Day 37 of the AEG Trial: The Company Was Worried About the Show, Not Michael Jackson’s Health
On this day, the testimony of Dr. Gordon Mathson was followed up.
William Blass, the attorney for the Jacksons, again asked about the chain of emails that had been passed around on June 20 between AEG executives and Michael’s colleagues. Mathson said these emails show that Randy Phillips, the CEO of AEG, was aware of Michael Jackson’s worsening condition and also had a conflict of interest. As a doctor for the sports team, Mathson said it is not appropriate for a producer or team owner to be directly involved with the player or artist.
Regarding emails in which he wrote, “Michael was shivering with cold and couldn’t break up his food himself, and wasn’t ready to go on stage,” Mathson said this indicates that concern about Michael Jackson’s health was “serious.”
Mathson said that Randy Phillips was trying to find out the reason for Michael’s illness, but at the same time he had him working and training.
In part of the emails, Randy Phillips wrote: “Dr. Murray is not a psychologist, and I’m not sure how effective he can be.”
Mathson: “Phillips wasn’t confident about Dr. Murray. He had doubts about whether Dr. Murray would be effective.”
Mathson said the emails show that it was all about work and deals, not about caring for the artist’s health. He also said Phillips had ignored Ortega’s concerns, the tour director.
Mathson: “When you receive information, you should act on it—not slap the label ‘uncontrolled excitement’ on it.”
Blass asked what would happen if an athlete who is not in good physical condition refuses to leave the field. Mathson said making the right decision is up to the doctor, and it may be necessary to decide against the player’s wishes.
Blass: “Does the fact that AEG hired Dr. Murray at Michael Jackson’s request make a difference?”Mathson: “AEG decided to do it; they weren’t forced.”Blass: “What if the money had been reimbursed to the company?”Mathson: “The conflict of interest would still have existed.”
Jessica Stebbins Bina, the company’s lawyer, said the company was not responsible for paying Dr. Murray’s salary; rather, this money was paid to the doctor as a loan from Michael. Bina used the example of a “credit card,” which has been used repeatedly by the company’s attorneys. She asked: if you use a credit card for your own payments, is the company that extended you credit responsible for your purchases? Dr. Mathson said, in his view, this comparison was wrong and the example Bina raised had nothing to do with the case.
Bina asked Mathson: if we assume that Murray injected drugs at Michael’s request, would he have acted against his duties? Mathson confirmed.
In his testimony from the previous day, Mathson had said that the contract clause that made Dr. Murray’s pay conditional on holding concerts created a conflict of interest, because Murray would put Michael on stage to get his money even if Michael wasn’t ready to perform on the tour.
Mathson: “The unconscious presence of a conflict of interest affects your judgment and decision-making in such a way that even you don’t realize it.”
Bina: “Was the only way for them to pay Dr. Murray’s full $1.5 million salary at the beginning of the job?”Mathson: “No, that clause shouldn’t have been included in the contract.”
Mathson said that if he had been responsible for the tour, he would have assigned a “medical team” to take care of Michael during the tour.
AEG said they were against hiring Murray because he was expensive. But Michael insisted on Dr. Murray. Bina asked Mathson what AEG should have done in that situation.
Mathson: “They should have said we don’t have qualifications in medical matters, so we need to hire an expert team to evaluate this.”
Bina: “Would that eliminate the conflict of interest?”Mathson: “It would minimize it.”
Mathson said he worked 100 hours on the case and received $500 for each hour. His fee so far had become $50,000. When Bina asked whether he was paid because his views were similar to those of the plaintiffs, Mathson replied: “I don’t need this money.”
When Bina asked whether the company was also worried about Michael’s condition in May 2009, Mathson answered: “I don’t think they were worried about his health; they were worried about the show.”
Bina: “When MJ said he wanted his doctor to come on the tour, should AEG have said no—you can’t?”Mathson: “Yes.”Bina: “Are you aware that the company had suggested hiring a doctor in London, but MJ disagreed? Shouldn’t the company have done that?”Mathson: “I wouldn’t have done that. The conflict of interest is very severe.”Bina: “Even when you believe the artist is healthy.”Mathson: “That creates production risk.”
The agreement stated that “Murray is required to perform services requested by the producer, meaning the company.” Mathson says that in this way, Murray considered himself under the company’s command and committed to the company—not to his patient. Bina said the contract was written incorrectly and should have stated that Murray was required to perform services requested by the artist. Mathson testified that the use of the word “producer” in this contract tells him that the intention was for Murray to fulfill the producer’s requested services.
Bina: “Isn’t the core issue that Dr. Murray submitted to MJ’s wishes, and not the interpretation Dr. Murray had of the contract?”Mathson: “(Murray’s view) was part of the conflict of interest that had been created.”
Bina: “Did Mr. Phillips have the right to inquire about MJ’s health?”Mathson: “Mr. Phillips had the right to say, I’m worried about your health; you can’t return to rehearsals until you’ve been examined.”
According to some witnesses, in the final days Michael had expressed dissatisfaction that the rehearsals were too intense and that the company was killing him. Mathson said that if MJ thought he was under pressure for the tour, the company should have listened to him because the artist knows his own body better than anyone else.
Mathson: “Dr. Murray had said he had everything under control; the issue is that he wasn’t trustworthy because of the conflicts created.”
Referring to a meeting at Michael’s home in which Dr. Murray had angrily left the session, Mathson said it was clear the meeting was unfriendly and full of arguments.
Mathson: “The main concern should be the artist’s health. Whenever signs of illness become apparent, they should be addressed. In this particular case, that importance wasn’t given.”
Mathson went further and said he thinks Dr. Murray, with AEG’s support, bought four vials of propofol to use to sedate Michael.
Mathson also confirmed the testimony of David Berman, an executive in the music industry. Mathson said a copy of Dr. Murray’s contract had not been delivered to Michael’s employees.
Mathson: “This contract (which states that Murray is required to perform services requested by the company) was drafted and negotiated without Mr. Jackson’s approval. Dr. Murray considered himself bound by the contract, whether or not Mr. Jackson signed it. And in my opinion, the evidence shows that the company also behaved as if it believed Dr. Murray was hired by them.”
Source: eMJey.com / AP & CNN