For easy reference: Juror #27's answers to fans' questions (No Discussion)

[Juror#27]

It is increasingly alarming to me how many people seem to be losing the ability to analyze facts critically. It’s scary how any illogical theory or conspiracy theory can be thrown up and people will believe it without paying any attention to the facts. Randy and the Jackson's have done a good job of messing with the minds of MJ's fans.

I couldn't agree more with the bolded. It's practically an epidemic as far as I'm concerned.

I was on this jury, and of all the places I've seen where this is being talked about, this community seems by far to be the most level-headed and approachable. So many passionate MJ fans rationally discussing the verdict rather than lashing out in anger is very nice to see, and makes me think this is probably the best place for me to make a small statement.

Initially I planned to avoid and ignore all the comments about the verdict after the trial ended. Because as soon as we answered 'no' to question 2 in the jury room, I knew how it would be reported and misunderstood ("DURR STUPID JURY HOW CAN CONRAD MURRAY BE FIT AND COMPETENT WHEN HE IS IN JAIL FOR KILLING MJ??? DURRR"). And sure enough, the very first question asked by the media when we got outside was "How could you find Conrad Murray competent?" And of course a bunch of hardcore MJ supporters outside were yelling, calling us stupid and confused, etc. So I figured rather than getting annoyed at misinformation being spread or seeing us called morons ad nauseam, it'd be better to just ignore it all.

Well that lasted about a day before my curiosity got the better of me, and I had to peek around to see what people were saying. I had to see if that version of us as idiots was the main narrative going on. Thankfully most people commenting on the verdict are actually looking at what we were instructed to consider, and agree with our decision. We knew from day 1 that no matter the outcome we would have people agreeing and disagreeing with the verdict, and I'm thankful that this jury did not concern itself with what people would say or think about us and decided to follow the instructions and base our verdict on the evidence in the case.

Just like our jury foreman, I went into this trial about as neutral as one could be towards Michael Jackson. I was 7 when Thriller came out so I grew up with his music and loved it, but I knew very little about his life other than what I'd seen in the media, and I honestly had no strong feelings about him as a person either way. I walk out of this trial completely understanding why he has so many fans who practically deify him. Who are so strongly attracted to his kind spirit, huge heart, gentle nature, love of his children and mother, etc. I totally get it now.

Every single witness who was questioned about whether they thought MJ was a good father (and almost every one who knew him closely was asked) sang endless praises about his love of his kids. If Prince's testimony is any indication, MJ was definitely a great father. The kid is bright, intelligent, caring, has great character and a great personality, and I truly believe MJ did a phenomenal job raising him in the few years he was able to. Honestly, every single juror came away feeling very positive about Michael Jackson as a person and father.

I know there was concern about MJ's image being hurt because of this trial, and maybe to outside viewers it was because of some of the details that came out. But for us in the jury in that courtroom for all these months, we just grew more and more fond of him during the course of the trial.

I'd like to say thank you to all the people I've seen here supporting us jurors in our decision, it really means a lot. I will be happy to answer anything I can about the trial if you'd like to ask and if I am able.

[Juror#27]

Hi, posting from phone but just wanted to quickly say I will answer as many questions as I can, as well as post my jury certificate with my screen name here to prove myself as soon as I get home (~8hrs from now). I understand being skeptical and don't have any problem showing proof.

Thx for your patience.

[Juror#27]

I have sent pics of the last two months of service certificates to ivy.

I really wish I had held off posting initially until later. I didn't mean to drop a post and not be around to respond, but since it had to be approved and I didn't know how long that might take I posted right before I went to bed. Then had plans for all day today. So I apologize for my delay in responding.

I have a question for you if question 2 had included the word ethical would your personal answer still have been no?

The problem I have with what our foreman said and the question you are asking is that it mixes up the timelines. If the word unethical was included in question 2, we would still have to assess whether AEG knew that at the time they hired Conrad Murray.

The most the plaintiffs could say in that area was that Murray asked for $5million initially and that should have sent up red flags. Asking for that amount would definitely catch my attention and maybe raise an eyebrow, but it still doesn't qualify in my mind as unethical. Asking for a lot of money doesn't mean one is unethical in my estimation (and I hope the irony of repeatedly implying that in court was not lost on the plaintiffs ;D). Also that Murray was being foreclosed on and had a lot of owed child support. Again, being in debt or being foreclosed on doesn't in itself cross an ethical boundary in my mind.

So no, I don't think we would have answered differently if the question asked whether he was ethical because we didn't see any evidence that showed that AEG knew Murray was going to act unethically.

I am so relieved that I was unnecessarily worried about the jurors and their perceptions.

I was really hoping that they were able to see Michael as a human being, and a wonderful human being at that!

Absolutely. I can't stress enough how much we all liked him by the end of the trial. So many witnesses and so much heartfelt testimony. Lots of pure love and affection for Michael poured out over these months and it left an incredible impression on all of us.

Juror #27 thank you for your lovely comment. At first I was confused by the jury's answer to question #2 but reading into it further I think I see the logic. Although I had always known Michael Jackson and his music all my life I did not come to be a "super fan" until just after he died when I too began to research and learn more about him as a person and not just the "King of Pop" superstar. I liked what I learned. He was not a perfect person but he was a good person and a good father. I wish my own deadbeat father had been half the father Michael was to his children. Thank you for having an open mind.

This hits the nail on the head. Throughout all the testimony and witnesses, that was one of the strongest recurring themes -- MJ was a wonderful father and person.

Thank you, Juror#27.

Before the verdict was read, we were going through the questions like you guys had to. Though I personally wouldn't have answered question 1 with a "yes", I can understand and thought it was very likely that this question had to be answered by 12 jurors with "yes" because it was realistic that at least 9 jurors would argue that both MJ and AEG Live could have hired Dr. Murray.

If you go through my postings in this very thread here, I was trying to explain the meaning of the terms "unfit" and "incompetent" in question 2 and their association with "the work for which he was hired".
I was also trying to show that even if that question would not lead us to a "no", there was nothing factual in those 5 months for question 3 that could tell us AEG Live had or should have had knowledge of Murray being unfit or incompetent.
Like you, we noticed here that many are confused by the fact that Dr. Murray did infact cause involuntary manslaughter of Michael Jackson and why this fact has nothing to do with determining Dr. Murray being "fit" and "competent" for the work he was hired for.
If you want to take a look at my thoughts on these questions and terms, here are some of my postings:

• thoughts on question 2, possible guiding questions
• about the terms "unfit" and "incompetent"
• Korgnex & Tygger disagreeing about question 3
• Korgnex & Tygger disagreeing about contract theories, "the work he was hired for" and "general medical care"
• Korgnex & Tygger disagreeing about contract "termination" (of what?) [Part I], clause 7.3, other clauses
• Korgnex & Tygger disagreeing about contract "termination" (of what?) [Part II], services of Dr. Murray and fundamental rights
• Korgnex & Charles Thomson (freelancer journalist) disagreeing about terms "unfit" and "incompetent"

As you might have read, there was a particular idea that came up here:
it was whether a conflict of interest due to AEG Live advancing money to Murray (as per draft agreements) would a) be affirmed and b) thus determine Dr. Murray as "incompetent" in question 2.
However I highly disagree with this point of view for these reasons:

• There is no precedent that established a cash-stricken person would automatically provide substandard work / putting a patient at risk.
  [The person in question has to be cash-stricken as otherwise, he couldn't care less about the money and there would be no conflicting interest.]
• Dr. Murray had ordered propofol before Michael even introduced him to AEG Live.
  [You can't establish a conflicting interest that way since Dr. Murray was not affected by AEG Live or any other third party at all.]
• Every doctor that is receiving (advance) payment from a third party would then - after this idea - have to be considered "incompetent" and that's quite untrue.
• A doctor's Hippocratic oath would dwindle in importance since the Hippocratic oath is the fundamental ethic framework for doctors.
  [Dr. Murray breaking his Hippocratic oath was his very own choice, his very own responsibility and noone else can be blamed for being or becoming unethic than the unethical person itself.]

I would be interested what you think about this idea.

You are right on the money in my opinion.

The conflict of interest idea was countered by the defense saying that in actuality all 3 interests were aligned. It was clearly in everyone's best interest for Michael to be healthy and to do the shows and I see no way to dispute this. MJ being healthy and performing was good for everyone involved. And even if one wants to view this as a conflict of interest, I don't see how the existence of it in and of itself renders Murray unfit or incompetent. We were told over and over that conflicts of interest arise all the time in medicine and are the responsibility of the doctor to mitigate.

So even if a conflict of interest was in place, it was on Murray's shoulders to mitigate it since he was the one providing medical care to MJ.

As for question 1, our first vote had 3 answers.

Hired him.
Didn't hire him.
Unsure.

After first vote it was 6 votes unsure, 4 votes no and 2 votes yes. I initially voted no.

But we then looked at the jury instructions which said that contracts can be written, oral, or partly written and partly oral. It said that oral contracts are just as valid as written contracts, and that implied-in-fact contracts could be valid through the parties' conduct.

So we looked at AEG's behavior in dealing with Conrad Murray, and we felt that between the drawn up contracts, the fact that they backdated his starting date from June 1 to May 1 in one of the drafts, the Gongaware emails about who was paying Murray's salary, that Randy Phillips and Murray were in charge of getting MJ to rehearsals, it was all enough conduct to say that they "hired" him.

It is late here and I'm off to sleep, will answer more posts tomorrow.

[Juror#27]

I was very happy to read your words, Jury No.27. that you have joined the band of followers of MJ. Maybe the trial has had a positive outcome after all. However, one or two points are bothering me. If AEG had checked Conrad Murray out, they would have discovered that his medical licences/board certifications in Nevada and Texas had expired in December, 2008. so indicating they were negligent in hiring him knowing that. Perhaps it didn't matter. But something else, I read that CM asked AEG for resuscitation equipment but failed to get it. Surely AEG would have wondered if he was carrying out a risky procedure, and was he competent? Over four years some information may have been forgotten. I don't remember hearing any of that in the civil trial.

I honestly don't see how letting a license lapse means that someone is negligent. Doctors let licenses lapse all the time when they are not going to practice in a particular state any more. What we were looking for was disciplinary action against Murray in the form of malpractice suits or complaints, something that would give a reasonable person cause to find Murray unfit or incompetent at the time they hired him.

Kathy Jorrie's "10 minute google search" of Murray was talked about at length at trial, but I am of the opinion that that is a reasonable amount of due diligence for someone who you are bringing onboard as a favor to someone else. If AEG had found out about CM's financial troubles and told MJ "We can't hire your doctor for you, because we have seen that he is in financial straits and is therefore likely to be unethical or unfit", I can't imagine that going over very well, either with MJ or in the media if the story were to get out.

I understand the reasoning behind saying NO to question number 2 because of its wording! But, because the jurors did find that Murray was Hired by AEG, for some anything he did wrong later should fall on their responsibility, regardless! And I can understand that too because they did hire him. I will always be split with this case and the verdict, both sides made good arguments IMO!

Think of it like this. A doctor works at a hospital and is caught stealing meds and performing unauthorized procedures in secret. When the hospital hired the doctor, there was nothing in his record that showed this kind of behavior. The doctor in this example should be held responsible, not the hospital.

The decision to deviate from the standard of care and to ignore his Hippocratic Oath was CM's, not AEG's.

Technically that was what the next question was about (3). And there I would agree with you. But q. 2 was about simple fact - was he competent or not to do the job. My logic is: the job required first aid skills, he didn't have them, hence - not fit.

It is a skill, because when you are taught first aid, you are taught that call 911 is the first thing you should do, before you start CPR. He didn't do it, and his excuse later was the he didn't call because he started doing CPR first. This technically means he didn't have the proper skill.

But that again is taking what we learned in hindsight and applying it to an earlier time frame. When you go to see your general practitioner, are you absolutely certain they can perform CPR? Don't you think it is reasonable to assume that a licensed doctor who is practicing medicine would know that? Is it really reasonable to say that AEG should have quizzed CM about how to perform CPR and whether calling 911 immediately in case of an emergency is the best course of action? I have never asked a doctor who is treating me these things and I doubt I ever will.

Want to thank Juror #27 for posting her thoughts on the trial verdict and on Michael. The last 5 months have been very painful as we watched Michael's privacy be so grossly invaded and his personal business broadcast across all forms of media. A media that salivates over salacious details about this lovely man. Based on what this juror explained and a bit of common sense, I agree with the verdict. Personally, I believe that Conrad Murray holds the majority, if not all, the responsibility for his patient's death. And to think his burden of guilt would be diminished in the slightest is totally unacceptable. Rather than the deep pockets of AEG, perhaps justice would have been served by not waiving restitution and hounding that man for every dime he attempts to pocket from what he did.

The fact that this juror and others were able to see the kindness, gentleness and caring that is at the core of Michael Jackson,certainly is a wonderful gift and a reason to finally smile. Thank you for sharing that with us.

You are very welcome. I just thought it was important to let you guys know that we did not come away with any negative feelings toward MJ. Quite the opposite, actually.

If I was to ask questions to the jurors, I would be curious about

- What did they think about the witnesses? Who did they believe to be honest and who did they believe to be not honest?

- and if they discussed it or considered it, what did they think about the other questions on the verdict form? or in other words of we assume question 2 wasn't on the form would the verdict change? (it looked like 2 jurors believed AEG didn't and couldn't know what was going on in regards to Propofol. I wonder if this was a widely shared belief)

1. We thought that most people were genuinely trying to be honest, but the way they were boxed in by the attorneys' questions often led to witnesses trying to clarify, avoid answering, or just answering something that wasn't asked, and that could sometimes come across as trying to hide something or being less than truthful. I thought Kenny Ortega was the most forthright out of everyone, and his testimony was a refreshing change because there was no dodging of questions or anything like that. His emails expressed sincere care and concern for MJ and his testimony in person just solidified and strengthened that feeling. He very obviously cared for and loved MJ. I didn't applaud when he left the witness stand because I thought that was inappropriate, but I understand the other jurors doing it. It was spontaneous and the result of the conclusion of a lot of heartfelt, riveting testimony.

2. I don't think if question 2 was gone the verdict would have changed. We did not discuss question 3 much once we reached a 'no' on question 2, but the impression I got is that there is no way we would have said that AEG knew or should have known that CM was unfit or incompetent and that his unfitness or incompetence would pose a particular risk to others. There was simply no evidence presented which would prove that AEG should have known that.

I hope the juror tells nothing about this, Ivy!
He would get into trouble if he would answer of such Question. All witnesses were put under the oath and if the juror would say "i believe Mr./Mrs. XYZ was not honest"... now, he could be sued for slandering. (IMO!)

But maybe in US it isn't so????

Actually in the jury instructions it explicitly said we are free to believe a witness or not, but I would never slander or disparage any of the witnesses I saw. The stress of being on that stand is unbelievable and I can't fault someone for their answers while in that hot seat unless I thought they were flat out lying, and I very rarely got that impression during this case.

Ivy you asked the question I wanted to ask too - about question #3 and how the jurors would have answered it, if it was discussed.

And just wanted to add a Thank you to Juror#27 for posting this really nice message. Know that a lot of MJ fans do think you made a reasonable and logical decision with that verdict.

A lot of us who answered the questions from the verdict form, answered with "no" the second question (and the third too).

Don't pay attention to the disrespectful people out there.

Thank you for the kind words. After hearing about MJ so much for the last 5 months and reading a bit more the last few days, I understand why some fans are so protective and emotional about MJ, so I know not to take their anger at the verdict personally.

Thank you so much for taking the time to post here juror#27, it is defintely appreciated don't let a few people's opinions bother you.

You are quite welcome.

"But his not calling 911 wasn't about skill or professional know how. A kid knows to call 911. Murray's was about covering himself and covering up. MJ was already dead when Murray started making any calls. And that he DID know."

Juror 27. Though I am not part of the majority here that supports the verdict, I do honestly commend you for having the courage to come here to explain the jury's decision (which I now better understand) and share your feelings but most importantly to acknowledge your softening of heart towards Michael. I always loved Michael's music and had a soft spot for him when the media began their 25 year attack mode but regretfully didn't become a passionate fan until after he died and I read everything I could get my hands on about him. Then I fell in love with the MAN and his goodness of heart. Please understand that Michael's fans have been in battle mode for years, some for decades. It has produced very protective and passionate advocates as we saw the human being behind the genius shredded and ridiculed. For all the joy that Michael gave us - which is immense - we are often a community in pain. Sometimes that bubbles over into overzealousness and anger and we suffer errors in judgment. However, if nothing good came out of this trial except that more people like you came to see the decent and loving and brilliant person that he was, then for that I am thankful. Thank you for caring enough to "talk" to us.

Yes, this is the impression I get from his fans. I promise that I won't hold the actions of a few against everyone. I'm very relieved to see that so many MJ fans are willing to discuss the case with reason and logic rather than get emotion. I understand being emotional but when dealing with law and facts I think logic and evidence should reign supreme.

[Juror#27]

Juror27, I have no question for you personally as any discussion we would engage in will not change the verdict rendered that I do not support. I will however, leave you with this comment: jurors are expected to use their common sense, life experiences, and intuition when deciding on the trustworthiness of witnesses and the rendering a resulting verdict. Jurors should not rely on or express personal biases against either party.

And whether you choose to believe me or not, I am telling you that not one juror on this case relied on or expressed personal bias against either party during the entire trial nor during deliberations. I don't understand where this comment is stemming from?

There were four plaintiffs. Testimony and evidence did not dismiss the fact that Michael idolized his mother as well as being an outstanding and loving father to his three children.

Again, I don't understand this comment? We all believed without exception that MJ idolized his mother and was an outstanding and loving father to his three children. I only mentioned Prince because he was the only one to testify in person and I was very impressed by him.

As the jury said no to question two, a discussion of potential damages to be found in question six and later is invalid.

Agreed, and we never discussed damages while deliberating. I was simply turning the plaintiffs' logic against themselves. They told us that someone asking for an outrageous sum of money is a red flag of unethical behavior. Does that logic not also apply to them? I ask only in a playful, rhetorical sense, because had we decided to award damages the ethics of the plaintiffs were completely irrelevant and would not have factored in at all.

[Juror#27]

I don't know can you answer to these questions, but if you can,what was your impressions of Randy, Katherine and Karen Faye's testimony? I know jury loved Debbie and Kenny O, and no wonder, we loved their testimonies too.

Randy's deposition was interesting. I liked him a lot. The testimony was mostly about the time period where he was trying to stage interventions for MJ, and I believe he really tried his best to help get his brother clean.

Katherine's testimony probably hit me the hardest, emotionally. Late last year I lost my grandmother who raised me, and during her testimony I was reminded of her over and over. Very emotional stuff and I teared up more than a few times. I thought she was a sweetheart.

Karen Faye's testimony and demeanor was off-putting to a lot of the jury. I think I'll leave it at that.

[Juror#27]

Hi, Juror 27,

Thanks so much for joining us and for your candid and thoughtful comments. Many have already said what I would have said regarding your participation and how honored we are!!! Yay!!!

One thing I want to say, I appreciate that you pointed out the word "timeline." It is so important IMO for this trial. Ivy used the word "hindsight" in pointing out that many things re Dr. Conrad Murray were completely unknown until it was too late and MJ was already gone. To judge a hiring on the eventual outcome of Murray's treatment would not be fair to the defendants. The question remains, was there evidence to anticipate or to 'know' that despite his licenses, education, training, he was going to be one of the most incompetent and unfit doctors ever. I am convinced by the evidence presented that such was not a reasonable conclusion at the time he was hired.

As you might have noticed, the MJ 'fan community' has a number of heated, on-going debates within it, and it is sometimes a struggle to deal with these in a way that reflects MJ's message of love and tolerance. People strive to present their opinions in a way that respects the other party's views, but let's face it, we are not perfect--we are human--we make mistakes and we get caught up in our likes and dislikes, our deeply felt convictions, so please bear with us.

I would like to ask you this: How well did you think the case was managed? Do you think it should have been dismissed, as some have argued?

Yes, it is interesting and kind of sad for me to read now about the factions fighting within MJ's fanbase. As I said earlier, I was completely clueless before this trial. Obviously I knew he had millions of fans all over the world, but the in-fighting and schisms and drama was all completely unknown to me. I'm happy to see that even in the midst of all this there are so many MJ fans who continue to remain positive and use his caring, loving nature to guide them along their path.

Looking back it is easy to say that the case should have never been brought to trial, but after considering all the evidence I'm not sure I agree with that. There was an exceptionally high hurdle to cross for the plaintiffs to win this case, but since the burden of proof is lower in civil trials, and considering the words and conduct of AEG themselves, I'm honestly unsure about whether this case should have been thrown out or not. Obviously what that threshold is is determined by the court and gets into legal matters which I as a layperson am not qualified to discuss.

[ivy]

Important Note

After discussing with Juror#27, We are publicly sharing their jury certificate for the last month. If you cross reference it with the daily testimony summary thread, You'll see that the dates match to testimony dates & off days. We have already stated any derailing of the thread will not be allowed, and this should be enough to put that topic at rest for good.




previous post below

For everyone's information

I have sent pics of the last two months of service certificates to ivy.

Juror #27 has sent me 2 receipts of certificates of jury service. these receipts shows the days juror #27 was on jury duty in the months of August , September , October and the payment for jury services.

The last certificate showed that juror #27 was serving jury duty at LA Superior Court on September 3rd, 4th, 6th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, October 1st and 2nd.

these dates and off days match with the court schedule we had on our daily testimony summary thread such as

Jacksons vs AEG - Day 79 – September 4 2013 – Summary
Jacksons vs AEG - Day 80 – September 6 2013 – Summary
Jacksons vs AEG - Day 81 – September 18 2013 – Summary

August dates on the certificate also match to the schedule.

We as the staff are considering this as enough verification. We also realize that some people might not be satisfied or convinced no matter what. Everyone is free to form their own opinions and can choose to believe or not to the posts of juror#27 but let me note that derailing of the thread will not be allowed.

[Juror#27]

For Juror #27 I'd like to ask what you thought of the judge in the case. Did you feel she controlled her courtroom well? How did you feel about the attorneys for both sides and which witnesses did you feel were not truthful? Which ones were the most truthful? Thank you again for joining us and giving us your thoughts.

Judge Palazuelos was awesome, I really liked her. She easily had the hardest job in overseeing this entire case. There were times where I thought she could have cracked down on witnesses or the attorneys a little harder, but overall I thought she did an outstanding job.

The attorneys on both sides were incredible. This was my first time serving on a jury, and it was like going to your first live boxing match and getting to see Ali vs. Frasier. I can't fully articulate how impressed I am with the attorneys.

I didn't get the impression that many witnesses were not truthful. The only time I felt that was with a few of the doctors who were treating MJ in the early-mid '00s. Most truthful I thought were Debbie Rowe and Kenny Ortega. They felt the most neutral and did the least filtering of their answers, Debbie especially.

[Juror#27]

Juror27. the jury foreman gregg barden said the following to reporters "Conrad Murray had a license, he graduated from an accredited college and we felt he was competent to do the job of being a general practitioner".

if you go by that logic, no qualified doctor can ever be unfit or incompetent

whats your take on that??

You are mixing up what a person should know at one point in time, with what comes to light after the fact.

If I hire a nanny to watch my kids, and after checking her references and checking online I can find nothing that says she has hurt a child, or done anything illegal or unethical, should I be held liable if she kills my children? Liability can only go so far, and in this example as well as the AEG case, the liability for the unethical behavior falls with the individual who acted unethically. Period.

Now, if I did a check on the nanny's references and 2 people told me she hurt their kids and they fired her, or if I looked online and found she had a criminal record for abusing children, and I then hire her anyway, NOW I have been negligent in my hiring. Now I should share responsibility for what she did. So if we apply this logic to the AEG case, Murray passed a cursory check. He was being hired at the request of MJ. The only 'red flag' is the fact that he asked for a ton of money at first. In my opinion that is not sufficient evidence to say someone is unethical, unfit, or incompetent to perform a job for which they are qualified.

[Juror#27]

I also want to add my thanks to Juror#27. I'm grateful you chose MJJC to share your thoughts and answer questions--something you don't have to do--and you are furthering our understanding of what thought processes you and others on the jury went through to arrive at the verdict. Your commentary here is invaluable and helps us connect the dots on all our conversations and speculations through many months. What you're doing is a gift and I'm among many others here who are very grateful.

Thank you so much for the kind words. That is why I am posting here. I knew there would be so much speculation and wonder after the verdict so I just hoped to provide a little understanding or clarification. It's also helping me to get my bearings on this whole thing. What a weird experience to sit in silence for 5 months absorbing this incredible story, then deliberate for a few short days and have it all end so abruptly. Talking about it is definitely helping me to sort my mind out and move on.

<> <> <>

/juror 27

if I may ask two questions

1.)
I'm presuming that in the beginning or on the end of the trial the jurors got plaintiffs complaint and statement from AEG.
If yes, do you got the 2 older plaintiff complaints too?


2.)
What was you thinking about Mr. Panish' argument alteration in relation to his opening plädoyer? (i mean addiction; Michael's health etc.)

1. I'm not sure what you are referring to, but I think there was something to that effect in the jury instructions? In a very basic manner it laid out the claim by plaintiffs and AEG's statement of affirmative defense, but I'm not sure if that is what you are asking about.

2. I thought Mr. Panish handled everything well and I didn't notice too much deviation from his opening statement.

[Juror#27]

"Juror#27: The decision to deviate from the standard of care and to ignore his Hippocratic Oath was CM's, not AEG's."

Does "Juror#27" call it "decision", the being forced by AEG via threatening CM, being financially broken ?

Let's remind CM who is paying his salary...we want MJ's butt on stage, no matter what...

Yes, it was still a decision even if he was being pressured. He could have just as easily decided not to give MJ propofol.

If there was pressure or a conflict of interest, then it was up to CM to choose, "Do I risk my career and freedom by violating my duty as a Dr., or do I do the right thing and refuse to break my Hippocratic Oath?" He made that decision, and I do not see that AEG's pressure was ever so great to say that it alone is what caused him to act unethically.

[Juror#27]

thank for answering this. to go by your example with the nanny. what if i hire the nanny and as time goes, i start to hear things that should worry me, is that nanny still competent or should i take action?? yes, she WAS competent at the beginning but she's still on my payroll and my employee when i start to hear worrying things. is she competent or not?? she's still hired by me...


during trial we did hear testimony from worried THIS IS IT members that were worried about mjs condition and told various people about it. we know that randy philips, paul congaware and even the ppl above them in the aeg hierarchy were alerted of mjs condition week(s) before mj passed. kenny suspected dr conrad murray was not good and told randy philips. we have seen the emails from Houghdal where he said Mj was detoriating for the past 8 weeks and many other emails. this was all going on during the time murray was hired by aeg and aeg execs were informed.

the jury instructions did not put a timeframe on the second question it if im correct. so during the time murray was hired by aeg, there were OBVIOUS signs that he was not fit and competent to treat mj. did you not concider this at all or did you all base your answer from the time he was hired (may 1)?

like a poster wrote before 'did aeg become negligent in allowing Murray to continue to care for MJ when it was clear to them that Michael was detoriating..???'

remember, jury instructions did not state that you had to base your answer ONLY at the time he was hired (may 1).

You bring up good points, and we did consider Murray's competence over the entire period and whether what AEG saw was enough to conclude that he was not fit. We felt that based on what they saw and were communicated, there was not enough to say that they should have known CM was breaking his sworn duty to do no harm. The main issue for me personally that cements this is that on the June 20th meeting, everyone saw a rested, healthy looking Michael. He and CM personally reassured Phillips and Ortega that MJ was fine, that he was OK to continue forward. Then on the 23rd and 24th MJ had great rehearsals and everyone had reason to be hopeful that he would be fine from then on.

[Juror#27]

@#Juror27

Just wanted to personally thank you for coming to my community and more so for your kind words about MJJC.

If you have any troubles being here on MJJC be sure to give me or any of my team a shout.

Thanks - Gaz

Thanks! You have a great community here and it is my pleasure to talk with you all.

Juror#27:
what did the jury think of the fact that Randy Phillips & Paul Gongaware were dropped as defendants a week before the end of testimonies?

Were you all aware that Kenny Ortega was initially one of the defendants? The Jacksons had also accused him of having a hand in MJ's death. I find it ironic that the jurors ended up liking him so much.

Phillips and Gongaware being dropped from the suit had zero impact on us. Same with Kenny Ortega. We heard early on that he was a defendant who was also dropped from the suit, but honestly that did not factor in to our decision or deliberations at all.

I also find that a bit ironic. ;D

[Juror#27]

This leads into what I was curious about. Why did you ask to see This Is It? And what did you think of the movie itself?

We thought it was only fitting to watch it since we had just sat there for 5 months listening to all the details about this concert series. Plus we had seen mostly the same clips over and over, so we wanted to see the whole thing in its entirety.

I enjoyed it. I had never seen MJ in concert and even if This Is It had come to L.A. I probably would not have gone to see it, but I was blown away by what they were going to be doing on stage. The concert looked like it was going to be amazing and seeing it partially coming together in the film just made the ending of everything that much more tragic.

Good question, and since she mentions how he functioned on the 24th & 25th, I can see the importance of looking at TII.

Not that it matters much, but I'm one of the 6 male jurors.