It is this generation’s “Where were you when you heard about Kennedy’s assassination?”.
When Michael Jackson died on June 25, 2009, the world was left wondering why. Now, Michael Jackson’s mother wants a jury to determine why. Jackson’s estate is suing AEG, the promoter of Jackson’s This is It comeback tour, for their alleged failure to properly investigated Dr. Conrad Murray. Dr. Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter by a criminal jury for Jackson’s June 2009 death.
The issue comes down to one question: Did Jackson make a personal decision to have Dr. Murray as his doctor so that Jackson would be provided doses of propofol?
This past week, Jackson’s ex-wife Debbie Rowe tearfully testified about the singer’s fear of pain after sustaining burns to his scalp during a shoot for a Pepsi commercial in 1984. Debilitating pain persisted for decades and might have contributed to a drug dependency. “When it came to the pain . . . it was more begging for relief than anything,” Rowe said. “He respected doctors so he wouldn’t question what they were doing.”
“Unfortunately, some of the doctors decided that when Michael was in pain that they would try to outbid each other on who could get the better drug. And so he listened to the doctors,” Rowe said, describing what she said a competition by Jackson’s dermatologist and a plastic surgeon to convince the singer their pain medications were better.
He also had frequent legitimate appointments to treat acne and vitiligo, a skin-lightening condition. Nevertheless, the specter of addictive drugs concerned Rowe. Doctors were giving him propofol to help him sleep more than a decade before Murray did, she testified.
So what does this all mean? Rowe was called by AEG to prove that Jackson misused propofol for years thanks to various drug-pumping doctors. Seems like AEG believes they won this round: ” She let everyone know that people in Michael’s life were worried about his propofol use as early as the late 80, early nineties,” AEG Attorney Marvin Putnam says.
Criminal defense attorney, and Michael Jackson’s former attorney, Tom Mesereau, disagrees and believes Rowe’s powerful testimony ended up helping the plaintiffs, “I think she added a lot to the plaintiff’s claim that AEG had every reason to know that he needed the right doctor to deal with these prescription drug issues.”
What do you think? Was Rowe’s testimony enough to convince a jury that AEG couldn’t have done anything to save MJ? Or did Rowe’s testimony convince the jury that AEG could have completely avoided MJ’s tragic death?
BesideTheLaw 