meow kitty meow now

Verdict Watch

slapped-screamedIt’s down to the wire now. Once again, a Michael Jackson trial has gone to the hands of a jury to deliberate. And once again, fans and those who care will sit on pins and needles, waiting for yet another outcome that in some way, whatever the results, will become a part of the Michael Jackson legacy.

scared-to-death

In the past, the American justice system has always been in Michael’s corner. And that is exactly why the public at large is usually more than a little surprised when these verdicts come back. Because a jury’s concern is not the slanted, skewered version of events that is reported in the media, but rather, the actual evidence that is weighed in a trial. Michael was put on trial when he lived. In death, he has been put on trial, not once, but twice in relation to his own death. This is unprecedented. But it has been necessary in getting to the truth. That’s a position I will continue to stand by, regardless of those who would like to have seen all of this simply swept under the rug in the name of keeping some superficial peace.

However, there has been a marked difference in the attitudes toward this trial, as opposed to, say, Michael’s molestation trial or the Conrad Murray trial in 2011. Both of those were criminal trials, with the dramatic possibility of a prison/jail sentence for the guilty party. In 2005, the possibility of a superstar going to prison kept the world riveted (regardless of whether we were fascinated for the right or wrong reasons). In 2011, the man directly responsible for his death was found guilty and sentenced. Those who loved Michael cheered; those who hated him could only feel the chagrin of defeat and take to social media to vent about “self responsibility” and all that other nonsense.

The AEG trial has dragged on for five months. That’s about two months longer than Michael’s criminal trial, and about two months longer than Conrad Murray’s manslaughter trial. And yet, outside of the fan community, interest in this trial has been rather tepid. Most people are not aware it is happening (at least no one that I talk to). The media has, as always, conveniently ignored the most revealing aspects of this trial, and when they have mentioned it at all, have only played up the usual aspects of it-Michael the Drug Addict; Michael the Doctor Shopper, etc. I was reading one such article just yesterday, which purported to highlight the “5 Key Moments From The Michael Jackson/AEG trial.” They mentioned the billion dollars at stake; they mentioned Prince and Debbie Rowe taking the stand; they mentioned propofol (as if we didn’t already know all about that!) and the tales of Michael’s declining health in his last weeks (but slanted as such to make it appear that this was all his own doing). Not surprisingly, there was no mention of Michael being slapped by Randy Phillips; no mention of the emails that called him a “freak,” no mention of a contract that locked him into 50 shows without his consent; no mention of Dr. Cziesler’s expert testimony on how Michael Jackson just may have been the first human being in history to be subjected to 60 days of REM-less sleep, among many other revelations that were ALL more earth shattering than any of those highlighted. Granted, there have been a few ripples here and there, and for awhile back during the spring, the prosecution was swinging heavily-conveniently, right about the time that the Wade Robson story suddenly broke. But overall, when I look at the coverage as a whole and the way the majority of the public have reacted to it, one consistent pattern emerges-the picture of a concert promoter just trying to get a show on, and being pitted against a difficult and troubled,drug addicted star already on a downward spiral-one whose “greedy” family is now looking for a windfall.

Sadly, no matter how we slice it, that is the paradigm that has been sold to a gullible public, and the public has bought it. If the jury comes back with the decision that AEG has lost, that, unfortunately, will not shift the paradigm. As always, we will have the vocal opponents and the know-it-all analysts simply shrugging their shoulders and saying the jury got it wrong. AEG, a multi-billion dollar corporation, will be portrayed as the victims. I know, because that bit of history has already been written, and the jury’s verdict will not change that.

But getting back to what is riding on this trial’s outcome, I think there is another reason why the response beyond the fan community has been as tepid as it has. This has been a civil trial, not a criminal one, and despite the billion dollar figure allegedly at stake, there simply isn’t as much invested in this trial’s outcome for those not directly involved. To be honest, most people outside the fan community-and Michael’s own circle of family and friends- are wearied with the subject of Michael Jackson’s death-what caused it, who is responsible, etc. It is a question that has dragged on, endlessly, for four years, and it is very likely we may never have all of those answers, no matter how many trials are held and how many lawsuits come to pass.  Obviously, his fans and family want those answers. But for most of the rest of the world, the subject of Michael Jackson’s death and who is responsible has become a wearisome subject.

And unlike the other trials, there is no clearcut  victim or “bad guy” in this case, at least none so far as what the public sees. Most could at least say, “I hope they throw the book at that there Dr. Murray cause he deserves it” and even longtime Jackson bashers such as Nancy Grace were jumping on that train. But when it comes to Michael Jackson vs. A Faceless Corporate Entity, the picture becomes (conveniently, I would say) a whole lot fuzzier. Outside of the fan community-those of us who have rigorously kept up with, and followed every detail of this case-it just seems like a case of a family unwilling to accept that their son/brother/father had “issues,” and unfairly looking for a third party-a rich one, at that-to make into a scapegoat.

I know that is not true, but then, when it comes to trying to explain the whole truth of this case to those who do not know anything about it, it is enough to give me a pounding migraine. Where to even begin? Unless someone is willing to take the time to read through dozens of blogs, to go through hours’ worth of court transcripts, to spend hours’ worth of scanning contracts  etc-or-as some fans have done, to even sit through these proceedings for months on end-all one can really say is, “I’m sorry if that’s the way you feel,” and move on.

But the truth is that this is a case with the potential to have far reaching repercussions in the entertainment industry. That is one reason why I think entertainers everywhere should be shuddering in their shoes at the prospect of this verdict. If AEG emerges from this case victorious, it means in effect that a concert promoter can agree to own you, body and soul, and can drive you to your death with no repercussions. But if they lose this case, there is also going to be a major ripple effect in the way future business dealings between artists and promoters will be handled. Could AEG, the second largest concert promoter in the business, go bankrupt as a result of this case? I don’t know. But it’s a lot of money at stake, and no doubt, these are people with a lot of power in the industry. I think it is very likely that if they lose this case, there may be some attempt to blackball the Michael Jackson brand. Maybe; maybe not. But I don’t put much past these people, and I certainly don’t trust them.

It would be a nice pipe dream to think that artists everywhere would stand together and band against greedy corporations who would take advantage of them. But the reality is that artists have to eat, too. And if AEG is paying their bills, I doubt they will be willing to rock that boat. When it comes down to choosing whose back to have and whose corner to be in, they will side where their bread is buttered.

In an ideal world, the good are vindicated, and the evil punished. But that ideal world doesn’t exist except in the realm of  wishful thinking.

How do I personally feel the verdict will go? Well, I may have to eat crow in a few days, when it comes down. But I believe AEG will be held liable. To what extent, that remains to be seen. I think there will be concessions made in the amount of money they are forced to pay Katherine Jackson and the kids, but in the end, that just comes down to a matter of breaking down the dollars and cents.

Which, sadly, is what Michael’s life has come down to, regardless of what the jury decides. We know this when we have both parties pointing the finger and calling the “greed” card. The Jacksons will point at AEG and say, “They killed him for money” and AEG will point at the Jacksons and say, “And all they want now, to compensate for his loss, is money.”

Michael got it right when he sang that it’s all bout the money.

Even if there is some justice for the family and a sense of closure (and that’s if the jury decides in their favor) that is not how it will be played out in the media.

But perhaps that doesn’t matter, and it shouldn’t. I sincerely believe, just as before, that truth and justice will prevail. I pray I will not be wrong in that belief.

So what are my own feelings now that it is all winding down? I have not followed the events of this trial in as much detail as some bloggers, but I said in the beginning that would be the case. I simply do not have the time to post those kinds of continuous updates, even though I admire and am greatly indebted to those who have. But I have tried to keep up with all of the major stories to come from it, and to reflect on those testimonies that have had the most impact. As a blogger whose stats rely on just how relevant Michael Jackson is in the news, there is a part of me that, inevitably, will miss that kind of day to day excitement. That is the journalist in me, and I hope it doesn’t offend too many if I am honest in that assessment. The traffic here is always highest when the public is discussing Michael Jackson, and that’s just the way it is.

But now the dust is going to settle, and perhaps that’s not a bad thing. It will mean getting back to the basics of what truly matters-Michael’s art. And, of course, all of those topics that we will continue to debate indefinitely in search of the truth, or something approximating it.

I will just say this much in regard to the verdict watch, and what it means:

IF the jury comes back with the decision that AEG is not liable (effectively meaning that KJ has lost the case) I know I am going to feel a sense of anger that justice has not been served, and that AEG got away with what they did to Michael. I won’t be happy with that decision, but I will live with it if that’s what it comes down to.

However, I also do not believe I will be feeling especially celebratory even if the verdict comes back as the equivalent of “Guilty.” Yes, it will bring some sense of closure to what has been a very long, bitter, and drawn out chapter, going all the way back to when the coroner first officially ruled Michael Jackson’s death as a “homicide.” But the verdict will still leave just as many questions unanswered, and in the end, as I have discovered long ago, people are still going to believe what they want to believe about Michael Jackson, how he died, and why he died. Meanwhile, too many with blood on their hands will still walk scot free. Murray is due to be released on October 28th, after serving less than two years. Tohme Tohme, the man directly and illegally responsible for locking Michael into that contract from hell, once again slips through the cracks.

I wish that I could say, after enduring five long months of this trial, that all of this will be erased if/when the jury comes back with the right verdict. But I know it won’t.

V-Day will be a day of anticipation, and no doubt, some reflection, whatever the jury decides. I can’t say I won’t feel a ping of deep satisfaction if AEG loses. But I don’t suspect any of those feelings will be especially long lasting, because the cynic in me knows just how much impact this verdict is going to have, either way. In the long run, not much.

You may see above that I posted images of the emails sent by Randy Phillips to Tim Leiweke, which were included as part of Panish’s closing arguments. I am sure most of you probably know that when you right click an image to save it, that image is usually identified by a file name. It just so happened that when I saved this image, the file name that came up was this: “Scared To Death.”

And the file names that accompanied the other images were just as telling: “Slapped. Screamed. Scared.”

And that, in essence, sums up the gist of this trial and everything that Michael endured in his last weeks.

I can only keep faith that the “real” judge, who sees all and knows all without the need for attorneys, witnesses or juries, will be the one who has the final say. Until then, none of the rest of it matters.

Teammichael has posted the closing arguments on Youtube. As far as I can tell, this is the correct order. I am, of course, grateful to the members of Teammichael for all of their hard work and coverage during this trial. 

 UPDATE 10/05/2013: VERDICT IN! AEG NOT LIABLE (Well, not legally, anyway!):

I’m still having a bit of trouble getting my hands around this. Did I miss something, or wasn’t the whole crux of this trial supposed to hinge on the question of who hired Murray? The jury unanimously declared that AEG had hired Murray. Yet AEG is off the hook scot-free. The jury is now claiming a convenient legal loophole: That it was not a question of whether Murray was unethical, but a question of whether he was competent to perform the job he was hired to do. WT…?

Okay, I’m done. At least, until I can digest all of this a little more.

I know I said I would live with this decision, however it came down, but I’m left with a very bitter aftertaste. This verdict now means that the idea of Michael Jackson as being responsible for his own death is now cemented for many. Much of the crucial evidence that came to light regarding AEG’s treatment of Michael will be suppressed, while instead, all we will hear about is that Katherine didn’t get her expected windfall. That, to me, is tragic. I’ve never believed this case was solely about the money. However, it did bring to light a lot of ugly truths that, nevertheless, needed to be known. For that, I am at least grateful.

But the difference is that, had the jury ruled to hold AEG liable (even if only in part) I would have felt some sense of justice and closure. As it stands now, I cannot.

Michael’s untimely death remains what it has been from the start-a tragedy involving many culpable hands, who unfortunately will never have justice served upon them. At least, not in this life.

 

 

 

Comments: 165 Comments

165 Responses to “Verdict Watch”

  1. Lauren says:

    Thanks again, Raven. Although I fundamentally disagree with who is singularly responsible for Michael’s death, I understand the desire to have AEG found liable in some way. The reason for this, I believe, is the horrendous language/attitudes expressed towards Michael by some of these people and the perception that AEG could actually have done something to change what eventually happened, short of full cancellation or extended postponement. I don’t believe the ‘truth’ was discovered in this trial in total…too many missing, important witnesses that either became unavailable or who were sifted-out from testifying because what they had to offer did not meet or promote either agenda. This case really is all about money…who gets it or who keeps it. Assigning blame to Michael by the plaintiffs as a concession in order to win this case is appalling and sickening to me just as is AEG’s similar tactic of
    ‘blame the victim.’ In the end it is what the jury decides but there really is no winner here…only losers…Michael and his children. I am very glad it’s over and have found my core feelings about everyone involved have fundamentally changed. And it’s not pretty.

  2. shelly says:

    Anthony McCartney and ABC were fair on twitter. Another point the Jacksons are working or at least worked with AEG after his death, why would they do that if they believe they are responsible for his death.
    As for AEG, I think we should remember that not everyone is a fan and, except for the slap (and not always), you will find the same kind of attitudes in lots of companies for lots of employees it’s lots worse than that.

  3. Simba says:

    If Lehman Brothers can go down, so can relatively puny AEG. A new entity will take its place, with many of the same players involved. It’s the way of the world.

    The whole point of This Is It was to strip Michael Jackson of his considerable assets. I don’t believe that there was a serious intent on AEG’s part to produce a successful run. To me, the saddest part was discovering that long time colleagues and ‘friends’ of Michael had so little regard for him as a human being.

  4. Nina Y F says:

    Raven, you said:
    “In an ideal world, the good are vindicated, and the evil punished. But that ideal world doesn’t exist except in the realm of wishful thinking.”

    In my version of an ideal world, people would be aware that there are shades of gray, and that categories like “good” and “evil” are mutable in the first place.

    So, in an effort to bring my version of an ideal world into existence (as we all do, nearly every time we write and speak), I’d like to offer an article by Joe Saltzman, who is an Associate Mass Media Editor of USA Today (a magazine published by the Society for the Advancement of Education, not to be confused with the daily publication). In this article, Saltzman brings to light the deplorable state of a craven and desperate news media, and the lax attitudes that pervade the profession these days. In “Torturous Celebrity Coverage,” he writes:

    Saltzman, Part 1:

    “If you want another reason why everyone hates the news media, you do not have to go much further than the coverage of entertainment Michael Jackson’s death or of golfer Tiger Woods’ adultery. No one would deny that each story is a news event. The problem is the way the news event was covered.

    “News organizations, especially the electronic media, did not just cover the story; they would not let go o fit. Day after day, the news media in all formats kept repeating the same story. (The old joke among TV newsmen looking for a new lead on an old story in which nothing new was happening: ‘Michael Jackson is still dead today.’) Long after the story has any news value, newspaper and TV coverage continued to squeeze out other stories of importance.

    “Many of the news media groups, struggling to get new information as quickly as possible, simply went with gossip, innuendo, rumor, and interviews with people who barely knew either celebrity. The two vital touchstones of responsible journalism—accuracy and fairness—went out the window. What stayed was an old-fashioned rumor mill, in which an outrageous statement would be made and reported, and then the refutation likewise was made and reported. It was the equivalent of asking one celebrity (A”) why he or she was sleeping with another celebrity (“B”) just to get a headline on a slow news day: “A” Celebrity denies sleeping with “B” Celebrity.

    “When no one will talk to you, interview anyone who had some relationship, no matter how tenuous, to the story—Woods’ neighbor or one of the golfers on the circuit who occasionally talked to Woods before teeing off, or interview a journalist who once interviewed someone who knew Jackson intimately; or, better yet, take a group of journalists who cover celebrities and let them speculate on Woods’ infidelity or whether his wife chased him out of the house. …

    “Broadcast television takes the brunt of this sort of criticism, but now that all the major news media organizations have websites that must be fed stories constantly, every news outlet has become guilty of pursuing any bit of information, whether it is true or not. The theory seems to be that it is okay to print anything since it always can be replaced on the website later on. After all, no one remembers what was printed two hours ago; there is not any permanent record for any website. What you see at any given moment is what you get.

    “The way it works is that someone, somewhere—-a blogger, news media website, any amateur or professional commentator—says anything that comes into his or her head, and suddenly news media organizations pick it up and run with it. Jackson’s children really aren’t his. Jackson committed suicide. Jackson’s mother wants custody of the kids, but is too sick to get them. Bits of truth mix with rumor until no one knows what is true and what is not. Eventually, the pieces fall into place as the authorities figure out what happened, but all that comes much later and today’s news media businesses do not have the time to wait.”

  5. Nina Y F says:

    Saltzman, Part 2:

    “Suddenly, if you happen to be an editor or a reporter for “People” magazine, “Entertainment Weekly,” “US,” “The New York Times,” “New York Post,” “Variety,” or a dozen other entertainment magazines or newspapers, you are an expert on any celebrity who dies or gets into trouble. When it comes to sports personalities, you can add anyone on ESPN, “Sports Illustrated,” or a columnist on any major publication in the country. Network , cable, and local news reporters interview these “experts” on every aspect of the celebrity’s life, death, and peccadilloes. These expert report what they heard, old stories they may have covered, and, if they do not know an answer to the reporter’s question, they reluctantly speculate on what might have happened. These journalists have a certain credibility because of the publications for which they work, but, too often, they really have not reported on the story they are being asked about and end up only repeating what they have heard around the office.”

    “Add to that the screaming commentators—now paraded on every cable news channel—who sit around a table and throw out one speculation after another concerning what happened, why it happened, and how it happened. Anyone saving a recording of these yelling sessions will be amazed to see not only how little information is presented in this forma, but how wrong most of the loud chatter will turn out to be in the days ahead. None of that matters, though, because all of this news coverage is based on the assumption the audience only remembers what it heard an hour ago.”

    “The tragedy is that all of this noise so overwhelms the listener or reader that there is little time for reflection, fair comment, and accurate information. The celebrity who does something offensive is condemned by holier-than-thou journalists until the time seems ripe to defend him or her. That time usually comes after the sinner goes on Oprah or Leno or Letterman and apologizes, sometimes in tears, to a public now ready to forgive and forget. Once that happens, the mob of newspeople, who earlier screamed for his or her scalp, finally relents, saying, “To err is human, to forgive divine.” ”

    “After the story has run its course, news media organizations will wonder once again: Why does everyone hate us? Alas, as long as the high ratings and money keep rolling in, the answer to that question will not worry them much and they certainly will not do anything to remedy the situation.”
    ____________________________

    Joe Saltzman, Associate Mass Media Editor of USA Today, is professor of journalism at the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication, Los Angeles, and director of the Image of the Journalist in Popular Culture, a project of the Norman Lear Center.

  6. Ara says:

    Words cannot describe how sad this trial has made me feel–especially for Michael and his three children. Michael’s own mother–Katherine Jackson–has done more damage to her son (and his beloved children) than all the rotten media has done since his untimely, tragic death.

    I am convinced that Michael would be horrified if he knew how his mother had sacrificed him so–in the vain hope of collecting what I can only think of now as “blood money.” I have lost all respect for her. I am disappointed in her integrity beyond belief. I cannot find it in myself to respect a mother who would so willingly diminish a beloved son by exposing him so. Maybe she was egged on by her husband and sons–but still she seems to me to be a shallow mess of a woman.

    Michael entrusted his children to her. Look how much damage she has done to them, and him.

    All this being said, I agree with Raven when she says some good has come of this trial. I’ve followed it closely–mainly through Alan Duke’s articles at CNN. What has struck me time and time again, when listening to people who were close to Michael–those talking about him on the witness stand–is the almost overwhelming amount of love they seem to still bear for him.

    I also agree with Raven that there may yet be some good to come from this trial if–and only if–AEG loses the case. Reuter’s published an interesting article the other day, on the industry-wide ramifications a loss for AEG could have on the entertainment industry. Namely that they would have to treat the stars who they employ more humanely and less like cash cows.

    In my mind the best outcome would be that the jury finds AEG guilty of gross-negligence, though I’m not sure that gross-negligence is even an option here. Coupled with that, I would be like to see the Jackson’s denied any monetary award at all. As Katherine Jackson said, all she wanted was “to know was what really happened” to her son. This was never about a money grab, she implied. As she said (so sincerely?) no amount of money could compensate for the loss of her son.

    Let’s see her stick to that principle. And pray this is the end of any Jackson ever again preying on the son and/or brother who was so vulnerably generous, and who outshone them all.

    • shelly says:

      And all of that for what? To make him look like a 5 years old, who can’t be held responsible for his choice and who can’t deal with what millions of people has to deal with at their job.

    • June says:

      I agree with your heartfelt comments. While AEG has taken a low road in defending itself, I’m more disheartened that the plaintiffs now apparently agree with AEG on Michael’s culpability, with Panish stating his opinion that Michael bears 20% responsibility!

      I believe plaintiffs thought AEG would cave and this case would never reach a courtroom, as in January and March 2013, Panish’s partner, Boyle, revealed they had made two monetary settlement demands, and not only did AEG make no counter offer, AEG did not even bother with the courtesy of a response. Katherine Jackson said this is not about money, she wanted to know what happened to her son and was searching for the truth. If AEG had accepted either monetary settlement demand, which would have ended the case short of this invasive, gut wrenching trial, would that have answered her question as to what happened to her son? No matter the verdict, the loser is Michael.

    • Raven says:

      I saw that article, also. Alas, the jury decision has been made, so it is unlikely now that any long term changes in how the industry does business will happen. The message has been sent loud and clear: These companies can get away with most anything.

      On the other hand, though, the fact that the lawsuit happened at all-and the millions that AEG was out in legal fees-may at least shake some things up. I don’t think these companies will change their tactics. They will just be a whole lot sneakier and will have a whole lot more CYA clauses built into their contracts.

  7. iutd says:

    I hate to say it, but things are only going to get worse regardless of the verdict. News reports say that Judge Beckloff has set a date for the Wade Robson late claim and civil suit for June 2, 2014. Then there are other things, not as bad, of course, but more hurdles–IRS wants 700 million dollars, and the struggle against Tohme and efforts to reclaim MJ’s art collection from Livingstone-Strong continue.

    I worry about Paris and her brothers growing up with all this ongoing mess as a background. To me, they are most important, and next is MJ’s legacy.

    Sometimes it seems for an MJ fan, it’s raining sh**t. We have to stay strong, be in it for the long haul–stick with MJ and celebrate his greatness, and “Keep the Faith.” I think it will all work out in the long run if we can do that and stay with and treasure the L.O.V.E. he gave us so abundantly.

    • Caro says:

      “We have to stay strong, be in it for the long haul–stick with MJ and celebrate his greatness, and “Keep the Faith.” I think it will all work out in the long run if we can do that and stay with and treasure the L.O.V.E. he gave us so abundantly”

      so come on guys, stop with all this pessimistic negativity and be strong and positive for Michael – he deserves that from us!!

    • Raven says:

      True, but overall, I feel optimistic about the Wade Robson case for some reason. Maybe because he’s so obviously full of sh*&, but I sense this is going to be backfire on him in a big way-and not only that, I think his scheme is going to be exposed. I can’t explain why. It is just something I feel.

      I worry for the kids, too, especially Paris now. Their lives are never going to be easy, even with all their millions.

    • Raven says:

      My understanding, though, is that the June 2 date isn’t a trial date. It’s just a hearing date to determine if, indeed, Wade was aware or unaware of the estate deadline for claims.

  8. Caro says:

    Thanks for the post Raven. I am much more of an optimist and less cynical than most, and I have a very good feeling that AEG are the ones to be “going down” this time, and I hope someone sticks them “7 inches in”, or rather 1.5 billion$ at least!! I think Mr Panish did a really excellent job and I enjoyed (if that is the right word under the circumstances) both of his closing sets of arguments, and he had me convinced!!! I know I am somewhat biased – ok one hell of a biased – but even so I think he was much more professional, prepared, succinct, on point etc etc etc., than the other guy who was a rude and arrogant as his clients!!

    I am very grateful to everyone who posted the links to the courthouse so that I could be a part of that, albeit several hours behind the time.

    I feel that now the truth (or at least a large part of it) around Michael’s medical conditions has come out, at least a lot of the garbage written about that will stop, because we now know the “dirty dark secrets” AGE wanted us to know, but as Mr Panish so rightly said, we knew it anyway!! and there is nothing dirty or dark about Michael’s medical condition but everything bright and sparkly about how he dealt with them and turned a lot of them to advantage – what a genius I keep saying, and will continue to say!!

    • Raven says:

      I said all along that if the worst they have to throw, then it can’t be that bad.

    • Raven says:

      Well, unfortunately, we know the outcome now, and AEG didn’t get stuck with anything.

      Still, a lot of truth came out of this trial, and for that, I am thankful.

  9. Susan says:

    Hi Raven;

    Many thanks for posting the videos re the trial. I am glad many things came to light during the trial. By that, I mean the real suffering Michael indured throughout his life with regards to the scalp burn, the fall in Munich, the lupus, his insomnia and not least his emotional suffering, brought about by liars, extortionists and a certain vindictive DA. Maybe some people will realize what he went through and stop judging him so harshly. I hope AEG do face some consequences in all of this. Is it possible that the jurors can stipulate who gets any monies rewarded? If so, I would like to see it go only to to Michael’s children and not his mother. I feel badly saying this but, if what June is stated is true about the two offers to settle – well, what does that say? I always try to give Mrs. J the benefit of the doubt and really I don’t know what is going on for sure, so I admit it is not for me to judge. But I cannot help this nagging feeling that the money had a larger role in this lawsuit than the truth. If Mrs. J does receive a substantial reward, perhaps she will do what Michael wanted and donate the entire amount to fund a children’s hospital.

    • June says:

      Susan, here’s a link from LATimes May 21, 2013 regarding Jacksons’ offers to settle.

      http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/21/local/la-me-ln-michael-jackson-trial-20130521

      Interesting where Boyle says insurance would have paid and nothing would have come from AEG pockets.

    • Simba says:

      I confess that I am completely baffled when people say they hope Mrs. Jackson doesn’t get any money, and they wish this suit had never been brought to court. This is America – we sue people here. MJ himself was sued over a thousand times. Katherine Jackson suing AEG is a corporate dispute, whatever it means to her personally.

      The only thing that will make an impression on those of Anschutz’s ilk is money. He doesn’t give a damn about Michael’s mother, or his orphaned children. He didn’t give a damn about Michael or his career. Anschutz just wanted to get his hands on Michael’s assets, his money. It’s how he keeps score. Settling with the Jacksons would mean he lost a round, even if it was all paid by insurance, and his ego couldn’t take that

      I hope and pray that Anschutz loses big, in the hundreds of millions if not billions. What Katherine Jackson does with the money is strictly her business.

      • Lauren says:

        Part of the problem, I think, for some people is the fact that Mrs. J herself said this suit was not about money and she ‘wanted to find out what happened to her son.’ So the question comes up…why would plaintiffs offer a settlement agreement..not once, but twice…before the trial would begin and that truth could be revealed? Also the fact that the plaintiffs have conceded responsibility/blame for Michael in his own death. Could this be a move to prop up their case? Is their case not strong enough to indict AEG and not Michael? Also, we have seen what happened to Paris. Do we really believe this trial and the pressures surrounding it does not have a part in her state of mind and emotional well being? And one other thing, we knew before this trial started that Michael would be on trial…again…his privacy invaded horribly and his life splayed open…again..to judgement and ridicule.
        When the true person responsible for Michael’s death is released maybe then we can step back and consider how advantageous these last 5 months have been..or have they? He will use this civil suit to his own advantage and will not suffer one dime for it. Worth it?

      • shelly says:

        Then don’t forget that we are not from the same part of the world, no people don’t sue over someone else death. It’s illegal by the way and lots of people believed it’s truly disgusting.

        • Simba says:

          Out of curiosity, where are you from?

          Remember, Michael Jackson was not an “employee”. He was a performing artist, doing business as a corporate entity and a partner with AEG. Other places in the world may indeed have different customs and laws, but in the US, we have a civil system that allows companies and individuals to seek economic redress when they have been wronged.

          Panish and company would have been derelict in their duty if they had not tried to settle with AEG before going to trial. The vast majority of civil cases are settled out of court. AEG dug their heels in, and a five month trial, costing them millions, is the result.

          • Raven says:

            That’s true. It was entered into as a partnership, not a business-employee relationship.

          • shelly says:

            I am from France and like lots of european countries you can only filed as a civil suit if you win your criminal trial. You can only ask for restitution.

          • shelly says:

            I know for your civil system but not every americans do that and lots of US fans think it’s a money grab. How many americans would throw their son under the bus for a paycheck on a history where he has a huge responsabilities.

    • Raven says:

      I do think there will be some concessions insofar as how much is awarded. As far as who it is awarded to, that may be a different matter.

  10. Nina Y F says:

    What would Anschutz’s ego have to do with it? If it were really all about money, I mean?

  11. Nina Y F says:

    The real value of this case, in my view, would have been exposure of the industry as a whole to the general public. Someone elsewhere had mentioned that there were no touring artists who were asked to testify as to the conditions they endured with AEG; it seems to me that this would have been a valuable and USEFUL addition to the testimony.

    There is one, and only one thing that concerns me in all discussions pertaining to what Michael endured and suffered: how do we PREVENT this from happening in the future?

    All else is moot, in my opinion.

    • Raven says:

      They had said that Prince was supposed to testify (the singer, not Michael’s son). That would have been interesting, and I would have liked to have known what he had to say. I wonder why he was not called.

      • June says:

        About Prince (the performer), the pretrial “spin” was that he had harsh things to say about the way he was treated during an AEG-promoted tour. It would have been interesting to hear what he, or other artists promoted by AEG, had to say. I feel, though, that none of these artists would bite the hand that feeds them (so to speak), just as those around Michael those final weeks who emailed between themselves and AEG execs about his condition, didn’t want to put their jobs on the line.

        • June says:

          I failed to complete my own thought here! “did not want to put their jobs on the line by proactively intervening on their own to get Michael the help they felt he needed.”

        • Raven says:

          Yes. That’s exactly why I feel more artists haven’t gotten behind this trial. I believe a part of them would like to, if they did not fear the repercussions that might follow. In the end, everyone is looking out for their own interests.

          • June says:

            Raven said “everyone is looking out for their own interests”. One area that turns Michael’s supporters off with regard to the Jacksons is that J4 apparently continued to work in some capacity with AEG, as the trial was progressing, by appearing at the BET Experience at Staples owned by AEG and the end of June 2013. IMO, they could have actively publicly boycotted the event for the very reason the trial was ongoing, fan appreciation for a firm stance during the trial would have been strong, and there would be no damage to their suddenly invigorated careers. J4′s actions were not seen as affirming their Mother’s case. They, too, were looking out for their own interests.

  12. Sina says:

    So the justice system is only for a selected few ?.
    I wonder if what was done to Michael Jackson was done to Barbara Streisand,Madonna or a chronic drugaddict like Bill Wyman,if people would have reacted the same.
    Or is it the prospects of money in case of a win that make people act like they have a dog in the fight.
    I thi k we just have to wait and see what the jury decides, but either way, what came out in the open is here to stay.

    Sorry, but these comments about Katherine Jackson remind me of the public and tabloid reaction in 2005, when Michaels not guilty verdict came in. As well as the decades of judging condemning and scrutinizing every single thing he did, including his parenting skills and threats to take his children away. Reading this gives me a feeling of deja vu.
    I admire Katherine jackson for her perseverance and Im happy she did not let public opinion get in the way.
    I am sure Michaels children are proud of her and I hope one day they will speak up.

    “so come on guys, stop with all this pessimistic negativity and be strong and positive for Michael – he deserves that from us!!?
    Thanks for a breath of fresh air Caro.

    Raven, much credit to you for your opinion on the case and I understand your dilemma, But fear of negativity can and must never be a reason not to fight against injustice. Or else we would still be in the middle ages and people would still live in slavery. If AEG had a case there was no need for them to throw dirt.

    • Raven says:

      I have always maintained that this is a necessary fight, even though we may not like some of the consequences of it.

    • Susanne says:

      Thank you, Sina. I agree completely. There was no other way for Katherine to find out what happened to Michael but a civil trial. And a civil trial includes compensation, that’s the way it is. That’s provided by the law, not only for selected people and not only in the US. And I hope that AEG has to pay a huge amount that hurts them, after we know what they did to Michael. That’s the only way they understand. Why should they go unpunished? Just because a civil trial includes compensation?
      Not only in your mentioned cases of other celebrities people would have reacted differently, but certainly also in case one of their own family members would have died under strange circumstances and they would want to find out what happened. Who doesn’t want to know as a mother what happened to her son? It’s normal.
      And thanks to Katherine’s decision we know much more now; we never would have known about all these disgusting emails. Though there are still open questions regarding AEG and their behind the scenes actions, we have more information now to vindicate Michael regarding his health problems, his drug use, his financial problems, his treatment by “business partners” and “friends” and even the allegations. There were no “ugly, dark secrets”, everything is very clear and understandable – if people really want to know the truth!

      • shelly says:

        He didn’t die under strange circumstance, there was a criminal trial for that. AEG is not on trial for his death, the judge already said they were not responsible. The only subject of that trial is whether or not they hired Murray.

        Katherine already knew how and why he died, that was the subject of the criminal trial.

        • Simba says:

          The circumstances of Michael Jackson’s death were very strange indeed, and neither this trial, nor Conrad Murray’s, revealed the whole story. In years to come, I hope some tenacious journalists decide to do a thorough investigation of what really happened. I’m amazed that NOBODY has commented on Prince Jackson’s testimony about Randy Phillips and two strange men at Carolwood talking to Murray when Michael was at rehearsal. What was up with that?

          You say that in France people can and do sue for restitution. That is precisely what the Jacksons are suing for, so why the disdain for Katherine Jackson?

          • shelly says:

            You can only sue if you win a criminal trial, you are only entitled for the money you lose and for some psychological damages.

            Whether your son is a superstar or not you’ll have the same amount of money and the huge majority of people they won’t asked even asked for it because you don’t ask for money when your kids die.

          • shelly says:

            And no KJ is not asking for restitution, she refused it.

            AEG is not responsible for MJ asking for Propofol. MJ wasn’t a 5 years old he knew the risk and he lost and you can’t claim is responsible for that.

          • Raven says:

            There IS another way to look at this, however. Had she simply accepted restitution, all of the facts and details of this case would have still been kept hush-hush under the rug. I really think she wished to expose AEG. She wanted to put them through the wringer, publicly.

            Of course, she knew that part of the price for it would be putting Michael through the wringer again, as well. But perhaps it seemed like the lesser choice of two evils. Katherine is a brave woman who has already endured more than her fair share of trials involving her son. I’m sure she didn’t relish the idea of enduring yet another one. I can’t imagine why she would willingly put herself through all of that again, even down to taking the stand this time, if she hadn’t truly believed the case was worth pursuing.

          • shelly says:

            “There IS another way to look at this, however. Had she simply accepted restitution, all of the facts and details of this case would have still been kept hush-hush under the rug. I really think she wished to expose AEG. She wanted to put them through the wringer, publicly.”

            But what wasn’t already known? The majority of that sutff was already out during the Murray trial. The only thing we didn’t know is the slap, and all of that for what? The Jacksons are working for AEG, they said they had a nice experience with them. Look at people like Shana Mangatal on facebook, she knew all of them guess who is she supporting?

          • Raven says:

            That is one of the most troubling aspects of the case. The Jacksons did business with AEG for their Unity tour, despite knowing what they know. That, for me, is indeed very hard to reconcile. Maybe, to some extent, artists do not always have control over these kinds of decisions. But they could have still backed out and refused on principle alone. It does sound/look like people singing out both corners of their mouth, and for sure, I think it hurt their credibility in the case. People could look at that and say, “But you turned around and did business with these very people! Why?”

          • shelly says:

            ” I can’t imagine why she would willingly put herself through all of that again, even down to taking the stand this time, if she hadn’t truly believed the case was worth pursuing.”

            What you say is probably true, but she lives in a buble. Look at her testimony, she claimed she didn’t know he had a drug problem (even in 1993), she didn’t know he had a 500 millions dollars debts.

          • Raven says:

            Katherine is an incredibly strong woman, as I said. But one of her faults is that she is also very passive and likes to pretend that anything unpleasant will just go away, or isn’t true. I think she has probably managed to convince herself that she didn’t know about a lot of things-and, to be honest, Michael (like the rest of the kids) kept a lot from her, in order to spare her feelings.

            There are times when we get evidence that Katherine really IS as naive as she often claims (for example, the whole fiasco with the comment about Kiss during the tribute show, which indicated she truly had no idea of the comments Gene Simmons had made). I don’t think she’s a fool by any means. On the contrary, she’s sharp as a tack. But I do believe she’s in a bubble about a good many things, partly because the people around her are always trying to shield her.

          • shelly says:

            ““But you turned around and did business with these very people! Why?”

            Randy Jackson testify he had a nice time working with them. They could have say no and choose Line Nation or work with Allgood. They choose AEG.

          • shelly says:

            Another point, KJ had the possibility to ask for restitution and sue AEG.

          • Sina says:

            @ Raven The contract was offered them by AEG, shortly after Michael died to fill in for Michael. This was when nothing was known yet about emails and what had happened behind the scenes. So they were contractually bound.(sounds familiar?)
            The only one who said that he worked fine with them was Randy, when he was asked how it was to work with AEG organizing Michaels memorial. That was an honest answer because they ironically did everything to have the nicest memorial for Michael. which was also before the truth came out.

            Its interesting that most fans that discuss Michaels friends take Shana Mangatal with a grain of salt except when it suits their agenda.
            It’s a blatant lie – again- that what we heard in the AEG trial was out during Murray trial. Murray was almost a year behind bars when the emails leaked. The truth can be twisted in many ways, selective memory is one.
            I think the Jacksons are like any other family only they are under a huge magnifier. Im sure if you look at the average American family they are right there in the middle and they are not a small family . They only have a strange tendency that runs in the entire family to put their dirty laundry out instead of dealing with it, and that is where other people take advantage of it.
            And they are black, which invites not the normal celebrity criticism, but criticism mixed with other sentiments.
            I dont think Michaels distance was (only)about money, but that is another story.

            Shelly about the J5 not known in Europe. Maybe you are not very music minded, are from a younger generation or you simply let your anti Jackson sentiments get the better of you.
            But a simple google could have helped you with that. The Jackson 5 toured Europe 4 times and 2 times as the Jacksons.
            They broke the Beatles attendance record during their first 12 days tour in Europe. I am European and I grew up with them. They were actually the first pop boyband and the first concert I saw as a pre teen. That is where my love for live music comes from.
            In their very first European tour they also played at L Olympia, where other big names performed like Piaff, Bowie, Brel, Dietrich, Hendrix, Tina Turner,Josephine Baker,Cher,Diana Ross & Supremes,Sammy Davis Jr.
            I saw the brothers again in 2010 and last year and I am stunned how good they still sound live and what a good show they put on after so many years not performing.
            To be honest I enjoyed their show as much as I enjoyed Michaels .
            Here is for you Shelley the Jackson 5 in L Olympia. Enjoy.

          • shelly says:

            @sina

            I am french, no it’s not my anti jackson feeling, who said that.

            I never said they weren’t famous in all Europe. The facts they were in Paris 30 years ago doesn’t change the fact the general public doesn’t know who they were or doesn’t remember.
            Look at the Unity Tour, you saw them right, then what happened to the date in France, they were all cancelled. Ask the general public if they know who they are, they don’t.

          • shelly says:

            Just another point, that article is about the Jacksons 5 show at l’Olympia

            http://www.jackson5abc.com/dossiers/concerts/olympia/

            The english translation is here

            http://mjjtime.blogspot.fr/2010/11/today-in-mjj-history_06.html

            “This success, the Jackson Five are still far from known in France and it is natural insofar as they represent a “product” primarily for the U.S. market.”

          • Raven says:

            Everyone should take a close look at the fourth photo. In the foreground, we see 13-year-old Michael. In the background to the right, there is a figure in a red shirt who looks eerily, from behind, like Michael from the 1990′s. I just noticed it while casually looking at the photo, and had to do a double take!

            I’m sure it was just a bizarre coincidence, but it will definitely make you go, “Whoa, what did I just see?”

        • el says:

          “MJ wasn’t a 5 years old he knew the risk and he lost and you can’t claim is responsible for that.”
          Honestly, it sounded to me like, if someone dies in hospital on operation table, because hospital didn’t have necessary equipment, then patient is responsible for that, cause he should have known the risk.

          Nowhere in the testimonies did I read, that MJ really new the risk. Furthermore, I got expression, that he was assured, that there wasn’t any risks.

          • shelly says:

            Yes, there was testimony about that. No it’s different than the situation in an hospital. You don’t have a choice in an hospital. He chose the Propofol, he asked for it and knew the risk.

          • el says:

            If you are talking about nurse Cherilyn Lee testimony, then Michael said to her that “doctors said that it is safe if he would be monitored”. Doesn’t sound to me as “being aware of the risk”.

          • shelly says:

            Don’t agree with you, he said it’s safe if he is monitored. It means he knew there was a risk. You don’t need to be monitored when there is no risk.

          • Tevamac says:

            Of course MJ knew the risk. Are you saying Michael Jackson didn’t know that using anesthesia as a sleep aid was dangerous? A man fans constantly say read so many books and was intelligent! Fans can’t have it both ways. He knew the dangers and so did Murray that’s why they both kept it a secret. Michael should have gone to a sleep professional to be treated. It can be done from at home, and you don’t need to stay overnight in a clinic. There is head gear and all sorts of things that collect information. Furthermore; if Michael wanted to pay Murray $150,0000.00 per month he would have spent way less with a sleep doctor. To top it off he would still be alive, and working on his treatment.

            This is so different from someone dying in a hospital. Firstly the operating theatre is a place for surgery, and anesthesia not Carolwood Drive. Secondly I have never seen a surgent take cell phone calls while operating. Thirdly if you die in a hospital due to the negligence of the doctors your family can sue the hospital, but AEG is not a hospital and MJ did not put his health in their hands.

          • Tevamac says:

            If Michael had died while falling from scaffolding the lawsuit would make more sense to me. ….but from anesthesia which he asked for makes no sense.

          • el says:

            “being aware that there is a risk” and ” being aware of risk” isn’t the same

      • Raven says:

        Well, unfortunately, as we know now, they will not have to pay a penny.

  13. Sina says:

    PS : I made the comparison with Bill Wyman because of the public opinion that Michael was a grown man who got what he asked for.

  14. Caro says:

    Absolutely Susanne. I couldn’t have put it better myself. We do know much more now, and I can only see that as a positive, and “ammunition” (for want of a better non-confrontational word!!) to use when we want to speak the truth about Michael to those who don’t.

  15. lynn mincher says:

    I agree with Simba’s comment-we still don’t know the whole story…what happened to the “home security camera tapes”??

  16. Simba says:

    shelly, so according to your thesis, the young tourist in New York whose leg was severed by an out-of-control cabdriver would have no financial recourse, because she knew that standing on the sidewalk is a “risk”. Propofol is used hundreds of thousands of times a day in the US and people don’t die from it. Murray was the one who screwed up, and because he was the one with the medical degree and license, he was held responsible, not his patient.

    As you seem to blame Michael Jackson for his death, and I vehemently disagree, there’s no point in further discussion.

    • shelly says:

      No Propofol is use in a hospital only and there is a reason for that. As for your example yes and no. They are 2 people responsible for that the victim and the driver meaning MJ and Dr Murray and AEG wasn’t one of them. It would like suing the city for your accident and of course you can’t.

      • el says:

        Actually, you can, at least in Estonia. If you can proof, that city municipality have been previously warned about risk on this sidewalk and they choose to do nothing.

        • shelly says:

          Of course you can in that case, but it’s different than the AEG case. AEG never knew about the Propofol.

          • el says:

            Aeg not knowing about propofol is irrelevant in case. All they had to know, is that Michaels health was going worse and that there was something wrong with dr Murray. There was enough signs of it

          • shelly says:

            It’s completely relevant to the case. They are on trial for allegedly hiring Murray not for what they did or didn’t do the weeks before he died. By the way, Kai Chase and his bodyguards were with him during those weeks and nobody is suing them. His own family with him, at least KJ, and they did nothing but AEG is responsible please.

    • shelly says:

      By the way, I made a mystake. If you are on a sidewalk, the driver is 100% responsible because sidewalks are their to protect people from the cars and, unless there is a problem with the sidewalk, the driver is the only one who needs to be held responsible not a third party.

      If you are walking on the street near the sidewalk and have an accident you are partly responsible.

    • Tevamac says:

      @Simba
      Sidewalks are meant for pedestrians not driving a car so the tourist in in the right.

      If the tourist was crossing the street in on coming traffic where there is not pedestrian crossing, and was hit by the taxi the tourist is at fault.

      • Simba says:

        Of course sidewalks are meant for pedestrians. But there’s no magical barrier to keep cars from jumping the curb, which is what happened in the case I mentioned. Standing on the sidewalk is risky, especially in New York City, where the cabbies drive like bats out of hell. (In the case I cited, the driver was provoked by a jerk off cyclist, who had numerous incidents in his past. New York is chock full of them.)

        So who is responsible for the accident, and financially liable? The cab company, because they allowed a substandard driver to operate a cab with their medallion. The driver might not even be an “employee” legally speaking. He was probably an independent contractor, like Conrad Murray. It doesn’t matter. The cab company is going to pay up big time. That’s why they have insurance.

        If AEG declines to take responsibility for Conrad Murray, they should never have drawn up a contract for him, and Randy Phillips should never have discussed Michael Jackson’s health with him. AEG interfered in the patient-doctor relationship. Too late to back out now.

        • Tevamac says:

          The cab company and AEG is not a good comparison. It is apples and oranges. AEG became involved b/c MJ did not have the finances to pay Conrad himself directly/initially; however, the money was to be deducted from MJ’s gross.

          • Simba says:

            To use a legal term, you’re assuming facts not in evidence. No one ever testified that AEG was going to pay Murray because Michael didn’t have the funds. On the contrary, Prince Jackson testified that his father felt bad about Murray not being paid, so he gave Prince money to give Murray, which Murray usually, but not always, declined.

          • shelly says:

            And the victim didn’t beg for it anyway. And that kind of company has those insurance because they know an accident can happen, it’s a different situation with a doctor. By the way the question is negligent hiring.

          • Tevamac says:

            @Simba

            I am not assuming anything, it is a well known fact that Michael was overdrawn on loans and heavily in debt. He was not paying his staff and some left his employment (chef) because of it, only to return after the AEG advance.

          • Tevamac says:

            @Simba
            “Prince Jackson testified that his father felt bad about Murray not being paid, so he gave Prince money to give Murray, which Murray usually, but not always, declined.”

            That is a very convoluted statement. Why on Earth would Michael Jackson have his 12 year old son paying his doctor bill directly. Why involve PJ? That’s the job of an accountant or office Manager . . . somebody. Back to what I said. Michael was in dire financial straits which lead to the concerts, which lead to the insomnia, which lead to the propofol, which lead to his death.

  17. iutd says:

    I guess the conclusion is that different countries have different laws–unsurprisingly. Just to say in Mexico, you can’t sue a city for something like unsafe sidewalks, etc.

    Back to the situation in USA, I hink we all can acknowledge we are very sue-happy here. This country has more lawyers per capita than any other country on earth. Also we have more prisoners in jail per capita than any other country on earth. I don’t think we have a lot to boast about here (just my opinion). Grand juries are often rubber-stamps for prosecutors and district attorneys have a lot of discretion and independence (look at what Sneddon did).

    Back to this trial, I believe there was testimony that MJ was informed about the risks of propofol, and not just from Cherilyn Lee. For example, even Metzger said he told him that IV medication for sleep was not safe on April 18th, 2009. In a hospital, you do sign a consent form that specifically acknowledges that general anesthesia carries risks. I find it strange that people are getting outraged that some want to assign responsibility to MJ for the decision to use propofol for sleep. Even Panish, KJ’s lawyer, gave him a 20% share. That is not insignificant. Various doctors told him propofol was unsafe==Putnam listed 5 in his closing arguments, including Van Valin and a female doctor Christine Quinn. (He was also told by Dr. Quin and others that propofol did not induce proper, restful sleep.)

    Certainly, MJ knew that CM was not an anesthesiologist– he kept trying to find an anesthesiologist to give him propofol rather than CM–he asked Dr. David Adams, an anesthesiologist, to accompaany him on tour, he told Metzger he needed IV meds to sleep during the tour, and he asked Cherilyn Lee to find him an anesthesiologist for propofol. So he was well aware it took training and equipment to make this drug safe to administer. Nevertheless, he gave CM the go-ahead. To me that says he was aware of the risks and chose to let CM give him the propofol.

    This in no way absolves CM from what he did by not finding out how to administer the drug, what resuscitation equipment was needed, by refusing to let Dr. Adams come on board, and by not watching MJ while he was under.

    • June says:

      @iutd, I agree with your reasoned explanation. Even Debbie Rowe testified (tearfully) that when propofol was used 2X for sleep in Germany during History tour, she queried Michael, “don’t you think this is rash?”, his reply being to the effect he was more interested in getting sleep. He knew the risk. Understanding this does not mean we love, respect or admire Michael less; in fact, the testimony elicited at trial causes me to love, respect and admire him MORE! All the man wanted was a decent night’s sleep. The felon Murray is incarcerated for good and sufficient reason, although not nearly long enough. An MD takes an oath to “first” do no harm, “first” being the operative word. Those opining that AEG’s involvement caused a conflict for which AEG is in some fashion liable, should remember “first” as it pertains to an MD’s hippocratic oath.

      Oh, and has anyone forgotten his taping of a slurred Michael on May 10, 2009, which could not have been done for any other reason than to eventually blackmail Michael. It is illegal to tape someone without their permission. Any doubt we will hear more of these after Murray’s release?

  18. Sina says:

    May I remind everone that it is not Michael who is on trial here.
    He died , isnt that enough punishment for his ‘guilt’ for you. How much more do you want to blame him.

    • shelly says:

      Well thanks to the Jacksons he was on trial. He made a mystake and died and even if the AEG people behaved like asshole, it doesn’t mean they should pay for his own mystake.

    • Tevamac says:

      Some fans don’t even acknowledge Michael’s accountability.

      • Sina says:

        Again it is not Michael Jackson who is on trial, but AEG.
        The Jacksons used their constitutional rights like every other citizen and so far the judge has found substantial evidence to bring the case to the jury.
        And along the way, and to me the biggest win of the case, is that we got to know much more than the scope of the case and what some deceived us to believe.
        You may not like it, but you will have to deal with it.

        • Tevamac says:

          I don’t have to deal with anything. The verdict does not affect me. Who has to deal with it is the Jackson family one way or another.

          • Tevamac says:

            @Sina
            “The Jacksons used their constitutional rights like every other citizen and so far the judge has found substantial evidence to bring the case to the jury.”

            That does not make the argument b/c Judge Rodney Melvelle found substantial evidence to the Arvizo case to the jury.

        • Tevamac says:

          It will always be Michael who is on trial regardless of the defendant and plaintiff. Michael Jackson is the subject, he is the reason the media pays attention, when Michael died the internet froze. Michael drives the headlines not Conrad Murray, AEG, Randy Phillip, Katherine Jackson etc. We would not know who these people were if not for their association with Michael. It will always be about Michael Jackson.

          • Simba says:

            Tevamac, the Arvizo case was in CRIMINAL court. Judge Melville presided over a case brought by the prosecutor. He did not find “substantial evidence”. That’s not his job, and not under his control. Under the American system, criminal and civil matters are handled quite differently, with different rules of procedure.

          • Tevamac says:

            Simba, you miss my point. That’s it.

  19. Simba says:

    Wow – so much hostility for Michael from his ‘fans’. Maybe it’s a good time to remember we’re talking about Jackson v. AEG, not the State of California v. Conrad Murray. That case is over, and Murray sits in jail where he belongs, because the jury determined that MJ was NOT responsible for his own death.

    Michael did seek help from sleep specialists, but they did not help him much. Insomnia is still a medical mystery. What isn’t mysterious is the horrible feeling of despair insomniacs experience.

    “Last week I probably slept an average of two hours a night,” he said. “I couldn’t stop thinking. My body was exhausted, and my mind was still going.” One night he took an Ambien, which failed to work. He took a second one and fell into a stupor, only to wake up an hour later, his mind still racing.”

    This is from an article about Heath Ledger, whose insomnia also led to his death. Michael turned to propofol in sheer desperation. While it was dangerous, according to testimony, Murray managed to administer it fifty-nine times without killing MJ. If propofol was inherently dangerous, Michael would have been dead long before June 25, 2009.

  20. iutd says:

    I have noticed it’s always the pro-KJ lawsuit people who question whether those who don’t agree with them about the evil AEG being out to get MJ and his assets are really MJ fans. However, those who don’t buy their arguments do not deny that they are MJ fans. So why not just acknowledge that people can be MJ fans and yet not agree on this and other issues? Frankly, when people go around putting the word fan in quotes, I have a big problem with that. Who is to sit in judgment and decide who is and who is not a real MJ fan? Setting yourself up to deny that others are fans is repellent to me and IMO it hurts the fan community a lot.

    ok, back to this topic at hand. The CM trisl did not say MJ was NOT responsible. It said that CM was a ‘substantial factor” in MJ’s death–not that he was the only factor. Thus, that trial did not establish that MJ did not have a role in contributing to the outcome of CM’s acts.

    Who knows exactly what CM did? He did not keep records so we only have his unreliable word that he gave propofol 60 nights in a row. I don’t believe he did. Also, Shaeffer testified in his opinion there were other close calls on the nights CM gave MJ propofol due to the complete lack of standard of care involved. Of course it was dangerous to give propofol that way–no one has disputed that who has credibility. It was established by experts that this was outside the standard of care in egregious ways and that’s why CM lost his medical license in California as well.

    • Simba says:

      I agree that it’s likely that Murray did not administer propofol sixty nights in a row. But that figure has been discussed many times in court. It is indisputable that Murray administered it on numerous occasions, as no one has suggested that the one and only time was the night he killed Michael Jackson.

      I disagree with your assertion that “It said that CM was a ‘substantial factor” in MJ’s death–not that he was the only factor. Thus, that trial did not establish that MJ did not have a role in contributing to the outcome of CM’s acts.” This was a criminal trial, with a higher standard than a civil trial. Murray was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury had determined that MJ had contributed to his own death, Murray would have walked.

      I’m not pro-lawsuit. I’m pro Michael Jackson. I find it odd that those who call themselves fans express such negative notions about him as we see on this forum. That’s my opinion, and while you may disagree, which is your right, I don’t see how that hurts the “fan community”. But then, I don’t believe in the concept of a fan community.

      Whatever Michael’s faults or shortcomings, they are minuscule compared to the actions of Anschutz and his slimeball minions.

      • shelly says:

        No, even Walgreen admitted him. MJ asked for Propofol and there is no question about it. It’s why Murray was only charged with mansluaghter and not murder, because with manslaughter you only to believe he was a substantial factor and not the only factor. Even Panish admitted MJ was partly responsible for his death.

        • shelly says:

          I meant “admitted it”.

        • Simba says:

          The crime of involuntary manslaughter in California, which Murray was convicted of, as defined under the penal code, makes no provision for any contributing factor of the victim. The distinction between manslaughter and murder is made by intent. At any rate, many legal professionals have stated that in their opinion, Murray should have been charged with second degree implied malice murder.

          While I don’t take it upon myself to define who is or isn’t a real Michael Jackson fan, I do tend to be skeptical of those whose posts consist only of criticism of MJ and the Jackson family.

          • Tevamac says:

            “While I don’t take it upon myself to define who is or isn’t a real Michael Jackson fan, I do tend to be skeptical of those whose posts consist only of criticism of MJ and the Jackson family”

            I feel the same way. Nobody in the Jackson clan is all good or all bad. They are no devils or angels.

            I cannot be true to myself if I cannot look at Michael objectively. The problem is some ppl believe that as long as you are a fan any criticism of Michael Jackson is expressly forbidden. …and I am skeptical of those fans that cannot get pass the idol to the human who had short comings, and made mistakes like the rest of us. Michael was no better than me, and I am no worst than him, we are all people. This is why Raven’s blog is the only one I still read b/c she can be objective. For me agreement or disagreement with Michael’s decisions really depends on the subject: Parenting, molestation, propofol, etc. I don’t blanket everything in Michael was always right – or wrong.

          • Raven says:

            Thanks for your kind words. I do try to keep a balanced perspective, even though I have my opinions like everyone else. I hope you will read my comment to Sina, which in turn was a response to you (I am reading through all of the comments in backwards order today, lol). This is pretty much my objective with every post I write.

          • shelly says:

            In order to be convicted of manslaughter you only need to be a substantial factor and not the only factor, in that case that leave what. AEG was never tryed for MJ’s death. The simple fact that he never call 911 made him guilty of manslaughter.

          • Sina says:

            @Tevamac
            When youve been following Michael for over 40 years and have heard all the hurtful things said and done to him, that I dont have to name for you, the last thing you want to do is ad to it.
            Most of us grew up with Michael Jackson so we know he is no deity.
            But unlike the masses out there, although we know all his shortcomings ,I CHOOSE not to focus on the flaws to ‘humanize’ him , to be ‘reasonable’or for my own peace of mind. Because I already knew that he was human.

          • Raven says:

            That is somewhat my position as well. I am well aware of most of Michael’s flaws, and when I talk to his friends or anyone who knew him, I discover more every day. There have been a few things told to me privately that, of course, I will never share. Were they criminal things? No. Bad things? Not necessarily. Just things that made him a little more human in my eyes, but that somewhat eroded any sense I may have had of him as this “perfect” or “angelic” being. There are things that I know, had I ever met Michael and gotten to know him comfortably enough to talk to him as frankly as some of these other people did, that we would have had some issues about. (Of course, I would have had to get over being “star struck” in his presence first, lol!). In other words, not everything the man ever did or said in his life was admirable, let’s just put it that way.

            However, that in no way detracts from all the wonderful GOOD things he accomplished in his life. It does not make his ideals any less sincere. It does not lessen his philanthropic work, his impact as a global humanitarian, or the fact that he was one of the greatest entertainers the world has ever known.

            As far as I’m concerned, all one has to do is look to the media if they want to see Michael torn down and his every “flaw” held up for scrutiny. He has been torn down enough; it is time to build him up again.

            But I think partly because the image of the “blindly rabid, idol worshipping MJ fan” has become such a stereotype, some fans will go overboard in trying to prove that they aren’t part of that group.

            My favorite response to those who want to tag that label on me is that, no, I am very well aware of the human Michael Jackson-and I still love him. And if I choose not to dwell on his flaws, it is partly out of respect for the fact that he isn’t here, and partly because we do not need to tear him down anymore than he has already been.

    • Raven says:

      I think it’s likely that he was given propofol for sixty nights; as per Cziesler’s testimony, this would explain 100% the symptoms that Michael was displaying in his last weeks, and those symptoms have been consistent with many witnesses who have testified on both sides of the case.

      As I have said before, I can understand why not all fans support the lawsuit. I was on the fence about it myself for a long time, until the evidence just kept piling up. However, I believe in the long run, it really comes down more to ethics than criminality. I’ve said before, we definitely know now that Phillips and co. were a lot of arrogant jerks-this I believe. Did they care about Michael as a human being (more specifically, a vulnerable human being?). No. They unequivocally did not.

      But does that make them criminally liable? That is what this jury had to decide. Ultimately, their decision is not one I agree with. If the question came down to who hired Murray-and we were led to believe from the beginning that this would be the deciding factor of the case, since Murray has already been convicted of manslaughter-then AEG should have been liable for at least a portion of the damages asked for. After all, they determined that AEG, not Michael, hired Murray.

      I think to let them walk scot free from this is a travesty.

      That is why I say, while I understand not supporting the lawsuit, I don’t understand those who have taken a pro-AEG stance. AEG may not be totally to blame (I don’t, for example, believe they were after Michael’s assets, as some do) but they are hardly the good guys in white here. I’m referring here to those who reportedly went so far as to even advise AEG’s attorneys on how to “win” this case.

      In truth, there is some measure of greed on both parties, but at least my heart can sympathize more with Katherine, an elderly woman who has lost her son, than with a corporation like AEG who could have cared less if Michael lived or died-as long as they broke even, or profited, better yet.

      • iutd says:

        “AEG should have been liable for at least a portion of the damages asked for. After all, they determined that AEG, not Michael, hired Murray.”

        Actually, the foreman has said that some members of the jury believed that both MJ and AEG hired Murray, but the jury instructions told them in that case to vote yes, so they did. The fact the Q1 was unanimously answered yes does not mean that the jury found only AEG hired CM.

        As far as being ‘pro-AEG”–just as you said re MJ having flaws, AEG also made mistakes, but the issue is not did they make mistakes, but did they show negligence. Did they know what CM was doing? Should they have known he would be incompetent? I think the jury has shown that there really is no evidence (one juror said ‘not a shred of evidence’) to support that they knew what CM was doing or that MJ’s los of weight, physical and mental decline was due to CM’s treatment. We know now b/c of the investigations and the CM trial how incompetent he was/is–but was that something foreseeable–foreseeable before MJ died? This was the issue. I have read people state AEG should have known it was CM behind the decline. But how would they know that? CM was not the only dr treating MJ–there was Klein, there was also Metzger, MJ went to LV to meet with drs as well. How did they know it was CM and no one else? How did they know MJ didn’t have the flu? a psychological problem? remember KO suggested a psychiatrist. This is why I, at least, did not jump on the blame-AEG-for MJ’s death line of thinking. I just don’t see the evidence that AEG should have or could have known before MJ died tht CM was to blame and that CM was so incredibly incompetent as he turned out to be. That this dr would not even call 911 when his patient’s life was on the line, that he would abandon his patient to talk on the phone, that he would administer a dangerous anesthetic without the training and knowledge that goes with it.

        • Sina says:

          IUTD this is what you just wrote.

          “You also have to consider the character of the person–namely CM. This is a man who has not handled his personal or professional life well prior to coming to TII tour”
          But AEG didnt notice.

          This is what Gongaware said: we have to remind Murray that its AEG, not Michael Jackson who is paying him’
          Do you remember when and in what context that was said.?

          Negligent hiring is not only the signing of the contract, but also supervising and or retaining
          If you hire someone you are responsible for his performance, whether he is an independent contractor or an employee.
          I agree that the wording was a problem for the jury.
          But they made their own interpretation which is a travesty that the judge should never have allowed.
          Interesting Freudian slip that the juror said Murray was competent but he wouldnt hire him.
          And that the first thing a doctor has to do before he is even allowed to touch a patient, the Hippocratic oath was not even considered part and parcel of his competence.
          His statement that it would be different had they asked about ethics is bs. Technical competence is objective and easier to find out than something as subjective as ethical competence.So how would it be different?

          • iutd says:

            I am taking about his character–and that is distinct from his professional competence. For example, there might be an excellent writer who writes wonderful novels but is a less than admirable person (maybe like Norman Mailer?), or a basketball or football player who does a great job for the team but has a lousy character (Michael Vick?). CM wasn’t hired to be anything other than a doctor giving general medical care, so the fact that he had so many kids with different mothers, did not pay his child support, would not necessarily have affected his professional competence. This is what I mean by character–his integrity. The same thing goes for his professional life in that he was not managing his financial affairs well (this is what I was referring to). I do agree that character and integrity if it is lacking is a weakness for sure, but this weakness does not necessarily and indubitably affect job performance and is not necessarily a reason not to be hired (otherwise few people would be hired!).

  21. Simba says:

    “That is a very convoluted statement. Why on Earth would Michael Jackson have his 12 year old son paying his doctor bill directly. Why involve PJ? That’s the job of an accountant or office Manager . . . somebody. Back to what I said. Michael was in dire financial straits which lead to the concerts, which lead to the insomnia, which lead to the propofol, which lead to his death.”

    Tevamac, there is nothing convoluted about what I posted. Michael Jackson invested a great deal of responsibility in his son Prince. Prince TESTIFIED that his father gave him hundred dollar bills to give Murray, because he knew Murray was more likely to accept money that way.

    While ‘everybody’ may think they know all the details of Michael’s financial situation, the fact is they don’t. But it’s easily verifiable that Prince Jackson gave Murray money at his father’s behest, no matter how unlikely you think it.

    • Tevamac says:

      …and you don’t find that in the least bit different?

      • Simba says:

        The verdict is in, so it doesn’t matter. I don’t know what you mean by “different”. Prince and Paris, at eleven and twelve years of age, were brought up by their father to be responsible and mature, and he trusted them with many adult matters. That is not so unusual in this country, especially in black families. Certainly when I was eleven, my parents could trust me to pay household bills, cook dinner, do laundry, care for a younger sibling, etc. (Every once in a while, I think it’s valuable to put Michael Jackson in cultural context.)

        • Raven says:

          It also tends to happen more in single parent families, white or black. The older kids in the family often have to take on more roles of responsibility because, no matter how hard that one parent tries, they simply can’t pick up all the slack that comes when one parental role isn’t being fulfilled.

          I would imagine Michael experienced a lot of this in his own household growing up. I’m sure at some point Joe would have thought nothing of giving him some money and saying, “Pay that insurance man when he stops by.”

  22. MagUK says:

    I believe Michael’s Mother brought this law suit for the reasons she stated.. she wanted to find out what happened to her son. I think she achieved that.. despite the verdict.

    A lot of “good stuff” as opposed to “ugly stuff” was revealed about Michael.. and although AEG are found not guilty in law, I don’t think there is any doubt that they were morally reprehensible.

    • June says:

      I read an article quoting Kevin Boyle, Panish’s partner, stating that Jacksons made two settlement offers, one in January 2013, the other in March 2013, to which AEG’s attorneys did not respond. Just seems that if either offer had been accepted by Katherine and her attorneys, the trial and the search for truth about what happened to Michael would not have occurred.

      I think the only “ugly stuff” coming out of this mess was AEG’s treatment of their artist, to my way of thinking anything negative about Michael that was not previously known only endears him more as a flawed human like the rest of us.

  23. Okunuga says:

    It’s incredible and sad to me that some fans are basically blaming michael for his own death clamming that he was a grown who made the decision about the use of propofol for sleep conviniently forgetting the reasons why,including all his medical issues that drove him to it in the first place as if they would have done any better if the roles were reversed.

    • Raven says:

      I can understand seeing, in a reasonable sense, that Michael was at least partially responsible for the choices he made. What I don’t quite “get” is the faction that actively supports AEG, as if they bear no culpability whatsoever.

      My take on this: As we know, there are fans who are pro Jackson family, and anti Jackson family. There are many who, even though they admire and love Michael to pieces, genuinely feel that this was just a money grab on KJ’s part in order to funnel money to the rest of the Jackson family-people that Michael was sick of leeching off of him, and purposely left out of his will. In that regard, I can understand the resentment.

      But in my heart, I don’t feel that this was just a money grab. Not that Katherine wouldn’t have taken the money, of course-she does love her Cadillacs and standard of living, after all!-and yes, I do believe she would have been funneling that money off to Joe, Randy, Jermaine, etc from here to kingdom come if she’d won the case.

      But was that her real and only reason for bringing it? I don’t think so. I believe she genuinely wanted those answers about what happened to her son. The money is just a perk, but we all know that no amount of money in the world can truly replace the loss of a son or a father. A criminal trial was not an option, so Katherine took the same recourse as many families of deceased victims have done.

      • shelly says:

        I don’t think people are really pro AEG. Nobody agrees with what RP did to MJ, but the pressure they put on him is something to be expected when you are at his level.

        • Sina says:

          People are pro anything.even sympathize with Roger Friedman(need I say more?!?)as long as it is anti Jacksons. They will even feed Michael to the wolves.I can give you many quotes of what people have said on sites that you are familiar with.

          Whatever problem Michael may have had with his family or vv, I never heard him say they ‘leeched’ off him and he never invited fans to interfer in his and his family business. He publically denounced it in his Geraldo interview and it never happened when he was alive.
          After he died, fans just took it upon themself, and I have to wonder who gave them the audacity and what sentiment lies underneat.

          • shelly says:

            It’s the Jacksons who did that to themselves. Yes, they managed to disgust people.

          • Sina says:

            As long as you speak for yourself and not for Michael Jackson.

          • shelly says:

            “After he died, fans just took it upon themself, and I have to wonder who gave them the audacity and what sentiment lies underneat.”

            It’s very easy everything they did after he died was for money, it’s not something that a normal family would do. You really believe that talking about your record company is normal when your son just died, or selling about your brother children is ok?

          • Sina says:

            You seem to be obsessed with money. Every single one of your posts is about money. Is that normal to you? chill out.

          • Daisy says:

            I’ve never heard him say his family leeched off him neither. I’m still trying to figure out where all that came from.

          • shelly says:

            “You seem to be obsessed with money. Every single one of your posts is about money. Is that normal to you? chill out.”

            Lol, I am talking about the Jacksons. You want to deny that they sold stories to the tabs after he died.

          • Raven says:

            In private conversations, however, Michael did often make such comments about certain family members (not all of them, of course). He may not have used the word “leeching” exactly, but that was what was implied, for sure. Michael did, at times, feel used as a money bank by his family, and he grew understandably more bitter about that in later years. Even in one of the Gloria Stein tapes, he talks about Joseph calling him up on Father’s Day and asking for half a million dollars. He almost makes it seem like a joke, but you can tell he’s really hurt and ticked off about it.

            Keeping that in mind, you know that I am not, and never have been, a Jackson family basher. I just try to keep things in perspective-and real. A part of that is just normal and to be expected anytime a family has one member who has much more money than everyone else. If you have more money than the rest of your family, you are always going to have to deal with pleas for loans and hand-outs, for this or that reason. I don’t think they are particularly any better or worse than any other family in that regard. It’s just that with them, everything they do is public record. And then, there is always the jealousy/competition factor because certain family members became more successful than others.

            There are valid reasons why Michael distanced himself from his family in his last years. Part of that was the pressure they always put on him, for money or favors or this or that. And part of it, perhaps, may have been simply because of things he didn’t want to be nagged about. I think he loved them, but they became increasingly people he just didn’t want to hang with or spend much time around.

            It is true that it was never something he invited his fans to interfere with. He considered these things to be private family business. What we do know, of things he said and so forth, have come to us via private sources, and these were conversations he never intended to be made public. So, as always, there is the fine line between knowing how he truly felt about some issues, and yet knowing these were matters he did not want openly discussed among fans and in the media. And this is where integrity/ethics comes up against the desire for truth, or “what is juicy.”

            I will admit, it at first shocked me to see so much anti-Jackson sentiment amongst his own fans. I had always, up until 2009, at least, just looked at Michael as another extension of his famous family (albeit the most dazzling one). I didn’t realize there was such a strong anti-Jackson current among the fans until I became deeply involved in the fan community. It also somewhat surprised me to see how negatively the press treated them after Michael died (although Joe asked for what he got when he promoted his record company just a day after Michael died). Perhaps a lot of it can be traced back to LaToya’s first book, and when Michael first began publicly speaking out about his abuse. As one writer said (I do not recall who) this was when we started to see the chink in the family armor. What we had thought was America’s first black family of show business actually turned out to be a dysfunctional mess (this was the new paradigm) and it has only gone downhill since.

            Sometimes the family’s actions do seem to invite these criticisms, but more often, I think they are unfairly maligned. Although I have never actually met any of Michael’s immediate family (other than being at some of the same events and perhaps getting to be in the room with them) I have met many members of the extended family, and each time, it has always struck me just how genuinely nice and down to earth they are. And, of course, I am always thinking, if Michael’s cousins, uncles, aunts, etc are such nice people, what does that say about his parents and brothers and sisters, who after all, are the same blood? Each time, it really makes me realize anew that these are REAL people, not just celebrities we read about in a magazine, and that we can’t always judge what we don’t know.

          • shelly says:

            “I had always, up until 2009, at least, just looked at Michael as another extension of his famous family (albeit the most dazzling one).”

            In Europe, at least in some countries, the Jacksons 5 were not famous. The majority of the public don’t even know there was a band called the Jacksons 5.

          • iutd says:

            Thanks, Raven, for your comments on the Jackson family and MJ. As you said, you found it hard to encounter the strong feelings against the family among MJ fans. I am also shocked sometimes by how fiercely MJ fans defend the family even when they are clearly wrong in hurting MJ and his children, and even badmouthing his legacy, the Estate, Cirque du Soleil, etc. This issue is clearly one of the big divisions among fans–along with other triggers like the Cascio tapes, Teddy Riley, Oprah etc. In general, I get mad at people who have gone on record putting MJ down or not giving him support–such as LMP, Oprah, and yes, even his family. I found it mind-boggling that KJ as a mother could testify that she did not know MJ went into rehab in 93. So if she didn’t even know about it, how could she offer him support? Joe is another issue and I think most fans agree about him. I don’t know if these divisions will ever be resolved and this trial has really made it worse.

          • Sina says:

            I responded to a few inaccuracies that Shelley posted but it came up in another section.

            IUTD , I will keep supporting the Jackson family in general, no matter how people talk them down or blame them for you name it what.
            I kept supporting Michael with all his shortcomings, when the world was against him. That is how my loyalty works. Everyone now speaks positive of Michael but where was the support 5 years ago. He had to die to get it.
            You can try to seperate Michael from his mother and family, but in the end it was his mother, who he trusted his children with and a Judge confirmed it twice. I dont discuss Michaels children but they are the only ones who can tell what it was like.
            There is and was never a fan Community, not even when Michael was alive. Maybe in a perfect world .But fan community is an illusion created for marketing purposes.
            We are not sheep . Everyone chooses with good right and noone has the right to dictate that.
            In the end we are not more than consumers who have a right to buy or not buy.

      • shelly says:

        I also thinks it’s a huge mystake to sue for 2 billions dollars, because even if you are not interested in the money, it makes look very greedy.
        If you aren’t after the money then why not just asking for your a psychological damage.

  24. Marsha says:

    I say that even though he did chose to use Diprivan/propofol it does not matter. If u take just about any medication u r putting your life in danger of some side effect or other. In Michael’s case he at least knew that someone should be watching over him when it was given. let us keep in mind that Diprivan is not illegal, just not used out side of the hospital or surgery.
    and its ability to become addictive is well not exactly determined. It may be psychologically addictive but is definitely not physically”if I remember correctly” addictive. It is just that in this case it was used for something that it is not usually used for, sleep instead of sedation. It is used for long periods”perhaps not as long as in Michael’s case” in ICU’s to sedate patients. So for Michael’s to ask for it was not a crime the crime came when the person that was suppose to watch him failed to do so. It was not Michael’s That Murray was sleep, or on the phone, or just not thee at all. I do find it interesting though that Chandler was a dentist, could he have been the one to introduce Michael to Propofol?

    • Raven says:

      As far as I know, Michael never received any dental services from Evan Chandler, but we do know (thanks to Ray Chandler’s account) that Evan Chandler on at least one occasion administered drugs to Michael in his own home. The drug he used on that particular occasion was claimed to be Toradol, but that remains a subject of dispute. In any event, I simply don’t know. Michael had certainly had many medical procedures done long before he met Evan Chandler, but Diprivan was still a relatively new product on the market in the late 1980′s. Michael would have had to have been introduced to it sometime after 1986. That makes the time frame plausible, but I simply have no evidence that Evan Chandler was responsible.

  25. Greet says:

    According to Dr. Patrick Treacy, Michael only wanted be sedated by a qualified anesthesiologist. Why would he accept it now from Dr. Murray ? Because he trusted him and thought he would be properly monitored, which made him feel safe. After all, Propofol is used millions of times every week….without problems.
    But what made a (as the jury said) qualified general doctor do things that were beyond his task and became fatal for Michael ? The pressure of AEG, shown in emails. If you look at the verdict logically, the outcome should be that AEG put pressure on Murray to do the things he did.

    • Raven says:

      I know. While it’s easy to blame Murray as the fall guy and scapegoat, we also have to look at the pressure that was put upon him. He behaved unethically, but also had a lot of pressure-and incentive-to behave in an unethical fashion. And as we know, now, that pressure wasn’t “just” coming from Michael BUT FROM THOSE WHO LEGALLY HIRED HIM FOR THE JOB.

    • iutd says:

      You also have to consider the character of the person–namely CM. This is a man who has not handled his personal or professional life well prior to coming to TII tour. Look at how he had been since his conviction. Do you think a sane, well-balanced person blames his victim for entrapping him, or tapes him while he is in a drugged state, or sings “The Little Boy that Santa Forgot” on CNN??? No, CM did not have good morals or good ethics before he met MJ. It is a tragedy that CM ever met MJ and why MJ asked his bodyguards for a recommendation for a dr. I will never understand. He knew many professional people in Vegas to ask. CM’s personality and character is flawed imo. If there was pressure, he should have paid more attn to his one patient, not less, and made sure he was healthy, not ignored him–that actually shows a complacent, not a stressed, oh, I must do what AEG says, attitude IMO.

  26. Simba says:

    Michael Jackson was not perfect. There, I said it. I have no doubt that, with constant music in the house, water pistol fights, carrying on about the plight of children all the time, The Three Stooges for God’s sakes! – I would have had very little in common with MJ, except for loving his music and him as a performer, and his courageous refusal to except racial limitations on his career.

    That said, he didn’t deserve to die at the hands of a narcissistic sociopath, hired and controlled by AEG. His children do not deserve bing robbed by AEG. His reputation should not be smeared by the lies of Phillip Anschutz, Randy Phillips, and Paul Gongaware, who made a good living off of a man he apparently despised.

    There are nagging loose ends dangling about this case. We shouldn’t be too quick to believe we have the whole story. Clearly we don’t. I hate when people get all cryptic on Twitter, but Keya Morgan has tweeted that he overheard Randy Phillips and Tohme Tohme talking about WADE ROBSON, before the trial began. Anyone have any idea what they may have been discussing, and why? I’m thinking it probably wasn’t the latest dance steps.

    • Simba says:

      BTW I typed accept, not “except”, but my spellcheck changed it. (It constantly changes Tohme to To me, too!)

    • appleh says:

      Who is Keya Morgan ?

    • Raven says:

      I know for a fact that Michael and I wouldn’t have agreed on much with movies. maybe a few exceptions-Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, and the musicals-but I was never a Star Wars fan; don’t like sci-fi, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, or any of that stuff. Most of the movies he loved would have, frankly, bored me to tears.

      I do love The Three Stooges (in small doses, because their brand of humor wears thin after you sit through a couple of shorts).

      For most of the stuff he was into, I would have just had to say, “Have at it, baby, I’m gonna go read a good book.” LOL.

  27. Nina Hamilton says:

    Yes, Simba. There are loose ends nagging at me too, like the missing surveillance tapes at Carolwood, the unidentified finger prints on a Propofol vial, why no mention was made of Murray’s medical licences or board certifications in Texas and Nevada having expired in December 2008, or Murray asking AEG for resuscitation equipment but not receiving it, (to me this means AEG had not checked him out and should have doubted his competence, and known that something risky was going on with Michael) i.e. they hired him negligently.
    I was shocked and disappointed at the verdict which I can never accept.
    Rnady Phillips and Tohme Tohme were probably discussing how they had blackmailed Robson to bring his case to discredit Michael in the KJ-v-AEG civil trial. After all Robson works or worked for them. They were right about dirty secrets and revelations coming out.

    • Simba says:

      Interesting isn’t it, that although Putnam promised it in his opening statement, nothing particularly ugly about Michael was revealed at the trial itself. I firmly believe that AEG was involved in Robson’s victim act, just as I believe that they are connected to the cyber-bullying of Paris Jackson.

      • Raven says:

        I am more in the middle. I believe they could possibly have been behind Wade Robson’s claims, but am more inclined to believe that Paris’s problems was a separate tragedy of its own making, though no doubt, perhaps, exacerbated by what was going on. However, I still find it very odd that of all the media outlets reporting on Paris’s suicide attempt, only Radaronline continuously pushed the angle that the reason was the AEG trial. And I have since learned that Dylan Howard is a supporter of Wade Robson (so much for journalistic unbias). Which, of course, makes this whole thing a very interesting (and fishy) stew if Wade was indeed paid by AEG to make those claims.

        • shelly says:

          I don’t think AEG is related to the WR problem, but I think WR saw an opportunity here. I think the suicide attempt is result of everything that happened since the last 4 years. AEG trial is probably not the direct cause but it doesn’t help.

          • Tevamac says:

            The WR case is separate and distinct from AEG, they are not behind it. WR saw an opportunity with the trial to gain momentum for his attack. It was pure strategy. As for Paris . . .her was a tragedy in the making. Without her father as a grounding figure poor Paris unraveled. You could tell from the stories about Paris as a baby and child that a willful personality like that needs a strong guiding hand. I don’t think an 83 year old is up to task. I hope she gets to return to her brothers.

        • shelly says:

          Radaronline is very strange, they have Jen Heger as a fan and Dylan Howard as a WR supporters. It could be genuine, but it seems they are playing good cop bad cop game.

        • Sina says:

          “so much for journalistic unbias”

          Never saw anything there that looks or sounds like journalism.
          Radar online is tabloid trash in the perfect sense of the word.

  28. Nina Hamilton says:

    That should be ‘Randy Phillips, of course!

  29. Nina Hamilton says:

    A very irate black judge has made a video where he states that AEG having been declared as hiring Conrad Murray, therefore, as his employer, should have been found liable for any mistakes or actions he took. I read somewhere that AEG, the Los Angeles justice/court and police/legal departments, being mostly white, were closely linked. I think racism plays a part here.

  30. Simba says:

    Tevamac says, “The WR case is separate and distinct from AEG, they are not behind it.”

    How do you know that? Even Tom Mesereau, no wld-eyed conspiracy theorist, found the timing of Robson’s charges suspect. Likewise there’s no proof that AEG execs were completely unaware of what Murray was doing. On the contrary, Panish introduced into evidence a 25 minute conversation Murray had with Randy Phillips. These guys were not buddies. Isn’t it likely that they were discussing MJ’s treatment, if only for five or ten minutes? Isn’t also likely that Phillips was lying on the stand when he “couldn’t recall” one word of what was said?

    And there’s the nagging fact that Prince Jackson testiied that Randy Phillips appeared at Carolwood with two strange men to talk to Murray when MJ was not there. What was so pressing that even a lengthy phone call was not sufficient? This was AFTER Michael had had brilliant rehearsals. A real conspiracy theorist might believe RP was getting nervous, because it was starting to look like MJ was going to pull this off, which was not part f the plan. But of course, that’s crazy. But not as crazy as a jury concluding that AEG DID hire Murray, but they aren’t responsible for his negligence. That flies in the face of long settled American law.

  31. Tevamac says:

    @Simba

    I have no problem with the verdict and these are not questions that nag me. Conrad Murray killed Michael Jackson. Sometimes a weather balloon is just a weather balloon and not an UFO.

    As for WR I said from the very day the molestation claim hit the web that this was WR’s team using the limelight of the trial for free PR, and I have not changed my mind. T’mez has his opinion and this time it does not align with mine.

    • Simba says:

      Sorry if I was not clear – my questions are rhetorical and not posed directly to you, but rather to anyone with an interest in the case. This includes a lot of people who don’t buy the official version as to what happened to Michael Jackson, and why.

  32. Carol says:

    Simba, Sina, great posts! I agree with everything you both said! :)

  33. Ara says:

    Ah. I have been away from your site, Raven, for the past few weeks due to no access to the internet. But an added benefit is that I had a break from the negativity that seemed to be slamming Michael and his family all over the internet.

    “He has been torn down enough; it is time to build him up again.” You said that, and that is what I am hoping you will return to. The most inexplicable aspect about my feelings toward Michael is that my spiritual connection to him, and respect and gratitude toward him, continue to grow. This is not for want of discrimination on my part: I’ve contemplated on his flaws as well as his genius–and his kindness, sweetness, idiocy, and goodness. Every time I’ve flagged, every time I’ve braced myself to look the devil in the eye, I’ve encountered an angel instead.

    Just one hit of Michael–even in the most cringe-worthy of his interviews–leaves me with a compassion for him that is sometimes hard to bear. “A fawn in a burning forest,” is how Steven Spielberg described him. It’s that aspect of Michael–that he is without any guile–that saddens and astonishes me most. No matter his faults, no matter his poor judgement and many flaws, I find myself thinking of him like this: “The world was never meant for someone as beautiful as you.”

    I can’t get him out of my mind. I don’t want him out of my heart. I’ve become a better person through him, however strange that may seem.

    I’d love us to get back–with your help if you are so inspired–to loving and having fun with him again.

    Just some thoughts…

    • Raven says:

      I feel somewhat in the same place. Work has kept me largely out of commission for the last few weeks. Hopefully the pace will slow soon and I will be able to put in more time here again.

Leave a Reply