additional shows. For instance, the idea of going from 31 to 50 shows, or additional shows in a given leg of the tour.

A. Okay. Let’s start with that one. At this particular contract, if — if you go to where it says it shall be unreasonable for Artistco to withhold its approval for adding shows to any given leg of the tour — or adding legs of shows to the tour during the term so long as the number of shows in any given leg do not exceed one per day and 3.5 per seven-day period on average. That’s what Mr. Panish read. What he didn’t read is the part after that, it’s limited where it says if promoter demonstrates to Artistco that such additional shows and/or legs are necessary for promoter to recoup the advances in accordance with the terms of this agreement.

Q. And then the part that he didn’t read out loud is a qualification on that that says if the promoter demonstrates to the Michael Jackson company that such additional shows and/or legs are necessary for promoter to recoup the advances that they’ve given to Mr. Jackson and his company within the terms of the agreement, right?

A. Right.

I wonder if Kathy Jorrie herself would agree to perform the number of shows “not exceeding one per day and 3,5 per seven-day period on average”, but besides that I have another question. At the beginning of March 2009 the rehearsals did not even start and there was nothing to recoup yet, but they still increased the number of shows to 50 dates. The question is WHY?

The arguments of this lawyer who says that she is an independent witness do not even apply here! And after that she is claiming  that her “client relationship with AEG  is not affecting her testimony”? Look at all this hypocrisy:

Q. Does it affect your testimony — your truthful testimony here in court that you have a client relationship with AEG Live?

A. It does not.

Q. Why not?

A. Because I’m a member of the bar, and we have certain ethical obligations as officers of the court. I was raised to have integrity and to be honest, and so I’m doing the best I can to remember everything and to be as truthful as possible.

Kathy Jorrie 2

Kathy Jorrie testifies at Conrad Murray’s trial

In fact the way these “members of the bar” are twisting the truth depending on which way is more convenient to them is totally amazing. On the one hand she says she has never seen AEG’s budget and since she has never seen it Brian Panish is not allowed to question her about it, but on the other hand we find that she actually took part in making a certain agreement when presenting this very budget to the Estate, and therefore she knows it inside out!

Q. And do you — were you involved in another agreement where AEG Live was ultimately reimbursed by the estate of Michael Jackson for approximately 36 million in production costs and related expenses?

Mr. Panish. Number 1, it’s irrelevant as to whether or not Mr. Tohme was an officer of the company. Number 2, this would then get into attorney/client privilege. They can’t just ask that and prohibit me from questioning her all about that…

After looking at all these twists and turns we more or less know what to expect of Conrad Murray’s contract which was also drafted by Kathy Jorrie.

THEY STALLED MURRAY 

Though Conrad Murray started his services at the beginning of May 2009 Kathy Jorrie says she was told about the need to make a contract with him in the “latter part” of the month, and even after that she drafted the first variant only on June 15, 2009, so for a month and a half nothing was happening.

From Kathy Jorrie’s testimony it is almost impossible to understand when she was first told to draft a contract with Murray:

 Q. ..is it likely that Mr. Woolley didn’t contact you to draft an agreement until after May 26th, 2009?

A. That — that, I can’t answer. I don’t have the precise date. It was the mid May to late June — I mean to late — mid May to June that he contacted me. I don’t remember an earlier contact. It’s possible.

To refresh Kathy Jorrie’s memory Brian Panish had to remind her of her testimony at Conrad Murray’s trial where she said it was the latter part of May:

Q. When was it you were first provided any information about the necessity of there being a contract?

A. It — to my best recollection, it was in May. It was at the latter part of May Mr. Woolley let me know about the need to have this contract prepared.

But if she was told about the need for a contract at the end of May only, it means that for the whole month of May AEG was stalling Murray. “Stalling” means “avoiding a clear answer to a question in order to get more time” as dictionary explains.

Actually the AEG people didn’t make much secret of it – in his May 26 email Timm Woolley openly encouraged his staff to stall Murray as the contract was “not in place”. But how could it be in place if he told Jorrie about the need to make it only at the end of May?

May 26, 2009

Timm Woolley to Brigitte Segal on May 26, 2009: “He is pinging on us for payment but we can’t without a contract in place. Would like to stall him with something for him to look & mull over”

So though Murray’s services began on May 1 the “stalling” process lasted until June 15, when AEG finally  remembered Murray. Kathy Jorrie admitted that full 6 weeks passed until the first draft was finally presented to him:

Q. so May 1st, and the date that you sent that to Mr. Woolley to forward to Dr. Murray was what date?

A. The date I sent it was June 15.

Q. And that, then, would be six weeks after May 1st, the date that you put in the first draft for the contract to commence, correct?

A. Yes.

The timing of the first draft perfectly coincides with the so-called “Intervention meeting” arranged on June 16 by Randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware on the insistence of Kenny Ortega. The intervention meeting stemmed from Murray having the cheek to give Michael a sick leave on June 12 (Saturday). On Sunday Phillips was already calling Murray, and Gongaware was writing emails about the need to remind him who was paying Murray’s salary. On Monday – Tuesday the frightened and ill Michael was back on stage rehearsing, and on June 16 came the “intervention”.

The “intervention” actually had a very positive effect on Conrad Murray –  after a long period of ignoring Murray AEG finally noticed him, ‘brought him into the fold’ and Kathy Jorrie even presented him with the first draft of their contract. Murray received it on June 15 and the very next day this carrot worked –  there would be no more sick leaves for Michael Jackson and Murray would take care of MJ’s attendance of rehearsals. In short now that the contract became a reality Murray was on his best behavior with the AEG bosses.

It is interesting that out of the three drafts (June 15, 18 and 23) none were sent to Michael Jackson or his representatives though the last draft was made on June 23 when Branca was already in the picture and wanted to see all the documents MJ was supposed to sign. So if MJ was indeed to sign Murray’s contract Kathy Jorrie should have sent it to Branca before giving it to Murray for singing, but she naturally didn’t:

Q. Okay. In fact, but you never communicated with Mr. Jackson, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. You never communicated with Mr. Hawk regarding the Conrad Murray agreement, correct?

A. That’s right.

Q. You never communicated with Dr. — or Mr. Tohme about the Conrad Murray agreement, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You never communicated with John Branca about the agreement, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Never communicated with Mr. Katz about the agreement, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You never communicated with Dr. Lopez at all — excuse me — Mr. Peter Lopez about the agreement, correct?

A. Right.

Q. Did you communicate with anyone that you understood was a representative of Michael Jackson regarding that Dr. Murray contract that you were drafting?

A. No.

Q. So would it be fair to say that you didn’t send any of the drafts or the last version of the contract to any representative of Michael Jackson?

A. That’s fair to say.

Kathy Jorrie explained it by the fact that she wanted to send it to MJ’s side after they agreed about everything between themselves and then MJ’s representatives would be free to make their comments:

Q. Why didn’t you check with Mr. Jackson or his representatives before making this change?

A. Because we were negotiating the contract to a point where when it was to a place where Dr. Murray was happy with the terms, it would be presented to Michael Jackson for review and his representatives for review and comment. And if he had comments, he would be free to provide comments and changes if he wanted to.

But this is a lie because the last version was no draft but the final variant, and Murray was signing the final agreement and not some preliminary paper. This final copy stated the date of execution of the contract as June 24, so there was even no time for any corrections on Michael’s side. They were actually never meant to be made at all and this is why Conrad Murray signed it:

Q. And then the third and final one that Dr. Murray signed, you saved as “final –” wait a minute. “final Michael Jackson AEG GCA Holdings agreement Dr. Murray 6/23/09.pdf,” correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that’s the one that Dr. Murray signed?

A. Correct.

Q. And faxed back to you?

A. Yes.

Q. And you provided that to Mr. Trell?

A. Yes, I did.

On June 18 Kathy Jorrie looked up Murray on the Internet (for 10 minutes as she said) after or before talking to Murray on the phone. It won’t surprise us to learn that the subject of the discussion was insurance.

WHY DID THEY FINALLY NOTICE MURRAY?

Kathy Jorrie requested Murray to help them obtain MJ’s medical records for 5 years prior to 2009 and this makes us suspect that AEG themselves were terribly interested in getting Murray as MJ’s doctor – they thought that he had Michael’s medical records for at least 3 years.  At least he claimed that he had been MJ’s doctor for 3 years before that.

And this is probably why Dr.Murray was preferred by AEG bosses over Dr. Finkelstein or anyone else – Murray was the only doctor who said (most probably wrongly) that he had been in contact with Michael for 3 years after Bahrain. This was not 5 years as was requested by the insurers, but over the number of years they could negotiate as everyone understood that getting medical records from the Prince of Bahrain could be quite a problem.

The comments from AEG’s lawyers at a sidebar were extremely helpful to realize why all this activity around Murray’s contract started in mid-June – AEG began to worry that Michael would not last long but the insurance was still not there. The lawyers talked about it for so long that the meaning of all those statements finally dawned on me – they started working on Murray’s contract only when they realized that he could be helpful to them in two directions – as a guarantee of Michael’s presence at rehearsals and as a way to obtain the papers needed by them for the insurance!

All this AEG fuss was centering around June 18:

Q. And the day you did the Google search was on what day?

A. It was on the 18th of June.

…Ms. Bina (for AEG). To be clear, your honor, I’m only asking for her to explain the reasons why she didn’t conduct broader searches on the 18th. … I’m only asking that she be able to repeat a conversation she had with Dr. Murray on the 18th…. What the witness will testify, your honor, is that she felt comfortable doing this sort of limited search just to check that he was basically who he said he was because of his assurances that he had a long-term relationship with Michael Jackson and had treated him for three years …And that was part of — part of her thinking and reasoning and part of why she conducted the search that she did, specifically that he had said, “I treated him for three years,” that kind of thing.

… Mr. Bloss (for the Jacksons). So now we get into did Ms. Jorrie tell Mr. Phillips that Murray said Jackson was in great health when, in fact, Phillips knew that he was not in great health because he’d been getting reports, he had done the, quote, intervention meeting on the 16th.

… Ms. Bina. If that’s the case, your honor, I think the June 23rd statements by Dr. Murray would also come in.

Judge. What’s the June 23rd statement? Was that the police statement?

Ms. Bina. No. His statements to Ms. Jorrie when he repeatedly affirmed to her again that Michael Jackson was in good health in connection with the insurance stuff, and he’d only had his file for three years and it would be very tiny.

So one more piece of truth is becoming clearer.

In mid-June AEG realized that Murray could be a great help to them not only in terms of forcing Michael to go to rehearsals, but in terms of obtaining the insurance too – he claimed he had a file for 3 years, though a very tiny one, and this could be presented as at least something to the insurers to satisfy their requirements for the physical to be made on July 6 in London.

When the practical use of Murray was finally brought home to AEG they hurried up with his contract. For a month and a half before that they couldn’t care less about Murray and what he was doing to Michael. Actually they noticed Murray for the first time only when he had the audacity to give Michael a sick leave on June 12 which was followed by the ‘intervention’. If Kai Chase in her testimony was indeed speaking about the mid-June period (which we still need to check), then we can imagine what was said to Murray at that meeting if Murray left it muttering to himself that (even) he “can’t take this shit any more”.

But who was Murray to AEG before they finally noticed him? From the fact that they were not paying him money or attention it seems that they regarded him as Michael’s doctor who was none of their business and no matter what they promised to Murray or Michael Jackson they were leaving both of them to their own devices.

From Tohme we know that Michael insisted that the doctor’s salary should be paid by AEG (without any further recoupment), and AEG did indeed include Murray into their budget but until mid-June all this was done half-heartedly, with much dragging of their feet. AEG  was “stalling” Murray and Michael Jackson together with him. One of the reasons for that was economizing of course – they did not want to pay Murray and even tried to manipulate the dates in order to cut his salary at least by two months (the draft said that the contract was to take effect on June 24 and it was only after Murray noticed it that Kathy Jorrie changed it to May 1).

But after the intervention meeting things drastically changed and without realizing it Kathy Jorrie herself is explaining to us the difference between “before” and “after”. What she essentially says is that previously they could not care less about Murray as they regarded him to be in Michael’s employment, but when they finally realized his usefulness and made a contract with him his status changed – now he was an AEG’s employee, was to provide services requested of him by the Producer, or otherwise why need the contract at all?

Q. Would it surprise you to have heard that Dr. Murray was fully engaged with Mr. Jackson in May 2009?

A. Not at all, Ms. Bina.

Ms. Bina. Why not?

A. Because I understood from Dr. Conrad Murray and — as well that Michael Jackson — excuse me — Dr.Conrad Murray was Michael Jackson’s personal physician for three years.

Ms. Bina. Dr. Murray actually told you that?

A. He did.

Q. Did you ever tell Murray — Dr. Murray not to perform services to Mr. Jackson until his agreement with AEG Live was fully executed?

A. Of course not.

Q. And, again, why not?

A. The reason, Ms. Bina, is because Dr. Conrad Murray was Michael Jackson’s physician, and it would not have been my place to suggest that he shouldn’t perform services for a patient that had been his patient for a number of years.

Ms. Bina. Did Dr. Murray need an agreement with AEG Live to treat his long-term patient?

A. No, he did not need an agreement with AEG Live to perform services for a patient of his, including Michael Jackson.

But if they realized that Murray did not need an agreement with AEG to perform services for Michael why did AEG insert themselves between Murray and MJ then? And why did they do it in mid-June in particular?

If there was no specific reason for bringing the doctor into the fold for purposes of their own they could have given Michael an advance and he could have paid Murray from that sum, without any involvement of AEG into the deal. But AEG did get in, drafted a direct employer/employee contract with Murray and were finally ready to go with him into contractual relations.

The fact that it was a direct employer/employee contract is confirmed by several things in that contract. One of them is that Murray was to provide services requested of him by the Producer, and the second is that the contract allowed AEG to terminate Murray at any time and this could be done without Michael Jackson’s consent:

 Q. I’m talking about producer. There were terms where the producer had several ways to terminate Dr. Murray’s agreement that did not require Mr. Jackson’s consent, correct?

K.Jorrie: Consent wasn’t written into this document; so yes, I think that’s correct.

Imagine yourselves in Murray’s shoes for a moment, and you will realize that the party who can fire you is your real boss. Michael could also fire Murray but he had to take an indirect route – first he was to complain to AEG and it was their job to take the final decision.

And after that AEG has the audacity to dispute that Murray was not in their employment? And that there was no conflict of interest?  Who do they take us for? Complete idiots? And I am not even saying that Kathy Jorrie did not send Murray’s contract to any of Michael’s representatives! What did they need them for? It was a matter between AEG and Murray only, and it was only their adding a requirement for Michael’s signature to that contract which gave one more twist to this already crooked story. I doubt that this was done with Michael’s consent but since at the moment I cannot prove it I won’t go into that.

MURRAY’S SERVICES FOR THE ARTIST? NO, FOR PRODUCER! 

If you are still undecided whether Conrad Murray had or didn’t have a conflict of interest in this matter please look at the notorious phrase in his contract saying that he was to perform the services requested of him by the Producer.

This phrase alone points to the obvious – Conrad Murray had a terrible conflict of interest between a friend and an employer.

And it does not even matter who was to pay Murray money. If Murray was performing services requested by the Producer and this Producer was to pay for those services, it was a simple and straight case of Murray being in direct AEG’s employment.

And if Michael was to pay and Murray was nevertheless performing the services requested of him by the Producer, it makes things even worse – MJ pays him for being his personal doctor, but Murray still does what is requested of him by someone else! This way Murray gets money from one person but actually works for another one, and it is only due to AEG’s gigantic efforts to cloud the picture and drown us in a thousand technicalities that people are still having a problem with understanding so clear a matter.

One of the experts who was called to cloud our vision was Dr. Gary Green, a sports medicine expert testifying for AEG.  Just one quote from Gary Green is enough for us to explain how far he is ready to go to stretch the truth in favor of AEG. He testified on day 71, week 16 of the trial:

AEG called their next expert witness, Dr. Gary Green. Attorney Jessica Stebbins Bina is doing direct examination.

The doctor said he spent about 115 hours in this case, bills $500 per hour. He said he’s billed approximately $20,000 to $25,000 up-to-date

There will be about $25,000 to $30,000 to be billed, total approximately $50,000.

Bina asked if he agrees with Dr. Matheson this is a conflict of interest case. “I disagree with Dr. Matheson completely,” Dr. Green said.

… Dr. Green pointed out Dr. Murray asked to change the contract to limit him to perform services requested by artist, not producer. “I believe that it further demonstrates Dr. Murray’s independence from AEG Live.”

So in Dr. Green’s opinion this request “further demonstrates Dr. Murray’s independence from AEG Live? But even if Murray mustered all his independence to make a request isn’t it much more important whether the request was met or denied? And the request was denied, however despite that Murray quickly signed the contract which blatantly said that his primary responsibility was performing services requested of him by Producer.

Where do they get unbiased experts like that I wonder? Or is it the number of hours billed by them that distorts their perception so much? Well, the above told us all we need to know about Dr. Gary Green so that will be all about this expert in this post.

However there is one more person in the Michael Jackson environment who attracts our attention by misrepresenting the truth about Murray’s contract, and this person is Ivy, one of the Senior Staff of MJJCommunity fan forum.

I thought that nothing can amaze me about the Senior Staff of MJJCommunity any longer, but this time Ivy really amazed me by a nearly open declaration of her extreme bias towards AEG. It was the openness of it which was so amazing – knowing how careful these people are, so open an attempt to distort the truth was indeed a surprise.

The instance I am talking about is when Ivy posted a comparison of two drafts of Conrad Murray’s contract and pointed out to MJ’s fans that  in the phrase about whose requests were to be met by Murray the Producer was replaced by the Artist.

Ivy is a longtime Senior Staff of MJJCommunity who has taken upon herself the task of making the ‘full’ summary of Katherine Jackson vs. AEG Live case. After each post she gets a mass of thanks from the grateful MJ fans.

Her access to exclusive information is indeed amazing and makes us think that she is privy to the AEG case – for example, she can provide you with a summary of a video deposition no one has yet seen at the AEG trial, but her strange choice of facts and lack of pertinent comment on them makes you wonder and is like a bucket of cold water each time – you simply don’t expect a fan to shower you with all this negativism and then leave you to cope with it without any help.

And negativism about MJ is prevailing over everything else in those reports. If you want to know what AEG experts say about Michael Jackson addiction issues the summary of each will be readily available to you in the form of short bullets for easier consumption, and the latest AEG motions on considering the case a “non-suit” (non-existent) will also come there in much more detail than the Plaintiff’s motion with the main AEG ideas singled out in bold type.

However most of it will not be balanced by the summaries from the experts on the Plaintiff’s side. In fact several months of their testimonies are simply omitted in this ‘full’ summary case and after the beginning of the trial sometime in March-April all information is resumed only now, when it is AEG’s turn to present their case. Well, this is at least what we see on this particular thread as I haven’t gone any further.

It was actually while looking for the latest motions of both sides in this case that I found what Ivy is writing about Conrad Murray’s contract. “Writing” about it is a grave exaggeration of course because all we have is a crypt comment that it is “2 versions of Murray’s contract”undated early version http://www.scribd.com/doc/128116431/CM-AEG-Agreement and june 23rd version http://www.scribd.com/doc/158739657/…ne-23-Contract

This is followed by a comment that it has to do with “producer / artist changes mentioned at testimony” and then by the groundbreaking news that “the earlier version” that “mentioned services requested by producer (part 1)” was replaced by “services requested by artist (part 1 changed)” in the june 23 version of Murray’s contract.

MJJ Community August 10, 2009

MJJ Community continued August 10, 2009

This super-short text is accompanied by the two variants of the contract for individual study.

Let us look at this scarce text agan and compare our first impressions of what we read.  Our impression is that someone (?) testified at the AEG trial and said that the earlier draft was about Murray performing services requested by the Producer but in the final variant Producer was replaced by the Artist. If taken in combination with Dr. Gary Green’s words about Conrad Murray’s ‘independence’ you indeed get the impression that Murray requested a change and the request was met.

This is how myths are created.

The reality is that this change never happened in terms of Murray’s responsibilities, and the only other change in this respect was made in another part (Scope of Services) of the contract and this change was made in favor of AEG, and absolutely not in favor of Michael Jackson.

However the first impression was that AEG did indeed amend their position and to see what’s what I began looking for the testimony where this information could be contained, and this is how I ended up reading Kathy Jorrie’s two days of testimony. It is she who spoke about that change in the Scope of Services section of Murray’s contract:

Panish: So if we look at paragraph 1 here, this is where you change the “producer” to “artist” under scope of services, correct?

Jorrie: Yes.

Q. And this version, along with the first two, provided, without in any way limiting any other term or provision, Murray and GCA shall perform the services reasonably requested by producer, correct?

A. You’re now looking at something other than the one —

Q. 4.1. Let’s go to that. 4.1, just like the first two versions of the agreement that you drafted and sent to Mr. Trell, said that Dr. Murray was to perform the services reasonably requested by the producer, right?

A. Yes, it said that.

Q. And that was in every one of the versions that you wrote, correct?

A. Yes.

So each of Kathy Jorrie’s drafts said that Murray’s responsibility was to perform the services requested of him by Producer, but in the Scope of Services the word was indeed changed to the Artist at the final moment. The word “change” sticks to your memory and creates the impression that at least in some respect the Producer met Murray’s request,  however a further look shows that AEG absolutely DID NOT change anything in Michael’s favor and made it only worse.

I bet you don’t understand a single thing of what we are talking about, so let me explain.

All three drafts of Murray’s contract stated that his Number One Responsibility was an obligation to perform services reasonably requested by PRODUCER. 

Why was it his responsibility? Because it came in the section of “Responsibilities of Dr. Murray”. Why was it his number one responsibility?  Because even numerically it was listed first among his responsibilities:

Murray's Number one responsibility

However one small change was indeed made in Murray’s contract and it came in a different paragraph called “The Scope Services”. After reading it we can even guess why the correction was made – AEG themselves realized that it was their big mistake as it actually contradicted their 4.1 point.

This is what the scope of Murray’s services included in the earlier draft of the contract:

  • tending to the Artist’s general medical needs and assisting and treating the Artist in the case of a medical emergency. Dr. Murray shall also provide such other services as are reasonably requested by Producer from time to time during the term hereof.
Earlier variant of the Scope of services.

The earlier variant said that services requested by Producer were to be performed “from time to time” only

The implication of the earlier variant was that the services were to be focused on the Artist, but from time to time Dr. Murray would also provide the services requested of him by Producer. This paragraph about the scope of services could sound even okay, but only in case we forgot that another paragraph in the same contract said that Murray’s Number One Responsibility was to follow Producer’s requests.

And now comes the final draft of the contract made on June 23, 2009 as per our knowledgeable Ivy. The wording of the same paragraph of Murray’s scope of services was corrected and now it is as follows:

  • tending to the Artist’s general medical needs and assisting and treating the Artist in the case of a medical emergency. Dr. Murray shall also provide such other services as are reasonably requested by Artist from time to time during the term hereof.
The June 23d variant of the Scope of Services

The final June 23d variant said that Murray was to provide services to the Artist “from time to time” only

Now the meaning has changed into its opposite:  previously Dr. Murray’s occasional services were to be provided to the Producer, but now it will be the Artist to whom services will be provided from time to time, while the main and continuous services will go to AEG.

This way the final wording put all points of Conrad Murray’s contract into one line – Murray’s Responsibility Number One was to service the Producer, but from time to time he was allowed to also provide services requested of him by Michael Jackson!

It was very generous of course of AEG to allow Murray from time to time to provide services requested of him by Michael Jackson, but now we understand that this change only worsened Michael’s situation and made Murray’s work terms harsher than before.

By this further change Murray was once again told by AEG not to forget himself and remember who his boss is. And if previously we could still have some doubts, the final variant of this contract does not allow any room for misinterpretation – Murray’s employer was AEG.

After corrections like that Murray was to force Michael to rehearse even when he could barely drag his feet after a sleepless night.  Now he  could no longer give Michael a sick leave as he did it before, on June 12.  And now it was also Murray’s responsibility to take care of the medical files for the insurance which is what he was actually doing on the night when Michael died. He put Michael on Propofol and left him unmonitored because he had to run about with those papers and it was during all that text-messaging activity that his patient stopped breathing and Murray did not notice. This does not absolve Murray of his enormous guilt, but now we at least know why he was doing it.

Does the Senior Staff of MJJCommunity inform us that the crucial changes in Murray’s contract were made in favor of AEG  and not MJ? Absolutely not! Moreover the impression we get from Ivy’s post is that Murray’s contract was changed in favor of the Artist, and I am very much afraid that this distortion of the truth was the whole idea of this (mis)information.

True that she didn’t give any comment on it, but then what was the point of drawing the fans’ attention to that change in the contract at all?

And why does it give me the creeps to know that this kind of briefing has been provided to MJ’s fans on a continuous basis since September 2009?

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MICHAEL JACKSON!

When the post was written Jolie left a comment on it and a tribute video which I am now adding here together with some comments from people who also have something to say on Michael’s impact on the world. Today is Michael’s birthday and it is the right time to recall it.

Jolie said:  

  • Mark 6:4 “But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country…” This video is recorded in Maastricht – Netherlands and broadcasted by the German Television ZDF on Aug. 1, 2009

André RieuEarth Song / Tribute to Michael Jackson, 2009.  

I’ve found one more tribute to Michael Jackson from Andre Rieu. It’s ‘Heal the world’ and together with the video I am also adding some comment from its viewers:

Heal the world, South Africa, 2010

  • lammegoedzak : “If there’s one thing MJ did, it was bring people together..and they still do, no matter what race or color… if you look it that way, he has healed the world a bit”
  • annieRU0k58:  “Heal the World should be the anthem of the United Nations…and I’m not kidding”.

And the next video is actually coming from Michael himself. It is dated January 16, 1993 and reminds me of the time before all this nightmare started – the scalp surgery, the allegations, the witch hunt, his struggle to dull the pain and the anguish of all of it taken together which is not ending even today.

In January 1993 Michael received the NAACP award for Best Video for ‘Black Or White’ and Artist of the Year, which was followed by a tribute to Michael from Patti Labelle, Daryl Coley and Faith Choir singing “Will you be there”. Michael was there with his mother and this was probably the last when they were so unconditionally happy.

Patti Labelle & Daryl Coley – Will You Be There, January 1993 [Michael Jackson NAACP]

Twenty years have passed since then and these days the viewer 99von is leaving a pertinent comment:

  • "First I'd like to say Thank you to my mother"

    “First I’d like to say Thank you to my mother”

    An amazing and special person, Michael Jackson, was honestly loved and respected here. The same amazing, respected, special person, Michael Jackson, is right now flogged and violated by media in 2013. Four years after passing away again and more than ever. It’s a shame!”

"She is the one in blue"

“You see her tonight – she is the one in blue”

And this is what Michael said at the ceremony:

I really wasn’t expecting to win this. I was … I love you all very, very much.

Thank you to the NAACP and all of you. You are very dear, sweet, loving people. Thank you so much!

First I’d like to say ‘Thank you’ to my mother. 

You see her tonight — she’s the one in blue. Thank you for giving me life — I really mean that. I love you.

[Screaming fans in the audience. Michael laughs]

"She is the one in blue"

“Thank you for giving me life – I really mean that. I love you”

I love you, too.

There are two things which the NAACP stands for which are the most important things in my life: freedom and equality.

In every person there is a secret song in their heart. It says: ‘I am free!’, it sings: ‘I am One!’

This is the natural feeling of every child.

To be free as the wind, to be one with every other child. All the troubles in the world are caused by forgetting this feeling.

to be one

I accept this award on behalf of the world’s healing

And when I perform my connection is with people just to remind me of that – to be Free and to be One.

In this spirit the NAACP has done its cherished work. Thank you for having the faith to see that I share your work — for I deeply feel I do.

I accept this award on behalf of the world’s healing. When all our brothers and sisters will be as free and equal as we are today.  

I love you so much and I am very honoured and thank you for this award.

Thank you so much.

.

.

.

The September 7, 2013 Update regarding my reply to Ivy of MJJCommunity:

Guys, there is one unpleasant job I need to finish.

You remember that in this post I wrote about the strange bias of Ivy of the MJJCommunity in favor of AEG in reporting the trial. I first noticed it on their Discussion thread where tons of dirt from various people were poured on Katherine Jackson and no one was saying a word against AEG, which was astonishing and made me exclaim whether they knew what they were doing at all.

As a result of my activity I got banned and then forgot about that episode – until recently I came upon their other thread called “Katherine Jackson vs AEG Live – FULL Case History / Summary” where Ivy compared two variants of Murray’s contract and drew the fans’ attention to a paragraph where the word Producer was replaced by the Artist.

The quoted piece omitted that the services for the Artist were to be performed “from time to time” which changed the meaning into the opposite and this made me question Ivy’s motives as you remember. In fact I wondered why she thought it necessary to draw the fans’ attention to that producer/artist change at all.

Ivy wrote to me a Facebook message containing 8 detailed points covering a broad range of issues from freedom of speech in her country to the specifics of this blog. She also explained that their policy is reporting “naked information” without any comment on it (like the media does) for everyone to decide for themselves, and asked for an apology.

I refused as I consider my position well-grounded. Before answering Ivy I went to their thread once again to double check my conclusions and this time studied all the 38 posts currently there. Unfortunately the study only confirmed my first impression – the information reported on the thread is not neutral and is biased in favor of AEG.

Below you will find my explanation to Ivy of this point of view.

Ivy, sorry for the delay – I didn’t see that you answered me. Your replies made me look up the thread once again and this gave me with a lot more information about your bias towards AEG than I ever expected.

The headline of the thread we are discussing here is “Katherine Jackson vs AEG Live – FULL Case History / Summary” which is utterly misleading as it makes the reader think that it is indeed a full case summary, and there is no need to go anywhere else. At least I as a reader had this impression so I will limit myself to what I see in this thread without analyzing anything else on the forum.

My line of reasoning is that if it says it is full, it should be full indeed.

1) You have replied to me in each of your answers that you provide “naked information” without any comment and do not push your opinion on others. This is not true. I’ve seen numerous examples of your comments and pushing your opinion on your readers.

Here are only some examples of your comments:

• Geez a strong start: AEG starts with saying the only thing that the complaint got right was that “MJ’s death was tragic” , they refer everything else to be false.
• Katherine is asking AEG to provide any documents about Murray’s medical treatment of Michael (good luck finding that)
• guess what emails were given to LA Times? yep they are dating back to 2008. That’s why AEG says it can only be Jacksons and not Lloyds.
• Howard Mann says he is the source and his source are not the Jacksons. Ha,Ha,Ha

Actually you go even as far as commenting on the newspapers articles you post – in the body of the article itself, for example here wtf?????? was added:

• “AEG Live refuses to acknowledge that that the singer himself had no fault for bringing about his own death, according to Boyle’s court papers. wtf????????

2) Besides small comments here and here there is also a noticeable tendency on your part to explain the position of AEG and seldom (if ever) do the same for Katherine Jackson’s side. But if you think that the readers are able to interpret everything themselves, there is absolutely no need to explain things for AEG – impartiality should indeed be impartiality and not helping readers to understand one side only.

The examples of your explanations for AEG are dozens per page with some variation from page to page. Even the first ones produce the following result:

• (simply put they say: just because we have a contract with Michael for concerts that requires physical activity, it doesn’t mean that we are legally responsible for his health).
• (in other words they argue that even if they knew Michael’s sleep problems they couldn’t guess treatment with anesthesia)
• (In other words they say even if they hired Murray, they cannot be responsible for his negligence (they cite a case that says asking an employee to get a medical test doesn’t bring the company the obligation to oversee the medical exam)
• (In basic terms they try to say “we cannot prevent something from happening if we had no idea about it happening”)

So on and so forth.

3) You say that the thread contains documents only, however this does not explain the presence of numerous newspaper articles there. The principles of their selection is another big issue which requires a separate discussion.

When AEG won a round in the pretrial period you posted two articles that the court would make Katherine and the children answer more questions from AEG turning it into a special post (out of 38 in the thread). Given that the informative value of the above is minimal the need to post those articles at all raises questions, unless the main idea was to show that AEG did have a certain win.

When there was a leak of AEG emails to the press you devoted several posts (from post No. 9 to post No. 13) to an incredibly extensive media coverage of it, all of which was hateful to the Jacksons and included your “Ha,Ha,Ha” about Mann as a possible source of those leaks and numerous explanations to readers why AEG could not be a source of such leaks.

Why was it so terribly important to explain all that in several of your posts? And why – if your thread allows such explanations at all – didn’t you make a similarly detailed explanation of changes in Conrad Murray’s contract where it was indeed necessary as AEG was engaged in active misinformation of people?

In fact not only the explanation was missing but even the change itself in Conrad Murray’s contract was reported by you inaccurately, which contradicts the next principle you are declaring in your replies.

4) You say that your business is to do accurate and unbiased reporting similar to the one done by the media. It is an interesting statement considering how often the media lies to us, but this is not the point. The point is that your report on the changes in Conrad Murray’s contract is the quintessence of inaccuracy because you omitted the crucial part of the story.

All that was actually required of you was to quote one sentence from the contract AS IT IS and your readers would have understood the situation even without any comment on your part.

The sentence is the following one in the initial variant of the contract:

  • “Dr. Murray shall also provide such other services as are reasonably requested by Producer FROM TIME TO TIME during the term hereof”

The final variant was corrected and said:

  • “Dr. Murray shall also provide such other services as are reasonably requested by Artist FROM TIME TO TIME during the term hereof”

“From time to time” is put here in bold type as it is the only thing that matters here.

In the initial variant Murray was to provide services to Producer from time to time only (so the main job was to be done for the artist), and in the final variant the services for the Artist were to be provided from time to time, while the main job was to be done for the Producer.

This way AEG put the beginning of the contract in accordance with their paragraph 4.1 where “services requested by the Producer” were declared as Murray’s main responsibility and turned the contract into a fully Producer-oriented one.

However your report of the above was based on:

• a shortened quote which omitted the key part of the story – you just said that Producer was changed into Artist and that’s it, and
• you also refrained from any explanation though in this particular case it was top necessary, or otherwise people could think that AEG was turning Murray’s contract into MJ’s favor (which they were not).

Kathy Jorrie, a lawyer for AEG did exactly the same at Murray’s trial and everyone swallowed the AEG lie then.

This lack of appropriate comment is all the more surprising considering that before that you never hesitated to explain, detail and even provide media reports when it came to detailing AEG’s position.

5) Actually the materials explaining AEG’s position on your thread take approximate 80% of its space, if not more.

To explain this phenomenon you say that you take only the information available on the LA Supreme Court page. If this is indeed so, we will have to assume that there is nothing on the LA Supreme Court list but: 1) depositions of Randy Jackson and Taunya Jackson, 2) declarations (no depositions) from AEG people stating the essence of their false story 3) detailed explanation why the case against AEG should have been thrown out of court even before going there (the so-called summary judgment motion) plus appeal papers from AEG 4) media reports to detail the AEG case further 5) and some other documents like lists of witnesses on both sides, etc. which do not change the general impression that the thread is mostly about AEG and their views on this trial.

And this is being done despite the declaration that the thread is “Katherine Jackson vs AEG Live – FULL Case History / Summary”. A much more appropriate name for it would the full summary of AEG’s case against Jacksons.

There is a lot more to say about it and a lot more examples to give, but even the above will show to you what you yourself know perfectly well – you are writing on a MJ fan forum but are biased in favor of AEG, and I am absolutely ready to prove it with respective quotes from the above thread.

Any talk about “neutral” reporting is out of the question – well, at least on this thread.

However this is not all.

6) Your statements about my blog and my treatment of those who do not share my point of view are as false and inaccurate as is your coverage of Jacksons vs. AEG case on your thread.

I won’t go into detail here but your ally Shelly will probably explain to you that she is not banned from my blog (though I am banned from your forum) and she is free to say whatever she likes there.

The only right I reserved for myself as the admin of the blog is that each time Shelly speaks about AEG I will inform my readers that she is most probably acting as a spokeswoman for AEG. As regards everything else there are no limitations – as long as everyone knows who she is speaking for it is okay.

I prefer everyone to be honest and ask everyone (you included) to be one. My dislike for lies is the only “fault” you can find with me. So as long as you honestly say whose position you support it is okay with me.

However this contrasts deeply with the treatment of my comments on your forum. After I openly expressed my views on AEG there I was simply banned and this is all there is to say about the type of democracy you are practicing on MJJCommunity.

7) Let me also note that you are misinforming your readers about the status of other authors in my blog. Those who wrote for the blog are still there and still enjoy the status of its authors. They have the full right to make posts and probably will if they want to, though now they have a blog of their own too.

And you will also be surprised to learn that I do not hate AEG. I hate LIES and speak for the truth in my blog, and if for once in their lives AEG chose to tell the truth about what they did to Michael Jackson I would embrace them with my both hands.

But they and the people who are supporting them are choosing to fool people with their false stories, and this is indeed what I detest, and why I have to do research to be able to finally learn the truth.

And when someone boasts to be honest, true and totally neutral while all the time consistently misinforming people – this is what I find totally unacceptable.

Each of us is making our own choice at each particular moment in time, and each of us is a continuity in terms of our evolvement. What was our yesterday should not necessarily be our tomorrow.

Make a different choice, speak for the truth and though you will still be my opponent if you support AEG, there will be no need for me to write posts about what’s going on the MJJCommunity forum.

The debate will be HONEST, and this is what I am striving for.

To see whether my conclusions are correct (or not) I encourage everyone to go to the thread and have a look for themselves. Here is the thread: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/128731-Katherine-Jackson-vs-AEG-Live-Full-Case-History-Summary

99 Comments leave one →
  1. 29mj permalink
    March 16, 2014 9:36 am

    I want to thank you Helena to your research, especially to everybody does tribute to Michael J. Looking at video, I Just Can’t Stop My Tears! Tears, tears… and more love, respect for a precious wisdom, intelligence that you proved with honesty. I congratulate you with all my heart and wish you good health! My prayers are to God for you and for everyone else humans beings valuables. I love you Helena, appreciate you as much as I love Michael! Good Luck! Blessings and guidance of God be upon all people of worldwide. God bless us.

    Like

  2. September 19, 2013 5:05 pm

    Guys, it seems that the testimony after playing Dr. Metzger’s deposition continued. It was followed by Detective Scott Smith answering a couple of questions about Kathy Jorrie and then by live testimony of Dr. Metzger, and this time he said the truly crucial words:

    – it was dr. Forecast who disrupted Michael’s recovery from Demerol dependency as he gave him too much Demerol on the Dangerous tour
    – in the 2nd half of the History tour MJ developed a problem with sleeplessness and Dr. Metzger made a plan how to help Michael sleep and sent it to eveyone including Gongaware, so Gongaware was perfectly aware that stress and fatigue exacerbated Michael’s insomnia
    – when Michael was not in stress he could sleep with Tylenol PM
    – and FINALLY THE MAIN WORDS: Michael was stressed out because of the 50 shows! This is the reason why he could not sleep…..

    So here is day 81 continued:

    Det. Smith said he takes notes contemporaneously as the interview is being taken. He types the notes once back at the office.
    Jessica Bina did cross examination then. Jorrie agreed to meet with the police, Det. Smith said. He said she was very cooperative.
    Det. Smith said he writes down a summary of the interview, not like a court reporter. “I’d imagine some things are missed,” he said.
    Bina: Do you recall word for word what Ms. Jorrie said? Det. Smith: I do not
    Bina: Was that in any way relevant to your investigation into Dr. Murray? Det. Smith: None whatsoever
    Bina: People with financial problems could follow the law? Det. Smith: Yes
    Panish, in re-direct, asked if contract between AEG and Murray drew his attention to the figure the doc was going to be paid. Det. said yes
    Panish: You had serious concerns about that contract and Dr. Murray’s financial issues? Det. Smith: Yes
    Panish: You didn’t know anything about how much money Ms. Jorrie had been paid by AEG, right, sir? Det. Smith: No
    Panish: They didn’t tell you that, right? Det. Smith: No, they did not
    Panish: You have no recollection whatsoever of Jorrie or Putnam saying it was a *potential* world tour? Det. Smith: No, sir.
    Bina, in re-cross: Does it matter to you it was MJ was paying Dr. Murray? Det. Smith: No, ma’am
    Bina: You were not investigating AEG Live? Det. Smith: No, ma’am
    Bina: It wasn’t who was paying, just the amount? Det. Smith: Definitely the amount
    Interview was approximately an hour, Det. Smith said. He said he was given copy of the contract.
    Bina: Between .. and Ms. Jorrie, who would know the contract better? Det. Smith: Of course Ms. Jorrie
    Witness is excused, judge adjourned court until today at 10 am PT.

    Outside the presence of the jury, Panish said he wants to call Dr Metzger
    Judge inquired extensively about what Dr. Metzger will say that it’s new. She doesn’t want cumulative testimony.
    Kevin Boyle argued Dr. Metzger was to be called by AEG live. Putnam countered that they should’ve done it in their case in chief.
    Judge said she’s willing to give Panish one hour to question Dr. Metzger, who will come as live witness. Court resumes at 10 am PT.

    “I did not ever ever see him intoxicated with too many pain medications,” he said.
    Dr. Metzger: I wasn’t concerned about anesthesia, I was always concerned about too many surgeries.
    Dr. Metzger said he would agree that MJ needed the majority of the surgeries he underwent, specially after the burn.
    Dr. Metzger said he did several examinations of Michael for insurance prior to tours.
    Dangerous tour: Metzger: I was informed he’d (Forecast) be taking over the medical role, and I would not be needed because of the distance
    Dr. Metzger got a call during the tour. There were couple of issues related to dehydration and Dr. Forecast administering Demerol.
    Sleep issues: That was the first time I was aware of the issue, didn’t have problems in Bad tour, the doctor said.
    Chang: Did you try to work with Forecast to resolve the issue?
    Dr. Metzger: I think we had 2-3 discussions on how to lower the dose of Demerol
    Dr. Metzger: I don’t know if he didn’t follow my recommendations or it didn’t work.
    Dr. Metzger said he watched MJ’s short video “Ghost.” Chang showed photo of Dr. Metzger and Michael Jackson as the white mayor.
    Chang: Did he enjoy going out incognito? Dr. Metzger: Oh, he loved it!
    The doctor said MJ always had a message in his short film, that humans should be human beings to each other.
    Chang played clip of “Heal the World” film and “Earth Song.” Dr. Metzger watched them with somber face, shook his head to the beat at times
    “It’s hard to see that,” Dr. Metzger expressed after movies were played, somewhat emotional.

    Metzger said MJ approached him to go on “HIStory” tour. He thought it would be fun, wanted doc to be best man on his wedding to Debbie Rowe
    Chang showed letter from Metzger to insurance company that he’d be accompanying MJ, cast members and crew (180-190 people) in HIStory tour
    Dr. Metzger: I basically asked for nothing (payment). I knew this would be an honor, would bill based on being needed.
    He said he would’ve charged his normal house call rate, if they needed him during the tour.
    In the tour, his main responsibility was with Michael Jackson. He said he was never approached by a promoter/producer with a contract.
    Dr. Metzger said he never had the issue where he had to put MJ in danger to continue the tour.
    “I never put in jeopardy his health for performance,” he said.
    Chang showed Murray’s contract to Metzger and asked if he was ever given a contract that says doctor could be terminated by the producer.
    “I’ve never seen a document like this,” Dr. Metzger said.
    He said he would’ve never signed a document that had that clause in it, it’s a conflict of interest.

    Chang: Were would your allegiance fall, with the producer or patient?
    Dr. Metzger: Of course the patient, regardless if it was MJ or not
    Dr. Metzger said he knew MJ was going to get married to Debbie Rowe during the HIStory tour. During the tour he found out Rowe was pregnant.
    The doctor said MJ always wanted to be a father.
    Chang: Did he enjoy being a father?
    Dr. Metzger: Very much so
    Dr. Metzger: The relationship was extremely loving, non fearful.
    Dr. Metzger: I see he did a wise thing over the years of not exposing their faces, so they could go out and not be recognized.
    “It was a beautiful, caring, solid relationship,” Dr. Metzger explained.

    The doctor said he saw several MJ shows, but nothing like what he saw in Sydney, Australia. Chang played snippet of the show.
    Dr. Metzger saw all the shows in Australia. He said MJ would lose 7-8 pounds after each performance.
    In his deposition, Dr. Metzger said he didn’t remember who Paul Gongaware was. He said he didn’t have all his records with him.
    Chang: As the HIStory tour doctor, were you concerned with MJ’s sleeping disorder during the second leg of the tour?
    Dr. Metzger: Yes, I was
    The doctor wrote a letter detailing a plan to help MJ sleep. He said he sent a copy of it to the producer, MJ, Karen Faye, Debbie Rowe.
    “I know that Michael can’t sleep when he’s creating, or after he was creating, he always wanted to make it better,” Dr. Metzger recalled.
    The doctor said he didn’t think there was a plan for Dangerous tour. He didn’t think a good job was done then.
    Dangerous was cut short so MJ could enter rehab. Dr. Metzger said Dr. Forecast gave MJ too much Demerol.
    “I wanted to be proactive and ready,” the doctor said about HIStory tour. He testified he sent a copy of the plan to Gongaware, as producer
    “MJ was really tired and very frustrated, he felt he wasn’t performing well,” Dr. Metzger said about his sleepiness.

    Chang: In the 26 years you worked with MJ did he ever ask you for Propofol before the HIStory tour?
    Metzger: Those words were never said by MJ
    Chang: Did MJ ever ask you to find someone to infuse anesthesia in him?
    Dr. Metzger: No
    When not under stress, the doctor said MJ could sleep on Tylenol PM, which generally worked.
    Dr. Metzger: I had one phone conversation in 2009 and I visited him in April 2009.
    Chang: At that time, did MJ ask you for any narcotic or prescription drugs?
    Dr. Metzger: No
    Chang: Did he ever seek painkillers to get high?
    Dr. Metzger: No, I don’t believe this was in any way recreational
    Dr. Metzger said MJ was more stressed when he saw him in April 2009 than during the phone call in Feb. 2009.
    The doctor said the stress was related to “Can I do 50 shows?”
    MJ indicated he could not sleep, the doc said. “This time he was in a totally different place,” Dr. Metzger said.

    The doctor said he had free access to the house and the children. “I was ecstatic to see the children,” the doctor said.
    He was allowed upstairs at Carolwood, did not see any locked doors, medical equipment or oxygen tanks.
    “I had a feeling that any IV given in a home is potentially precarious,” Dr. Metzger explained.
    After leaving the house, Dr. Metzger said he called a few colleagues to see if there was any other medication or avenues to help MJ sleep.
    He spoke with the head of anesthesia at Cedars Sinai, since anesthesiologists have to manage pain and sleep.
    “I needed advice getting him to sleep and I also asked about a doctor in London,” Dr. Metzger explained.
    “I don’t remember if I called back or just relay the message I couldn’t help,” the doctor said.
    Dr. Metzger: Basically he said any IV treatment is potentially dangerous, that he didn’t know anyone who would administer IV anesthesia.
    Dr Metzger: One of the things he discuss was Diprivan.
    April 18, 2009 was the last time Dr. Metzger saw MJ alive.
    Chang showed Dr. Metzger the picture of MJ during fitting on June 19, 2009.
    Chang: Did he look like this?
    Dr. Metzger: Oh no, not at all
    C: Would you’ve been concerned?
    Dr. M: Oh yes, oh yes

    Judge ordered jurors back at 1:30p PT to have a security meeting. Attorneys ordered back at 2:00p PT.

    Like

  3. September 19, 2013 4:05 pm

    Michael did have some economical pressures at the time of his death.7 mln was probably a fair guess at the time. Why else would he have practically given T.Barrack Neverland?
    Branca and McClain did not have a chrystall ball.Only now has the truth of what happened come to be known as has Michael himself,the Man behind the myth.

    Like

  4. September 19, 2013 3:25 pm

    “Actually , if this is all AEG could come up with to smear MJ over a huge possible settlement, Michael must have been one of the most upstanding people on the planet, because just about everyone has said how kind, generous, humble, respectful he was of all people, no matter what their station in life, not to mention a phenomenal father to his children..The burn and pain management of that burn could have happened to any one of us, and the allegations of improper conduct , would overburden , even the strongest of us.” – Nan

    ABSOLUTELY! You couldn’t say it better!

    Like

  5. September 19, 2013 3:16 pm

    “http://www.forbes.com/sites/trialandheirs/2013/09/17/top-5-legal-challenges-facing-michael-jacksons-estate-executors/
    just putting this here if nobody saw it..it says how the media is concentrating on gongaware and phillips being dismissed , but what the judge found about AEG is very bad for aeg and could mean big bucks for the jacksons” – Nan

    Nan, thank you for an interesting article. It is not ideal but it does focus on some crucial issues around Michael at the moment. And I wish it didn’t limit itself to a slight irony over Wade Robson’s case but called it the absurdity it really is.

    Now let me say one other thing. If what we heard of the Estate at this trial is all their opponents have to say about them, all of it is mere child’s talk and no amount of negative emotion can compensate for the lack of any real “guilt” on the part of the Estate lawyers.

    The deadly fight between part of the Jacksons and the Estate (and Sony), also going on in the fan community seems to me some tremendous misunderstanding which I am absolutely willing to sort out when the trial is over and I can really type.

    At the moment all I can ask for is to refrain from this non-stop hate towards the Estate and Sony. They are doing a great job for Michael and none of the Jacksons would have ever been able to do a mere fraction of it if they had taken this business into their hands. All I’m asking for is to be realistic.

    This article is explaining a couple of things:

    Top 5 Legal Challenges Facing Michael Jackson’s Estate Executors

    9/17/2013 @ 11:17AM |5,456 views

    Many people never stop to think of how hard a job it is to administer the estate or trust of someone who passes away. Often, it’s a thankless job, filled with headaches. That’s certainly been the case for the Michael Jackson Estate executors: entertainment attorney John Branca and music executive John McClain. Well, at least the headache part.

    Here are the top 5 legal challenges and complications that the estate executors have had to worry about in the last few months alone:

    1. The AEG Wrongful Death Trial: It’s aThriller!

    Now nearing the five-month mark since opening statements, the heirs of Michael Jackson vs. AEG trial has been filled with twists and turns,
    from Lionel Richie’s ex talking to the King of Pop’s ghost to Jackson’s childhood friendship with a mouse (as revealed by the Rolling Stone).
    Where is the case now? Heading to the jury. While many in the media were quick to report how the Judge recently dismissed two AEG executives from the case, a more telling ruling came down at the same time. As reported by CNN:
    The judge also ruled that the Jacksons “presented substantial evidence” that AEG Live’s “conduct was a substantial factor in causing” Jackson’s death.
    This means that it’s completely up to the jury to decide if the Jackson heirs’ $40 billion claim will win or not. If the jury views the evidence like the Judge, and feels that there is “substantial evidence” that AEG hired Dr. Conrad Murray and helped cause Michael Jackson’s death, then his children and mother could win a huge payday.
    As any trial lawyer can tell you, juries are unpredictable. Often, plaintiffs have an excellent chance at winning once they get their case to the jury. The fact they’ve made it this far could mean big trouble for AEG.
    It also means complications for the estate executors. While they have, for the most part, stayed out of the fighting, more than a few eyebrows were raised when an estate consultant testified in favor of AEG and against the Jackson heirs. He claimed he did so with approval from the executors. The executors later denied they gave him permission, but it highlights how all of this testimony and publicity can only make their job harder.
    For example, the lavish estimates of Jackson’s earning capacity may be used against the estate in its next big court battle: against the Internal Revenue Service.

    2. The IRS Tells The Estate: Who’s Bad?

    Much was made of Michael Jackson’s debt when he passed away — it was recently estimated to be as much as $500 million. While Branca and McClain have taken some heat (like from Randy Jackson, below), there is no disputing that they’ve done a masterful job at guiding the estate through troubled waters into a series of huge paydays. Reportedly, they’ve brought in over $600 million during the first four years.
    There’s one problem that comes with that much success: the tax man. When the Michael Jackson Estate filed its estate tax return, it reportedly claimed his assets were worth only $7 million as of the day he died. The IRS has a slightly different view, estimating the total to be more than one billion dollars … and as much as $1.5 billion, in fact. It says that the estate under-reported his assets so significantly that the estate owes a tax bill of $702 million. The estate disagrees and has sued to fight the IRS.
    A large part of this dispute centers on the value of Jackson’s image and likeness. The IRS claims it was worth $434 million, while the estate’s tax filing placed a value of only $2,105.
    Which of course, raises the question: If Michael Jackson’s image and likeness, not to mention his other assets (the value of his music, for example), were worth as little as the estate’s tax filing claimed, why has the estate earned so much money since he died? While the IRS appears to be overreaching with its figures — especially placing such a high value on his image and likeness and apparently failing to include his extensive debt — certainly, the post-death success shows that the estate was a tad too aggressive in its tax return filing after Michael Jackson died.

    3. Alleged Egg Donor Goes To Court To Send Message To Jackson Kids: I Just Can’t Stop Loving You.

    The Michael Jackson Estate has other headaches to deal with. Like who exactly is the mother of Michael Jackson’s three kids? Deborah Rowe is often referred to as the mother of Michael Jackson’s oldest two children, Prince and Paris.
    But, a new court filing by a woman named Christine Leroux claims that she was the egg donor for all three of Michael’s children, and she enjoyed a secret, lifetime relationship with the King of Pop. She says she will pursue a custody battle through a guardianship proceeding, because she is worried over the welfare of the kids.
    In the filing, Leroux reportedly claims that she chose names for two of the children, she “ordered” Michael Jackson to cover their faces in public, and that she even co-wrote songs Thriller and Heal the World while at the same time helping to create his media image. While Leroux can’t afford an attorney, she wants to take a DNA and lie-detector tests to “prove” the truth behind her words.
    She’ll likely have to come up with some pretty compelling evidence for the Judge to even go so far as a DNA test — certainly she can’t be the only woman who’s come forward claiming to be their “real” mother. Plus, being an egg donor is not the same as being legally recognized as a “mother.” In the meantime, though, it’s yet another legal claim that the estate executors have to contend with.

    4. Randy Jackson Still Mad At The Executors; Wants Them To Beat It.

    As crazy as Leroux’s allegations sound, they don’t stand alone. In fact, far from it. John Branca told 60 minutes that they’ve had to deal with countless ridiculous claims.
    Michael Jackson’s executors also have to deal with continued rumblings from Jackson’s siblings, some of whom maintain that the will was fake. Recently, brother Randy Jackson called Branca and McClain — along with their lead attorney, Howard Weitzman — the “three stooges.” He says the family is not happy with them, and points to the recent IRS dispute as the “tip of the iceberg”.
    After the failed “kidnapping” attempt of Katherine Jackson last year by Randy and two of his siblings (Janet and Jermaine), Randy admits that the siblings are not all getting along. But the only family member who, at this point, has legal standing to challenge the executors is Katherine Jackson. Despite some initial complaining in the months after Michael Jackson’s death, Katherine has not fought Branca and McClain during the last few years. Many people believed that Randy, Janet, and Jermaine took Katherine Jackson last year in an effort to use her to challenge the executors. But no legal challenge materialized.
    Perhaps Katherine and some of the other family members realize that the executors have done an exceptional job bringing in money after Michael Jackson’s death. At $600 million in the first four years, that means that Jackson earned more than any living artist did during the same time period. Not bad for a couple of stooges, right?

    5. The Latest Sex Abuse Claim: Was Jackson A Smooth Criminal?

    And where would Michael Jackson’s legal turmoil be without at least one claim of child molestation? Choreographer Wade Robson was one of the King of Pop’s staunchest allies during the 2005 criminal trial against Michael Jackson — which found him not guilty of child molestation.
    A few months ago, Robson filed a claim against the Estate contending that he was the victim of abuse by Jackson as a child. He points to a breakdown and years of therapy allowing him to reverse course and bring the claim, after repeatedly testifying and saying in interviews that Jackson never touched him.
    Normally, a claim filed against an estate this late into the process would automatically be rejected. But California has liberal rules allowing late filings in cases of sexual abuse, as long as it is within three years after an injury from that type of abuse is discovered.
    Only time will tell if Robson’s claim is legitimate or not. The estate’s attorney calls the claim “outrageous and pathetic,” so a quiet settlement with Robson isn’t likely. This battle is yet another example of how complicated the administration of Michael Jackson’s estate remains — more than four years after the King of Pop’s death.

    Of course, no one should feel too sorry for the executors. They earn a 10% commission on many deals they secure for the estate, including the $250 million Sony deal to release new Michael Jackson songs. So Branca and McClain are well-paid for the work. But they certainly have to work hard to earn it.
    While perhaps no other estate executors and trustees have ever had more complicated legal messes to sort through, the Michael Jackson Estate still has an estate planning lesson for the rest of us. Everyone planning their estate should think carefully about who should serve in that all-important role of executor or trustee.
    Many make the mistake of automatically selecting the oldest child, or the one who lives closest, rather than the person — even if not a family member — who is the most trustworthy and well-qualified to do the job. Administering an estate or trust is never easy — even when there aren’t Jackson-sized legal dilemmas at every turn. So choose carefully when planning your estate and trust!

    By Danielle and Andrew Mayoras, co-authors of Trial & Heirs: Famous Fortune Fights! For the latest celebrity and high-profile cases, with tips to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your clients, click here to subscribe to The Trial & Heirs Update. You can “like” them on Facebook and follow them on Twitter and Google+.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/trialandheirs/2013/09/17/top-5-legal-challenges-facing-michael-jacksons-estate-executors/2/

    Like

  6. September 19, 2013 2:49 pm

    Here is Linda Deutsch’s article about Dr. Metzger as the last AEG’s witness (who can tell me what happened with Tohme and why no one is questioning him?)

    Defense rests case in trial over Jackson’s death

    LINDA DEUTSCH
    Published: Yesterday

    ** FILE ** In this March 5, 2009 file photo, US singer Michael Jackson announces that he is set to play ten live concerts at the London O2 Arena in July, which he announced at a press conference at the London O2 Arena. Lawyers for AEG Live LLC called their final witness on Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2013, in a negligent hiring lawsuit filed by Jackson’s mother against the concert promotion company. AEG Live has shown jurors testimony from several of Jackson’s former doctors and ended their case after playing the videotaped testimony of Jackson’s longtime physician, Dr. Allan Metzger.

    LOS ANGELES (AP) – Lawyers for concert promoter AEG Live LLC rested their defense Wednesday with testimony from a longtime friend and doctor of Michael Jackson in the negligence case filed by Jackson’s mother over his death.
    The trial is in its 21st week and jurors are expected to begin deliberations next week.
    Defense attorneys provided an emotional finale to their presentation, playing the videotaped testimony of Jackson’s physician Dr. Allan Metzger.
    With Katherine Jackson seated in the courtroom’s front row, jurors heard Metzger deliver a tribute to the star.
    “I saw him as a great guy … a wonderful, generous person,” said Metzger, whose account, given on videotape a year ago, delivered perhaps the most human view of the superstar by any witness.
    Metzger spoke of Jackson’s decision to embark on the ultimately ill-fated “This Is It” tour to eradicate the stigma of his child molestation trial.
    “He wanted to redeem Michael Jackson,” said Metzger who visited with the singer at home three months before Jackson died and told of the heart-to-heart talk with him.
    “He wanted to redeem his image,” the doctor said. “He felt this was it and he wanted to go out with a flash. He was still terribly hurt about the trial and the accusations. ”
    Jackson was tried and acquitted in a sensational molestation trial in 2005 then lived abroad for a time and returned to rehearse for his “This Is It” tour.
    Metzger’s testimony contradicted many accounts of Jackson as a tortured figure in his last months, forced to commit to more concerts than he was capable of doing and turning to prescription drugs to chase away his demons and find the elusive sleep he craved.
    Metzger said the star was energized – and scared – by the prospect of the shows.
    He said their conversation in February 2009 began with “an anxiety call” from Jackson.
    “I think he was fearful because this was it and he needed to do a lot of perfectionalizing,” Metzger testified. “He wanted it to be something that had never been done before.”
    One thing that scared Jackson, he said, was the prospect that he would not be able to sleep when he got to London to kick off the concerts.
    Metzger said he suggested putting him in touch with sleep therapists in London, but Jackson resisted.
    In his last meeting with Jackson in April, 2009, the singer asked Metzger for intravenous sleep medication, but the doctor said he refused, telling Jackson it was dangerous and potentially life-threatening.
    The doctor also lectured him on nutrition and hydration, noting that Jackson typically dropped seven to eight pounds in every performance.
    He said Jackson never mentioned Dr. Conrad Murray or spoke of taking propofol, the drug that killed him. Murray was convicted in 2011 of involuntary manslaughter for giving Jackson an overdose of the drug in June 2009. He is serving a prison term.
    AEG Live’s defense has focused heavily on testimony from Jackson’s former physicians, who have detailed their treatments for the superstar. The company denies it hired Murray.
    Lawyers for Katherine Jackson were expected to present a brief rebuttal case this week and closing arguments were likely to begin on Monday.
    Metzger began treating Jackson in the early 1980s. He told of traveling with him to Australia on the History Tour and being at his wedding to Debbie Rowe. Jackson suffered from insomnia even then, he said.
    Metzger testified about his treatments of Jackson over the years and said the singer could be secretive and often didn’t tell him when he was receiving medical care from other doctors. He described the singer’s behavior as “doctor shopping.”
    He said he did not know him to be addicted to painkillers although he had a low threshold for pain and often sought medication.
    “He was a big baby. He didn’t want any pain,” Metzger said.
    Metzger said he had not seen Jackson in years when the star suddenly called in 2009 and asked the doctor to come to his house.
    “I was ecstatic,” Metzger said. “I missed him. I wanted to see him. The kids were growing up and I had been close to the kids.”
    He described a confident Jackson sharing his thoughts with an old friend.
    “He was excited to come back into the public arena in a good light,” Metzger said.
    The doctor said Jackson also joked about getting older and wondered aloud how his neck and back would hold up. They spoke about his sleep problems, but again there was no mention of Murray or propofol, according to the testimony.
    “His eyes were bright,” Metzger recalled. “He was ready to go.”
    ___
    AP Entertainment Writer Anthony McCartney contributed to this story
    © 2013 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
    http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268764/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=73wg4J9e

    Like

  7. September 19, 2013 2:43 pm

    “Still you are lucky to be kept in a hospital recovering, here they send you home to cope alone and then attend out patient follow ups.-I have been away for some time and there is much to catch up on” – Kaarin

    I actually very much want to go home tomorrow and at least have a desk to put my computer on, and probably even make a post. From the hospital setting it is impossible. All I can do here is read some testimonies and in snatches too.

    Kaarin, I hope that you are okay.

    Like

  8. September 19, 2013 2:33 pm

    Here are the ABC tweets of continued Dr. Metzger’s deposition after which the AEG defense is resting its case.

    I got the impression that Dr. Metzger is simply covering up for himself which makes me respect people like Klein even more (who never did that and always took all the responsibility upon himself only!). Hopefully one day I will make a post about all those doctors’ testimonies and for the meantime here are the tweets. I wonder what impression you will get of it?

    Hello from LA. Trial in the Jackson family vs AEG case resumed only today. Juror 1 had personal issues and could only come back today.
    Today was Day 81 of trial, Week 20! In the morning, without the presence of the jury, judge heard several arguments from attorneys.
    Judge Yvette Palazuelos ruled that closing arguments and possibly verdict will take place in a much larger courtroom.
    The trial will move to the same courtroom where jury selection was done in order to accommodate whoever wants to see the proceedings live.
    The ruling came with objection of AEG’s attorneys who wanted to keep everything in the small courtroom the trial took place over last 5 months
    During deliberation, the jurors will be partially sequestered. They will have special arrangements for arrival and departure.
    Jurors will have a room to eat lunch that doesn’t require them to mingle with anyone else.
    As to closing arguments, Judge said they don’t want to begin one party’s closing on Friday then take the weekend off.
    Judge said minimum of 3, up to 4 hours for closing for each side. Closing arguments to begin Monday at 10 am with plaintiffs.
    Closing for defense Tuesday at 10 am. Rebuttal on Wednesday — not sure how long Panish will take.
    Best envision to finish pre-instruction Friday by noon, closing Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, concluding instruction after rebuttal.
    Judge: After it’s done, staff and security will need 1 hour and 1/2 with the jurors prior to the commencement of deliberations.
    According to this plan, jury could get the case late Wednesday or Thursday of next week.
    After lunch break, trial resumed. Katherine Jackson was back in the courtroom today wearing a dark pink jacket.
    Attorneys stated their appearance for the jury. Judge Yvette Palazuelos said “really good news: we’re in the 9th inning!”
    She told jurors the closing of evidence will be either tomorrow or Friday. Judge thanked juror number 1 for coming back.
    Court staff gave jurors October calendar, they are to check it and bring back tomorrow.

    Video deposition of Dr. Allan Metzger resumed. He said he doesn’t recall if he treated MJ for insomnia in the 80s, needed to look at records
    He doesn’t think Doctors Klein or Hoefflin were present in the HIStory tour. Putnam asked about Dr. Neil Ratner.
    Dr. Metzger: Ratner was an anesthetist from NY. I don’t remember how he got involved with Michael.
    Michael would seek out avenues of sleep helpers, Dr. Metzger said. “That’s was another aspect of the secrecy.’
    Metzger: I never knew what he was doing at times that he wasn’t in LA, and probably he did things in LA I don’t know or Klein doesn’t know
    Michael had several aliases for confidentiality, one was Omar Arnold, Joe Michaels, there might be others I forgot about, Dr. Metzger said
    Dr. Metzger first met MJ in 1993, treated him for lupus, medical issues, back issues or leg issues.
    He said he doesn’t remember anything particular unusual or remarkable, expect helping him sleep.
    There were many surgeries related to the injury with fire, Dr. Metzger said.
    Karen Faye was the most constant person who was around MJ all the time, Dr. Metzger said. “To me she was the most constant companion.”
    MJ was mostly vegetarian, except for fish, the doctor testified. “He was adamant about proper nutrition.”
    I was aware he was given Demerol for procedures in the office, Dr. Metzger said.
    He said he became concerned because of the pain threshold, knew something needed to be done.
    Metzger: I heard concerns from Karen, Debbie, Hoefflin, Klein, Michael was doctor shopping and took pain medication a normal person didn’t
    Dr. Metzger: I think I told MJ this pain threshold was not average. I do recall prescribing something in Faye’s name, I don’t remember what
    Dr. Metzger: There was so much anonymity in MJ’s world. This was not around the time of MJ’s passing.
    Medical record from 8/18/93- Dr. Metzger saw MJ at Century City house for temperature over 100 degrees.
    He had viral influenza complaint and severe scalp pain and headache. “I remember he was very sick,” Dr. Metzger said.
    Elavil was used for sleep, raise the pain threshold, the doctor said.
    Aug 21, 22 and 23 of 1993: no communication from MJ or doctors, Dr. Metzger wrote on chart.
    8/24/93: Dr. Metzger said the message was that he was in pain. “I don’t know if medication was given to him.”
    8/25/93: MJ called, sleeping problems, depression, beginning of tour. “He wasn’t able to sleep” Metzger said.
    8/26 to 8/29/93- no contact
    Dr. Metzger said there are several medications that are analgesics but not narcotics.
    7/17/95 – seen in the office as emergency for severe chest and upper back pain, anxiety, shortness of breath.
    Somewhat tearful at times related to severe pain, the doctor wrote on the chart.
    There were many times he came in as emergency or at the end of the day, Dr. Metzger said.
    Dr. Metzger: His neuro receptors, his brain, would detect a grade 7, 8, 10 when average individual would have 3, 4, 5.
    Clearly it’s a neurochemical issue, but I don’t know exactly, he said.
    Dr. Metzger said MJ had a documented arrhythmia after he collapsed during the HBO special in NY.
    I don’t think it was a pain thing, I think it was exhaustion and dehydration thing.
    8/25/96: patient seen/examined for world tour
    The doctor said MJ needed a physical for the people in charge of the tour. Sometimes they would want a note, or form, or check list.
    Medications MJ was taking at the time:
    Low dose of Xanax – depression and helps sleep
    Ambien – sleep only
    Dalmain – very mild sleeping med
    Dr. Metzger said MJ asked him to come on tour to be in his wedding.
    After MJ collapsed during the HBO special, Dr. Metzger went to NYC for 3 or 4 days to be with Michael.
    He was dehydrated, he had a gastroenteritis (stomach inflammation with diarrhea), Dr. Metzger testified.
    Dr. Metzger said MJ lost 7 or 8 pounds after each performance, he weighed him to prove MJ needed to drink more fluids.
    7/13/1997: letter from Dr. Christian Stole from Munich with lab data of Omar Arnold from 7/5/97 saying Dr. Metzger talked to professor Peter
    I recall the stationary and the letter, but I don’t remember professor Peter, Dr. Metzger said.
    He claimed he never discussed with the German doctors treatment for MJ.
    I believe I never gave him Demerol, Dr. Metzger said.
    Putnam: Did you prescribed it to him?
    Dr. Metzger: That’s the same thing, no
    Dr. Metzger: Demerol is addicting if used in high doses for a period of time, usually used after surgery.
    People who are in constant pain require Demerol or its cousins, the doc explained.
    I believe on one occasion I prescribed Vicodin, don’t remember Percocet, no Demerol, the doc recalled.
    He said he prescribes Demerol in hospital setting. He had 2-3 chronic pain patients on oral Demerol. “It’s good for post-operative pain.”
    Dr. Metzger said Demerol produces sedation, lethargy, could suppress their breathing, could get a rash and dependency.
    I recall Hoefflin trying to get more involved in his care, Dr. Metzger testified.
    Dr. Metzger: Debbie was in constant assistance when MJ was under the care of Dr. Klein. That was the beginning of their relationship.
    Dr. Metzger said he didn’t have any conversation with Mrs. Jackson about MJ’s drug use. But he said he recalled discussion with Janet once.
    Janet was concerned MJ’s back was going out too much and be was taking pain meds.
    Dr. Metzger never discussed addition with MJ. He said he expressed he wished MJ didn’t use pain medication when he saw Drs. Arnie or Steve.
    Dr. Metzger: I think I heard from Arnie he was also trying to reduce the pain meds, but he just accommodated the situation, I guess.
    Dr. Metzger never participated in any intervention to help MJ quit drugs. “He liked painkillers when he was in pain,” he said.
    I saw that with back issues, knee issues, headaches, he said. “It worked, he was a big baby, he didn’t want any pain.”
    Dr. Metzger is not aware of MJ seeing pain specialist, never recommended one.
    The doctor was never aware of MJ’s use of Propofol. “I was never aware of anyone using that medication other than Murray.”
    Sept 18, 2002: insurer sent somebody to Dr. Metzger’s office to see him draw MJ’s blood for lab test.
    MJ was taking no meds except MS Contin for severe back pain. It’s a narcotic, cousin of Demerol, the doc explained.
    Dr. Metzger: Over the years, MJ had numerous plastic surgeries, some a, some b, some nasal.
    Dr. Metzger: I didn’t know in advance about the great majority of his nasal surgery.
    June 2003: MJ to have anesthesia for collagen injection, pre-op examination by Metzger.
    Dr Metzger: That was the first time to my knowledge that he was given anesthesia for collagen. They must’ve planned major amount of collagen
    Dr. Metzger does not recall any other patients needing clearance for collagen injection.
    Putnam asked if that happens frequently: “Virtually never,” Dr. Metzger responded.
    Dr. Metzger said he would often ask MJ who was prescribing him drugs.
    He was secretive about medicine, secretive about procedures, secretive about all that stuff.
    Dr. Metzger: I was worried someone would give something that would mix with something else.
    Dr. Metzger: He took great joy in making it a surprise to everyone. I don’t think he thought it was serious.
    The doctor said MJ’s knowledge about medications was not really sophisticate. He knew what he wanted done, though.
    June 12, 2008: Dr. Metzger said he did not see MJ for 5 years. MJ called.
    The doc said he sounded alert and when not under stress he takes Tylenol pm for sleep.
    I was shocked to hear from Michael, that he was in Vegas, Dr. Metzger said.
    I don’t recall him calling for a prescription, I was really happy to hear from him, the doc said.
    Dr. Metzger: I personally missed him, liked seeing Michael and dealing with him.
    Dr. Metzger: He was great, a little more boisterous than his normal self, sounded great.
    Normally he could sleep with Tylenol pm, Dr. Metzger explained. “Under stress, God only knows what he needed to sleep.”
    Next time they spoke was Feb 26, 2009. That’s when MJ told him about upcoming major events in Europe and London.
    I think it was more of an anxiety call, how he was going to deal with all the 30-50 shows, the doc said.
    Dr. Metzger: I think he was fearful because this is it, he needed to do something he had never done before.
    Dr. Metzger: He had a lot of pressure from himself, media and people who he was working for.
    He wanted to redeem MJ, the doctor explained. “To redeem his image, he felt this was it, and he wanted to go out with a flash.”
    Dr. Metzger: I think he was still terribly hurt about the criminal trial and accusations.
    Dr. Metzger: He was one of the most recognized names in the world and I think he wanted to stay that way.
    The doctor said MJ was excited and scared about “This Is It.” It was a positive call, an informational call, he remembered.
    The doctor said they talked about some different maneuvers. “I suggested hypnosis, he tried acupuncture years ago and it didn’t work.”
    Dr. Metzger said it was nutritious and hydration concern.” I was really reminding him about the ordeal he was about to face.”
    Putnam: When you saw the announcement, what did you think?
    Dr. Metzger: He looked great!
    Dr. Metzger: He seemed in good shape, it seemed very exciting to him.
    Metzger said MJ would be in London, maybe he should look for a sleep physiologist there to help him. He said MJ didn’t think he needed one.
    MJ never mentioned Dr. Murray to Dr. Metzger, never met him until the criminal trial.
    Dr. Metzger: I do remember saying ‘we’re going to help you find someone to help you sleep during these performances.’
    The doctor said MJ had some chronic back pain off and on. There was no discussion about Demerol.
    April 18, 2009- Dr. Metzger visited MJ at Carolwood home. “Michael called me, and said he wanted me to come visit him. I was ecstatic!”
    I missed him, wanted to see the kids and how they were growing up, was very close to the children when young, the doc testified.
    Dr. Metzger said he recalled they let MJ sleep late, began rehearsal at 11/11:30am. But worked late and MJ had trouble sleeping afterwards
    He was excited and stressed, it was a huge task, Dr. Metzger said.
    He was excited to do a great job, excited to come back into the public arena in good light. The doc said MJ joked about getting older, 49
    Dr. Metzger: He looked great, he looked trim. You can’t say skinny because he was muscular. He was ready to go.
    The doctor said he expected MJ to have a profound sleep issue during the tour.
    We talked about someone in London, he never mentioned he already had someone on board, he explained.
    Dr. Metzger said he talked to some doctors at Cedars, asked if anyone had recommendation of sleep physician in London.
    He wanted some intravenous medicine that would put him to sleep, Dr. Metzger testified. “I can’t sleep without something special.
    The doctor alerted him about potential life threatening: he could overdose, allergic reaction in a hotel, could be given wrong medication.
    It just isn’t the right thing to do Dr Metzger told MJ. He said it was a 5-10 minute talk, and he had no concept whether he was successful
    This was the last time Dr. Metzger saw MJ.
    He had great fears about responsibility of tour: dehydration, back injury and sleeping.
    Dr. Metzger: I had used the expression “juice” because MJ would use that, it was a nickname he used for sleeping meds.
    Dr. Metzger: It was definitely a word he made up years ago. He used the word not often but when things got difficult.
    The doc told MJ he was going to find people to help then drove off putting the top of his convertible down. He said the kids loved his car
    Putnam read names of several physicians and asked Dr. Metzger if he knew them. “I told you he was a doctor shopper,” Dr. Metzger said.
    The doctor said he purges records after people don’t go back for 3, 4 years. He said he never altered MJ’s medical records.

    Like

  9. Nan permalink
    September 19, 2013 2:24 pm

    Supposedly Mr Pannish will have an hour to examine Dr Metzger in rebuttal, from what I understand.
    I agree some of these doctors are throwing MJ under the bus because I think they are considering there own reputations.
    There was one, that had texted Murray, to give condolences, after MJ died.I felt sure he was spinning , because I think he would have accepted the job himself, but Murray ended up being the man.
    He may even be the same doctor who commented that MJ made some negative remarks regarding Steven Speilberg, which was unnecessary..For the record , every time I see the DREAMWORKS logo, I have a low opinion of Speilberg also , Not surprised if MJ felt the same way.
    Actually , if this is all AEG could come up with to smear MJ over a huge possible settlement., Michael must have been one of the most upstanding people on the planet., because just about everyone has said how kind, generous, humble, respectful he was of all people, no matter what their station in life, not to mention a phenomenal father to his children..
    The burn and pain management of that burn could have happened to any one of us, and the allegations of improper conduct , would overburden , even the strongest of us.
    All his problems seem to come from his wealth and status , something he had no control over since childhood., even his sleep patterns.
    I look forward to Mr Pannish rebuttal.
    I wonder if he will end up calling Tom Mesereau for any reason..He was a possible witness..

    Like

  10. September 19, 2013 2:07 pm

    http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268764/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=73wg4J9e Linda Deutch article regarding Dr Metzger deposition, in case some havent seen it” – Nan

    Linda Deutch’s article seems to me too generous to Dr. Metzger. Today I’ve read the ABC tweets of his video deposition and must say that was deeply disappointed with him there. He is pratically throwing Michael under the bus by saying that he “was doctor shopping” (he was not!) and “didn’t want any pain” (as if this were a crime).

    When an anesthesiologist spoke to me before the operation I told him no less than three times that all I wanted during the operation was not to feel any pain and preferably not to see the procedure. The sight alone of their instruments is something that could frighten me out of my wits.

    When I have an opportunity I will try to reproduce my conversation with him. and if it were discussed at some trial in the same outrageous manner all these intimate things are discussed at the AEG trial now, it could very well produce the impression of me being a “baby” not wanting any pain or even “begging” for painkillers.

    But it is no begging – it is just a reasonable expectation of the anesthesiologist to do his work properly!

    No, when I am able to really type I will not leave a stone unturned in all those outrageous doctors’ testimonies. Now that I read them with so much first-hand information about the matter I see how many loaded questions Putnam asked and how terribly biased all those testimonies were.

    Some doctors volunteered information which they were not supposed to provide at all – like, for example, “I got the impression that he was familiar with…”. He got the impression??? But this is pure hearsay!

    And what impression will they get of a person like me who notices many things and sometimes memorizes the names of medications and even asks questions about them? I, for example, overheard during sedation that they gave me “fentanyl” just prior to making an incision on the arm, because I was sedated but could hear everything.

    Later I naturally looked it up in the internet and found that if I got the name correctly it is a narcotic painkiller which Wiki calls 100 times more potent than morphine! So does the fact that I know this name now give the right to some doctor to throw me under the bus and spread innuendoes that “he gets an impression that I am familiar with it”???

    By the way twelve hours after the operation they also gave all serious post-operative patients around me another potent pain-killer which is a narcotic drug again, only this time I don’t remember the name. To be honest I was very happy to get it as I was sure that after the anesthesia wore off I would have a hell of a night.

    The next day they gave the post-operative patients a milder painkiller, called Tramadol which I looked up in the internet too and found that some sites call it an opiod and some a non-opiod but again I was very thankful that they made me that injection.

    So Goodness gracious, within 3 days only I received three different strong painkillers and can now even consider myself “familiar” with them! And what if all those doctors and nurses who gave those injections testified about it at some trial like they do now about MJ – what impression would people get of me? She received this, this and this! A mere enumeration of all these medications is formidable though I myself have never tried any narcotics in my life!

    This is why doctors are not allowed to gossip about their patients and disclose all those details – because those who did not have the same experience may think the craziest things about a person while in reality all that treatment was legal and an absolute necessity!

    Now I am disgusted more than ever by AEG who brought all those doctors into the courtroom and forced them to speak about things which normally doctors never discuss in public about their patients. It is truly abhorrent because it puts a patient at a tremendous disadvantage!

    Like

  11. September 19, 2013 5:51 am

    And it is not only for for “what happened to Paris”.Statistics show that any child who looses a parent through death before age 17years will hame some psychological ill effects thereof.

    Like

  12. September 19, 2013 4:48 am

    THank you susanerby for telling that some problems with this blog may have been due to someone(?) taking posts for spam.Helena, your fractures of both arms is a much bigger problem than what was my first impression.Still you are lucky to be kept in a hospital recovering, here they send you home to cope alone and then attend out patient follow ups.-I have been away for some time and there is much to catch up on.All of this twisting and paring down the issu,almost trying to crumble it away is disconcerting.I dare not even press on headlines for relevant articles or material fearing I´ll loose the blog alltogether.
    It is strange that this blog has had technical problems, it has existed for years .Much will be required from Panish and the jury to get things right.

    Like

  13. Nan permalink
    September 18, 2013 10:04 pm

    http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268764/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=73wg4J9e

    Linda Deutch article regarding Dr Metzger deposition, in case some havent seen it

    Like

  14. Jolie permalink
    September 18, 2013 9:33 pm

    Greetings Helena,

    My thoughts and prayers continue to be with you. My love to you.

    Fyi..the defense rests…

    http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268764/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=73wg4J9e

    Like

  15. Linda permalink
    September 18, 2013 1:25 am

    Hey guys, I thought this was cute from the auctioning off of Jesse Jackson Jr.s stuff. Michael got more bids and the highest priced offer of anything being auctioned so far.

    After a sluggish start, bidding surged during the day for a framed poster dedicated to the 25th anniversary of Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” album — and signed by the pop star himself. By Tuesday evening, there were 45 bids for it,— with the highest bidder willing to part with $1,560 for the pleasure of owning it.

    http://music.yahoo.com/news/red-cape-drawing-bids-during-jackson-jr-auction-223750863–politics.html

    Like

  16. Nan permalink
    September 17, 2013 7:14 pm

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/trialandheirs/2013/09/17/top-5-legal-challenges-facing-michael-jacksons-estate-executors/

    just putting this here if nobody saw it..it says how the media is concentrating on gongaware and phillips being dismissed , but what the judge found about AEG is very bad for aeg and could mean big bucks for the jacksons

    Like

  17. September 17, 2013 3:49 pm

    fyi…about Katherine not testifying… http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/showbiz/michael-jackson-death-trial/

    Of course – because Katherine’s testimony can make it only worse for AEG. Here is the article.

    But I have a question: why isn’t anyone questioning Tohme? Will he testify?


    AEG Live backs down on calling Michael Jackson’s mom

    By Alan Duke, CNN
    September 17, 2013 — Updated 1134 GMT (1934 HKT)
    STORY HIGHLIGHTS
    • Instead of Katherine Jackson, AEG Live may play clips of Prince Jackson’s deposition
    • AEG Live lawyer said he intended to question her “about the absurdity of the damages”
    • Closing arguments in the 5-month-long trial could be heard Monday
    • Michael Jackson’s mom and kids are suing his last concert promoter for liability in his death
    Los Angeles (CNN) — AEG Live lawyers changed their mind about calling Katherine Jackson as their last witness in the Michael Jackson wrongful death trial.

    Instead, lawyers for the concert promoter may play a portion of Prince Jackson’s video deposition before resting its defense case Wednesday.

    The five-month-long trial in Los Angeles is nearing an end, an closing arguments could be delivered on Monday. Testimony, which has been on hold for more than a week because of an illness in one juror’s family, resumes Wednesday.

    Jackson’s mother and three children are suing AEG Live, contending that the concert promoter was liable for the pop icon’s death because it hired, retained or supervised the doctor convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

    AEG Live argues that Jackson chose and controlled Dr. Conrad Murray and that its executives had no way of knowing about the dangerous treatments he was giving the star in his bedroom.

    Jackson died of an overdose of the surgical anesthetic propofol, which Murray told investigators he used to treat the singer’s insomnia so he could rest for comeback concert rehearsals in the summer of 2009.

    AEG Live lawyer Marvin Putnam announced in court last week that he intended to call Michael Jackson’s elderly mother to question her “about the absurdity of the damages” she wants the jury to award if they decide the company is liable. Putnam informed the court and Jackson’s lawyers Monday that he had decided not to call her again.

    A Jackson lawyer argued that AEG Live’s “intent is to show the lawsuit’s purpose is greed,” while the judge suggested that any mother could be expected to say “there is no amount of money that would substitute for the loss of her son.”

    Putnam has frequently cited in interviews a “statement of damages” letter sent to him by a Jackson lawyer last year capping possible damages at $40 billion, but the judge ruled that he could not refer to it in court because it was not a sworn filing in the case.

    Jackson lawyer Kevin Boyle pointed out that the lawsuit complaint only says that damages would be “according to proof at trial,” based on testimony by several expert witnesses who have testified.

    Jackson expert Arthur Erk — a certified public accountant who has managed and audited the business affairs of many top artists — testified that he was “reasonably certain” that Jackson would have earned at least $1.5 billion from touring, endorsements and sponsorships had he not died from a propofol overdose preparing for his “This Is It” tour.

    “It is very difficult to assess the value of the King of Pop,” Jackson lawyer Deborah Chang told the judge Wednesday. “How do you even do that?”
    The non-economic damages suffered because of Michael Jackson’s death could be enormous considering “what happened to Paris Jackson,” she said. Jackson’s 15-year-old daughter attempted suicide in June and remains in a treatment program.

    Jackson lawyers seemed to welcome the prospect of AEG Live calling their client as their final witness, considering how jurors reacted when she was on the stand in July. Jurors leaned forward and paid close attention during her two days of testimony as the last witness in their case.

    “Why are you here?” Jackson lawyer Brian Panish asked her.

    “Because I want to know what really happened to my son,” she said. “And that’s why I am here.”

    Panish asked Jackson how it made her feel to be asked probing and personal questions about her family by AEG Live lawyer Marvin Putnam.

    “It makes me feel real bad, because my son was a very good person,” she said. “He loved everybody. He gave to charity. He was in the Guinness Book of World Records for giving to charity.”

    If jurors decide that AEG Live is liable in Jackson’s death, they could award damages based on the loss of the mother’s and children’s relationship with him and the amount of money he was unable to earn because his life was cut short.

    After AEG Live rests its case — which lawyers indicated would happen Wednesday — the Jackson lawyers would have a chance to call several rebuttal witnesses.
    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/16/showbiz/michael-jackson-death-trial/

    Like

  18. September 17, 2013 3:42 pm

    “I must say that I am shocked that you broke both arms. Be assured of my continued prayers.” – jolie

    Jolie and all my dear readers and co-authors, thank you very much for your wishes and prayers. Same as someone’s hate made me land on both of my hands and a knee, your prayers and love are helping to heal.

    My right arm is more or less okay, but my left one reminds me now of the scene in the Terminator movie where he was repairing the mechanism on his arm. I also have a rather long plate there with screws all over it, and a spike going across which hurts like hell each time I turn it. But hopefully it will pass. I’m not taking any painkillers any more and am just trying to be careful not to move it too much.

    And while I am here I’m learning a lot about pain and ways to manage it. For example, in the first day after the operation nurses warn patients not to wait too long until the pain flares up and urge to ask for a painkiller when the pain is only beginning, because if you lose the right moment you will require a much stronger remedy to cope with the same thing.

    Now imagine that you are going to bed while the pain is not that bad and you think you can put up with it. But knowing that you have a full night ahead of you the mere thought that it might increase makes you take a painkiller ‘in advance’. Up till now I haven’t seen a single person here who would refuse such medication ‘in advance’ – everyone takes a prescribed injection because everyone wants uninterrupted sleep.

    Everyone is afraid of pain and Michael’s pain was not like mine – he had to go with a balloon on his head for months and several times over too, and his pain was so bad that it blinded him as Debbie Rowe said. So anyone who is finding fault with Michael for taking painkillers during his burn, scalp surgery and back injury are the worst possible hypocrites and mere sadists.

    And there is one more thing. After the operation the pain is gradually subsiding, while in Michael’s case it was increasing and what looked like something bearable at first was growing more and more painful with each new day as the balloon grew. I really don’t know how he survived it all – it isn’t life but is a living nightmare.

    Like

  19. September 17, 2013 3:04 pm

    Helena, regarding the problems some have with the page I just want to make sure you’ve read the message of WordPress that I forwarded to you “to clear your browser’s cache and, if necessary, restart the browser” after the suspension. I have no idea if this has anything to do with the problems, but would like to remind you just in case. I personally have no problems whatsoever to get access to the page.

    It’s great how you use the time to enlighten other patients about Michael and how you exchange hands and legs to help each other.
    I also think it’s a good idea to move or at least copy the most important material on the blog to another one. We have been through several adventures now with the blog and I think have to face that nothing is safe forever in the internet. So it’s certainly no mistake to double-secure your hard work of 4 years to some exent.

    Like

  20. September 17, 2013 3:01 pm

    “I still cant get to this site by going to the main part..I come through a link to a story and then just go to the comment section and pop around..dont know why” – Nan

    You too? Let us do it this way then – if anyone has a problem with opening the blog please write about it here in the comments. I will collect everything into one complaint and send it to wordpress engineers for them to look into the malfunction.

    Just like in Alan Dukes article where he asked Dimond about MJ , she makes it very clear she has an intense dislike for MJ, a person she has never even spoke to. She doesnt have such a dislike for Jerry Sandusky , a convicted felon, just MJ. WHY is she obsessed with him and his fans , when most people ignore this woman? I think she will never change because she cant ..

    She probably really can’t because she is a hostage of her own lies. She made her career on trashing Michael, so admitting that she was wrong is like admitting that all her life was lived in vain. She reminds me of our Stalinists. Talking to them is as useless as talking to Diane Dimond and vice versa.

    “If the jury found those two culpable , they would just file bankruptcy and be taken care of by AEG. But if the jury finds they did this as employees of AEG, this is like cutting out a cyst , if the Jacksons wins..”

    Not a bad idea. However it is too early to make forecasts – we’ll see. But I was totally abhorred to read here that some “fans” rejoiced when the judge didn’t find Phillips and Gongaware personally responsible for any harm in respect of Michael. In my opinion it tells us even more about these “fans” than about these two.

    You know, anyone can call him/herself a “fan”, but if they think that it is okay to slap, humiliate, indimidate, drive into tears and deprive of sleep the person they “love”, then their love for this person is hate and their love rests with the opposite side.

    Each of us loves our mothers, so just imagine Philips doing to her the same things he did to Michael and you will understand that all explanations these ‘fans’ give are just a big lie.

    Like

  21. September 17, 2013 2:01 pm

    “Even typing in your web address brings up the page that says your are suspended for a violation. Doing a search for vindicatemj brings up mortgage, dating and anything else besides you or Michael. I would say the problem is pretty big., and far from solved.” – Linda

    Linda, how very interesting. We live in a world full of wonders indeed. In my place I often feel like Alice in Wonderland, but now I am beginning to feel the same in your place too, though I got familiar with it only via a computer.

    “I’m still getting here, but I don’t know if the site is showing me the latest articles written like it usually does. There’s no logic when it comes to the press, or the entire internet when it comes to Michael. I even tried to bookmark other articles from your site and that didn’t work either. they don’t appear in my bookmarks. Does the internet just not like you, lol?”

    The internet definitely doesn’t like the truth about Michael and anyone telling it. Remember all the wizardry that took place with the photos not matching Jordan Chandler’s description and just one tiny piece appearing in the USA Today and under a wrong title too?

    Lisa Marie Presley also noticed the phenomenon and spoke about that tiny piece in an interview with Diane Sawyer. Now this piece of information is available only for money, by the way.

    So if there is so much wizardry around Michael how can we expect the internet like those who are telling the truth about him?

    As regards articles which mysteriously do not bookmark on your computer this is one of the reasons why I always provide full texts of articles in the blog though it makes the posts too long – knowing of all this witchcraft you never know what you will see tomorrow.

    As to the blog I’m really beginning to think of moving it elsewhere. At the moment there are no updates of the trial but I hear that last week they had none or only one day of the trial session, and the next will be this Wednesday.

    Like

  22. September 17, 2013 1:03 pm

    “We, Michael’s friends missed your posts and though it is good to know that you can type now, you should not be straining your hands too much!” – Suparna

    Suparna and my dear Michael’s friends, thank you very much. Slow typing is not the only problem but opening the computer and fixing it in some position so that I can type is also quite a task now. But we have a sort of cooperation here – my hands are capable to wash a cup but can’t carry the computer, and those with broken legs can open up my computer but cannot stand up to wash a cup. This cooperation of their hands with my legs is rather funny but it works.

    Today I used some time for showing several MJ’s videos and tributes to MJ to the other patients and don’t consider this time wasted at all.

    Also there is a tremendous benefit from my present condition. Now I really UNDERSTAND what terribly provocative questions Putnam was asking of Dr. Adams (for example) when they discussed anesthesia. Guys, now I have first-hand information about the questions anesthesiologists ask, how they prepare you for the procedure, etc. and I read those testimonies with totally different eyes!

    If I have a chance I will post Dr. Adams’s testimony provided to me by Taaj of TeamMichaelJackson (huge thanks to her) with some comments based on my hospital and operation experience. You cannot believe how loaded all those Putnam’s questions turn out to be when you look at them “from the inside”.

    “Yes the blocking of this blog was a shock to us all and I was thinking along other lines that may be it was a deliberate attempt to smother the truth especially at this crucial juncture of the trial- but all turned out to be well”

    Yes, as an interim result it is ok, but all will be well when all things end well for MJ and his dear mother. Let’s pray for it.

    Like

  23. September 17, 2013 3:05 am

    Hi Helena,

    Welcome back 🙂 We, Michael’s friends missed your posts and though it is good to know that you can type now, you should not be straining your hands too much! Yes the blocking of this blog was a shock to us all and I was thinking along other lines that may be it was a deliberate attempt to smother the truth especially at this crucial juncture of the trial- but all turned out to be well :). Thought of sharing this link with you of some of Michael’s hand written notes that have been discovered : http://divinevarod.com/2013/09/13/michael-jackson-didnt-trust-aeg-or-murray-notes-prove-la-toya-was-right/.

    Like

  24. Linda permalink
    September 16, 2013 11:41 pm

    The fact that for some people (Kaarin and Linda for example) the blog is constantly malfunctioning looks disturbing to me too. Kaarin says that wordpress simply does not post her comments and for Linda the blog does not properly open.
    And thank you very much my dear friends for your support and prayers. It gives me much strength. Though we have never met each other each one has a bit of Michael for me. I think he didn’t die – he broke into a million sparks and you and I were lucky to catch them.

    Helena, I am so glad you are back, even tho at a painfully slow pace. I pray a speedy recovery for you. Just to let you know I am still having to make sure I always save an e-mail from your website to click on to get here. Even typing in your web address brings up the page that says your are suspended for a violation. Doing a search for vindicatemj brings up mortgage, dating and anything else besides you or Michael. I would say the problem is pretty big., and far from solved.

    I’m still getting here, but I don’t know if the site is showing me the latest articles written like it usually does. There’s no logic when it comes to the press, or the entire internet when it comes to Michael. I even tried to bookmark other articles from your site and that didn’t work either. they don’t appear in my bookmarks. Does the internet just not like you, lol?

    It’s ok, I still love you and will keep getting here one way or another, but I just wonder if there are articles, latest updates to the trial here that I’m not getting. Odd that it seems like some people are doing fine with your site and me and Kaarin are having problems. Maybe it’s just our computers? Or maybe not. All my other bookmarks work just fine. Nope, I’m back to the internet doesn’t like you, lolol. Just kidding, we’ll get it figured out.

    Like

  25. Nan permalink
    September 16, 2013 9:57 pm

    Hi Helena.
    Sorry to hear you broke BOTH arms !! , but I am glad your spirits are still high.
    I still cant get to this site by going to the main part..I come through a link to a story and then just go to the comment section and pop around..dont know why,
    At any rate ..this Diane Dimond garbage..
    Not sure if I believe it is really true or just another of her gossip trash like Jason Pfieffer and Adrian Mcmanus .
    I havent seen her doing any MJ stories on the Daily Beast since she was called out on CNN, and I am blocked on her FB page.
    Her own page is always a source for fantasy for her because she has no back and forth with people ,..She simply bans people and continues with her perverted fantasies..
    First , in Murrays trial , we have Randy Philips saying what a phenomenal dad MJ was, and everyone has said that throughout both trials..
    Then we realize the picture of MJ after he passed , exposes Gavins lies all over again becasue he said MJ was white all over , and he isnt..
    In this trial we find proof that Jordan Chandler lied regarding having ANY kind of intimate knowledge of MJ.., and once again, people testifying on both sides say what a wonderful man he was..The question is not the kind of person he was , it is about who hired Murray
    Someone in the emails , I think Kenny Ortega says he hopes this tour works because MJ had gotten such a raw deal with all that garbage , words to that effect, regarding the accusations and trial.. ..
    I dont feel any of this is lost on Diane Dimond..
    Just like in Alan Dukes article where he asked Dimond about MJ , she makes it very clear she has an intense dislike for MJ, a person she has never even spoke to.
    She doesnt have such a dislike for Jerry Sandusky , a convicted felon, just MJ. WHY is she obsessed with him and his fans , when most people ignore this woman.?
    I think she will never change because she cant ..
    Her disgust with him , has to do with his skin color changing , his parentage of his children and the fact that he was a black man that didnt know his place , and refused to be told what his place was.
    Really the perfect person to vouch for Victor Guiterrez with Tom Sneddon , who I feel , after looking into all this , felt the same way ..they had a camaraderie, about taking him down., and they cant even figure out why..
    Michael didnt use children , those two did, to further their own careers and because they are bigots imo..
    Much easier for Sneddon to believe all that drivel coming from a white woman who looks like an aging soccer mom , then the demented Guiterrez.
    Mr Mesereau is right , when he says victory for these people was snatched away and they are very bitter about it.
    Just like she exaggerates the hate mail she gets, I feel this is more of the same..Just throwing salt in the wounds of MJ fans..
    If this woman truly is Philips cousin , she must be an idiot to be saying these things while his employee AEG is still in the hot seat, because if they lose , he and gongaware will be blackballed in the entertainment business..
    I had originally thought it a bad thing , that these 2 were dropped form the suit , but it could be that the deck is being cleared and the jury can focus on AEG itself, after all , this is about who employed Murray..and how he was acting for AEG, same as Philips and Gongaware..They would fall in that category also..
    If the jury found those two culpable , they would just file bankruptcy and be taken care of by AEG.
    But if the jury finds they did this as employess of AEG, this is like cutting out a cyst , if the Jacksons wins..
    Hopefully this will post..My best wishes for a speedy recovery to you Helena ❤ …

    Like

  26. Jolie permalink
    September 16, 2013 9:04 pm

    Welcome Back Helena!!!

    But I must say that I am shocked that you broke both arms. Be assured of my continued prayers. Please take care and heal properly. You have, and are having, a great impact for Michael and Michael’s fans, and those who don’t have a clue about Michael – but have your wonderful research to learn all about him. You are some woman.

    fyi…about Katherine not testifying…

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/showbiz/michael-jackson-death-trial/

    Like

  27. September 16, 2013 3:12 pm

    Guys, I am so happy to be with you again, but I type slowly and also have to close my computer now as we have a regimen in the hospital here.

    I spent a lot of time today making back-up copies of all posts in case we have to move elsewhere if the automatic filter at wordpress keeps calling this blog “spam”. The reason why they did it is still unclear to me. Could this have happened if someone complained about the blog as the one posting spam messages? And can these people be exactly the ones who send them here? As to these “well-wishers” we were never short of them as you understand.

    The fact that for some people (Kaarin and Linda for example) the blog is constantly malfunctioning looks disturbing to me too. Kaarin says that wordpress simply does not post her comments and for Linda the blog does not properly open. Does anyone have similar problems? I just want to know to see what’s going on and how big the scale of the problem is.

    And thank you very much my dear friends for your support and prayers. It gives me much strength. Though we have never met each other each one has a bit of Michael for me. I think he didn’t die – he broke into a million sparks and you and I were lucky to catch them.

    Like

  28. September 16, 2013 12:57 pm

    “Randy Phillips’ cousin Robin Slater wrote to Diane Dimond on August 21st on FB: “And by the way my cousin Randy did not kill Michael Jackson Michael Jackson killed Michael Jackson”. “He knew what he was that’s what made him so tormented he couldn’t stop molesting children.” And what about the attitude in Phillips’ family towards Michael? You can have an idea now…” – Susanne

    Susanne, what a find! There is something unnatural in all these people knowing each other so close and being even friends – we could even add them to the scheme of MJ’s haters made by the Veritas project. If Phillips’ family is of such a terrible opinion of Michael then his promotion of Michael’s concerts is almost the same as if they were promoted by Diane Dimond. This explains the attitude and nastiness of that contract. Imagine what kind of a contract DD would have made for MJ and we get the idea of AEG’s contract for MJ.

    But another point here is that by her comment Randy Phillips’ cousin admits that MJ was tornmented and was heavily stressed out. So Phillips knows that MJ was in a grave stress and is trying to give to it the usual nasty explanation.

    It seems that Phillips’ cousin is prompting to Diane Dimond what direction her reporting should take.

    But we can ask a counter question in this case – if Randy Phillips thought so bad of MJ why was he so eager to sign a contract with him? And why so much flattery to him then and so much adoration in the press?

    No, I think that Randy Phillips is lying again – he never thought of MJ that way, but he wants to explain why MJ was in so much stress and is offering his own “reason” for it. And Diane Dimond is just the right kind of person to develop the idea further and do the rest of the dirty job. In fact Randy Phillips is almost hiring DD for this job in full view of everyone.

    “I remember that in Phillips‘ deposition there was mention of an article of DD regarding Michael’s alleged drug and alcohol abuse that was sent to Phillips’ by someone in 2008. And Phillips said he does not know who Diane Dimond is! Well….”

    Well indeed…

    Like

  29. September 16, 2013 10:27 am

    Helena, so glad to see your lines here. I wish you get the best treatment ever and will be healed soon.
    I wanted to welcome you with something more positive, but today I found out something disturbing that I have to let you know. I usually don’t pay much attention to Diane Dimond’s FB site, but today I stumbled over a thread of hers. This is interesting because it seems that a cousin of Randy Phillips is close friends with Diane Dimond. Has anyone seen this? Randy Phillips’ cousin Robin Slater wrote to Diane Dimond on August 21st on FB:

    “And by the way my cousin Randy did not kill Michael Jackson Michael Jackson killed Michael Jackson”
    “He knew what he was that’s what made him so tormented he couldn’t stop molesting children.”
    She also tells DD to “give Michael a big hug for me” (her husband).

    DD’s answer to her:
    “Thanks again, my dear! I can only imagine the awful e-mail your cousin Randy Phillips gets from these fanatics.”
    The way DD writes Phillips‘ whole name here implies that she does it on purpose, to provoke.

    Have a look at the whole thread (scroll down):

    I remember that in Phillips‘ deposition there was mention of an article of DD regarding Michael’s alleged drug and alcohol abuse that was sent to Phillips’ by someone in 2008. And Phillips said he does not know who Diane Dimond is! Well….
    And what about the attitude in Phillips’ family towards Michael? You can have an idea now…

    Like

  30. September 16, 2013 7:03 am

    “Helena I hope you are healing well and hope to see you back soon. I am sure you are following the case from where you are. Must be frustrating to be cut short of what you do best : defending the truth about Michael. But sometimes a break is time for reflection and to gather strength. For YOU first and for what you strive for. And come back even stronger.” – Sina

    Sina and all dear Michael’s friends, please don’t worry about me. It turned out that my both arms were broken, so for a time I could not do anything, but now I got used to the plaster on my both arms and find the sight even funny – fit for a comedy. But now the fingers are moving and I can even type with my both hands. And am very happy that the blog is back.

    “This week Katherine Jackson will be called back to the stand. From this place I wish her Strength Guidance and Protection, she will need all of that against the ugly. But she more than anyone, coming from where she came from, will know that justice is never given, it has to be fought for. God knew why he made her Michael Jacksons mother. She knows more than anyone else in the world that he would want her to stand up for him. A mother knows her childs heart. From mother to mother, I wish her Courage.”

    Oh, I wish Katherine all the help the Heavens can give!

    Like

  31. Sina permalink
    September 16, 2013 1:19 am

    Helena I hope you are healing well and hope to see you back soon. I am sure you are following the case from where you are. Must be frustrating to be cut short of what you do best : defending the truth about Michael. But sometimes a break is time for reflection and to gather strength. For YOU first and for what you strive for. And come back even stronger.

    This week Katherine Jackson will be called back to the stand.
    From this place I wish her Strength Guidance and Protection,
    She will need all of that against the ugly.
    But she more than anyone, coming from where she came from, will know that justice is never given, it has to be fought for.
    God knew why he made her Michael Jacksons mother,
    She knows more than anyone else in the world that he would want her to stand up for him.
    A mother knows her childs heart. From mother to mother, I wish her Courage.

    Like

  32. September 14, 2013 2:53 am

    Thanks for updates about the health of Helen. I don’t deny that we’re very concerned. Here we’re loyal to you and this blog, really valuable to Community, able to give a global view about what is happening in world of Michael.
    Helen, you know that as soon ,we translate your words for disclose in Europe.
    I hope that our prayers will help you heal faster.
    I look forward to seeing you here again to write.
    A warm hug.
    Staff MJGoldWorld

    Like

  33. September 12, 2013 3:19 pm

    Guys, let me just tell you that I have new information from Helena. She is ok, but it’s a bit more complicated than she first thought and it probably will take a bit more time for her to recover. She will not be home before next week, so we need some patience for her to come back to the blog. But she wants me to give her love to everyone and to say thank you for the prayers and support.

    Thank you, Ellen, for your nice words. I agree with you: Helena is being guided and protected in this work.

    Like

  34. Ellen permalink
    September 12, 2013 4:07 am

    Helena, I hope you have a speedy recoverry. I’m so happy your blog is back up and running. I’m a big supporter and am so grateful for all the research you guys have. Although I’ve never commented myself before I follow every article and comment and was devastated at the thought that we may have lost this valuable material. To me it seems sometimes that you are being guided in this noble work you have undertaken. I applaud your absolute committment to the truth and believe that there is nothing we can learn that would diminish Michaels life or legacy. He is inspiring through his humanity. Again, thanks from a reader in Australia.

    Like

  35. September 12, 2013 3:00 am

    It’s great that several people contacted WordPress to help solve the situation. Thanks to everybody. United we stand!

    Like

  36. September 12, 2013 1:42 am

    Hi All,

    Happy that the website is up and running again! I had contacted word press too and got a response from them that the site was flagged by their anti- spam controls and that after reviewing the site they have now removed the suspension notice. I was anxious that it may have been blocked on purpose etc ! Hope Helena is well soon.

    Like

  37. Jolie permalink
    September 11, 2013 4:26 pm

    I have been holding my breath and praying. Welcome back, Helena. Thank God this suspension was a mistake. Please take care and get well soon.

    Like

  38. September 11, 2013 3:56 pm

    Katherine Jackson will have to take the stand again on Monday. Poor Katherine, must be a huge pressure for her to be the last witness in the defense case:

    “Michael Jackson’s mother will be called back to testify by AEG Live as its last witness in their defense of Katherine Jackson’s wrongful-death lawsuit on Monday, an AEG Live lawyer said Wednesday.

    AEG Live lead attorney Marvin Putnam said he would question the 83-year-old Jackson family matriarch “about the absurdity of the damages” she wants the jury to award if they decide the concert promoter is liable in the pop icon’s death.

    A Jackson lawyer argued that AEG Live’s “intent is to show the lawsuit’s purpose is greed,” while the judge suggested that any mother could be expected to say “there is no amount of money that would substitute for the loss of her son.”

    Putnam has frequently cited in interviews a “statement of damages” letter sent to him by a Jackson lawyer last year capping possible damages at $40 billion, but the judge ruled that he could not refer to it in court because it was not a sworn filing in the case.

    Jackson lawyer Kevin Boyle pointed out that the lawsuit complaint only says that damages would be “according to proof at trial,” based on testimony by several expert witnesses who have testified.”

    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/11/showbiz/michael-jackson-death-trial/

    Like

  39. Sina permalink
    September 11, 2013 2:45 pm

    Ok, thanks Susan. Wish her all the best and to get well soon.

    Like

  40. September 11, 2013 2:28 pm

    Sina, Helena is still in hospital.
    The blog was shut down by WordPress for allegedly violating terms of services. After contacting WordPress they reviewed the suspension and told us it was an error and apologized for it.
    So we are happy the site is back, and I think Helena will also soon be back.

    Like

  41. Sina permalink
    September 11, 2013 2:15 pm

    Hi Helena,
    How are you doing? What happened ?
    Last night I couldnt get access to your blog, got a note from wordpress that the blog was suspended.
    Hope you have good back up . This is a treasure of information on Michaels history that needs to be preserved.
    So glad you are back online.

    Like

  42. Sina permalink
    September 10, 2013 3:40 pm

    Last night after I heard RP and PG were dismissed I was thinking of Michael, walking around with his bag under his arm, with in the bag his magic sleep, searching and begging to be helped for something so simple but so existential. And every one he met, came with their agenda to keep him tied to them , dependent on them , one way or other, so they could prosper from him . It didnt matter if they sucked him dry of the last bit of sleep he could have had. And AEG calls Katherine Jackson greedy.
    They are really abject.

    As abject as the so called ‘fans ‘ who jump for joy that two criminals who cheated on Michael bullied , disrespected him and lied to him will not have to face personal responsibility.

    I haven’t read the ruling of the judge why she dismissed the two, and why so late in the process. But here is my guess. It could be for the same reasons that the court narrowed the criminal case to Murrays actions and did not look at the possibility of accomplices ( which imo RP and PG are) That would have complicated the case , made it difficult to prove , could raise doubt and ruin the case. If there is more than one perpetrator it is very difficult to establish who is liable(guilty) of what and to what extend. If you cannot establish their individual (personal) liability (guilt) there is no case.
    Another possibility is that PG and RP are considered to have acted completely on behalf of AEG. So everything they did, they did as representatives/agents and in the interest of AEG, according to AEG policy and not in their personal interest . And therefore AEG, as their employer bears all responsibility. Or a third possibility , their work status with AEG. Maybe they don’t have employee status but are independent contractors themself or work from out of their own company or an independent division, separate from AEG live ( Concerts West?) . Which means that they are hired and could have the same status as Murray, in which case AEG is also liable for their actions.
    Here is a comprehensive explanation how a company can be liable for an independent contractor.

    “However, it is a misconception that the principle of vicarious liability never applies to independent contractors. The reality is hiring an independent contractor is not a risk-free proposition. An independent contractor may incur liability on behalf of the hiring company in several ways.
    • Risky business. A company that employs an independent contractor to perform abnormally dangerous work, such as road blasting, can be sued for a contractor’s negligent acts or omissions. When hazardous work is carried out by independent contractors, companies may be held liable not only for the failure to take special precautions, but also for the contractor’s failure to exercise reasonable care. Courts determine whether work is hazardous by asking whether the work is inherently risky and whether a reasonable person would recognize a need for safety measures.
    • Outsourcing risk. A company that hires an independent contractor remains responsible for maintaining a safe workplace and providing warnings about hazardous conditions. If the company knows or should know about a dangerous condition, like a malfunctioning elevator, the company will be liable for injuries caused by the condition. This legal principle, the non-delegable duty doctrine, is intended to prevent companies from outsourcing dangerous tasks in order to sidestep liability. Likewise, a company may be liable to the public for injuries that result from the failure to take appropriate security measures.
    • Blind hiring. A company can be liable for the failure to properly screen employees and independent contractors. A company owes a duty of reasonable care to the public in hiring employees and independent contractors. If a person is injured by an independent contractor, the hiring company may be liable for failing to anticipate and prevent injury by conducting screening procedures such as background checks. For example, the Houston woman who was threatened and nearly abducted by a cab driver was able to win a negligent hiring claim against the hiring company, even though the cab driver was an independent contractor.
    • Independent contractor as agent. A company may also be held liable for the actions of an independent contractor if the contractor is considered an agent of the company. Under the rules of agency law, an agency relationship may be formed if the company’s actions or words give the contractor or a third-party reason to believe that the contractor is an agent of the company. A contractor has not been paid or agrees to work without compensation for a particular project can still be deemed an agent. If an agency relationship exists or if a third-party believes that the contractor is an agent of the company, then the company will be liable for injuries caused by the contractor in the course of carrying out its work.
    • Misclassifying a contractor. Many companies incur tax liability for back taxes, interest and penalties by misclassifying employees as independent contractors. There is a common misconception that a worker who signs an independent contractor agreement is indeed a contractor. However, independent contractor status actually depends on the extent of control that the company exercises over how the work is performed or the means of performing the work. The misclassification of a contractor not only has tax consequences, but also potential ramifications on a company’s liability since a company may be vicariously liable for injuries caused by an employee in the course of work.
    Hiring an independent contractor can be a cost-effective alternative to hiring an employee, but it is important for companies to recognize the risks associated with contract work. It may be advisable to have a legal professional draft the contractor agreement and outline the measures that can be taken to minimize the liabilities. http://legalbasicsforbusiness.com/2009/05/19/independentcontractor/

    On a sidenote, more evidence that AEG hired Murray iand is liable for his actions is the fact that he was used as an agent/go between for AEG, in their dealings with Lloyds to get the Insurance done, which was not for the benefit of Michael but only for AEG .

    Like

  43. September 10, 2013 1:51 pm

    I understand, Helena. I don’t know if we have something like that in the law of our country, but I have heard of similar ways to shorten a trial. But in this case the trial already lasts 5 months with a lot of testimonies and evidence presented. If this is what the judge intends, she is really totally ignorant after this long time of court proceedings. And if she is not totally biased and one-sided, she at least doesn’t get anything and is totally overcharged. To me she often seemed insecure and easily led.
    Don’t get me wrong, I am totally disgusted by this decision and regard it as inacceptable, but I also have to live with some hope, otherwise I couldn’t cope with this injustice. So I need to hope that these guys will still receive their punishment in another way.

    Like

  44. September 10, 2013 8:39 am

    As regards the time when the summary judgment can be made here is a quote from the California civil code:

    The motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise.

    http://law.onecle.com/california/civil-procedure/437c.html

    MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    A request made by the defendant in a civil case. Asserts that the plaintiff has raised no genuine issue to be tried and asks the judge to rule in favor of the defense. Typically made before the trial.“Each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Id. In order to defeat a summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party may not simply rely on his pleadings but must present some evidence on every material issue for which he will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).
    http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m043.htm

    I’m providing these sources for your individual study as at the moment I cannot do it myself. The reason why I am raising this question is because when the trial is reaching its end the judge who throws out part of the case is actually REPLACING the jury’s decision because they will be allowed to decide on an extremely narrow subject which remains for them.

    And what if the jurors already decided for themselves after listening to all the testimonies that Randy Phillips and Gongaware are responsible for what they did? The judge is actually depriving the jury of their rights!

    And I’m not even saying that granting a motion for the AEG summary judgment in respect of Phillips and Gongaware means that the judge does not think that there might be even a dispute in considering them responsible.

    In other words she does not doubt that all those terrible emails (Gongaware: “I want to remind him who is paying him money”, etc) are not proving anything. The unfairness of such a decision is obvious.

    It was the work of the jury to decide whether Phillips and Gongaware were credible or not. But this way the judge shielded Phillips and Gongaware from having to answer for their lies. They are simply not part of the case any longer.

    UTTER SHAME.

    To defeat a summary-judgment motion, the non-moving party only has to show substantial evidence that a dispute of material facts exists, regardless of the strength of that evidence. For example, if one side can produce the testimony of “a dozen bishops”, and the other side only has the testimony of a known liar, then summary judgment is not appropriate. Deciding on the relative credibility of witnesses is a question for the factfinder at trial.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment

    Like

  45. September 10, 2013 4:15 am

    Yes Sina, this is absolutely DISGUSTING. Just saw Marvin Putnam’s comments on this- they were vile- and he called Mrs Jackson greedy. Would really like to know Tom Mesereau’s take on this and on the impact it might be possibly having on the jury!

    Like

  46. September 10, 2013 3:41 am

    Susanne, I see that all is being narrowed down to propofol only – whether AEG knew of it or they did not – but this is not even important in this case. They did much more than that – fully controlled Murray and made him do what doctors are not expected to do: make MJ attend rehearsals, etc. using the leverage of non-payment in case Murray did not oblige.

    Another of my biggest doubts is the ability of the judge to dismiss some defendants at so late a stage. I looked up some legal materials and see it is a very rare case. “Our” case is “summary judgment motion”.

    Here are the basics:

    Civil Cases – The Basics

    In a civil trial, a judge or jury examines the evidence to decide whether, by a “preponderance of the evidence,” the defendant should be held legally responsible for the damages alleged by the plaintiff. A trial is the plaintiff’s opportunity to argue his or her case, in the hope of obtaining a judgment against the defendant. A trial also represents the defendant’s chance to refute the plaintiff’s case, and to offer his or her own evidence related to the dispute at issue.

    After both sides have presented their arguments, the judge or jury considers whether to find the defendant liable for the plaintiff’s claimed damages, and if so, to what extent (i.e. the amount of money damages a defendant must pay, or some other remedy). Depending on the type of case being heard, a civil trial may not necessarily focus only on the plaintiff’s allegations and the defendant’s liability. For example, in most divorce cases a trial judge reaches a decision after hearing allegations from both sides of the dispute, and enters a judgment that may favor one spouse on one issue (child custody), and the other spouse as to another issue (alimony). The following overview discussion of a civil trial is presented mostly in the context of a typical”plaintiff vs. defendant" civil case.

    (Note: Although a trial is the most high-profile phase of the civil lawsuit process, the vast majority of civil disputes are resolved well before trial — and in some cases before a lawsuit is even filed — via settlement between the parties, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes like arbitration and mediation, or through dismissal of the case.)

    A complete civil trial typically consists of six main phases, each of which is described in more detail below:
    • Choosing a Jury
    • Opening Statements
    • Witness Testimony and Cross-Examination
    • Closing Arguments
    • Jury Instruction
    • Jury Deliberation and Verdict

    Choosing a Jury
    Except in cases that are tried only before a judge (i.e. most family court cases), one of the first steps in any civil trial is selection of a jury. During jury selection, the judge (and usually the plaintiff and the defendant through their respective attorneys) will question a pool of potential jurors generally and as to matters pertaining to the particular case — including personal ideological predispositions or life experiences that may pertain to the case. The judge can excuse potential jurors at this stage, based on their responses to questioning.
    Also at this stage, both the plaintiff and the defendant may exclude a certain number of jurors through use of “peremptory challenges” and challenges “for cause.” A peremptory challenge can be used to exclude a juror for any reason (even gender and ethnicity in civil cases), and a challenge for cause can be used to exclude a juror who has shown that he or she cannot be truly objective in deciding the case.

    Opening Statements

    Once a jury is selected, the first “dialogue” in a personal injury trial comes in the form of two opening statements — one from the plaintiff’s attorney, and the other from an attorney representing the defendant. No witnesses testify at this stage, and no physical evidence is ordinarily utilized.

    Because the plaintiff must demonstrate the defendant’s legal liability based on the plaintiff’s allegations, the plaintiff’s opening statement is usually given first, and is often more detailed than that of the defendant. In some cases, the defendant may wait until the conclusion of the plaintiff’s main case before making its own opening statement.

    Regardless of when opening statements are made by either side in a personal injury case, during those statements:

    • The plaintiff presents the facts of the case and the defendant’s alleged role in causing the plaintiff’s damages (or reasons to find for the plaintiff) — basically walking the jury through what the plaintiff intends to demonstrate in order to get a civil judgment against the defendant.
    • The defendant’s attorney gives the jury the defense’s own interpretation of the facts, and sets the stage for rebutting the plaintiff’s key evidence and presenting any “affirmative” defenses to the plaintiff’s allegations (or reasons to find for the defendant).
    When a civil lawsuit involves multiple parties (i.e. where three individual plaintiffs sue one defendant, or one plaintiff sues two separate defendants), attorneys representing each party may give their own distinct opening arguments.

    Witness Testimony and Cross-Examination
    At the heart of any civil trial is what is often called the “case-in-chief,” the stage at which each side presents its key evidence and arguments to the jury.

    In its case-in-chief, the plaintiff methodically sets forth its evidence in an attempt to convince the jury that the defendant is legally responsible for the plaintiff’s damages, or that judgment for the plaintiff is warranted under the circumstances. It is at this point that the plaintiff may call witnesses and experts to testify, in order to strengthen his or her case. The plaintiff may also introduce physical evidence, such as photographs, documents, and medical reports. Especially in more complicated civil lawsuits such as employment discrimination and defective product claims, a plaintiff’s utilization of expert testimony and documentary evidence will be crucial in proving the defendant’s legal liability.
    Whether a witness is called by the plaintiff or the defendant, the witness testimony process usually adheres to the following formula:

    • The witness is called to the stand and is “sworn in,” taking an oath to tell the truth.
    • The party who called the witness to the stand questions the witness through “direct” examination, eliciting information through question-and-answer, to strengthen the party’s position in the dispute.
    • After direct examination, the opposing party has an opportunity to question the witness through “cross-examination” — attempting to poke holes in the witness’s story, attack their credibility, or otherwise discredit the witness and his or her testimony.
    • After cross-examination, the side that originally called the witness has a second opportunity to question him or her, through “re-direct examination,” and attempt to remedy any damaging effects of cross-examination.

    After the plaintiff concludes its case-in-chief and “rests,” the defendant can present its own evidence in the same proactive manner, seeking to show that it is not liable for the plaintiff’s claimed harm. The defense may call its own witnesses to the stand, and can present any of its own independent evidence in an effort to refute or downplay the key elements of the plaintiff’s legal allegations. Once the defense has rested, the plaintiff has an opportunity to respond to the defense’s arguments through a process known as “rebuttal,” a brief period during which the plaintiff may only contradict the defense’s evidence (rather than present new arguments). Sometimes, the defense may in turn have a chance to respond to the prosecution’s rebuttal.

    Once the plaintiff and defendant each have had an opportunity to present their case and to challenge the evidence presented by the other, both sides “rest,” meaning that no more evidence will be presented to the jury before closing arguments are made.

    Closing Arguments
    Similar to the opening statement, the closing argument offers the plaintiff and the defendant in a civil dispute a chance to “sum up” the case, recapping the evidence in a light favorable to their respective positions. This is the final chance for the parties to address the jury prior to deliberations, so in closing arguments the plaintiff seeks to show why the evidence requires the jury to find the defendant legally responsible for the plaintiff’s damages, or why the plaintiff’s case is stronger than the defendant’s. In turn, the defendant tries to show that the plaintiff has fallen short of establishing the defendant’s liability for any civil judgment in the plaintiff’s favor.

    Jury Instruction
    After both sides of the case have had a chance to present their evidence and make a closing argument, the next step toward a verdict is jury instruction — a process in which the judge gives the jury the set of legal standards it will need to decide whether the defendant should be held accountable for the plaintiff’s alleged harm.
    The judge decides what legal standards should apply to the defendant’s case, based on the civil claims at issue and the evidence presented during the trial. Often, this process takes place with input and argument from both the plaintiff and the defendant. The judge then instructs the jury on those relevant legal principles decided upon, including findings the jury will need to make in order to arrive at certain conclusions. The judge also describes key concepts, such as the “preponderance of the evidence” legal standard; defines any specific claims the jury may consider (i.e.”fraud,"”breach of contract,"”emotional distress"); and discusses different types of damages (i.e. compensatory and punitive) — all based on the evidence presented at trial.
    The case then goes “to the jury.”

    Jury Deliberation and Verdict
    After receiving instruction from the judge, the jurors as a group consider the case through a process called “deliberation,” attempting to agree on whether the defendant should be held liable based on the plaintiff’s claims, and if so, the appropriate compensation for any damages. Deliberation is the first opportunity for the jury to discuss the case — a methodical process that can last from a few hours to several weeks. Once the jury reaches a decision, the jury foreperson informs the judge, and the judge usually announces the verdict in open court.
    Most states require that a 12-person jury in a personal injury case be unanimous in finding for the plaintiff or the defendant, though some states allow for verdicts based on a majority as low as 9 to 3. If the jury fails to reach a unanimous (or sufficient majority) verdict and finds itself at a standstill (a “hung” jury), the judge may declare a “mistrial,” after which the case may be dismissed or the trial may start over again from the jury selection stage.
    http://litigation.findlaw.com/filing-a-lawsuit/civil-cases-the-basics.html

    Resolution Before Trial: Court Motions
    ________________________________________
    Pretrial motions can resolve many important questions about your lawsuit. A motion is a request your lawyer files with the court asking for a ruling on a particular matter. If the ruling on the motion could terminate the litigation and end the dispute before trial, it is called a dispositive motion. If the ruling is on some incidental question that arises during the litigation, it is a nondispositive motion. The information below is intended to give you a basic idea of dispositive motions that might end your case before trial, and how those motions work.

    Motion to Dismiss
    A motion to dismiss is sometimes filed in the very early stages of the litigation, before the parties have conducted discovery. The material presented in the complaint and any exhibits to the complaint are the focus of the motion. The motion is brought when the defendant believes that the complaint is legally deficient in some way. In deciding a motion to dismiss, the court must view the facts set forth in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. The motion to dismiss is usually based on one or more of the following legal deficiencies:
    Lack of subject matter jurisdiction, meaning that the court doesn’t have the power to rule on the controversy. For example, state law may require a special court to determine certain matters, such as requiring that a probate court, rather than a general civil court, decide a complaint involving the interpretation of a will.

    Lack of personal jurisdiction.
    This means that the court does not have power to make decisions affecting the defendant personally. The court lacks jurisdiction over you if you do not have sufficient minimum contacts with the place where the lawsuit has been filed. For example, if you were involved in an automobile accident at Yellowstone National Park, but you live in Florida and you’re being sued in Vermont, you would have a good reason to argue that the Vermont court doesn’t have jurisdiction over you.

    Improper venue.
    “Venue” refers to the particular location of the court. States have statutes setting forth the places within the state where you can be sued. If you are not sued in one of those places, the site of the lawsuit is inappropriate. A venue may be legally improper even if the court has personal jurisdiction over you. A frequent solution to this problem is not to dismiss the case, but to order that it be transferred to the proper venue.
    Insufficiency of process or insufficient service of process. A case may be dismissed if there is a technical defect in the summons (which is rare), or if you were not properly served with the summons and complaint (which is more common). Service may be improper for a number of reasons, so be sure to tell your lawyer about how you were served and any odd circumstances so your lawyer can determine whether it could lead to the case being dismissed.

    Failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
    In some cases, your lawyer may conclude that the facts set forth in the complaint do not state a legal claim for relief. For example, the complaint may allege that you did some negligent act that injured the plaintiff. The law may provide that you don’t have any responsibility to look out for the plaintiff under the circumstances described in the complaint. If you don’t have a legal responsibility, you cannot be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

    Summary Judgment Motion
    In some cases, the key facts are not disputed and require that judgment be entered for one of the parties. This is known as a summary judgment, in that it summarily ends the case before trial. The purpose of a trial is to have somebody — the judge or the jury — decide what the facts are. If the facts are not in dispute, there is no need for a trial. Instead the party who believes that the undisputed facts compel a ruling in his or her favor will file a motion for summary judgment. The motion asks the court to consider the undisputed facts and apply the law to them, and argues that the law requires a judgment for the party bringing the motion.
    Summary judgment is described as “a blunt instrument” that can abruptly terminate the litigation. To avoid a summary judgment, the other party must provide the court with evidence that would be permitted at trial that indicates that the key facts are disputable. If the court agrees with the party opposing the motion and finds that the key facts are in dispute, the court cannot enter judgment and must instead send the case to trial.

    Motion for Default Judgment
    If a defendant fails to answer the complaint or file a motion to dismiss within the time limit set forth in the summons, the defendant is in default. When a defendant is in default, the plaintiff can ask the court clerk to make a note of that fact in the file, a procedure called entry of default. Entry of default is serious: it means that because the defendant has failed to appear, he or she will not be permitted to contest whether he or she is liable to the plaintiff. Instead, the only question in dispute is how much the plaintiff should receive in damages. The court will send the defendant a notice stating that default has been entered against him or her.
    If a defendant is in default, acts promptly, and has an adequate excuse, he or she may be able to convince the court to set aside or vacate (undo) the entry of default from the file. Courts very much prefer that cases be decided on the merits, which often influences them to grant a motion to vacate entry of default. But in some cases, a court will decide that the defendants reasons aren’t good enough and refuse to set aside or vacate the entry of default.

    http://litigation.findlaw.com/filing-a-lawsuit/resolution-before-trial-court-motions.html

    Like

  47. September 10, 2013 2:47 am

    Of course I agree with you, Helena. But I also think not everything is lost.
    This is Alan Dukes take of the story. He also stresses the fact that the judge rejected the request of AEG Live to dismiss the whole case:

    “A judge rejected AEG Live’s request that she dismiss the Michael Jackson wrongful death lawsuit, but two executives were dropped as individual defendants on Monday, a ruling that had each side claiming a measure of victory.

    The trial, which is in its fifth month in a Los Angeles courtroom, is expected to conclude with closing arguments as soon as next week.

    But before AEG Live lawyers rest their defense case on September 16, they may call Michael Jackson’s mother back to the witness stand, attorney Marvin Putnam said.

    A decision will be made on the need for more testimony from Katherine Jackson after the judge rules on several issues regarding possible damages on Wednesday, Putnam said.

    The Jackson family matriarch delivered two days of dramatic testimony in July, which included a heated cross examination by Putnam.

    “She was trying to answer the questions the best she could,” Jackson lawyer Brian Panish said after she left the stand. “I think maybe she lost her temper a little bit and she tried to restrain herself in a very Christian-like way.”

    Jackson’s 83-year-old mother and three children accuse AEG Live of negligently hiring, retaining or supervising Dr. Conrad Murray, the physician convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the pop icon’s death. The company’s executives missed several warning signs that Jackson’s health was deteriorating under Murray’s care, they contend.

    AEG Live argues that Jackson, not its executives, chose and controlled Murray.

    Judge: Jurors will decide the case

    Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos ruled on Monday that the case against AEG Live will be sent to the jury. The company had filed a “nonsuit motion” that argued the Jacksons failed to present enough evidence to warrant jury deliberations.

    “Substantial evidence has been presented at trial from which a jury can reasonably infer that defendants (AEG Live) knew or should have known that Dr. Murray presented an undue risk of harm to decedent (Jackson),” she said in her ruling.

    AEG Live lawyers contend that their executives had no way of knowing about the dangerous — and ultimately fatal — infusions of the surgical anesthetic propofol the doctor was using to treat the singer’s insomnia. The coroner ruled Jackson died of a propofol overdose on June 25, 2009 — just days away from the premiere of his “This It It” tour in London.

    The judge also ruled that the Jacksons “presented substantial evidence” that AEG Live’s “conduct was a substantial factor in causing” Jackson’s death.

    “A jury may logically infer from the evidence that (Jackson) died because Dr. Murray, who was adversely affected by a conflict of interest created by his contractual arrangement with AEG, treated a deteriorating insomniac who was not ready to perform, causing Dr. Murray to make bad medical decisions that caused (Jackson’s) death,” the judge wrote.

    The Jackson case contends AEG Live created a medical conflict of interest by agreeing to pay the debt-ridden Murray $150,000 a month to serve as Jackson’s personal physician. Murray’s agreement said he could lose his job if the tour was postponed or canceled, leading him to make unsafe medical decisions, they argue.

    Murray told investigators he treated Jackson with propofol most nights for the last two months of his life. The Jacksons contend the treatments began once AEG Live co-CEO Paul Gongaware agreed in a phone call to Murray’s demands for $150,000 a month.

    “The timing of when Dr. Murray ordered propofol is a matter of factual dispute (as to whether that means Dr. Murray used it prior to AEG’s retention of him),” the judge wrote. “The court finds that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence that Dr. Murray’s treatment of decedent was connected to Murray’s employment by AEG. Therefore defendants’ motion for nonsuit is denied.”

    AEG Live execs dropped from suit

    AEG Live CEO Randy Phillips and co-CEO Paul Gongaware were dismissed as individual defendants in the case. The two executives in charge of producing and promoting Jackson’s comeback concerts “did not assume personal liability” when dealing with the hiring of Murray, Palazuelos wrote. “Rather, they acted solely as an agent of AEG Live.”

    A Jackson lawyer downplayed the significance of the dismissal of the two men as defendants, saying the plaintiffs previously offered to drop them from the case but AEG Live lawyers refused.

    Closing arguments could come as soon as September 19, after Jackson lawyers offer several witnesses next week in rebuttal to the AEG Live defense.

    Testimony was suspended for this week because a female juror traveled out of the state on an emergency trip to visit a seriously ill close relative, Palazuelos said Monday.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/09/showbiz/michael-jackson-death-trial/index.html?iref=allsearch

    Like

  48. September 10, 2013 2:35 am

    “Please see Charles Thomson’s tweets – re: his take on the judge’s decision re: Phillips and Gongaware.” -Jolie

    Here are Thomson’s tweets – it seems that Charles is optimistic:

    I think it is a death case. Isn’t it a wrongful death lawsuit?
    Judge in AEG trial has explained her decision to remove Phillips and Gongaware as defendants.
    Judge: “Substantial evidence has been presented at trial from which a jury can reasonably infer that (AEG) knew…
    …or should have known that Dr. Murray presented an undue risk of harm to (Jackson).”
    Judge: “Plaintiffs presented substantial evidence that (AEG’s) conduct was a substantial factor in causing (Jackson’s) death.”
    Judge: “Randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware did not assume personal liability. Rather, they acted solely as an agent of AEG Live.”
    Read her reasons. I believe they are valid, and she certainly seems to believe the Jacksons have a case against AEG.
    She hasn’t dismissed the case. She’s simply removed Phillips and Gongaware as individuals.
    She’s saying there’s insufficient to say either Phillips or Gongaware are individually to blame for MJ’s death.
    But there is sufficient evidence for a jury to deliberate about whether AEG as a collective is responsible.

    If only I could share his optimism…

    Like

  49. Nan permalink
    September 9, 2013 8:53 pm

    Dear Helena,
    I am sorry to hear about your accident..Hope you are feeling better soon.
    Thank you for all your hard work on this blog..
    We can see this is all such a dirty game going on.
    Cant believe how Michael carried himself with such grace when surrounded by such scum

    Like

  50. Jolie permalink
    September 9, 2013 8:51 pm

    Please see Charles Thomson’s tweets – re: his take on the judge’s decision re: Phillips and Gongaware.

    @CEThomson

    Like

  51. September 9, 2013 5:57 pm

    “I just had a thought that there could be a very small advantage with these shocking news:
    Perhaps it’s easier this way for the jury to decide for a conviction, as it could be easier to convict a company than individuals. I don’t know, just a thought… though I would like these 2 guys to bleed personally.”
    – Susanne

    I just want to remind everyone that Phil Anschutz was dismissed from the case earlier. the only one who could answer is the head of the AEG human resources department who was preparing Murray’s contract but this person was dismissed well in advance.

    The only advantage in this filth is that hopefully the eyes of at least some people will open to the truth.

    Like

  52. September 9, 2013 5:37 pm

    “Judge Yvette Palazuelos, however, left AEG Live, one of the nation’s largest concert promoters, as a defendant in the case.”
    Doesn’t make sense to me as these two are AEG Live and they acted as persons. Has anyone an understanding what that means for the remaining case? I’m speechless. –
    Susanne

    None of it makes sense unless we realize that she is slowly eroding the case for nothing to be left there. If Phillips and Gongaware are taken out who will remain out of AEG? NOBODY.

    And why isn’t it the jury who decides who is guilty and who is not?

    No, it is definitely the same circus as in my place. Now you have a “feel” of what it’s like.

    Like

  53. September 9, 2013 5:27 pm

    Susanne, i’m speechless too. Even from the LA Times article it should be clear to any sensible person that phillips and gongaware are guilty like hell. And what about their numerous lies seen with a naked eye and impeachments?

    Is it okay to so heavily lie in the US court and get away with it?

    Jackson judge indicates she’ll toss case against AEG officials

    Michael Jackson rehearses at Staples Center in Los Angeles in 2009. (Kevin Mazur / Associated Press)
    By Jeff Gottlieb
    September 9, 2013, 10:36 a.m.
    A Los Angeles Superior Court judge made a tentative ruling Monday throwing out the case against two AEG executives who were promoting Michael Jackson’s ill-fated “This Is It” comeback tour.

    Judge Yvette Palazuelos, however, left AEG Live, one of the nation’s largest concert promoters, as a defendant in the case.

    Jackson’s mother and three children are suing AEG Live, Chief Executive Randy Phillips and executive Paul Gongaware, saying they negligently hired and supervised Conrad Murray, the doctor who administered a fatal dose of the anesthetic propofol to the singer to help with his insomnia. Jackson died as he was preparing for a set of concerts in London.

    AEG has argued that Jackson hired Murray and that any money the company was supposed to pay the doctor was an advance to the singer.

    Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Jackson’s June 2009 death.

    A mid-morning hearing is scheduled Monday to allow attorneys to argue the judge’s tentative ruling

    Phillips and Gongaware are key witnesses at the trial, and both testified for several days. Phillips testified that he thought the lawsuit was extortion.

    Phillips wrote several emails that have emerged as key evidence in the trial, now going into its fifth month and not expected to reach the jury until late this month or next.

    After receiving an email from Kenny Ortega, the director of the planned “This Is It” concert series in London, saying Jackson needed psychiatric help just a few days before the singer died, Phillips wrote back: “I had a lengthy conversation with Dr. Murray, who I am gaining immense respect for as I get to deal with him more.

    “He said that Michael is not only physically equipped to perform and, that discouraging him to, will hasten his decline. … This doctor is extremely successful (we check everyone out) and does not need this gig so he [is] totally unbiased and ethical,” Philips wrote.

    But testimony showed the company did little to check out Murray, who is now serving a jail sentence. Murray, who closed his practice to serve as Jackson’s tour physician, was deep in debt and facing foreclosure on his home.

    Gongaware, who had known Jackson from previous tours, helped negotiate Murray’s contract, which called for him to be paid $150,000 a month. According to trial testimony, no one connected with Jackson was shown any of the three drafts of the contract. Murray signed it the day before Jackson died, the only one who signed the document.

    Gongaware wrote an email that could be among the most important pieces of evidence in determining who employed Murray. Eleven days before the singer died, he wrote: “We want to remind him [Murray] that it is AEG, not MJ who is paying his salary. We want him to understand what is expected of him.”
    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-jackson-judge-aeg-officials-20130909,0,6938747.story

    Like

  54. September 9, 2013 5:10 pm

    “Dont know the details but right now I am so disgusted ,feel like I wanna throw up.” – Sina

    Oh my God, the further it takes us the less difference i see between the “justice” in your place and mine. The same circus, only a less blatant one.

    I hope the result will be the same – the more they do it, the more people’s eyes open to the reality.

    P.S. Sina, thanks. I could not sleep, decided to get in and here is the terrible news.

    Like

  55. September 9, 2013 4:23 pm

    Guys, it’s late over here, I have to go to bed, though this will go through my mind all night.
    I just had a thought that there could be a very small advantage with these shocking news:
    Perhaps it’s easier this way for the jury to decide for a conviction, as it could be easier to convict a company than individuals. I don’t know, just a thought… though I would like these 2 guys to bleed personally.

    Like

  56. September 9, 2013 4:02 pm

    This is the latest report of Anthony McCartney (so far still no report of Alan Duke, CNN):

    “Judge Dismisses AEG Execs From Jackson Lawsuit

    A judge on Monday dismissed two executives from a negligence lawsuit filed by Michael Jackson’s mother and allowed the case to proceed against AEG Live LLC, the promoter of his planned comeback concerts.

    Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos said lawyers for Katherine Jackson hadn’t shown enough evidence that Randy Phillips, CEO of AEG Live LLC, and promoter Paul Gongaware were responsible for the death of the pop star.

    The judge, however, did rule that jurors should decide whether AEG Live hired Conrad Murray, the former cardiologist convicted of giving Michael Jackson a lethal overdose of anesthetic in June 2009. AEG Live denies any wrongdoing.

    The ruling will simplify the case for jurors, who could begin deliberations before the end of the month.

    During the trial, Katherine Jackson’s lawyers attacked the actions of Gongaware and Phillips in the months before the death. They claimed the executives missed warning signs about the superstar’s health and created a conflict of interest for his physician.

    Phillips and Gongaware denied they did anything wrong when they testified early in the case.

    Katherine Jackson sued AEG Live in 2010, claiming the company hired Murray.

    AEG Live lawyers argued the Jackson family matriarch had failed to prove that the company hired Murray or that its executives could have foreseen that the doctor was giving the entertainer treatments that would lead to his death.

    The company is expected to conclude its defense next week. Lawyers for Jackson’s mother say they plan to call several rebuttal witnesses.

    Due to an illness in a juror’s family, Palazuelos said there would be no testimony in the case this week.

    Opening statements in the case were April 29 and jurors have heard from more than 50 witnesses in 20 weeks. Key witnesses have included Jackson’s mother, his oldest son, his ex-wife Debbie Rowe, and several top AEG Live executives.

    The trial has featured potentially damaging testimony to both sides, with Katherine Jackson’s lawyers displaying emails sent by AEG executives describing Jackson in unflattering terms.

    The company’s lawyers have shown the jury testimony from several of Jackson’s doctors, who described close relationships with the singer and their occasional misgivings about whether he was shopping for doctors or had grown dependent on prescription medications.

    “I really think it would be inappropriate here for this to go to a jury,” AEG Live defense attorney Marvin S. Putnam argued Monday.

    Deborah Chang, an attorney for Katherine Jackson, countered that evidence in the case supported the family’s position that AEG is responsible for Michael Jackson’s death. They claim AEG Live created a conflict of interest in Murray’s care of Jackson by agreeing to pay him $150,000 a month to work as a tour physician.

    “They created the conflict and I think all of that is well within the record,” she said.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/judge-dismisses-aeg-execs-jackson-lawsuit-20203147

    Like

  57. September 9, 2013 3:36 pm

    Oh thanks, Sina, I saw your reply now. Yes, I see it the same way. It’s really unfair. This way they are not held responsilbe personally.

    Like

  58. September 9, 2013 3:34 pm

    OK, it looks like she dismissed the case against the two executives (PG and RP), but not against AEG Live as a company:

    “A Los Angeles Superior Court judge made a tentative ruling Monday throwing out the case against two AEG executives who were promoting Michael Jackson’s ill-fated “This Is It” comeback tour.

    Judge Yvette Palazuelos, however, left AEG Live, one of the nation’s largest concert promoters, as a defendant in the case.”

    Doesn’t make sense to me as these two are AEG Live and they acted as persons. Has anyone an understanding what that means for the remaining case? I’m speechless.

    Like

  59. Sina permalink
    September 9, 2013 3:34 pm

    Susan Iam trying to find out the specifics, the ruling and the implications, whether the dismissal concerns only the private individuals and not the company , which would be a bitter pill to swallow. Because these individuals should not get away with what they did. That would be so unfair. I am really shocked.

    Like

  60. September 9, 2013 3:03 pm

    Sina, I read it, too. I’m totally shocked.
    This is an article of LATimes, but I don’t understand what this really means, that they remain defendants in the case. In another article it was mentioned that the judge leaves the decision to the jury, is this possible?
    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-jackson-judge-aeg-officials-20130909,0,6938747.story

    Like

  61. Sina permalink
    September 9, 2013 2:37 pm

    Helena. so sorry to hear you got an accident. Hope your arm will heal well and not take too long. Please take care.

    Like

  62. Sina permalink
    September 9, 2013 2:26 pm

    I am just reading on Team MJ that the Judge dismissed the case against Philipps and Gongaware. Dont know the detailst but right now I am so disgusted ,feel like I wanna throw up.

    Like

  63. September 9, 2013 12:41 pm

    Guys, i’m currently reading Levounis’s testimony and am amazed by the direction in which the judge allowed the trial to go. Cahan of AEG speaks about “drugs, secrecy and doctor shopping” and the judge nods to it (at least at sidebards) as if hypnotized. Can anyone explain to me what bearing all this (even if it were true though it is not) can have on the case?

    AEG hired Murray so that he ensured Michael’s attendance of rehearsals even when they saw that he was terribly ill and gave him instructions to do this, to do that (for ex. insurance).

    AEG did not pay attention to the deterioration of his health, neglected to give help and didn’t allow anyone else to do it (“no one should be amateur doctor”), they forced him into rehearsing for two months 6 days a week, though they didn’t have the right to – and instead of all that the judge is nodding to some alleged ‘doctor shopping’ in 2001 as if it were relevant to what AEG did to Michael?

    Cahan is simply hypnotizing the judge with all this meaningless talk:

    Ms. Cahan. While they are getting organized, your honor, he wasn’t designated as a propofol expert. He’s not designated as a life expectancy expert. He said at his deposition he has not treated propofol addicts. We’re not asking him to render an opinion outside the scope of his deposition. At his deposition, he talked about secrecy and doctor shopping he saw in Mr. Jackson’s use of opioids where he does express an opinion about addiction, benzodiazepine and propofol, and he is going to use this chart to illustrate doctor shopping and secrecy evidence that he believes relates to Michael’s use of propofol or attempt to use propofol for sleep.

    …Ms. Cahan. Your honor, this isn’t about propofol addiction. He’s not going to be expressing an opinion about propofol addiction. What he did make clear at his deposition is that he’d reviewed all the materials, that he was expressing general opinions about Michael’s behavior with respect to drugs and secrecy and doctor shopping. We did one of these one-page lists of sort of notes of elements of his opinions that we made an exhibit to his deposition and turned over. Under the category secrecy of addiction in general, MJ in particular, there is a bullet that says “propofol abuse incredibly rare.” it was something discussed. But this testimony just read was about “are you opining on propofol addiction?” he said, “no, that’s outside of my scope.” but he can — and this is probably max five minutes of my exam with him, but he can show how this pattern of the behaviors associated with opioid addiction are also seen in the attempts to get propofol for sleep.
    Judge. Did he testify to that in his deposition?
    Mr. Panish. No, no.
    Ms. Cahan. Yes, he did.
    Mr. Panish. I mean, I just read you the questions on propofol.
    Mr. Putnam. But the questions he read, “will you be talking about propofol addiction?” that, he absolutely is not doing. As an addiction specialist, if you look at patterns and behavior, what patterns and behaviors speak to the idea of addiction and, also important to this case, shows those very patterns are things that make it difficult to be able to ascertain what is wrong with the person.
    Mr. Panish. Your honor, the question had nothing to do with addiction at page 91, line 16. “assuming for purposes of your opinions, using propofol on a regular basis, is it relevant to any fact in any of your opinions?” it wasn’t addiction. We did ask that specific question. When he says no, what are we supposed to do?
    Judge. Does he mention propofol at all in the rest of the deposition?
    Ms. Cahan. Yes, he does, your honor.
    Mr. Panish. He doesn’t say it’s one of these bases at all.
    Ms. Cahan. Your honor, what happened in the deposition is plaintiffs’ counsel asked about certain things. I went back to make sure he was able to express all of his opinions for the record and cover that. I’m look up the additional testimony on that. So he’s asked 160 at page 10 —
    Judge. What are his opinions? Let’s go back and explain what are his opinions.
    Ms. Cahan. It’s in the slide, your honor. It’s slide — in that packet we’ve put together, it’s slide four. These are the same as the opinions he’s disclosed at his deposition.
    Judge. Michael Jackson addicted to opioids.
    Ms. Cahan. Engaged in doctor shopping primarily with respect to opioids and also in respect to benzodiazapines. He was secretive about his medical care, apparent drug use. He expresses an opinion of addiction on opioids but talking about the classes of drugs that are prominent in Michael Jackson’s medical history, and then this issue of proper boundaries which you’ve heard about in talking about friendships with doctors. And that is exactly what was disclosed and discussed at his deposition.
    Judge. So where is he — okay. The doctor shopping and the secretiveness.
    Ms. Cahan. Yes.
    Ms. Cahan. Your honor, page 56 of the deposition, he’s asked about — he’s expressed a point on opioids and asked about any other substances to which Michael was addicted in that time frame. He says “there is propofol use as well, and that was quite prominent.” question, “and that rises to the level of an addiction?” answer, “it seems like there is an addiction as well.” question, “and what do you base that on?” “the frequency with which he’d be using the propofol, also the overall deterioration, the overall difficulties he had in missing appointments, not being able to function at 100 percent.” he’s not expressing that as a formal opinion but —
    Judge. It was discussed in the deposition.
    Mr. Panish. Then we ask him “is it for any relevance?” “no.” they say he’s not giving opinions on propofol addiction which no one says he was addicted to.
    Mr. Putnam. Your honor, it goes to he talks about patterns. We provided this one page where he talks about the various patterns that are there, and he uses this as an example just precisely how he’s using it here today. It’s indicative of his other opinions. He’s allowed to provide things that were the basis for those opinions. He’s provided it thereby which they were provided for in the deposition. It wasn’t created after the fact.
    Judge. I’m asking you to show me the deposition —
    Mr. Panish. We asked him specifically.
    Judge. — where he’s talking about these incidents of propofol that support the secrecy that support these two opinions, doctor shopping and secrecy about medical care?
    Mr. Putnam. Your honor, if I may. One of the things that — certainly, too, in the case of the demonstrative that you’ve been provided, he talks about the testimony that’s been provided at trial that provides further evidence of the things that he has testified to as to his opinions at his deposition. What that summarizes there are those very things which every single expert has done here. Every single expert that has come to speak has rightly been able to say I have things that further bolster what my opinions were, and these are things that have been shown here at trial. And that’s — if you look at things like what Debbie Rowe said, etc., talk about these things that come out at trial. That’s what the demonstrative demonstrates. He wouldn’t be able to talk about that previously. He’s now saying at trial is an example of his opinion.
    Judge. That would be fine if Michael engaged in doctor shopping, and he says somewhere there is an example of that with respect to propofol.
    Mr. Panish. He doesn’t.
    Judge. If he doesn’t identify anything about that in the deposition, this would not be further evidence of anything unless it was explained somewhere in the deposition. Now it sounds like he went through it in detail with respect to the opioids. It sounds like he’s covered with the opioids.
    Mr. Panish. Not really but…
    Judge. Mr. Panish, please.
    Mr. Panish. I’m sorry.
    Judge. It sounds like this is great for closing. If he didn’t explore this, not even an example of this in the depo, I don’t see how it can be admitted.
    Mr. Panish. If he had all of this information at the time of his deposition, this isn’t new information.
    Judge. Frankly, you can still argue that he engaged in doctor shopping with respect to propofol. You can still argue that he was secretive about his medical care with respect to propofol.
    Ms. Cahan. That’s fine. We won’t put up the demonstrative, your honor. This is all evidence that’s in the record now that he had reviewed — that he’s reviewed and considered. It’s things people have come in at trial and testified. It’s additional support for the existing opinion that he offered. To be clear in his deposition, when he was talking about doctor shopping and secrecy, he wasn’t limiting it to “I only saw that with opioids.” he’s talking about in Michael Jackson’s entire medical record, all the doctors he saw. He was getting opioids from some of the same doctors he was getting benzodiazapines from. There is not a complete enough record to express an opinion on addiction with respect to anything other than opioids in his view. But he does talk about the totality. It’s the behavioral aspects of how Michael was going to doctors, using doctors, the things he was saying. Some of those do relate to propofol.

    etc. etc. etc.

    Like

  64. September 9, 2013 3:24 am

    You are very welcome. Thank you for all that you do. And one is as young as one feels 🙂 Take care.

    Like

  65. September 9, 2013 3:21 am

    Suparna, thank you and everybody else for your wishes. This isn’t my first trauma while doing this blog – a couple of years ago i went to a skating rink and had a brain concussion. I simply tend to forget that i’m not a young girl, lol. Hope everyhing will be fine. i’ll try to put to good use all the spare time i now have.

    Like

  66. September 9, 2013 3:15 am

    Hi Helena,

    Thanks for your response despite your present situation. I will surely be following up the trial. Take care.

    Like

  67. September 9, 2013 3:13 am

    Hi Helena,

    Really sorry to hear about you! Please take care and do not strain yourself too much. God will surely reward all your hard work and commitment as well our prayers and AEG will surely be losing this case. Cheer up and take care. Hope you are in good heath soon. God Bless.

    Like

  68. September 9, 2013 3:03 am

    Thank you very much Susanne. yes, i’m right-handed, so it is more or less okay. The pain – yes, there was much of it when they were turning the arm even for an X-ray, but then they made some really powerful injection right into the fracture (that was awful) but after that could turn and even tug in opposite directions and press the bone to put it back in place and put some temporary plaster to make do until the operation. And that was absolutely painless.

    Now that we’ve been so well educated about painkillers I think that they gave me some narcotic (lol) because I felt a little “funny”, so I’m looking at this experience from a researcher’s point of view too. i will inform you about the operation.

    As regards the blog please just delete the spam and various ‘illuminati’ nonsense which they constantly send us.If you want to make any posts you are most welcome. I will try to follow the trial the best I can, but will most probably just read the transcripts stored on my computer.

    P.S. The elections of the mayor were not just elections but a sort of a test. We have not won but I’m happy that ‘they’ have at least noticed us.

    Like

  69. September 9, 2013 2:40 am

    OMG, Helena, poor you. I hope you are not in too much pain and this is not too terrible for you. I even thought about you when I heard the news about the election of the mayor in Moscow yesterday.
    Of course I will do my best to keep up to date with the blog and everything that happens, please don’t worry. And please take care of both of your arms and don’t overstrain the healthy one. Since it’s the left arm I hope you are a right-hander, so this would be at least of some help (I am a left-hander, lol).
    I’m glad you could inform us. If you can, please just keep us informed about the operation and how long we will have to be without you.

    My thoughts are with you and I hope sincerely that you will heal quickly.
    Much love to you!!!

    Like

  70. September 9, 2013 2:28 am

    “what they are up to?” -Suparna

    Suparna, you can read AEG’s detailed motion on Ivy’s thread mentioned above. As usual it is provided with much more detail than anything from Panish’s side.

    Like

  71. September 9, 2013 2:12 am

    Susanne, dear can I ask you to take care of the blog for some time? I was hurrying up to elections yesterday, fell and broke my left arm. Now I am in hospital. Doctors more or less fixed the arm but say that there will be an operation. Now i have my computer here and can type with one hand.

    Please don’t worry. In comparison with Michael’s ailments all this is a trifle.

    Like

  72. September 8, 2013 7:25 am

    Vindicatemj (Helena) – L.O.V.E., thank you more dear and you are touched by The King…
    Michael for almost 2 months without food, but the poison, that this fake doctor Murray administered his veins in every night of May and June of the 2009 who could imagine this in his bedroom…. until to get to the last beat of his heart. That is horror.
    And everything else is a horrible crime.
    Michael the all of you live in our hearts and We will love you forever.

    Like

  73. September 8, 2013 4:00 am

    Spot-on, Helena! I applaud you for this answer!

    Like

  74. September 7, 2013 8:00 pm

    Hi Helena,
    Yes, I have read your entire write up on Kathy Jorrie. That was brilliant. These two points of Dr Murray was to “perform the services reasonably requested by the PRODUCER” as also Kathy Jorrie agreeing to Panish’s remark that “There were terms where the producer had several ways to terminate Dr Murray’s agreement that did not require Mr Jackson’s consent” are pertinent in proving that AEG were Murray’s real boss. Since AEG has brought a dismissal motion that is scheduled to be heard on Monday – a nonsuit motion arguing that Panish and his team have not proven that AG hired Murray, I hope that The Jackson lawyers would be analysing their case point by point and highlighting these key clauses of the contract which clearly prove that AEG was Murray’s employer. How could the AEG lawyers even think of bringing such a motion when it is all so clear? What are they up to? Are they trying to buy more time?

    Like

  75. September 7, 2013 6:28 pm

    Guys, Murray’s contract reminds me of one unpleasant task I need to finish.

    You remember that in this post I wrote about the strange bias of Ivy of the MJJCommunity in favor of AEG in reporting the trial. I first noticed it on their Discussion thread where tons of dirt from various people were poured on Katherine Jackson and no one was saying a word against AEG, which was astonishing and made me exclaim whether they knew what they were doing at all.

    As a result of my activity I got banned and then forgot about that episode – until recently I came upon their other thread called “Katherine Jackson vs AEG Live – FULL Case History / Summary” where Ivy compared two variants of Murray’s contract and drew the fans’ attention to a paragraph where Producer was replaced by the Artist.

    The quoted piece omitted that the services for the Artist were to be performed “from time to time” which changed the meaning into the opposite and this made me question Ivy’s motives as you remember. In fact I wondered why she thought it necessary to draw the fans’ attention to that producer/artist change at all.

    Ivy wrote to me a Facebook message containing 8 detailed points covering a broad range of issues from freedom of speech in her country to the specifics of this blog. She also explained that their policy is reporting “naked information” without any comment on it (like the media does) for everyone to decide for themselves, and asked for an apology.

    I refused as I consider my position well-grounded. Before answering Ivy I went to their thread once again to double check my conclusions and this time studied all the 38 posts there from beginning to end. Unfortunately the study only confirmed my first impression – the information reported on the thread is not neutral and is biased in favor of AEG.

    Below you will find my explanation to Ivy of this point of view.

    Ivy, sorry for the delay – I didn’t see that you answered me. Your replies made me look up the thread once again and this gave me with a lot more information about your bias towards AEG than I ever expected.

    The headline of the thread we are discussing here is “Katherine Jackson vs AEG Live – FULL Case History / Summary” which is utterly misleading as it makes the reader think that it is indeed a full case summary, and there is no need to go anywhere else. At least I as a reader had this impression so I will limit myself to what I see in this thread without analyzing anything else on the forum.

    My line of reasoning is that if it says it is full, it should be full indeed.

    1) You have replied to me in each of your answers that you provide “naked information” without any comment and do not push your opinion on others. This is not true. I’ve seen numerous examples of your comments and pushing your opinion on your readers.

    Here are only some examples of your comments:

    • Geez a strong start: AEG starts with saying the only thing that the complaint got right was that “MJ’s death was tragic” , they refer everything else to be false.
    • Katherine is asking AEG to provide any documents about Murray’s medical treatment of Michael (good luck finding that)
    • guess what emails were given to LA Times? yep they are dating back to 2008. That’s why AEG says it can only be Jacksons and not Lloyds.
    • Howard Mann says he is the source and his source are not the Jacksons. Ha,Ha,Ha

    Actually you go even as far as commenting on the newspapers articles you post – in the body of the article itself, for example here wtf was added:

    • “AEG Live refuses to acknowledge that that the singer himself had no fault for bringing about his own death, according to Boyle’s court papers. wtf????????

    2) Besides small comments here and here there is also a noticeable tendency on your part to explain the position of AEG and seldom (if ever) do the same for Katherine Jackson’s side. But if you think that the readers are able to interpret everything themselves, there is absolutely no need to explain things for AEG – impartiality should indeed be impartiality and not helping readers to understand one side only.

    The examples of your explanations for AEG are dozens per page with some variation from page to page. Even the first ones produce the following result:

    • (simply put they say: just because we have a contract with Michael for concerts that requires physical activity, it doesn’t mean that we are legally responsible for his health).
    • (in other words they argue that even if they knew Michael’s sleep problems they couldn’t guess treatment with anesthesia)
    • (In other words they say even if they hired Murray, they cannot be responsible for his negligence (they cite a case that says asking an employee to get a medical test doesn’t bring the company the obligation to oversee the medical exam)
    • (In basic terms they try to say “we cannot prevent something from happening if we had no idea about it happening”)

    So on and so forth.

    3) You say that the thread contains documents only, however this does not explain the presence of numerous newspaper articles there. The principles of their selection is another big issue which requires a separate discussion.

    When AEG won a round in the pretrial period you posted two articles that the court would make Katherine and the children answer more questions from AEG turning it into a special post (out of 38 in the thread). Given that the informative value of the above is minimal the need to post those articles at all raises questions, unless the main idea was to show that AEG did have a certain win.

    When there was a leak of AEG emails to the press you devoted several posts (from post No. 9 to post No. 13) to an incredibly extensive media coverage of it, all of which was hateful to the Jacksons and included your “ha,ha,ha” about Mann as a possible source of those leaks and numerous explanations to readers why AEG could not be a source of such leaks.

    Why was it so terribly important to explain all that in several of your posts? And why – if your thread allows such explanations at all – didn’t you make a similarly detailed explanation of changes in Conrad Murray’s contract where it was indeed necessary as AEG was engaged in active misinformation of people?

    In fact not only the explanation was missing but even the change itself in Conrad Murray’s contract was reported by you inaccurately, which contradicts the next principle you are declaring in your replies.

    4) You say that your business is to do accurate and unbiased reporting similar to the one done by the media. It is an interesting statement considering how often the media lies to us, but this is not the point. The point is that your report on the changes in Conrad Murray’s contract is the quintessence of inaccuracy because you omitted the crucial part of the story.

    All that was actually required of you was to quote one sentence from the contract AS IT IS and your readers would have understood the situation even without any comment on your part.

    The sentence is the following one in the initial variant of the contract:

    “Dr. Murray shall also provide such other services as are reasonably requested by Producer FROM TIME TO TIME during the term hereof”

    The final variant was corrected and said:

    “Dr. Murray shall also provide such other services as are reasonably requested by Artist FROM TIME TO TIME during the term hereof”

    “From time to time” is put here in bold type as it is the only thing that matters here.

    In the initial variant Murray was to provide services to Producer from time to time only (so the main job was to be done for the artist), and in the final variant the services for the Artist were to be provided from time to time, while the main job was to be done for the Producer.

    This way AEG put the beginning of the contract in accordance with their paragraph 4.1 where “services requested by the Producer” were declared as Murray’s main responsibility and turned the contract into a fully Producer-oriented one.

    However your report of the above was based on:

    • a shortened quote which omitted the key part of the story – you just said that Producer was changed into Artist and that’s it, and
    • you also refrained from any explanation though in this particular case it was top necessary, or otherwise people could think that AEG was turning Murray’s contract into MJ’s favor (which they were not).

    Kathy Jorrie, a lawyer for AEG did exactly the same at Murray’s trial and everyone swallowed the AEG lie then.

    This lack of appropriate comment is all the more surprising considering that before that you never hesitated to explain, detail and even provide media reports when it came to detailing AEG’s position.

    5) Actually the materials explaining AEG’s position on your thread take approximate 80% of its space, if not more.

    To explain this phenomenon you say that you take only the information available on the LA Supreme Court page. If this is indeed so, we will have to assume that there is nothing on the LA Supreme Court list but: 1) depositions of Randy Jackson and Taunya Jackson, 2) declarations (no depositions) from AEG people stating the essence of their false story 3) detailed explanation why the case against AEG should have been thrown out of court even before going there (the so-called summary judgment motion) plus appeal papers from AEG 4) media reports to detail the AEG case further 5) and some other documents like lists of witnesses on both sides, etc. which do not change the general impression that the thread is mostly about AEG and their views on this trial.

    And this is being done despite the declaration that the thread is “Katherine Jackson vs AEG Live – FULL Case History / Summary”. A much more appropriate name for it would the full summary of AEG’s case against Jacksons.

    There is a lot more to say about it and a lot more examples to give, but even the above will show to you what you yourself know perfectly well – you are writing on a MJ fan forum but are biased in favor of AEG, and I am absolutely ready to prove it with respective quotes from the above thread.

    Any talk about “neutral” reporting is out of the question – well, at least on this thread.

    However this is not all.

    6) Your statements about my blog and my treatment of those who do not share my point of view are as false and inaccurate as is your coverage of Jacksons vs. AEG case on your thread.

    I won’t go into detail here but your ally Shelly will probably explain to you that she is not banned from my blog (though I am banned from your forum) and she is free to say whatever she likes there.

    The only right I reserved for myself as the admin of the blog is that each time Shelly speaks about AEG I will inform my readers that she is most probably acting as a spokeswoman for AEG. As regards everything else there are no limitations – as long as everyone knows who she is speaking for it is okay.

    I prefer everyone to be honest and ask everyone (you included) to be one. My dislike for lies is the only “fault” you can find with me. So as long as you honestly say whose position you support it is okay with me.

    However this contrasts deeply with the treatment of my comments on your forum. After I openly expressed my views on AEG there I was simply banned and this is all there is to say about the type of democracy you are practicing on MJJCommunity.

    7) Let me also note that you are misinforming your readers about the status of other authors in my blog. Those who wrote for the blog are still there and still enjoy the status of its authors. They have the full right to make posts and probably will if they want to, though now they have a blog of their own too.

    And you will also be surprised to learn that I do not hate AEG. I hate LIES and speak for the truth in my blog, and if for once in their lives AEG chose to tell the truth about what they did to Michael Jackson I would embrace them with my both hands.

    But they and the people who are supporting them are choosing to fool people with their false stories, and this is indeed what I detest, and why I have to do research to be able to finally learn the truth.

    And when someone boasts to be honest, true and totally neutral while all the time consistently misinforming people – this is what I find totally unacceptable.

    Each of us is making our own choice at each particular moment in time, and each of us is a continuity in terms of our evolvement. What was our yesterday should not necessarily be our tomorrow.

    Make a different choice, speak for the truth and though you will still be my opponent if you support AEG, there will be no need for me to write posts about what’s going on the MJJCommunity forum.

    The debate will be HONEST, and this is what I striving for.

    To see whether my conclusions are correct (or not) I encourage everyone to go to the thread and have a look for themselves. Here is the thread: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/128731-Katherine-Jackson-vs-AEG-Live-Full-Case-History-Summary

    Like

  76. September 7, 2013 4:41 pm

    – “If there was no specific reason for bringing the doctor into the fold for purposes of their own they could have given Michael an advance and he could have paid Murray from that sum, without any involvement of AEG into the deal. But AEG did get in, drafted a direct employer/employee contract with Murray and were finally ready to go with him into contractual relations.”- Helena.
    – “Excellent points Helena. Your facts and interpretations about the AEG contract is superb. Only if these points could be conveyed to the courtroom! Seriously, can someone not do it?” – Suparna

    Suparna, I think that the Jacksons’ lawyers know the biggest part of it as they themselves wondered why AEG did not give an advance to Michael out of which he could pay money to Murray, unless they wanted to keep Murray under their control.

    And as to Kathy Jorrie the moment she solemnly declared that she was not in a hurry with Murray’s contract because Murray was Michael’s doctor and they didn’t need a contract for him to continue to give MJ his services, I immediately thought that she was cutting the branch on which she and AEG were sitting.

    If indeed no contract was required why did AEG then get in between the two of them? If the problem was in the money only, the easiest way would have been to give a bigger advance to MJ and wash their hands off it. But no, they did draft a contract and never even informed Michael’s side of what was written inside it. And what was written inside it was that Murray was to perform the services requested of him by the Producer.

    The contract also said that it was AEG who could terminate Murray. If Michael wanted to terminate he was to take a by-pass route – he was to address AEG with his complaints and they were to take a decision.

    In fact the situation is absolutely transparent – Murray’s employer was AEG – and it is only due to AEG’s incessant propaganda that there is so much fog around this matter.

    Like

  77. September 7, 2013 7:17 am

    “But if they realized that Murray did not need an agreement with AEG to perform services for Michael why did AEG insert themselves between Murray and MJ then? If there was no specific reason for bringing the doctor into the fold for purposes of their own they could have given Michael an advance and he could have paid Murray from that sum, without any involvement of AEG into the deal. But AEG did get in, drafted a direct employer/employee contract with Murray and were finally ready to go with him into contractual relations.”- Helena.

    Excellent points Helena. Your facts and interpretations about the AEG contract is superb. Only if these points could be conveyed to the courtroom! Seriously, can someone not do it?

    Like

  78. September 4, 2013 3:36 am

    “the 2nd part is clearly marked as “unchanged”.” – Smoothlugar

    So for the first part inaccurate guidance is given (no mention is made of “from time to time” services for the Artist) and the second page is commented on as simply “unchanged”? Is it a sort of a riddle a fan is supposed to solve?

    Why isn’t the full quote provided by Ivy which at least could give some hint to a fan how to decipher the riddle?
    This is what we see in Ivy’s text:

    earlier version mentioning services requested by producer
    june 23 version services requested by artist

    And this is what it should have been like had accurate reporting been in mind:

    earlier version mentioning services requested by producer from time to time
    june 23 version services requested by artist from time to time

    The above is based on the actual phrase in Murray’s final contract where in paragraph 1 Producer was changed into Artist:

    “Dr. Murray shall also provide such other services as are reasonably requested by Producer Artist from time to time during the term hereof.”

    “From time to time” is the only thing that matters here. It is so important that it actually changes the whole meaning of the phrase. But it is fully omitted by Ivy.

    Kathy Jorrie did exactly the same thing at Murray’s trial. She never mentioned that the changes were about the services for the Artist to be done “from time to time” only. She omitted the crucial thing and did her best to create a false impression that Murray was to perform services for the Artist all the time, while in reality it was on occasions only, as a sort of an exception:

    Kathy Jorrie:

    ‘The other thing that we discussed was that in section one of the contract it describes the services that Dr. Murray was going to perform. And there was a place there that said “Services that are reasonably requested b-y t-h-e P-r-o-d-u-c-e-r would be services he would perform. The producer was AEG Live Productions, and he said “That should be the Artist” and I said (smiling) “You’re absolutely right, that should be the Artist, not the Producer, you’re the physician for the Artist” and so I made that change’.

    “b-y t-h-e P-r-o-d-u-c-e-r” was written this way because Kathy Jorrie said is very slowly impressing each word of it on the jury. I tried to reflect it in the written text.

    Here is the video from Kathy Jorrie’s testimony at Murray’s trial. She starts speaking about it at around 10:26.

    Ivy essentially did the same thing.

    Same style.

    Like

  79. Smoothlugar permalink
    September 3, 2013 7:57 pm

    @ vindicate (Helena): “But if nothing is said about the second part, but the first is singled out and even underlined, it is still not “drawing attention”?”

    Well, for me those documents posted illustrated themselves better the witness testimony and the 2nd part is clearly marked as “unchanged”.

    In that particular thread of news nothing else is commented but it had already been done so three days earlier in the open discussion thread, where it was stated that Kathie Jorrie did not change provision 4.1. of the contract.

    How to interpret that apparent mistake is another issue. For me, it shows incompetence, and not necessarily any benefit for AEG; the error in itself speaks, that’s why perhaps my attention was drawn to the error than any other thing!

    Like

  80. September 3, 2013 3:19 pm

    Above you asked about “what was the point of drawing the fans’ attention to that change in the contract at all?”, referring to the posts in MJJC where Ivy put the parts of such document that were modified in the last version/”draft” of the contract, and here’s is my humble opinion:
    – Those changes in the contract were alreday known since Kathie Jorrie testified about them in 2011 in the Murray trial.
    – In my view, what is new now in this civil trial is that she did not change it in all parts of the contract, which obviously is a manifest contradiction and a serious error that doesn’t/wouldn’t benefit anyone (AEG included), and only would show incompetence.
    And this is precisely what I learnt from the official documents that Ivy published in answer to questions from fans (even from those who usually don’t agree with her). Thanks to this it was easier to understand what was being talked in the trial, particularly in the cross. I didn’t get any other impression from that “drawing the fans’ attention to that change”, as you suggest. – Smoothlugar

    I suggest? So you don’t get the impression that Ivy was drawing attention of fans to a change from Producer to the Artist in Murray’s contract in this text:

    producer / artist changes mentioned at testimony
    earlier version mentioning services requested by producer
    june 23 version services requested by artist

    In Ivy’s variant the last two sentences are even underlined (this is why I singled them out too). But you still think that it isn’t an instance of drawing attention to this point?

    But if she wants to show a contradiction of the above to the page that is placed next why not just add one sentence and say so?

    For example, “but the responsibilities of the doctor remain the same – he should perform the services requested by producer”.

    Why not just add this one sentence to the above two and underline it as well? Then it would indeed be an accurate comparison and a clarification, wouldn’t it?

    But if nothing is said about the second part, but the first is singled out and even underlined, it is still not “drawing attention”? And is called “unbiased reporting” in favor of one side only?

    And since when has focusing on AEG’s side of the story become so important on a forum of Michael Jackson’s fans?

    Indeed, it looks like someone takes us for kindergarten children to play games with.

    Like

  81. Smoothlugar permalink
    September 2, 2013 11:43 am

    Above you asked about “what was the point of drawing the fans’ attention to that change in the contract at all?”, referring to the posts in MJJC where Ivy put the parts of such document that were modified in the last version/”draft” of the contract, and here’s is my humble opinion:

    – Those changes in the contract were alreday known since Kathie Jorrie testified about them in 2011 in the Murray trial.

    – In my view, what is new now in this civil trial is that she did not change it in all parts of the contract, which obviously is a manifest contradiction and a serious error that doesn’t/wouldn’t benefit anyone (AEG included), and only would show incompetence.

    And this is precisaly what I learnt from the official documents that Ivy published in answer to questions from fans (even from those who usually don’t agree with her). Thanks to this it was easier to understand what was being talked in the trial, particularly in the cross. I didn’t get any other impression from that “drawing the fans’ attention to that change”, as you suggest.

    Like

  82. September 2, 2013 5:09 am

    Correction,it was Shaawn Trell who raised the possibility of term,that is death, insurance. I don´t know where exacty he fits in with the chain of AEG officials.

    Like

  83. September 1, 2013 9:24 am

    Happy birthday michael! Delayed due to some problems w. prev. email. That insurance became a big stumbling block for AEG. They managed to fool some most of the time,but not all.And thank all of you who have printed out all those telling e-mails. SoPG started thinking
    about term insurance.Was he claivoiant?

    Like

  84. Sina permalink
    August 31, 2013 9:56 pm

    ‘On June 18 Kathy Jorrie looked up Murray on the Internet (for 10 minutes as she said) after or before talking to Murray on the phone.
    It won’t surprise us to learn that the subject of the discussion was insurance.’

    AEGs dealings with all of their contracts is questionable to say the least but also reveals their true intentions.
    What exactly was Jorrie looking for and expecting to find in those costly 10 minutes? Why check if they have no policy of background checks on non-employees and were only ‘doing Michael a favor’?. CM was not their business, yet she agreed to ‘stall’ him when it was convenient and contact him when he was usefull.
    Why negotiate a contract only with the ‘independent contractor’ and not with the one who allegedly commissioned the service?. What is the logic in having the ‘independent contractor’ sign first before presenting the final version to Michael or his representatives?.

    Jorrie knew very well that CMs services were not regular physicians services. That would be a continuation of CMs status that did not need a contract like that. The equipment and assistance asked did not suggest regular medical care and for a man ready to do 50 shows should have raised questions.
    When CM informed them that he had already started his services , they did not object and even agreed, which was prior to finishing the negotiations and signing the contract. That was the moment the agreement became binding. If AEG was not a party to the contract and Jorrie was not Michaels representative, she had no right to agree.
    She should have asked Michael if he agreed that the services before signing should fall under the terms of the contract , If the contract , never seen by Michael said: not valid untill signed.
    Michael never saw the contract, but if he had after CM signed and he did not agree with the terms, would the negotiating circus start all over?. And who then would be accountable for agreeing to the services and terms if they turned out to be damaging to him, as in reality they did? The lawyer Jorrie who was supposed to know what she was doing or Michael who didn’t know what kind of deals were made on his behalf? Imo there is only one answer to that.

    .’a series of FB messages explaining her approach to the matter’ – Helena
    Neutrality is a farce. Its no problem to have an ‘approach’ , which in itself is proof of non objectivity, because it is based on sources of ones choice and disregard of other sources. But no matter what approach you take , what matters are the facts.
    I make no secret where my loyalty lies and will always be. I support the case 100% because of the injustice, the bullying and humiliation Michael suffered through AEG.
    That does not mean that I don’t see some shortcomings in the case that can go either way. But as an MJ fan to speak on AEGs behalf under the pretext of neutrality ?
    If there is a place that is the anti thesis of neutrality it is the fansite you are referring to .
    Much of what is said is gossip and hearsay because that is their lifeline. So I don’t expect them to look closely and question what is presented to them as the gospel.( though some do eloquently) But whoever takes upon themselves the authority to ‘explain’ the case to others, has a responsibility, The least they should do is present the complete documents and not pick and choose.

    Last but not least.
    My belated birthday wishes to Michael inspired by Helena’s photos of her celebration .
    Dancing to Michael , two events I attended. This one was a spontaneous event, shortly after june 25 . Everyone was in shock and danced like crazy hoping he might come back. It was a celebration of love.

    Spike lee s Brooklyn loves Michael Bday bash , so much fun. and a spiritual closing by ref. Al Sharpton.
    A few days later ,a year after his interment, I was at Forest Lawn. Celebrating and mourning Michael in one week .

    A private celebration of love. Michael serenades his mom, 25 years old and shining.For the good times

    Prince and Paris singing to their daddy. sweet and sad,

    Like

  85. August 31, 2013 8:27 am

    Here is part 2 of Alice’s transcripts of emails which circulated between Conrad Murray, the insurance brokers and AEG people on June 24 and 25 and were retrieved from Murray’s Iphone. It is a very good illustration what Murray was busy with in the last 48 hours of Michael’s life. All the text prepared by Alice (thank you very much). My short comment will be in square brackets.

    Alice: “The following is a screenshot of an email dated June 25, 2009. Time of 5.54am. It is one that I mentioned earlier above in a screenshot of Murray’s inbox. The sender is Bob Taylor to Murray, Shawn Trell, Randy Phillips, Paul Gongaware, Timm Woolley and John Silcock.

    The forensic computer examiner testifying at this time said the fact this email was recorded by an automatic screenshot on June 25 at 5.54am shows Murray was awake then and opened the email. But what interests me now in terms of this case is the specific communication between Taylor and Murray, with all AEG members included on the email.

    sender: Bob Taylor
    to: Conrad
    cc: Shawn, Randy, Paul, Timm, John Silcock
    subject line: RE: Artist Insurance

    25th June 2009
    Hi Conrad,
    Thank you for calling me last evening. We are dealing with a matter of great importance and your urgent attention … appreciated.
    Please forward the clearance that you wish me to sign to my direct fax 022344 207 538 3084. I will sign and return it to you immediately. Once you have that I understand you will release to me a copy of your records/consultative … of your involvement. Please note, the release may be signed by my partner John Silcock (CEO of Robertson Taylor) if I am out of the office when the letter arrives. I have advised the insurers that your records go back from the present time to 2006 when you first met with MJ in Nevada. You confirmed that as far as you are aware you are the only doctor consulted during that 3 year period. You also agreed to check with him if he had undergone any cosmetic work during that period. We briefly discussed the period between April 2004 and when you took ver in 2006. Whilst you have no records for that time you agreed that you would speak with MJ and members of his staff who were present for those years to establish if any of them can recall who the appointed doctor was and if any medical record is available (perhaps payments for treatments could give a lead on this).

    I am sure that you will recall that the trial was during this period and it was well publicised that he went into a rest home for a while during that period … insurers believe that he would have consulted with a doctor and it is he and any other records could give a lead on …
    The insurers have specifically requested information:

    Press reports on the artist at various times using a wheelchair, and whether any of these occasions were as a result of a medical issue.
    Press reports that the artist had, or has, suffered a back injury
    Press reports that the artist is suffering, or has previously suffered from lupus
    Press reports that the artist is suffering, or has previously suffered from cancer
    Press reports that the artist was hospitalised in 2005
    Rates and brief details of any cosmetic procedures and specific details of any cosmetic
    Press reports that the artist has suffered from lung infections/emphysema and chronic gastrointestinal bleeding.
    Press reports that the artist has minimal diet (is possibly anorexic)

    As with all insurance policies there is a duty of full disclosure, and it is therefore vitally important that the information provided is full and complete. Non-disclosure of vital subsequently decide is a material fact may lead to the insurance coverage being called into question.
    One final point: I have just received the attached letter from Justin Burns, the leading Lloyd’s underwriter on this policy. You can see this is correspondence between him and Dr Ettinger concerning the doctors attending and the appointing times. Please confirm this is acceptable.
    I look forward to hearing from you on the above as soon as possible …
    Thank you for your help in this matter, best regards, Bob Taylor.”

    Murray responds to this email from Bob Taylor as follows on June 25 at 11.17am. [Michael is not breathing already]

    “Dear Bob
    I’m in receipt of your email I spoke with Mr Jackson and requested his authorisation for release of his medical records in order to assist you to procure a cancellation insurance policy for his show,however,authorisation was denied. I therefore suggest that someone from AEG should consult kindly with mr Jackson as to it’s relevance for he is of the opinion that such a policy is already secured in the US. As far as the statements of his health punlishef (note: he means published) by the press let me say they’re all fallacious to the best of my knowledge. Sincerly (note: he means sincerely) Conrad Murray. Sent from my iPhone.”

    The following is my personal transcript of the infamous voicemail recording from Frank Dileo to Murray on June 20, 2009. Time the voicemail left was at 7.48am pacific time. I know we already have this but I’m doing it anyway for the purpose of consistency. It sounds like he’s in a helicopter.

    [Alice doesn’t understand why Dileo says “I’m the short guy with no hair”. I think he means his bald head and hopes that this way Murray will be able to identify him. So Dileo was’t in close contact with Murray, otherwise Murray would have known him]:

    “Ah, yeah, Dr Murray it’s Frank Dileo, Michael’s manager. I’m the short guy with no hair (sic?). To please call me at, ah, 213 304 9110. I’m sure you’re aware he had an episode last night. He’s sick. Today’s Saturday, tomorrow I’m on my way back I’m not going to continue my trip. Um, I think you need – I think you need to get a blood test. We gotta see what he’s doing. Okay. Thank you.”

    Now the defence take over from Mr Walgren, people’s prosecutor. Now it’s Mr Georgian, not Flanagan or Chernoff. The following is an email from Justin Burns, which was included on a thread of emails, which were ALL forwarded to Murray AND cc’ed to Shawn Trell, Paul Gongaware, Randy Phillips and Timm Woolley and John Silcock by Bob Taylor on June 25 regarding insurance. This particular email is dated on June 22.

    sender: Burns, Justin (justin.burns@Cat=edralCapital.com)
    3.27pm on June 22, 2009.
    to: Ian France
    CC: Danny Burns (danny.burns@tailbotuw.com)
    subject line: MarK Jones
    Importance: High

    “Ian
    Further to our discussions, wide of the basic examination and bloods etc
    The specialist examinations are required in order to fully asses the medical risks of the performer whom you are insuring.
    Clearly his performance is very physical and we would want an expert musculoskeletal orthopaedic surgeon to advise on his ability after so many years without being on stage to perform , the person who be involved is the most expert orthopaedic surgeon in UK and advised many high performance athletes . In regard to his cardio and respiratory capacity the cpx measures heart lungs oxygen etc and he would be wired up so that this can be performed with egg leads and a mouth piece
    Further at this time the 2 specialists required for these tests are currently only available on the Monday afternoon. If the medical is to be any other time please advise URGENTLY
    Trust this helps
    Kind regards
    Justin”

    The following is another email from Justin Burns, also included on this thread of emails, which were ALL forwarded to Murray AND cc’ed to Shawn Trell, Paul Gongaware, Randy Phillips and Timm Woolley and John Silcock by Bob Taylor on June 25. This email is dated June 24 and Mr Gorgian suggests it appears to be a response to the previous email. It is cut off at the bottom, as shown by ellipsis.

    sender: Justin Burns (Justin.Burns@Cat=edralCapital.com)
    8.14am, June 24, 2009
    to: Ian France
    cc: Danny Burns, Todd, Jane, Spicer, Katie
    subject line: Mark Jones
    Importance: High

    “Dear Dan
    As discussed yesterday there are several reasons why we need the depth of the medical being required and at the location specified.
    1. Firstly and most importantly Dr Ettinger advised what is being proposed is no different than would be considered the ‘norm’ when carrying out a full medical on a 50 year ld individual. Let alone one who is about to embark on a major tour.
    2. Dr Ettinger further advised it would be impossible to carry out a satisfactory medical at the artists home due to the unavailability of essential medical equipment there.
    3. Despite many requests the 5 year medical history has still not been provided.
    4. Despite many requests the artists fitness program (5/6 hours a day) has not been provided
    5. The whole media circus has also ensured a very negative edge to the situation. As you know there have been several occasions we have asked the assured to confirm or deny press speculation, always with no response
    6. There have been several high profile medical issues over the years, either confirmed by the act, his management, or in a court of law – none of which appear on the medical originally submitted for our consideration.
    Given all of the above, the high profile nature of the risk and the relentless questions and clarifications of the situation we are having to provide …”

    The following shows another email from Bob Taylor (this email previously mentioned in the screenshot of Murray’s email inbox below the chain of emails detailed previously) to Paul Gongaware, Shawn Trell (both of his emails), Timm Woolley, Dr Murray and Randy Phillips on June 25 at 1.54am. This email is also a thread containing older emails, so all people just mentioned are privy to what is written. I will transcribe the first and follow immediately with the older message this one replies to.

    sender: Bob Taylor
    to: Bob Taylor, Paul Gongaware, Shawn Trell, Timm Woolley, Dr Conrad Murray, Randy Phillips
    1.54am, June 25
    subject line: RE: Artist Insurance
    “Paul / Shawn . Please confirm receipt. The consultation in London is critical they will not agree the house. The doctor is holding the afternoon of the 6th July open at Harley St. but keep in mind the visit could take 2 hours plus. Thanks Bob T”

    As I said above, the following is the email that is also included with the previous one.

    sender: Bob Taylor
    June 24, 8.32pm
    to: Paul Gongaware
    cc: Shawn Trell, Timm Woolley, Dr Conrad Murray, Randy Phillips
    subject line: RE: Artist Insurance
    “Paul … They will not accept that. They are insisting that this be done in Harley St (a 50 min drive at that time of day). The equipment is all installed in a specialist suite and is readily available for use. The doctor is however available through the afternoon so if 1400 hrs is a bit easy we can go later but it will have to be London. The suite has a private access area and they would be awaiting his arrival. There is a good spin on this in that if he sails through the tests we can put an end to the press garbage once and for all. I await hearing from Dr Murray. Bob T.”

    The following is another two emails included on this chain. Paul G, Randy, Shawn, Timm and Conrad will all see this as they were sent the whole chain.

    sender: Paul Gongaware
    June 24, 7.04pm
    to: Bob Taylor
    cc: Shawn Trell, Timm Woolley, Dr Conrad Murray, Randy Phillips
    subject: RE: Artist Insurance
    “Bob,
    Dr Murray copied here. We need to do this at MJ’s house & Dr Murray can comment on the availability of the records.
    Paul G.”

    sender: Bob Taylor
    June 24, 10.37am
    to: (note: this section has been removed)
    subject line: (note: this section has also been removed)
    “Gentlemen, Please review the following email trail. Justin Burns is the … ”

    (note: the defence, Mr Georgian, tells the prosecution’s forensic computer expert witness that the following section is the continuation from this section mentioning Justin Burns but I suspect it isn’t because there is no conclusion to the point about Justin Burns. When Mr Gorgian introduces the second page, the sentence about Burns is not completed so I feel there may actually be a page missing or a section excluded on purpose between these two points. It is not clear whether the next chunk of copy is actually part of the email from Bob Taylor or someone else entirely either because of this break in copy and the fact the end of the email is not shown so we cannot identify it via a signature. so we must assume what we can. it does make sense that it is Bob, though. but it still does not clear up the issue of why the first sentence does not come to a conclusion. because the next page defence Mr Gorgian showed the prosecution’s witness after the first page showing the Justin Burns line begins at the top of a fresh page with a new paragraph, a new sentence, and it does not flow smoothly from the first chunk. and as I said, they do not show who the email is signed from or whether there is anything below it, such as another email. weird. anyway, it continues.)

    “We first became aware of these medical stipulations on Monday ..2nd June in the afternoon, following which we have had several protracted discussions with insurers in attempts to alleviate or amend their requirements. Insurers have, however, refused to move on this as having consulted with the doctor, and given the huge amount of speculation in the media regarding the artist’s health, they feel that if they are to consider providing illness cover on this particular artist, they must have a very thorough medical report.

    The insurer registers his major concerns in the second of the 2 e-mail letters in that he feels that insufficient information has been forthcoming. This includes the past 5 year medical detail and the absence of comment on possible press speculation as to the artist’s health, especially the media articles about skin cancer.

    With the medical scheduled for PM on the 6th July we must act quickly to ensure that we are able to comply with these requirements.
    They can be summarised as below.

    1. MJ will need to attend the doctor at a secure location in Harley St, London
    2. MJ will need to agree to actively allow and assist with the various tests
    3. We have been informed that the doctor would like to examine MJ alone, and with no other party (even Dr Murray) present in the examination room.
    4. MJ will have to set aside sufficient time for the examinations – it could take in excess of 2 hours to complete the consultation.
    5. We must locate and supply the 5 year medical record as top priority. The insurers have been firm from the very beginning of the coverage that they will only give illness cover after completion of a further medical and also a review of MJ during a rehearsal. We have made numerous efforts to remove these stipulations.

    As regards to item 5 I understand that Dr Murray is to contact me shortly in order that I can guide him on what is needed.
    Shawn asked recently if there is any possibility of Term or disability insurance. At this moment we have been unable to secure any interest for the Term Life aspect, but needless to say with the medical information that could change. We are still working on a permanent disability quotation.
    I am available on my mobile telephone all evening for further … ”

    [NOTE: A Term insurance is insurance for Death (the one AEG initially wanted was for Sickness and Accident only). This matter of Term Insurance was raised by Shawn Trell of AEG only “recently”, so it must have been after that June 19th meeting. On June 20th Randy Phillips sent everyone emails that MJ was in perfect health, and it was essential not to play amateur doctors on MJ. However between themselves they decided to enquire about death insurance for MJ]

    Here is a screenshot of the email. You will see that some letters and numbers are omitted, so the date of June 2nd looks like it should be June 22:

    My big thanks to Alice once again. Each step is taking us closer to the truth about this sordid business.

    P.S. Here is another variant of the same email from Mr.Panish’s website. Yes, the correct date when the new requirements were set by the insurers is 22nd June, so all of it was urgent for AEG and they engaged Murray on a full scale in those final two or three days:

    Like

  86. August 31, 2013 7:21 am

    Below is part of the great transcript made by Alice of the emails retrieved from Conrad Murray’s Iphone. The emails illustrate very well what Conrad Murray was busy with on June 24 and 25. All information was prepared by Alice with my short clarifications added in square brackets. This part will also contain Murray’s medical records for MJ from beginning of 2007.

    First comes Alice’s comment:

    “these efforts are primarily from screenshots taken from Murray’s 702 number mobile from June 25 and June 24, plus emails from these and other days. I have noted them down as they appear when placed on the projection during the Murray trial by Walgren.

    Now, to the first transcript. It shows Murray’s 702 mobile phone number and the email inbox on this phone. The messages in the inbox appear as below (who they are from and what the opening lines are for each email, plus the subject line). They also display a day but not a date or time. Please note that they usually appear as the most recently received at the top. The limited parts I can see show the following.

    The first screenshot was taken at 7.03am on June 25, automatically recorded by the phone when Murray checked his email inbox at this time.

    subject line: your certificate of Sponsorship [A sponsorship certificate is required for application for UK visas]
    “Dear Dr. Murray Please find attached a list of the MJ crew party. You will find your name…”

    sender: Jorrie, Kathy
    Friday [JUNE 18]
    subject line: RE: Michael Jackson – Revised Agreement…
    “Dear Dr Murray As you can see from the string of emails below, I had a mistake in…

    sender: Jorrie, Kathy
    Friday [JUNE 18]
    subject line: (No Subject)
    ******************CONFIDENTIAL Luce, Forward, Hamilton &Scripps LLP This email is sent…

    sender: Timm Woolley
    Friday [JUNE 18]
    subject line: FW: Artist Medical
    “Dear Conrad Please see the information below regarding the schedule medical & re…”

    sender: Timm Woolley
    Friday [JUNE 18]
    subject line: FW: Michael Jackson — Revised Agreement…
    “Dear Conrad Please see the ……. ..below regarding the schedule medical & re …”

    sender: Tim Woolley
    Friday [JUNE 18]
    subject line: FW: Michael Jackson — Revised Agreement…
    (note: the screenshot is cut off before the opening lines of this last email can be seen.)

    The next screenshot quickly placed on the projection is of 9.45am on June 25. This is also when Murray again checked his email inbox on his phone. And again, the most recent email is shown at the top.

    sender: (note: unable to see)
    subject line: RE: Artist Insurance
    “ 25th June 2009. Hi Conrad, Thank you for calling me last evening…

    sender: Bob Taylor
    1.51am, June 25
    subject line: RE: Artist Insurance
    “Paul/Shawn . Please confirm receipt. The consultation in London is critical they will…”

    sender: Connie Ng [Murray’s assistant]
    Yesterday [June 24]
    subject line: Omar Arnold – Medication Log
    Attachment: Medication Log.jpg

    sender: Connie NG [Murray’s assistant]
    Yesterday [June 24]
    subject line: MRI [Magnetic Resonance Imaging]
    attachment: (note: yes attachment indicated but cannot identify it)
    “Dr Murray . Is Paul Farance him too? …. this MRI result for a Paul Farance…” [She is asking whether Paul Farance is a pseudonym for MJ]

    sender: Connie Ng
    Yesterday [June 24]
    subject line: Omar Arnold – 2D-Echo [2Dimensional Echocardiography]
    attachment: Echo1.17.08.jpg

    The third screenshot shown is a detailed version of an email Connie Ng (Murray’s volunteer assistant at his clinic) sent to Murray on June 24 at 5.33pm.

    sender: Connie Ng
    June 24, 5.33pm
    subject line: Omar Arnold progress notes
    attachments: Progress Notes1.11.06.jpg; Progress Notes.jpg
    “Hello Dr. Murray, Here are his progress notes. Pls let me know if can’t open it. Thank you. Connie.”

    Now I’m going to attempt to transcribe the handwritten notes as depicted in the first attachment to Connie’s previous email on ‘Omar Arnold’s’ progress notes. A pseudonym for Michael.

    11/19/? [Alice is not sure, but the year can be only 2008 as the dates are going back in the reverse order. So it is November 19, 2008]
    Insomnia/Anxiety
    Rx Xanax .05 mg ? po qu h
    Restoril 30mg / po hs PR

    9/26/08 [September 26, 2008]
    Insomnia – Restorial 30mg … mg… pa…
    refill

    2/1/08 [February 1, 2008]
    Cough, Nasal congestion, chills, 2-3 days, generalize fatigue, all ? family & sick… Assessment/Plon : URI? … /viral… fluids … cough suppressant, antibiotics …

    4/12/07 [April 12, 2007]
    Onychomycosis [fungal infection of nails on feet] – Lamisil [usually cream] daily … x 3 mod, LFT & 1st … (know … may take 6months … – 12months … to apply… fully)

    3/07 [most probably March 2007]
    – “M” cough, chills, punctuate in cough, intermittent specs of blood …, deep coughing Phlegm greenish brown …, Pleuristic (sic? wrong spelling) chest pain = cough R … lower rib cage. C – X-ray + RLL pneumonia amount of pleural fluid @… Plan 1) Omicaf GEO… 2) 2-pak 3) lotal (sic? spelling) 4) R… 5) Flu… 6) May…

    [Omnicef is an antibiotic used to treat pneumonia, bronchitis, sinus infections, tonsillitis, etc]

    The next screenshot shows the second page of the ‘progress notes’ on Omar Arnold sent to Murray by Connie Ng on June 24 which Murray opened. I have a feeling this is already in evidence and probably exists online somewhere so this section is probably a waste of my time! [Alice, no it is not – maybe somewhere it is available but for us it is new]

    GLOBAL CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATION
    Name: Omar Arnold
    DOB: 8/?/58 [It is DATE OF BIRTH: August 29, 1958]
    Age: 4? [MUST BE 48]
    Date of visit: left blank [EARLY 2007 as it is continuation of the previous page]
    Primary MD: Dr C Murray
    CC: left blank
    Subjective: c/o (complained of) weakness, body aches, persistent cough, white yellowish phlegm, had some chills … have been fever … children have … symptoms, not feeling … Well all members … consuming fluids. No ?… loss of appetite … pains.
    ROS: blank
    Angina: blank
    PND: blank
    Orthopea: blank
    Edema: blank
    SOB: blank
    Palpitation: blank
    TIA: blank
    DOE: blank
    Claudication: blank
    Family/HX: blank
    Meds:
    1) None (sic? at first I thought this said Dave or Nave… but ‘None’ makes sense lol)
    2) blank
    3) blank
    4) blank
    5) blank
    6) blank
    7) blank
    8) blank
    Objective: BP (blood pressure) 11…/70. HR (heart rate): 70/mlm Reg (regular). R: 16/mlm
    WT (weight): left blank. HT (height): left blank
    Other: benign …?
    Chest: Clear, 0 Rates, 0 Wheezes WM Accessory Muscle
    Abdomen: Soft Hepatospleucoragaphy (sic? spelling wrong): 0
    Extremeties:
    Edema: 0
    Pulses: Femoral Right 2, Femoral Left 2, DP Right 2, DP Left 2, PT Right 2, PT Left 2.
    Cranial nerves: intact
    Neurology: Motor/Sensory: blank
    Reflexes: blank
    Gait: blank
    Assessment:
    1) Dehydration – fluid intake
    2) …
    3) cough
    4) Generalized Vertilligo (note: I suspect he means vitiligo… lol)
    5) TENIA PEDIS oxychonycosis [WIKI: Athlete’s foot also known as tinea pedis and moccasin foot, is a fungal infection of the skin that causes scaling, flaking, and itch of affected areas, and in severe cases, swelling and amputation of the foot]
    Plan:
    1) fluid hydration, …
    2) … Z-PAR, Robitussin [is used to reduce chest congestion caused by the common cold, infections, or allergies].
    3) ? – DECHO
    4) Benoquin 20% cream, 32-5sqm [for vitiligo]
    5) apply to affected skin
    6) Youth … moisturising apply as directed
    Allergic – (NRDA) OI…

    The following is the next screenshot of the other attachments to the June 24 email Connie sent to Murray. I can only see a small portion.

    GLOBAL CARDIOVASCULAR
    Name: Omar Arnold
    Date of Visit: 1/11/06 [MUST BE January 11, 2007 because MJ arrived in the US only on December 23, 2006]
    CC: Cough, chills, fatigue
    Subjective: As above

    The next is another page of the same attachments. This stuff is all probably online but it’s clearly all Connie responding to a request from Murray to send all of Michael’s records (under pseudonyms) to Murray for the purpose of insurance for AEG.

    GLOBAL CARDIOVASCULAR
    Name: Omar Arnold
    Date of visit: January 11, 2006 [AGAIN THE DATE MUST BE January 11, 2007 unless Conrad Murray went to Bahrain in January 2006 which he surely didn’t]
    CC: blank
    Subjective: c/o weakness, white yellowish phlegm, have been fever, children have…

    The following is the next of Connie’s emails shown. This was also sent to Murray on June 24, 2009 at 5.34pm. Attachments included and I’ve transcribed from what attorney Walgren reads out.

    sender: Connie Ng
    June 24, 2009 at 5.34pm
    subject line: Omar Arnold – 2D Echo
    attachments: Echo1.17.07.jpg; C-xray3.26.07.jpg [Echocardiography is a basic examination of the heart, done on January 17, 2007]
    one attachment is: “echo cardiograph report. physician Dr Murray.
    report date: January 17, 2007.

    second attachment is: “examination of Omar Arnold by physician Conrad Murray.
    date of examination is March 26, 2007.
    last page of email is a duplicate of the echo cardiograph report.

    Second email entry from Connie Ng follows, the one asking Murray “is Paul Farance him too?” is then discussed. Clearly she is asking if Farance is a pseudonym for MJ.

    sender: Connie Ng
    June 24, 2009, 5.36pm
    subject line: MRI [MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING]
    attachments: various relating to Paul Farance
    “Dr Murray, Is Paul Farance him too? I have this MRI result for a Paul Farance. Connie”

    The following is the first attachment to this Farance email from Connie to Murray on June 24.

    Tower Imaging
    Conrad Murray, MD.
    Patient: Paul Farance
    DOB: 08/08/2008 [THE DATE OF BIRTH IS ARBITRARY as it cannot be later than the date of examination]
    Patient ID: 85718
    Exam ID: 216876
    Exam date: November 13, 2007
    MRI RIGHT WRIST WITHOUT CONTRAST

    The next email references an attachment in the other June 24 email Connie sent of Omar Arnold’s medication log. [This must be the full list of medications which were prescribed to Michael for the whole period by Murray.]

    Global Cardiovascular Associates
    MEDICATION LOG
    Patient: Omar Arnold
    DOB: Aug 29 1958
    Home phone: blank
    Work phone: (303) 605 2379 W?GK (708) 836 9095 Maryland

    Benoquin 20% [Cream for vitiligo]
    Zyrtec [Anti-allergic medicine used to treat sneezing, runny nose, itchy eyes, etc.)
    Vitamin C
    Nasonex [Nasal spray]
    Phentermine
    Ornicol
    Z_PAK [Antibiotic]
    Lentab (sic?) 75/500mg
    Robitussin [for couph]
    Lamisil [for Athlete’s foot]
    Bactroban (Skin medication for acne treatment)
    Keflex [antibiotic]
    Valium [for anxiety]
    Restoril [for insomnia]
    Xanax [a benzodiazepine used to treat anxiety]

    [NOTE: Please note that the medication for anxiety/insomnia was prescribed only beginning with September 26, 2008 when Tohme, Barrack and AEG entered into the picture. Before that it was mostly colds, pneumonia and treatment of MJ’s feet and nails]

    Like

  87. Lisa Scriven permalink
    August 30, 2013 9:04 pm

    Heartbreaking to read, but so very well written!!!

    Like

  88. August 30, 2013 6:33 pm

    Dear readers,

    I don’t want to hide anything from you and would like to say that Ivy of MJJCommunity sent me a series of FB messages explaining her approach to the matter and asking me for an apology. She kindly provided me with a source from which she is taking her materials – here is the link http://www.facebook.com/l/oAQEO1ymmAQEt4uUpvWMPkD1pp0dHd7zJOr0Kwcjrdg1Dmg/www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcasesummarynet/ui/? (enter case number BC445597), so this probably explains her knowledgeability.

    I haven’t looked up the link yet but I am really grateful to Ivy for it. As to her approach she explains that it is complete neutrality, however this is exactly the issue I have a problem with. In my opinion anyone writing for a fan forum by the very definition of it should be a fan, i.e. a supporter. If Kathy Jorrie chooses to inform fans of the AEG case she will do exactly the same. So what’s the difference?

    In other words neutrality on a fan forum is an animal which simply does not exist in nature, and since there is none I am terribly sorry but I cannot take my words back. I hope Ivy understands.

    Like

  89. August 30, 2013 1:57 pm

    Here is a good article from Alan Duke about this past week. Nurse Cherilyn Lee said much more than was reported by the ABC tweets.

    And AEG lawyers are actively playing the “compassion” card – their Sabrina Strong ran to the witness to console Nurse Lee. Look at how caring, loving, affectionate these AEG people are! And the judge is allowing all this theatre to be staged in full view of the jury!

    The AEG message is: How could the people who care so much for their witnesses do harm to Michael Jackson? No way…. However it is the same people how never said a word of consolation to Michael’s mother and kids!

    Seeing all this hypocrisy makes me sick.

    Nurse details Michael Jackson’s fatal search for sleep
    By Alan Duke, CNN
    updated 7:24 PM EDT, Thu August 29, 2013

    Los Angeles (CNN) — A nurse who tried to help Michael Jackson find sleep with vitamin infusions said the singer became convinced that propofol was the only cure for his insomnia.

    Cherilyn Lee — who specializes in holistic health care — was called as a witness by AEG Live in its defense of the wrongful death lawsuit filed by Jackson’s mother and children. But Jackson lawyers said they believe her testimony helped their case.

    When she was shown a photo of Jackson six days before his death — two months after she had last treated him — she appeared shocked at his deterioration.

    “Oh, my goodness,” Lee said. “That’s horrible!”

    Lee testified Thursday that after Jackson awoke after just four hours of sleep after one of her treatments on April 19, 2009, he became “very agitated.”

    “He stood up on the bed and he looked at me and at 4:30 in the morning, it kind of scared me,” Lee said. “It really startled me when he stared at me with his big brown eyes.”

    “I told you I cannot sleep all night,” Lee said Jackson told her.

    Jackson allegedly asked Lee, who had been treating him with vitamins since early February, to find an anesthesiologist who could put him to sleep him with the surgical anesthetic propofol.

    Lee refused, warning him it was unsafe. She testified that she told Jackson that any doctor who would give him propofol at home didn’t care about him and was just doing it for the money.

    That April 19, 2009, session was Lee’s last time with Jackson.

    Just over two weeks later — on May 6 — an AEG Live executive wrote in an e-mail that it was a “done deal” that Dr. Conrad Murray was being hired for $150,000 a month to serve as Jackson’s full-time physician.

    Murray told investigators that Jackson was infused with propofol every night for two months to treat his insomnia. The last treatment killed the singer, according to the coroner.

    Jackson’s mother and three children are suing AEG Live, contending the concert promoter is liable for his death because it negligently hired, retained or supervised Murray.

    AEG Live lawyers contend it was Jackson who chose and controlled Murray and their executives had no way of knowing about the dangerous treatments being given in the privacy of Jackson’s bedroom.

    Lee’s testimony concluded the 18th week of the wrongful death trial, which will continue into September.

    She had glowing words for Jackson, who would have turned 55 on Thursday. “I haven’t really met anyone who was so caring and so giving,” she said.

    “After his passing, a young lady walked up to me at an event and she just stared crying,” Lee said. “She said, ‘I wouldn’t be here today if Michael hadn’t come to the hospital and paid for my brain surgeries and he didn’t want anyone to know.'”

    Although called as a witness by AEG Live, Lee attacked their lawyers’ contention that Jackson was “doctor shopping” for drugs. “All he was doing was looking for the best doctor to help with his insomnia,” Lee said. “It just breaks my heart for people to label someone as doctor shopping when they’re only trying to find the best doctor to give them the best care.”

    Jackson hired Lee to find natural treatments for his insomnia, she said. She began treating Jackson in his Los Angeles home on February 1, 2009, days after he signed a three-year contract with AEG Live for a world tour, which would start with 50 shows in London to debut in July.

    “My concern was that he was drinking Red Bulls,” she said. He drank several cans of the energy drink during their first meeting. “I was thinking his tiredness and fatigue was related to that.”

    “He told me whatever you tell me I need to do, I will do it.” He stopped drinking cases of Red Bull, replacing the energy drinks with fresh organic juices, she said.

    Jackson “started to feel really great” and “looked healthier” after a month of her IV treatments “Myers Cocktails,” an infusion of Vitamin C and other nutrients, she testified.

    But he still couldn’t sleep more than five hours a night and with rehearsals for his “This Is It” tour cranking up in April “he needed something a little more,” she testified.

    Jackson rejected her recommendation that he have a sleep specialist visit his home to study his insomnia or that he cut down the lights and music in his bedroom, she said.

    Earlier testimony suggested that Jackson had already given up on Lee’s methods and decided that propofol, which German doctors had used to treat his insomnia during a 1997 tour, could be his answer for rest.

    Jackson and Murray tried to recruit a Las Vegas anesthesiologist to join them on the tour in late March 2009, according to Dr. David Adams’ video testimony shown to jurors last week.

    “I just need you to help me get my rest,” Adams said Jackson told him. “They were pretty vague, but on hindsight I know what they were talking about.”

    By April 19, Jackson “wasn’t quite himself,” Lee testified. “He just seemed really stressed or something. He said at certain points he was under a lot of pressure to finish rehearsals and he said ‘I’ve got to get my sleep so I can do this.'”

    When Jackson told Lee he wanted her help in getting propofol infusions instead of the vitamin cocktail IVs, she researched the drug in her Physicians’ Desk Reference manual.

    “I remember telling him that it wasn’t something he wanted to use at home,” she said. “It wasn’t a safe medication. It was definitely not a medication for insomnia.”

    Lee’s handwritten notes from that day described their conversation: “I went as far as to say I understand you want a good night sleep — want to be ‘knocked out’ — but what if you don’t wake up,” she wrote. “He said ‘I’ll be ok. I only need someone to monitor me with equipment while I sleep.'”

    Jackson “kept telling me ‘You don’t understand, doctors are telling me it’s safe just as long as I am being monitored,'” Lee testified.

    Lee collapsed on the witness stand Wednesday after describing her unsuccessful attempt to convince Jackson not to use propofol. “It’s so unfair,” she cried. “I am so sick.”

    “I can’t do this anymore! I can’t do this anymore,” Lee cried.

    As Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos recessed court for the day and sent jurors out, AEG Live lawyer Sabrina Strong, who was sitting in the rear of the courtroom, ran to the witness stand to console the witness.

    “That’s not appropriate,” Jackson lead lawyer Brian Panish protested. “Lawyers don’t do that. It’s not appropriate for lawyers to come out of the audience in front of the jury.”

    “Appropriate or not, it happened,” Palazuelos said.

    Panish argued that Strong was trying to “curry favor” with the jury by appearing compassionate. He demanded that the judge admonish her in front of the jury. The judge suggested he put his request in writing for her to consider.

    Jackson’s belief that propofol could help him sleep dated back to the late 1990s, according to another witness who testified Wednesday.

    Dr. Catherine Quinn, a dentist who specializes in giving anesthesia during dental procedures, said Jackson asked her to infuse him with propofol in 1998.

    “He told me that he has trouble sleeping,” Quinn testified.

    “I said that’s inappropriate use of anesthesia,” Quinn said. “He needs to speak with his physician about sleep aids. I told him that the sleep that you get with anesthesia is not real sleep, it’s not restful sleep. He told me that it’s the best sleep he ever had.”

    A drug addiction expert who testified Tuesday that Michael Jackson suffered a “quite extensive” drug addiction acknowledged Wednesday there was no evidence the singer used more painkillers than medically necessary.

    The conclusion by Dr. Petros Levounis that Jackson was dependent on painkillers was not a revelation, considering Jackson himself announced it when he cut his “Dangerous” tour short to enter a rehab program in 1993.

    “If he announced it to the world it’s not very private, is it?” Jackson lawyer Michael Koskoff asked Levounis.
    “At that moment, he was not secretive,” Levounis replied.

    Jackson’s drugs of choice were opioids — painkillers given to him by doctors repairing scalp injuries suffered in a fire and during cosmetic procedures to make him look younger, Levounis testified.

    Labeling Jackson an addict could tarnish the singer’s image among jurors, but its relevance to AEG Live’s liability is questionable. Opioids played no role in Jackson’s death, according to the Los Angeles County coroner. The judge would not allow Levounis to testify if he thought Jackson was addicted to propofol.

    Levounis conceded he saw no evidence that Jackson used painkillers after he left rehab in 1993 until 2001 or between July 2003 and late 2008. He said it is not inconsistent for an addiction to go into remission.

    Under cross examination Wednesday morning, Levounis conceded that he never saw evidence that Jackson injected himself with narcotics, ever sought or used illegal drugs such as cocaine, meth or heroin, or abused drugs to produce euphoria or get high.

    There was also no evidence Jackson used more painkillers than doctors prescribed, he said.

    Jackson lawyers have never disputed the singer’s drug dependence. In fact, they contend that AEG Live executives, including one who was Jackson’s tour manager when he entered rehab, were negligent for paying a doctor $150,000 a month just to treat Jackson. The high salary created a conflict for the debt-ridden Murray, making it difficult for him to say no to Jackson’s demands for drugs.

    Paul Gongaware, the AEG Live co-CEO who was in charge of Jackson’s 2009 “This Is It” tour, was also tour manager for his “Dangerous” tour in 1993. Levounis acknowledged in testimony Wednesday that there was evidence that Gongaware knew about Jackson’s painkiller addiction 15 years before his death.
    Levounis’ testimony about the dangers of a doctor being too friendly with an addicted patient, which he said Murray was, could help the Jacksons’ case.
    “A very close friendship between an addicted patient and a doctor is problematic,” Levounis testified. “It makes it much easier for a patient to ask for drugs and it makes it more difficult for a provider to resist.”

    The medical records of Murray’s treatment of Jackson between 2006 and 2008 — when the singer lived in Las Vegas — showed no painkillers prescribed during seven visits. Murray’s notes did show he treated Jackson’s complaints of insomnia with a sedative in 2008.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/showbiz/michael-jackson-death-trial/index.html

    Like

  90. August 30, 2013 11:10 am

    “people were crying and crying. Most of the audience were certainly not MJ fans, but people were very emotional. And it showed me that deep inside people saw who Michael really was. They felt the truth without knowing real facts. They felt deep inside that we lost a very precious human being. If people just let Michael speak through his songs and listen to him and not to what the media tells them they know who he is. And on that evening they knew it.”- Susanne

    AMEN

    Like

  91. August 30, 2013 11:03 am

    “Wow, this is almost an entirely new approach to the whole case” – Susanne

    Susanne, but it is simply connecting the dots and if we look into more details I am sure we’ll find even more.

    The ‘intervention’ meeting was most probably on June 16th. In his email Ortega referred to that period calling it “bringing the doctor into the fold”. This in itself is a clear indication in which direction to go – if they brought him into the fold only now, so before that Murray was an outsider for them. Kathy Jorrie said the same – Murray did not need a contract with AEG to be able to attend to Michael Jackson. She used this argument to explain why she wasn’t in a hurry, but we can use the same argument to wonder why AEG ‘brought the doctor into the fold’ at all and why in mid June.

    She made her first draft on June 15h using an old template for a different client – she removed a couple of paragraphs and added a couple of things concerning a doctor, but with her professional skills this work does not require a month or even more. She could do it within a day or even less.

    On June 18th she (all of a sudden) decided to make a check on Murray and spent on it 10 minutes (!). This kind of a check or a much more thorough one could and should have been done by someone working for AEG long before that, but for some reason it was never done until June 18. Murray had been treating MJ for a month and a half by then and all this time they didn’t care what he was doing to him or who he was.

    In her testimony Kathy Jorrie says that those 10 minutes produced on her the impression that Murray was successful and she communicated it to Randy Phillips. On June 18 again she talked to Murray on the phone about insurance and sent him an email asking him to assist them in this matter. So as soon as the first draft was made, the first request from AEG came too.

    No, all this sudden activity is pointing into one direction – at that moment AEG realized they needed Murray and motivated him by showing him the contract at last. It was a great incentive to make him do what they wanted to – rehearsals from Michael and medical records for the insurance.

    The final variant of Murray’s contract was ready on June 23d. Why didn’t they send this or earlier variants to Branca though he asked them to? Over here we can only guess but they probably wanted Michael to sign the paper before Branca had a look – to make things irreversible.

    Like

  92. August 30, 2013 10:34 am

    One word about the video of the André Rieu show. Thanks for posting it here.
    I remember the show, I had seen it (except the beginning). My mother called me to switch on TV because I usually don’t watch this kind of shows. There was more of Michael in the show, it was not only Earth song. I remember there was a wonderful children choir from South Africa performing one of Michael’s songs.
    But what impressed me most was the audience – people were crying and crying. Most of the audience were certainly not MJ fans, but people were very emotional. And it showed me that deep inside people saw who Michael really was. They felt the truth without knowing real facts. They felt deep inside that we lost a very precious human being. If people just let Michael speak through his songs and listen to him and not to what the media tells them they know who he is. And on that evening they knew it.

    Like

  93. August 30, 2013 10:23 am

    Guys, it turns out that this week there have been three days of testimony though I thought it would be only one. Dr. Levounis was disgusting but nurse Cherilyn Lee said some very important things worthy of attention. Here are the short tweets from ABC:

    August 27, 2013 TUESDAY DAY 75
    It is Day 75 of testimony in the Jackson V AEG trial. No one from the Jackson family is here.
    Dr. Petros Levouni the head of the Psychiatry Department at Rutgers Medical School in New Jersey is testifying. He is an addiction expert
    He testified the MJ was addicted to Opioids – in particular Demerol from 1993 to his death in 2009.
    Dr. Levounis said MJ doctor shopped to keep his supply of medications when his doctors expressed concern with the amount he used.
    MJ was secretive about the amount of medication he was taking and kept that information from his doctors.
    Dr Levounis testified the 5 criteria were 1. he show evidence of tolerance for Demerol so he took more.
    The Doctor also testfied that MJ would take more than the dosage recommended and there was evidence he was renewing prescriptions often.
    The Doctor testified that MJ was Doctor shopping – that if he couldn’t get the medication he wanted he could go to another doctor.
    MJ tried to cut down on his drug use but relapses. In 1993 goes to rehab in England – evidence of demerol use in 2003 and in 2009
    MJ showed evidence of physical and social consequences – he passed out at a meeting and his brother Randy tried many times to intervene.
    Finally, MJ couldn’t stop despite the fact he knew he was damaging his health..the desire was too powerful.
    after the lunch break and a delay because of Juror 7 not feeling well, testimony resumed.
    The last point Dr. Levounis made is that MJ and several of his Doctors had very close friendships and that was a problem.
    The close relationships made it easier for MJ to ask for medications and it is harder for the Doctors to say no.
    Under Cross examination Dr. Levounis went over the time that he reviewed the materials sent to him for his expert testimony.
    Dr. Levounis testified that one of the symptoms is secrecy and yet MJ announced to the world that he had an addiction and sought treatment.
    The final point under cross was that addiction is no longer used as a term to diagnose because not specific and the negative connotation.
    Now, people are diagnosed with substance use disorder!!! Testimony resumes Wednesday at 9:30a when Dr. Levounis will be first up.

    August 28, 2013 WEDNESDAY, DAY 76
    It is Day 76 of Testimony with Addiction Expert Dr. Petros Levounis back on the stand. No member of the Jackson family is in the courtroom.
    The first hour had Dr. Levounis going over all the records of Dr. Conrad Murray had his treatment of MJ and his children back from 2009.
    Dr. Levounis questioned by Jackson Attorney said there is no evidence MJ ever self injected Demerol. No evidence took drugs for a euphoria.
    After the morning break, Dr. Levounis was asked about MJ opioid use in 2009. Was there any evidence Dr. Murray was giving MJ demerol? No
    Was anyone else? Yes, Dr. Klein.
    Dr. Levounis also said that a person can be addicted to opiates without having to take them every few hours. Still have withdrawl symptoms
    He said the term Addiction is widely used in the field.
    On recross, Dr. Levounis was asked if MJ is an addict despite no drugs, no symptoms, no sign of use? Dr. say addict with no evidence..

    After Lunch Break Dr. Christine Quinn testifies. She is a Dental Anesthesiologist from UCLA scool of Dentistry.
    She treated MJ about 10 times from 1997 to February 2009. She would administer the anesthesia for MJ’s dentist because MJ had anxiety.
    She said in about 1998 (couldn’t remember exact date) she received a call from MJ. She returned the call and spoke to his assistant.
    She was told Mj did not return phone calls. Dr. Quinn finally did speak to him and set up a meeting at the Beverly Hills Hotel.
    In her deposition she mis id’s the hotel as the Bel Air Hotel. She called it the hotel on sunset today in court and the pink hotel.
    Under cross examination she realized it was actually the Beverly hills hotel.
    She agreed to meet MJ at the hotel and brought her sister because she did not think it prudent to meet someone at a hotel suite.
    The meeting was brief. She and MJ stepped into another room to talk while Dr. Quinn’s sister watched Prince who was about 2 years old.
    MJ told Dr. Quinn he was having trouble sleeping. Asked if he called Propofol by name, the Doctor needed to refresh her memory.
    After checking her notes, she said he did call it propofol. She said he asked her to administer propofol outside of a dental setting.
    She told him that was an inappropriate use of the anesthesia. He should talk to his doctor about the sleep problem.
    She told him that anesthesia induced sleep is not restful sleep but he told her it was the best sleep he ever had.
    MJ told Dr. Quinn he had tried other remedies but nothing worked. She said propofol not for insomnia and not outside a medical setting.
    She said he never asked for propofol again from her. She never spoke about the encounter except in the deposition and in court today.
    she said it was no one’s business. She continued to treat MJ with his dentist. The last appointment was February 2009
    She remembered because there were paparazzi outside in the parking lot standing on their cars talking pictures of MJ when he got out of limo
    She read about MJ’s death from the propofol overdose in news accounts.
    On cross examination she told the Jackson attorney that MJ’s dentist used and anesthesiologist because of his anxiety.

    Next witness is Dr. Cherilyn Lee – a Nurse Practitioner and Holistic healthcare practitioner. She treated MJ from February 2009 to April.
    At the first consultation on Feb 1, 2009 she asked MJ about 200 questions including drug use where he said no, no smoking, and no alcohol.
    The paperwork had his name as David Mich and his chief complaint was fatigue in the middle of the day. Lee thought it might be red bull.
    He claimed he had some problems sleeping and for that he took Tylenol PM. Claimed he used Zanax, Atavan, and Ambien 12 years ago not since.
    Testified that with her natural products MJ would only sleep about 5 hours a night. Continued to complain of fatigue.
    On April 18th, MJ talked to Lee about Diprivan – the commercial name for Propofol. He told Lee he just needed a good night sleep
    She consulted a friend, a medical doctor, who told her it was an anesthetic used only in a medical setting.
    Lee went to her office to get her Physicians Desk reference to show MJ the side effects of propofol use and only in medical setting.
    MJ kept insisting his Drs had told him it was safe as long as he was monitored and that all he wanted was a good night sleep.
    She kept insisting to MJ and getting more and more upset in her testimony that it wasn’t safe. He had been assured by his doctors its safe.
    At this point, a very upset Dr. Lee cries that it is the same with her mother who died in 2010 because mother believed doctors about chemo

    Testimony ended and Lee was in tears. As the last of the jurors were leaving the courtroom an AEG attorney got up to comfort the witness
    The Attorneys for Mrs. Jackson were upset with that telling the judge it was inappropriate in front of Jury. Judge said write a brief.

    August 29, 2013 THURSDAY, DAY 77
    Thursday Dr. Lee back on the stand under direct examination. Court starts at 9:30 for just a half day.
    Testimony started about late because the judge forgot a document at her home and had to go get it. She apologized to the jury first thing.
    Dr Cherilyn Lee is back on the stand to resume direct testimony. She also apologized for being so emotional yesterday.
    Dr. Lee brought the Physicians Desk Reference to MJ home to show him the side affects of Propofol. They include memory loss.
    She tried to convince MJ by saying what if he forgot his lyrics? MJ kept saying it was all that helped him sleep and he was told safe.
    MJ wanted to be knocked out quickly and other medications that Dr. Lee had took time to work.
    On April 18th Dr. Lee stayed with MJ. He took the herbal medication to sleep at about 12:30a. He slept until about 4 or 4:30a.
    MJ stood up on the bed when he woke up. He just stared at Dr.Lee then went to the bathroom. When he came back he said he needed Diprivan.
    He was agitated about rehearsal and said he needed to sleep. He again assured Dr. Lee he had been told it was safe if he is monitored.
    MJ gave her a hug and escorted her to Security who would take her home at that early hour. She never treated him again.
    On Father’s Day 2009 (June 21) she got a call from MJ’s security person. She heard MJ in the background saying one side of his body is cold
    He said the other side of his body is warm. Dr. Lee told Security to take him to the hospital. He died 4 days later.

    Under cross examination, Dr. Lee said she first met MJ on January 28, 2009 when she went to the house to see the children who had colds.
    She told the jury how impressed she was the the close relationship she had with the children. She said you could feel the love in the house
    MJ decided he would like her to treat him. She said MJ really wanted to be healthy. He followed her holistic plan and felt better.
    She said from the time she started treating him January 28 to her last visit at the house early April 19 she never saw any medical equipment
    She never saw evidence of another Doctor treating MJ. She never saw Dr. Murray.

    MJ went to London for a press conference about his tour and when he came back he changed. He wasn’t as jovial.
    She made a note in her medical records that March 24 was a very stressful day for MJ. She got to the house and there were many cars
    MJ said he was stressed because of rehearsal and had to get a full night sleep.
    He wanted Diprivan (propofol). Said he took it before.
    He did not tell Dr. Lee who gave it to him. He asked her to find someone who would give to him at the house. She said no
    She told MJ that any Doctor that would do that would only do it for money.
    On April 19th he said it would not be a good day – long rehearsal,and he hadn’t had a good night’s sleep.
    Dr. Lee gathered her things, MJ hugged her and she left. She never saw him again.
    After MJ died, she heard so many terrible things about MJ drug use so she came forward.
    She was shown a picture of MJ days before he died where he looked very thin. She asked if they were sure it was him?
    Dr. Lee said if she were treating him she would be beyond concerned.

    Dr. Lee wears a button that says she is so grateful that she attracts miracles. That is her mantra. MJ wrote it down as greatful.
    Dr. Lee finished her testimony shortly after 12 noon. She mingled with many of the Jackson supporters outside the court.
    Many of the supporters were going up to Glendale Forest Lawn where MJ is buried to celebrate his birthday today.

    Testimony will continue next Tuesday at 9:45a.

    Like

  94. August 30, 2013 9:59 am

    Wow, this is almost an entirely new approach to the whole case – that AEG at a certain point realized how useful Murray can be for them – and suddenly they prepared the contract, after they put CM and MJ off for weeks. And that this certain point was exactly when Michael didn’t show up at rehearsals, was given a sick leave by CM, and when they needed the medical papers for insurance. That’s really interesting.
    Thank you for this well-established post, also regarding Murray’s “services requested by the Producer”. It is a joke to say that they changed the agreement to “services requested by Artist” when it is only done in the “scope of services” in a way that it even underlines their intentions. It’s a shame that so many fans are misled.

    Like

  95. August 30, 2013 9:50 am

    Mark 6:4 But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country…
    André Rieu – Earth Song / Tribute to Michael Jackson. This video is recorded in Maastricht – Netherlands 2009 and broadcasted by the German Television ZDF on Aug. 1, 2009
    – Jolie

    Thank you, Jolie. I’ve added your comment and tribute to Michael to the post. All of us need the rain of Michael’s music not to die of thirst in this terrible desert.

    Like

  96. August 30, 2013 9:44 am

    “I know form long time ago ago that this trial does not sit well with some fans but for me AEG is as guilty as Murray is. It is just sad that some fans would rather take the AEG side and wouldn’t care about knowing what had actually happened. Thank you for the truth” – Jovana

    AEF is guilty like hell, and their twisted contracts with Michael and Murray prove it better than anything else.

    I’m sorry that there were numerous typos in the text (I was really in much hurry to make the post on August 29) and see that some things were totally incomprehensible there – for example, “not” was typed instead of “now” which changed the meaning into the opposite. Sorry for that. Now the text has been more or less checked out.

    And I am indeed trying to get to the bottom of this terrible case, even though the truth is too sad to learn or sometimes it points to the problems in the fan community itself.

    Like

  97. Jovana permalink
    August 30, 2013 4:21 am

    This is my chance to thank you for bringing always news from the trial. Today is Michael’s birthday and its just terrible that he is not here with us and his family, personally i think its too sad to celebrate it knowing that he is isn’t here to celebrate it himself with his children.:(
    I know form long time ago ago that this trial does not sit well with some fans but for me AEG is as guilty as Murray is. It is just sad that some fans would rather take the AEG side and wouldn’t care about knowing what had actually happened.

    Thank you for the truth

    Like

  98. Jolie permalink
    August 29, 2013 9:58 pm

    Happy Birthday Michael Jackson

    Mark 6:4
    But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country…

    André Rieu – Earth Song / Tribute to Michael Jackson

    This video is recorded in Maastricht – Netherlands 2009 and broadcasted by the German Television ZDF on Aug. 1, 2009

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. #MJFAM 9 Reasons why AEG Live is Liable…Along with Randy Phillips, Paul Gongaware, and Phillip Anschutz! | It's In Our Nature

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: