Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Vici said:

Its really late where I am so forgive me at the moment if I dont recall certain things that have been shared in trial before.

I cant remember if the jury have heard about all the mistakes Murray did like the 17 deviation of care, leaving the bedroom, chatting on his phone, not performing correct cpr, not calling 911, not having any equipments etc, lying to doctors at hospital, withholding information to the paramedics.

Have the jurors heard what a terrible doctor murray was, especially regarding his care for MJ?? I know the criminal trial obviously covered that a lot but cant recall it have been shared in the civil trial.

On what terms are they gonna define Murray being incompetent? They know he's in jail for giving MJ propofol but are they aware of his actions (or lack of care) that resulted in MJs death?

Click to expand...

I too am puzzled by 1. Muarry was hired as a doc, so based on his licenses he was qualified for the job he was hired to do. That is why I was wondering how the jury will determine qualified for hiring? Are they going to see whether he was qualified for giving prof? Muarry did something that he was not hired to do by his contract. What you mention above shows that he was not qualified to give propofol and monitor the patient. To me one is very tricky. Michael hired him partly to give him prof, but there is no evidence that AEG wanted him to give prof to Michael.

Annita said:

Fayes E-Mail on 23th to Dileo "Yippee, evrything is great"

Click to expand...

Hold up didnt she say michael wasnt well and all that..but yet she saying in that email "everything is great"........ Hmm funny that aye

Alan Duke is too much.

Los Angeles (CNN) -- Michael Jackson's mother will be called back to testify by AEG Live as its last witness in their defense of Katherine Jackson's wrongful-death lawsuit on Monday, an AEG Live lawyer said Wednesday.
AEG Live lead attorney Marvin Putnam said he would question the 83-year-old Jackson family matriarch "about the absurdity of the damages" she wants the jury to award if they decide the concert promoter is liable in the pop icon's death.

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


^^Why is he quoting the judge as though the judge is one of the plaintiffs lawyers. I know the judge shows that she is on Katherine's side, but he does not have to make it so obvious.

Putnam has frequently cited in interviews a "statement of damages" letter sent to him by a Jackson lawyer last year capping possible damages at $40 billion, but the judge ruled that he could not refer to it in court because it was not a sworn filing in the case.
Jackson lawyer Kevin Boyle pointed out that the lawsuit complaint only says that damages would be "according to proof at trial," based on testimony by several expert witnesses who have testified.
^^I see they are still pretending that no one saw that 40Billion claim. The judge said he could not talk about it in court, big surprise.

Katherine Jackson and grandchildren Prince, Paris and Blanket contend that AEG Live is liable in the singer's death because it negligently hired, retained or supervised Dr. Conrad Murray, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. AEG Live argues that Jackson chose and controlled Murray and that its executives had no way of knowing about the dangerous treatments he was giving him in his bedroom.

Jackson expert Arthur Erk -- a certified public accountant who has managed and audited the business affairs of many top artists -- testified that he was "reasonably certain" that Jackson would have earned at least $1.5 billion from touring, endorsements and sponsorships had he not died from a propofol overdose preparing for his comeback tour.
"It is very difficult to assess the value of the King of Pop," Jackson lawyer Deborah Chang told the judge Wednesday. "How do you even do that?"
The non-economic damages suffered because of Michael Jackson's death could be enormous considering "what happened to Paris Jackson," she said.
^^Oh Oh so they want to put Paris tragic situation into this, when part of it was due to this trial. Of course we will hear that it was only due to Michael's death.

Jackson's 15-year-old daughter attempted suicide in June and remains in a treatment program.
^^I don't know why he is bringing this up when talking about the case. He is making me think they left Paris in that place to make the case look sadder.

The $40 billion estimate made last year was not a court filing but was a "best guess" before the expert reports were completed, Chang said.
^^I thought we were pretending that this 40Billion amount was not really given for damages.

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

"Why are you here?" Jackson lawyer Brian Panish asked her.
"Because I want to know what really happened to my son," she said. "And that's why I am here."
Panish asked Jackson how it made her feel to be asked probing and personal questions about her family by AEG Live lawyer Marvin Putnam.
"It makes me feel real bad, because my son was a very good person," she said. "He loved everybody. He gave to charity. He was in the Guinness Book of World Records for giving to charity."
in July, she told jurors she filed the wrongful death lawsuit against AEG Live "because I want to know what really happened to my son."
^^Who did not know that when you file a case you will be asked personal and probing questions. The question is did she find out what really happened to her son.

If jurors decide that AEG Live is liable in Jackson's death, they could award damages based on the loss of the mother's and children's relationship with him and the amount of money he was unable to earn because his life was cut short.
After AEG Live rests its case -- which lawyers indicated would happen Monday -- the Jackson lawyers would have a chance to call several rebuttal witnesses. Closing arguments in the trial, which began in April, could be heard as soon as next week.
^^I wonder how much is several for Panish. Thank goodness this case is ending.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/11/sh...ial/?hpt=en_c1

Ivy, the group will support you right or wrong, deflection and spin; but you know that. Please be kind and do not forget to thank your supporters for their unconditional support. laughs

How many posters in this thread alone immediately stated the removal of Phillips/Gongaware was a blow to the plaintiffs’ case? After learning the removal was customary and Duke’s article stating the defense rejected the removal previously, some realize it was not a blow but, not all.

Panish has to control how the jurors will view the removal of defendants. If you clearly read your own post, Panish is stating he cannot depend on the AEG LAWYERS to clarify that situation for the jurors without taking advantage of that situation for their own benefit. It is better the jurors are not told by the defense or, if they are, it has to be carefully tailored as to not benefit either side.

Try again. wink

Tygger said:

If you clearly read your own post, Panish is stating he cannot depend on the AEG LAWYERS to clarify that situation for the jurors

Click to expand...

he doesn't say that. he says AEG lawyers will mention the dismissal of the defendants and it would "confuse the jurors". He then asks the judge to prevent AEG from mentioning defendants were dismissed and give jurors instructions about "not to speculate" why Phillips and Gongaware are no longer defendants. So their motion clearly talks about what I wrote as "might" happen.

Ivy, let me understand this correctly: when you write AEG, it does not mean AEG lawyers or the defense? You cannot truly be this stubborn.

Again, Panish is concerned about how AEG will state that to the jurors and they will use it to their advantage as the many media outlets reported the removal as their headlines as opposed to the trial going forward for their advantage. If that is not tailored to not benefit the defense, yes, the jurors are going to believe the defendants in turn are not liable and Panish cannot risk that kind of erroneous judgment.

Petrarose said:

Jamba about your comment: The whole thing has really turned me off to making any future comments on this forum. I had a discussion with you months & months ago when you had similar feelings in another thread. I think it was last year? Anyway, don't run away. All of us will have some point or information that others will see as valuable or reject it. It is not YOU they are critiquing but the information, the source, the credibility, etc.

Next, the more you post here, is the more likely your information will be evaluated, which makes sense. You are putting a large amount of information out. Therefore, expect getting lots of thumbs up one day, and a "I don't think so Jamba," another day. These discussions are really healthy. People are not going to see it your way all the time, so don't let that prevent you from posting in the forum.

I don't agree with some of the points you make or some of your conclusions at times, but the majority of the time I agree with you. Also, I may disagree with you here, and agree with you half an hour later in another thread. Now imagine if you had left the forum last year, we wouldn't have all the great information you provided from then to now.

So chin up & continue Michaeling.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Petra. I appreciate your comment. I just see many battle lines being drawn and people seem to want to create simplified Good and Evil characters when people are more likely not purely good or evil but blends or mixtures (and I include myself here). It gets to be like rooting for teams in sports--we want 'our side' to win.

This is personal for me as well b/c of my past in a dysfunctional family where the battle lines were drawn and the children were pawns in the game, and it took me many years to see that neither one of my parents (or sibs) was all good or all bad--they were flawed and troubled people with their pains, sorrows, and hopes, achievements, virtues, and failings.

The more I learn about myself and others, I think we need more humility and less arrogance, more kindness towards each other, more gentleness, and more tolerance and I think MJ was at that point too. "It's all for L.O.V.E." He said 'stop filthy press,' not burn people at the stake.

So it pains me when I or others get a snarky putdown for what is offered in a discussion, even if there are mistakes in what is said. Isn't it better to make a point without belittling or disrespecting the other person as much as possible? It is sad to see the MJ fan community so divided with intolerance for different points of view. We are all ultimately offering our 2 cents and no one here has a lock on what is 100% truth. This is why presenting reasons to support opinions is important and more persuasive. If someone disagrees with someone else--give a reason, give a link, give support for your pov and that will be better than a putdown or a blanket dismissal IMO.

Tygger said:

You cannot truly be this stubborn.

Click to expand...

why? you can be stubborn and I can't?

Panish is concerned about how AEG will state that to the jurors and they will use it to their advantage as the many media outlets reported the removal as their headlines as opposed to the trial going forward for their advantage. If that is not tailored to not benefit the defense, yes, the jurors are going to believe the defendants in turn are not liable and Panish cannot risk that kind of erroneous judgment.

Click to expand...

do you realize that you are saying the exact same thing I wrote before?


let's recap

"as the many media outlets reported the removal as their headlines as opposed to the trial going forward"

Click to expand...

so the media focused on the dismissal of defendants and portrayed it as a "win". Doesn't it mean that the if a public read such news without knowing much about the case, that's the same perception they would have? That dismissal of Phillips and Gongaware is a good thing for AEG ? What would an average layperson think if the headline they see is "Accusations against AEG Execs dismissed", "Legal setback for Katherine Jackson" and so on? (actual headlines btw)

yes, the jurors are going to believe the defendants in turn are not liable

Click to expand...

and isn't this the exact same thing that I said depending on how it was presented to the jurors, it might affect their perceptions as well.

so what are you complaining about for the last day? huh? do you just disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing?

Ivy, you reposted my post but, excluded where I wrote the word “again.” When recapping, it is best to go back to the beginning.

I originally said this was not a blow to the plaintiffs. You replied the general public’s perception is that the defense will not seem liable because of the removal of defendants and that the jurors in turn would not see the defense as liable as well depending on how they were told.

I countered that you referred to the general public’s perception without any charts, graphs, or surveys (or links) which is what you and your support group accused me of in an activity that lasted a number of days and derailed a thread. You either cannot see the irony in that or you hoped it would not be noticed however, I noticed. I also stated you did liken the jurors to the general public as both would see the defense as not liable in your view.

I continued that the jurors will not understand the TRUTH of the removal if it was not explained to them by the judge in a manner that does not benefit either side. You informed us Panish filed a motion that AEG, a.k.a., the defendants, should NOT be allowed to tell the jurors. Panish knows AEG’s legal team will attempt to benefit themselves if the judge does not tailor the way the defendants tell the jurors about the removal. You replied that was not what was said. The exact words, no, the exact meaning, very much so.

We are saying the same concept about the jurors and how they are told this development however; you used the general public’s perception without any chart, graph, or survey to support your view and I did not and did not need to.

That is a complete recap and yes I agree with Panish. Panish is not a chart, graph, or survey, however, he is an amazing lawyer. wink

Vici said:

Its really late where I am so forgive me at the moment if I dont recall certain things that have been shared in trial before.

I cant remember if the jury have heard about all the mistakes Murray did like the 17 deviation of care, leaving the bedroom, chatting on his phone, not performing correct cpr, not calling 911, not having any equipments etc, lying to doctors at hospital, withholding information to the paramedics.

Have the jurors heard what a terrible doctor murray was, especially regarding his care for MJ?? I know the criminal trial obviously covered that a lot but cant recall it have been shared in the civil trial.

On what terms are they gonna define Murray being incompetent? They know he's in jail for giving MJ propofol but are they aware of his actions (or lack of care) that resulted in MJs death?

Click to expand...

I was wondering the same thing. Plaintiffs have not brought up CM's incompitence during this trial other than he gave propofol to MJ which resulted death. By putting those questions in their proposed verdict form, its like plaintiffs assume jurors followed CM trial and know exactly what he did wrong. I cannot remember if CM's contract was brought up, but contract says he was to provide general medical care to MJ.
By asking these questions without providing evidence to the jurors, they are skating in thin ice
1. Was Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?

As I mentioned, contract says he was supposed to provide general medical care to MJ, and by his credentials (prior 06/25) he was fit and compitent (can't say the same after 06/25)


2. Did defendants know or should have known that Conrad Murray was unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence caused a particular risk to Michael Jackson?

AEG knew that CM was supposed to provide general medical care in UK, so ?

I have a feeling if this question is in final form, jurors are going to answer no to it.



Ivy, do you know if defense has their proposed verdict form or is this one going to be final?

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

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

I wish someone else other than AD reports what is going on and what exactly judge says. By changing few words here and there, the whole thing what judge says becomes distorted. Anyways, Panish is right about intent of this lawsuit is plain old greed, and of course AEG lawyers whats to bring it up.
-------------------
Katherine Jackson and grandchildren Prince, Paris and Blanket contend that AEG Live is liable in the singer's death because it negligently hired, retained or supervised Dr. Conrad Murray, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. AEG Live argues that Jackson chose and controlled Murray and that its executives had no way of knowing about the dangerous treatments he was giving him in his bedroom.

I really hate that AD says KJ and PPB contend... The fact is that by according to KJ's own testimony, kids knew nothing about this lasuit and she did not talk to them what she was going to do, so AD can stuff it:angry:
---------------
The non-economic damages suffered because of Michael Jackson's death could be enormous considering "what happened to Paris Jackson," she said.

Jackson's 15-year-old daughter attempted suicide in June and remains in a treatment program.
The $40 billion estimate made last year was not a court filing but was a "best guess" before the expert reports were completed, Chang said.

So now there is a price on what Paris' suicide attempt costs?
I need to hear plaintiffs closing argument before I comment this any further.
-----------------------------------
"Because I want to know what really happened to my son," she said. "And that's why I am here."
Panish asked Jackson how it made her feel to be asked probing and personal questions about her family by AEG Live lawyer Marvin Putnam.

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

Poor KJ. She shouldn't be made to answer such a questions, by right AEG should just roll over and pass the dollars :doh:
I don't know which one is more delusional, Panish or KJ?
The answer to question how does it feel being probing and personal questions about her family doesn't match with the question

Tygger;3901902 said:

Ivy, the group will support you right or wrong, deflection and spin; but you know that. Please be kind and do not forget to thank your supporters for their unconditional support. laughs

How many posters in this thread alone immediately stated the removal of Phillips/Gongaware was a blow to the plaintiffs’ case? After learning the removal was customary and Duke’s article stating the defense rejected the removal previously, some realize it was not a blow but, not all.

Panish has to control how the jurors will view the removal of defendants. If you clearly read your own post, Panish is stating he cannot depend on the AEG LAWYERS to clarify that situation for the jurors without taking advantage of that situation for their own benefit. It is better the jurors are not told by the defense or, if they are, it has to be carefully tailored as to not benefit either side.

Try again. wink

Click to expand...

What group? Over my time on MJJC I have seen people have the opposite opinion to Ivy and other staff and it hasn't lead to any conflict, I have also seen people adding legal or medical information to her informative posts - again no conflict. I have seen one or two people take issue with Ivy and other members when discussions get passionate, it happens sometimes and I doubt if you will find a forum where that doesn't happen at times. I have also seen people come to MJJC with an agenda and they will deliberately single out Ivy. Personally I am offended that you believe that this 'group' which I guess includes me, would blindly follow Ivy regardless. Do I give Ivy credit when I feel it's due? Yes Do I thank Ivy for donating her free time on this forum as a whole? Yes and I also thank every other member of staff. And on a personal level I thank Ivy for answering my questions when she has the answers. So if 'the group' involves people who appreciate the effort of others. Then I'm in.

And no you are not the only one with opposing view. Sorry.

You will find that I was not the only member to question whether this was actually much of a blow to the Plantiffs, which I stated immediately, before you quoted Duke.

ivy said:

I got proposed jury instructions from jacksons side as well. If I can find time from my pretend fretting, I'll do some updates tonight.

Click to expand...

Funny

If you find some time from your pretend fretting can you answer if AEG has their own verdict form or is this newest one the one that both sides accepts?

Do you know if Prince going to be called to testify, or just KJ?
AEG said they are going to recall Prince when its their turn.

AP Update
Murray's attorney Valerie Wass and AEG defense attorney Marvin S. Putnam later denied outside court that the meeting Prince described ever happened.
Putnam said Prince would be re-called to the witness stand during the defense case later in the trial.
"I think as the testimony will show when he is called in our defense that's not what happened," Putnam said. "He was a 12-year-old boy who has had to endure this great tragedy."

@Bubs Chang said this?

The non-economic damages suffered because of Michael Jackson's death could be enormous considering "what happened to Paris Jackson," she said.

Click to expand...

Surely if this is to be put at AEGs door then they have to right to see Paris's psychiatric report, not that I want them or anyone to see it of course.

ivy;3901106 said:

whether this is a blow or not, it really depends on how you approach this trial.

The trial continues, this will go to the jury and jury will determine AEG Live's responsibility and if they are found responsible they will be ordered to pay damages - from that regard not much changed.

however if you wanted Phillips and Gongaware found liable and ordered to pay damages from their own pockets - that won't happen anymore.



I think a more interesting question would be why would plaintiffs seek to remove Phillips and Gongaware? If they sued them, if they think they are responsible, if they think they mistreated Michael and so on, why would them offer or seek to remove them in the first place?

Click to expand...

I agree the dismissal of AEG execs. can be felt as a blow for some. And if what Alan Duke says that plaintiffs wanted them removed is true, I would also like to know the reason.

That’s why I asked before if the general negligence claim plaintiffs wanted to introduce had anything to do with the possibility of keeping Gongaware and Phillips as defendants. In my view if the complaint is only about negligent hiring, the executives should be removed, since in the signing/negotiation of the contract it is only involved AEG and the execs. only acted in representation of the firm. However, if the plaintiffs had presented that other claim of general negligence, (that was discussed a couple of weeks back), maintaining the execs as individuals would have had more sense. I’d appreciate futher info if there's some.

smoothlugar;3901150 said:

About the dismissal of Gongaware and Phillips as defendants individually, I have a question: is this ruling connected in any way with the motion plaintiffs wanted to offer about general negligence that they finally did not present?

Click to expand...

jamba said:

Thanks, Petra. I appreciate your comment. I just see many battle lines being drawn and people seem to want to create simplified Good and Evil characters when people are more likely not purely good or evil but blends or mixtures (and I include myself here). It gets to be like rooting for teams in sports--we want 'our side' to win.

This is personal for me as well b/c of my past in a dysfunctional family where the battle lines were drawn and the children were pawns in the game, and it took me many years to see that neither one of my parents (or sibs) was all good or all bad--they were flawed and troubled people with their pains, sorrows, and hopes, achievements, virtues, and failings.

The more I learn about myself and others, I think we need more humility and less arrogance, more kindness towards each other, more gentleness, and more tolerance and I think MJ was at that point too. "It's all for L.O.V.E." He said 'stop filthy press,' not burn people at the stake.

So it pains me when I or others get a snarky putdown for what is offered in a discussion, even if there are mistakes in what is said. Isn't it better to make a point without belittling or disrespecting the other person as much as possible? It is sad to see the MJ fan community so divided with intolerance for different points of view. We are all ultimately offering our 2 cents and no one here has a lock on what is 100% truth. This is why presenting reasons to support opinions is important and more persuasive. If someone disagrees with someone else--give a reason, give a link, give support for your pov and that will be better than a putdown or a blanket dismissal IMO.

Click to expand...

Jamba, Petra...great posts and thanks...and I don't want to get OT, but these kinds of posts actually help me rein myself in. I do think it's human nature to get riled up when trying to make a point and veering off into unacceptable behavior. I find that sometimes it's not just making a point that gets us going but actually trying to CONVINCE someone of that viewpoint. I don't even think we realize that's what we're doing, but I do believe that's often the case. At least it has been for me, and I get frustrated that someone just is not getting my brilliant opinion (and that is being said with lots and lots of snark and sarcasm about my opinions).

Anyway, those reminders that we're just here to discuss MJ, and we're a community of support and love for him do need to be said at times. But isn't it amazing how upset we get in just discussing all this, and MJ had to live through it all, and yet all he talked about was L.O.V.E. Maybe that's why he was always saying it. He had to remind himself because of the difficulty of being about L.O.V.E. in the midst of discord. But he did it somehow, and I think most of us try to, but sometimes it's just H.A.R.D. But again, your kind of posts help us get perspective back.

BACK ON TOPIC...so glad this case is winding down. Hope Putnam knows what he's doing putting Mrs. Jackson back on the stand. I think she comes off as one of the most sympathetic characters in the history of real life characters, especially to the truly uninformed of the Jackson dysfunction, which the jurors are suppose to be. Her impact could be just the opposite of whatever Putnam is hoping for.

jamba;3901584 said:

Thanks for the info re the suit AllGood filed against AEG. (Do you have a link for that?)

I. I really feel very bad that I brought up Leonard Rowe and his book. I did it for the reasons I gave--which was to find out what was going on around April 18th when Lee said MJ was especially stressed. But as I read more, I then made a summary, thinking in a discussion it might he helpful, which obviously it was not as people have their minds made up.

II. The whole thing has really turned me off to making any future comments on this forum. I am willing to look at what people say and make my own opinions without other people telling me what to think, etc. I appreciate your giving me concrete info re the complaint that refutes the idea that AllGood planned the reunion concerts in 2010 (at least in their complaint where they wanted 300M dollars in damages they claim their reunion was to be in summer of 09). It makes sense to me that in the complaint they argue a conflict between their own concert and the TII tour--that makes their damage claim more realistic than stating it was to happen a year or so later. However, is this the last word on that? Just for the sake of argument, it possible that at the time they were meeting in April 09, that was not literally the case that they actually planning reunion concerts in summer 09. I mean on the face of it, it is ridiculous to think that they were that far along in their planning that they were ready in summer of 09 for this pay per view, when neither MJ nor the brothers were on board or had started rehearsals.

III. I still think it's possible that Rowe, Joe, Randy, and even Mrs. J. were concerned about MJ's health, even though they kept up the pressure on him for the reunion and the reunion was ultimately more important to them than his health.

IV. What I do not like is when people jump all over other people's opinion or comments in a snide and hostile way when all they need to do is present their point of view in a more neutral, respectful manner.

Click to expand...

/Jamba
your posting makes me sad. Sorry, but please keep your head up again. You know with our writing forwards-backwards and to-fro there are misinterpretation easily. I'm happy you are back here!


Now

to I. In my opinion it was very good that you brought up the L. Rowe book and with this the AllGood theme because both -Rowe in person and AllGood- were a great factor in Michael's last months.
I don't know wheter all people here have their minds made up (I have!) maybe they are user here who have forgotten this Rowe/Allgood thing because there was very much events in the last 4 years.


to II. I have the documents about AllGood on my computer:
- Complaint AllGood versus Michael Jackson/DiLeo/Anschutz/AEG, date: 06.09., 2009
- attachment 2-090610134309
- attachment 2-090630172252
but they are pdf's and so I don't know how they transfer to this forum here.
Maybe there is an Allgood thread here and you can find it there. Or you send me a message with a mail adress so I can send it direct.
By the way: I don't wanted telling you waht to think.
I believe I know what is with this 'summer 2010': 3 days after Allocco sued MJ he was giving a press release who speak about a postponement to 2010:
http://frankpaulgambino.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/allgood-entertainment-makes-jackson’s-an-offer/

Do you remeber Jermaine's press relaise in Sydney from 10.29.2008 (Jackson5 are planing a comeback with Michael and Janet)
an only 1 day late Michael take a press relaise also and refused? Since this time it was going.


to III. Yep! It may be there were concerned about Michael's health but they were MORE concerned about their plan for a reunion.


to IV. I think the user comments were not against you but against Rowe and his twists in the hindsight after Michael's dead.... and against the refusal from the Jacksons to accept the responibility for this AllGood complex.
On the contrary!:
Beverly Hills, CA, May 15, 2009 — In an official statement issued today The Jacksons (Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, Marlon and Randy Jackson) have denied they were in any way involved with a proposed Jackson 5 reunion concert in Texas on July 3rd claimed this week by New Jersey concert promoters AllGood Entertainment.
According to The Jackson’s manager, Danny O’Donovan, the original members of the Jackson 5, and younger brother, Randy, who later joined Michael and his older brothers performing as The Jacksons, were never approached about participating in the purported Texas concert event with Michael and sister, Janet.
The Jacksons have said they will support Michael in fighting any legal action brought by AllGood Entertainment with regard to the promoter’s claim about a July 3rd concert in Texas Stadium. O’Donovan said “There is absolutely no merit in this claim, and we had no knowledge of any contract with anyone, for a so-called family tour reunion. In fact, The Jacksons were never even approached about it and no offer was ever made to them.”
All of the Jackson brothers are thrilled that Michael is returning to the live stage this summer and are totally in support of his historic 50 concert run at London’s O2 Arena. They eagerly look forward to seeing and enjoying his “This Is It!” concert event.
Source:http://www.mjjcommunity.com/index.ph...temid=99999999

They really have had leave Michael out in the cold.

I find it disgusting that Jacksons' lawyer used what happened to Paris to say they deserve huge damages. Do they realize that the exsistance of this trial have contributed to what happened with her? But I should know that this family always points fingers at someone else and never looks in the mirror.

serendipity said:

I find it disgusting that Jacksons' lawyer used what happened to Paris to say they deserve huge damages. Do they realize that the exsistance of this trial have contributed to what happened with her? But I should know that this family always points fingers at someone else and never looks in the mirror.

Click to expand...

In fairness we don't actually know what lead Paris to this, I'm sure it was a mixture of events as well as losing Michael poor kid. So to use this to boast a payout is, IMO, in very bad taste.

LastTear said:

In fairness we don't actually know what lead Paris to this, I'm sure it was a mixture of events as well as losing Michael poor kid. So to use this to boast a payout is, IMO, in very bad taste.

Click to expand...

Yes it was likely a mixture of events. But IMO all the negative stuff surrounding this trial (drug addict, paternity, possible testimony etc.) has more or less contributed to it. I agree it's in very bad taste to use it and if they mention it in their closing statements I don't think the jury will like that.

what a huge mess..Katherine is well aware what happened to her son. And if she was a good and concerned Mother years ago he might still be alive. She saw MJ herself the last few months of his life, did he look healthy and fine to her? Leonard Rowe claims that he and Joe told Katherine to check on MJ because he didn't look well and she refused to go.. Now he's gone.. Maybe Katherine feels guilty

Aquarius said:

I'm sure there'll be an appeal from the losing side, but I'd like to know what are the chances that AEG might decide to settle due to all the money they had already put on this trial?

Click to expand...

I don't think they will. They are not going to bankruptcy even if they lose. I remember reading that plaintiffs offered settlement (says a lot about their case) to defense, and Panish said that AEG insurance would pay it and they wouldn't lose any money, still they said no. It is not written on stone that AEG lose, imo far from it

Bubs said:

Ivy, do you know if defense has their proposed verdict form or is this one going to be final?

Click to expand...

Bubs said:

Funny

If you find some time from your pretend fretting can you answer if AEG has their own verdict form or is this newest one the one that both sides accepts?

Click to expand...

AEG definitely have their own proposed version and judge will determine by looking to them both. It's just AEG's proposed verdict form is not yet on the court system.

From a related motion I know that

- AEG does not want Murray on the form.
- AEG want any mention of supervision to be removed (as the court determined Murray is an independent contractor and independent conractors cannot be supervised and companies cannot be held liable for supervising / not supervising independent contractors)
- There's also an argument whether damages should be one lumpsum or if it should be divided among plaintiffs. AEG states law says a waiver is required to divide damages.

Ivy, what did you think of the question 1 and 2 on proposed verdict form?
I'm confused as what exactly they are after with those 2 questions and what they are based on?
1. Was Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?

According to his contract (general medical care) or according to what CM and MJ together agreed on?
If it is according to his contract, general medical care, jury should say no (he wasn't incompitent or unfit for gen med care), and if it is about what MJ and CM agreed on, then jury cannot answer to it as AEG didn't know about it.

2. Did defendants know or should have known that Conrad Murray was unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence caused a particular risk to Michael Jackson?

Maybe its the wording unfit and incompitent that causes troubles to me? I take it as they mean unfit and incompitent as doctor, but that doesn't make any sense? Again, unfit and incompitent as doctor taking care of MJ's general medical care or taking care of something that AEG wasn't aware of?

Bubs, I said the same thing in the other thread. Great minds! I had to keep reading that it was from the Plantiffs, because to me, if I were AEG I would have no problem with number 1 

Yes, question 1 is favourable to AEG, I think.
I was reading about verdict form and found this:
Fourth, take steps to minimize the likelihood that juror confusion will taint the outcome. Craft a form that is understandable, unambiguous and no longer than necessary.

If I were juror in this trial, I would be very confused over questions 1 and 2.

Funny that plaintiffs previous verdict form was pretty straight forward: "give me the money" form, and AEG was more complex. This time it seems that plaintiffs put more thought on this one

At first, I asked myself the same question several of you have made in relation to questions 1 & 2, but after a second reading I could clearly see that any general medical care for what Murray was hired included any medical treatment he gave, so the answer to question 1 would probably be "Yes", he was unfit or incompetent to perform a good medical care.

Question 2 seems a bit more complex to answer. I suppose that if the jury take into account Flinkestein testimony on 93' and what he told Gongaware, they may infer they knew or should have known about past addiction problems and that the doctor on board should be an specialist to deal with those issues, which obviously Murray was not.

PS: I know that "specialist" has nothing to do with what it finally happened. But I'm not sure if it has been well established the distinction between the dependency to medicines because of pain and the subsequent addiction at some periods because of the addictive properties of such medicines in themselves and what Murray administered and how.

^^^ Hmm idk, you are peobably right as why else would this come from the Plantiffs.

It says 'work for which he was hired' - which on his contract the work is general medical needs.

So for me the answer would be no. Then I would not need to answer any more questions.

The way the question is worded makes it appear that AEG were aware of the kind of treatment Murray was giving, and yet it is accepted in the court that they were unaware.

I did not have time to actually evaluate the proposed form, I'm just to busy trying to get stuff out for the rest of the people. The notes then the verdict form, I was just so tired yesterday made a bunch of mistakes and I still have jury instructions to work on. But I thought it was surprising that Jacksons form did not ask if Murray was hired and who hired him questions. Isn't that how the negligent hiring claim supposed to start? was there a hiring and was the hiring negligent?

^^^^^ Exactly, I think I said as much on the other thread. In order to answer question 1 you must first be certain who hired him. If AEG hired him for general medical needs then the answer is no. If Michael hired him to give him a specialist treatment of propofol - then the answer is yes.

I would be very surprised if this remains as question 1.