Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[#MJforever57]

Ivy thanks for the instructions. Now about number 1.

1. That [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] to perform the work for which [he/she] was hired;

Doesn't Muarry have 2 different jobs to perform depending on who hired him? If AEG hired Muarry, the job he was to do was to give Michael general medical care, & if Michael hired Muarry the job he had to do was to give him prof. Wasn't Muarry fit to do the general medical care part? Will each side have to show the work Muarry had to perform under his contract? Then, if Muarry goes and does a task that is not in the job descriptions of his contract that AEG expected of him, can AEG still be held accountable?

To me, Muarry was fit to perform the job according to the contract. However, he did something that was not in his contract, at the request of Michael. He was not qualified to do this, so he should be the one to be blamed.

That what should have been done in the first place because Murray was giving Michael a drugs that was not use in a home setting only for the hospital and he cause the death of Michael Jackson. and he got away with it.

 

[Tygger]

Last Tear, we would have partook in the longest deliberation in American history! laughs

I am going to review the contract again to see how Michael is portrayed; as solely the patient or as a co-employer/patient.

 

[ivy]

Question please: does anyone have information regarding these two items in Duke's article:

A decision will be made on the need for more testimony from Katherine Jackson after the judge rules on several issues regarding possible damages on Wednesday, Putnam said.

One thing I can tell you is that there are several motions being argued right now. AEG wants to question Katherine about the $40.2 Billion damages form sent to them and Katherine's lawyers are trying to stop it. I'm guessing depending on whether the judge allows it or not, it would determine whether they call Katherine back to stand or not.

No matter how this is spun by plaintiffs or Duke, this is a blow to the Jackson case.

I wonder how this actually impacts the jurors' thinking about the case as a whole.

Is it a big blow though? I'm guessing both their testimonies remain because they were still working as representatives of AEG. The burden of whether they knew or should have known in my mind would still remain with RP & PG but only as representatives and not as individuals.

I do not believe Phillips/Gongaware removal as defendants is a blow to the plaintiffs' case.

In my opinion, Mother's side made a HUGE deal about Phillips and Gongaware's so-called participation in the death of Michael Jackson (along with the smoking gun emails), if it weren't important, they wouldn't have added their names from jumpstreet.

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.

there's also the issue with public perception. any news of dismissal seems as a win from the lay person's perspective - regardless of if it is truly a win or not. And it also gives the perception that the claims were baseless. For example for an average person that did not follow the case at all but knew the basics that katherine sued Phillips and Gongaware but now hearing that the judge dismissed them as defendants it would mean like they were falsely accused or katherine's claims were baseless. this is the reason why it's not wise to overcharge or make claims that you cannot prove. the more they are dismissed , the weaker your case look.

finally it might affect the jurors. they will probably be told or realize that Phillips and Gongaware are dismissed as defendants. It might make them think again that they weren't liable / falsely accused and question the rest of the claims. But this depends on how they will be told this information or even if they would realize it.

If what Duke said is true, i.e., the plaintiffs sought to remove Phillips/Gongaware

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?

 

[ivy]

I have AEG's proposed jury instructions. it'll take me some time to work on them.

 

[Mneme]

"A jury may logically infer from the evidence that (Jackson) died because Dr. Murray, who was adversely affected by a conflict of interest created by his contractual arrangement with AEG, treated a deteriorating insomniac who was not ready to perform, causing Dr. Murray to make bad medical decisions that caused (Jackson's) death," the judge wrote.

"The timing of when Dr. Murray ordered propofol is a matter of factual dispute (as to whether that means Dr. Murray used it prior to AEG's retention of him)," the judge wrote. "The court finds that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence that Dr. Murray's treatment of decedent was connected to Murray's employment by AEG. Therefore defendants' motion for nonsuit is denied."

I don't know wheter I read that above right (because you know: my english is only rudimentäre) but


how I it understand the judge with her formulation of her own sight could influence the independency of the jury:
She wrote: "...logically infer from the evidence that (Jackson) died because..."
i mean that word "that' is wrong and inadmissible for a judge because this word "that" is already a statement and it coud impress jury memers.
In my sight the judge had must write "if/wheter" instead "that".
(or am I wrong???)

The same ist with the second paragraph:
here she wrote:
"The court finds that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence that Dr. Murray's..."
What the court finds is irrelevant because the jury will decide wheter the evidence is sufficient.


or is it right in the justice jury systeme that the judge is givin a recommendation to the jury?
(really: I don't know it because in Germany we have not a jury systeme. And a recommandantion for the jury is unlogical for me...)

 

[Petrarose]

^^I was wondering too why the judge used language that showed she made up her mind or that AEG hired Muarry. I think Ivy said that her statement is only that there is sufficient evidence that a reasonable juror could use to determine that AEG should have known, etc.

Who knows. I guess it is the same as a judge allowing a case to be tried, and even though evidence shows the case should go to trial, jurors still find the defendant not guilty. At least that is the way I am looking at this. I see that she used the plaintiffs' evidence to back up the plaintiffs' claims, even though the defendants had their own evidence that goes against the plaintiffs evidence. So I guess that is the way it is done. If the plaintiffs have evidence to back up what they say, the judge allows the case to continue. It is then up to the jury to look at the contradicting evidence from both sides and determine what to do.

Ivy those proposed jury instructions you have, is it from what AEG & the plaintiffs worked on today? It seems this week will focus on the forms and motions?

 

[Petrarose]

Is it one reporter in the court house and he is sharing his information with all the media outlets?" I find it strange throughout the trial, that all the articles say more or less the same thing & use almost the same words to comment. They all focus on the plaintiffs and how the evidence helped them. If they do a summary today, they all bring up Phillips e-mail about Muarry the good doc & the let us remind him who is paying his salary one. They will say the 2 points the judge made, and make the same comments about it--almost the same words. If they give you direct, they all barely relate the cross. If 25 points come up during direct, they will all relate the same 4 points and keep silent about the rest.

What is causing this weaker focus on cross during the plaintiffs & defendants case? Is it that direct has more shocking revelations, like Dr. Van mentioning the box. It is making me think that statements are being made during cross that we know nothing about. It is a good thing Muarry's was televised, because all the vital explanations we got in that case would have been reduced to tiny comments & we wouldn't be as knowledgeable as we are today.

 

[smoothlugar]

She wrote: "...logically infer from the evidence that (Jackson) died because..."
i mean that word "that' is wrong and inadmissible for a judge because this word "that" is already a statement and it coud impress jury memers.
In my sight the judge had must write "if/wheter" instead "that".
(or am I wrong???)

I see what you mean, but the idea of "if/whether" is already implied at the beginning of the sentence: "A jury may logically infer from the evidence something (that MJ died because...)". "May" is just a possibility.

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?

 

[Tygger]

I must say the comments from Putnam about Phillips/Gongaware are particularly rich since his team attempted much worst with Michael throughout their defense:

"The Jacksons have besmirched their reputations and dragged their good names through the mud without any basis whatsoever," he said.

"I expect they’ll be very excited, through at the same time – I’ll be frank with you – they’ve done everything in their power, these plaintiffs have, to ruin their names and to run their good reputations.

One thing I can tell you is that there are several motions being argued right now. AEG wants to question Katherine about the $40.2 Billion damages form sent to them and Katherine's lawyers are trying to stop it. I'm guessing depending on whether the judge allows it or not, it would determine whether they call Katherine back to stand or not.

Thanks.

Ivy, I think it is interesting that you are discussing public perception. You were very against suggestions that Robson’s trial benefitted the defense because it would not be discussed in court. However, it was discussed in the court of public opinion and referred to by Panish and the judge who joked about four year old “repressed memories” when Gongaware could not remember much on the stand. The jurors may not have understood the joke however; the defense used the past false allegations as a reason Michael would not generate ANY income had he lived.

You are also suggesting that the average public person would believe Phillips/Gongaware were falsely accused and the plaintiffs’ one claim is baseless because they were removed as defendants without one chart, graph, or survey to support your claim. It is not surprising that you can somehow gauge the general public’s view, particularly when it can be skewed to favor the defense, and not one poster questions it. Perception is interesting indeed.

I do not know how the judge will relay this information to the jurors however; I do not see the judge relaying this in a way to favor either side. If jurors do not understand that Phillips/Gongaware were removed because they are agents of AEG and the removal is customary, they are free to ask the judge for clarification. Their removal as defendants will not remove their testimony from evidence and that is what the jurors will have to rely on.

The plaintiffs had several defendants in the beginning. Ortega and two other AEG executives were removed without the defense's rejection. Why did the defense reject the removal of Phillips/Gongaware? It seems this has been simmering as Michael previously said. Panish commented to Gongaware he would not be personally liable in open court. It was an odd comment then, however, it is crystal clear now.

I suspect Duke was right that they were to be released previously and the defense rejected it. The defense then used this to create deflection in the event the judge did not dismiss the case and she did not.

AEG understands the media’s relationship with any and all Jacksons. The media is not going to support a positive Jackson story oftentimes so the majority of headlines are not about the trial going forward but, the release of two AEG executives.

Ortega and two other AEG executives were released almost three years ago while Phillips/Gongaware remained. Why did they remain if the plaintiffs sought to release them as they released the others?

 

[LastTear]

@Tygger, you have lost me, you quoted Ivy and then ticked her off for discussing public perception. But I can't see where from that quote that you could make that statement? Confused.

I guess we will have to wait to hear the jury instructions.

I take the comments from Duke that the Plantiffs wanted P&G removed, if they wanted them removed then I'm sure they don't need the defences approval, the judge, yes. I would like to read the motion and the response from the Plantiffs.

As we know it is only the jury who will make this decision and they have been instructed not to read or listen to any news reports and only take instructions from the judge. So it shouldn't make any difference what is in the media, Michaels 2005 trial shows that this does work.

PS That is disgusting that Panish and the judge would make such jokes.

 

[Bubs]

"The timing of when Dr. Murray ordered propofol is a matter of factual dispute (as to whether that means Dr. Murray used it prior to AEG's retention of him)," the judge wrote. "The court finds that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence that Dr. Murray's treatment of decedent was connected to Murray's employment by AEG. Therefore defendants' motion for nonsuit is denied."

I find it unfair that judge allwed plaintiffs to use some of what CM said in his LAPD interview to support their case, but the same courtesy wasn't allowed to defense. AEG could have used CM's own words from that interview that he was giving propofol to MJ 6 weeks, well before he was introduced to AEG as MJ's personal physician.

"A Jackson lawyer downplayed the significance of the dismissal of the two men as defendants, saying the plaintiffs previously offered to drop them from the case but AEG Live lawyers refused."

yeah right.
Ivy, do you have any idea why would defense want to keep RP and PG as defendants if plaintiffs offered to remove their names from the case.
Why would they even want to remove RP and PG? I thought Jackson family was all about getting justice for MJ by getting judgement against people who (according to Jacksons) were behind killing their beloved sibling, son etc? So is justice gone missing once again?

"Marvin Putnam, lead attorney for the defendants, issued a statement calling the judge's ruling "a huge victory" for Phillips and Gongaware.
"The Jacksons have besmirched their reputations and dragged their good names through the mud without any basis whatsoever," he said."

Don't worry Mr Putnam, they dragged MJ's good name through the mud too. So if they don't even care about their beloved family member, they certainly don't care anyone else as long there is pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.


"Legal analyst Royal Oakes told KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO the judge’s dismissal is unlikely to affect any potential settlement once the case is decided.
“The big deal for the Jackson family is they’ve got to go against AEG, the deep pockets, billions of dollars,” Oakes explained. “Whether or not the individual executives stay as defendants, not really a huge deal.”

Attorneys for AEG say that they will wrap up the defense in the next week by calling two Jackson family members, including the late singer’s son, Prince."

He said as it is, Jacksons are after AEG's deep pockets, no ifs or buts.

So KJ and Prince are going to be called back?
I was wondering as after Prince testified earlier and he said he saw RP crapping CM's elbow at Carolwood, which AEG lawyers denied ever happening and said that they will prove Junior to be wrong by calling him later. I wonder if that is the reason they plan to call Junior?

 

[LastTear]

@Bubs

I find it unfair that judge allwed plaintiffs to use some of what CM said in his LAPD interview to support their case, but the same courtesy wasn't allowed to defense. AEG could have used CM's own words from that interview that he was giving propofol to MJ 6 weeks, well before he was introduced to AEG as MJ's personal physician.

I still find it unfair as well. I know it has been explained that Murray's hiring is a question for the jury, but it seems to me that they will be deciding with only half the facts.

Also about the notes, how can the plantiffs bring in new evidence now - after they have rested? I understand new witness can be brought in during rebuttal, but I didn't know new evidence can also be shown. At this rate we will be starting all over again on the rebuttal faze.

 

[Bubs]

@Bubs

I still find it unfair as well. I know it has been explained that Murray's hiring is a question for the jury, but it seems to me that they will be deciding with only half the facts.

Also about the notes, how can the plantiffs bring in new evidence now - after they have rested? I understand new witness can be brought in during rebuttal, but I didn't know new evidence can also be shown. At this rate we will be starting all over again on the rebuttal faze.

Some of this judge's decisions are odd so I wouldn't put past her that she'd do the right thing and disallow plaintiffs to use those notes in their closing speech. If she does, I find that very unfair, then AEG should be allowed to do the same thing.

On the different note, forgive me Ivy, I'm reading your tweets and I'm curious about that Karen Fake email that she was witholding and presented one sided story to the jury. Care to elaporate more about it?

 

[ivy]

Ivy, I think it is interesting that you are discussing public perception. You were very against suggestions that Robson’s trial benefitted the defense because it would not be discussed in court.

yes I still maintain that Robson's claims have not and will not benefit AEG and that trial got nothing to do with the "public perception".
That trial is about the perception and verdict of 12 jurors who have ordered not to watch TV, read or listen to the media.

So let's not compare, public to the jurors. It's like comparing apples to oranges

the defense used the past false allegations as a reason Michael would not generate ANY income had he lived.

yes and we knew this before the trial. have they used the most recent allegations? nope.

You are also suggesting that the average public person would believe Phillips/Gongaware were falsely accused and the plaintiffs’ one claim is baseless because they were removed as defendants without one chart, graph, or survey to support your claim.

dismissal : termination, discharge

why would anyone be removed from a case? would a guilty person be dismissed? or is it more likely that it would be the opposite?

common sense....

I realize you are complaining how people asked you about basis for your statement that "public wanted lesser charges for Murray", but the difference here is that I made a generalized statement about laypeople in regards to every dismissal, you claimed a very specific thing. Most people probably can simply use their common sense to determine if they agree with my generalization or not, but your very specific claims it might require a source.

 

[ivy]

On the different note, forgive me Ivy, I'm reading your tweets and I'm curious about that Karen Fake email that she was witholding and presented one sided story to the jury. Care to elaporate more about it?

you might remember that the last time Karen testified she told that she found her old cell phone and that one had messages she sent to her boyfriend. in that messages she's talking about the june 18 riot meeting.

jacksons want to use those texts as to impeach Ortega. AEG argue that they are hearsay and need to be authenticated.

In the motion they accuse Karen of withholding her discovery obligations and even selectively providing documents to support her testimony. At one part they say that after Karen's testimony, they were able to discover some emails she sent to Dileo at Dileo's computer. They then write Karen's testimony about June 23rd rehearsals and how she testified it wasn't possible for Michael to look good. AEG complains about how Karen did not provide the email she sent to Dileo and how they could not question or impeach her. Now the email AEG is mentioning is redacted but if I need to take a guess, I would think that she sent Dileo an email about June 23rd rehearsals and wrote very positive, good things about it but now during her testimony she changed her position to eeh it was better but not good.

Anyway AEG is asking to not allow the use of those text messages because she's late in providing them, because they are hearsay, because they aren't proper impeachment and so on. If the judge allows them, they want them to be authenticated because they say it is easy to fake text messages and given Karen's information withholding they think the text messages might be fake / created recently to booster her testimony.


--------------------------------------------

Note: last night I was busy with Michael's handwritten notes. hopefully I'll be able to do the jury instructions tonight.

 

[Bubs]

Thanks Ivy.

Jeez, Karen fake is playing a knight in shining armour again :*****:
"AEG complains about how Karen did not provide the email she sent to Dileo and how they could not question or impeach her"

Its only fair that those email are not allowed then.

 

[serendipity]

Does that mean that Jacksons want to call Karen as one of their rebutal witnesses? I can't take her crap anymore. We saw one of her Frank DiLeo emails and it seems what she was telling him is quite different to what she told the court.

 

[LastTear]

Is Karen not subject to recall?

I will ask in this thread. I don't get why AEG wouldn't want those notes shown in court? I must be missing something obvious.

 

[jaydom7]

what email did Karen send Dileo?? and again why were all of these people sending emails instead of taking action and getting MJ some help

 

[ivy]

Does that mean that Jacksons want to call Karen as one of their rebutal witnesses?

yes, and they are hoping to use her text messages to her boyfriend to impeach Ortega

I will ask in this thread. I don't get why AEG wouldn't want those notes shown in court? I must be missing something obvious.

it might be a double edged sword for them. note 8 and 9 - the ones about Murray- seems to help their arguments, that Michael knew and was willing to be put on a drip for sleep. However the rest are Michael's plans and you can see they are extensive. Those would increase the damages.

Some of their points also include that no one knows when Michael wrote those notes, no one knows if he still felt like those when he died and some notes are subject to interpretation.

what email did Karen send Dileo??

as I said it is redacted. The only thing I know that they found the emails after they got Dileo's computer and cell phone from her daughter and somehow what Karen wrote to Dileo is contradictory to what she testified during trial about June 23rd rehearsal.

 

[Petrarose]

Karen again, changing statements. Her tweets, e-mails, testimony change depending on who she is talking/writing to.

Didn't the judge allow some documents after she claimed no more after a specific deadline? So she might stay true to form here. I am really eager to see the final instructions and hear the results of these motions. I wonder what they will complete today.

 

[Bubs]

as I said it is redacted. The only thing I know that they found the emails after they got Dileo's computer and cell phone from her daughter and somehow what Karen wrote to Dileo is contradictory to what she testified during trial about June 23rd rehearsal.

So Karen testified bla bla blaaa, and now plaintiffs wants to use her emails in their rebuttal, but as it is plaintiffs rebuttal, defense is not allowed to ask or question anything from rebuttal witnesses, did I get it right?

If that is the case, it would be highly improper and unfair to allow plaintiffs to use those emails if defense cannot defend themselves.

@Jaydom, knowing Karen tactics, she most likely blamed Michael for self sabotaging and taking drugs, but is now siding with Jacksons in case they give her a job or something, or if Randy gives her few dollars.

The same way she put the blame of MJJ Sourse on Michael:
“I understand all the anger with the fans, but we have done everything in our power to live up to all the promises Michael has made. If he does not fulfill his promises…there is nothing we can do. We were Michael’s voice, but if he doesn’t wish to speak or pay the bills for MJJsource, there is nothing we can do.”

Karen fake needs to crawl back to that hell hole she came from, pronto.

 

[jaydom7]

So Karen testified bla bla blaaa, and now plaintiffs wants to use her emails in their rebuttal, but as it is plaintiffs rebuttal, defense is not allowed to ask or question anything from rebuttal witnesses, did I get it right?

If that is the case, it would be highly improper and unfair to allow plaintiffs to use those emails if defense cannot defend themselves.

@Jaydom, knowing Karen tactics, she most likely blamed Michael for self sabotaging and taking drugs, but is now siding with Jacksons in case they give her a job or something, or if Randy gives her few dollars.

The same way she put the blame of MJJ Sourse on Michael:
“I understand all the anger with the fans, but we have done everything in our power to live up to all the promises Michael has made. If he does not fulfill his promises…there is nothing we can do. We were Michael’s voice, but if he doesn’t wish to speak or pay the bills for MJJsource, there is nothing we can do.”

Karen fake needs to crawl back to that hell hole she came from, pronto.

I totally agree.. with her fake self.. she accused him of self-sabotaging and then changes her mind and blames AEG for not doing anything yet she didn't either.. all she did was send emails instead of taking action and helping her 'friend' of 30 years.. I still don't understand why she didn't call any member of MJ's family since she had access to them if she thought her 'friend' was dying.

 

[LastTear]

it might be a double edged sword for them. note 8 and 9 - the ones about Murray- seems to help their arguments, that Michael knew and was willing to be put on a drip for sleep. However the rest are Michael's plans and you can see they are extensive. Those would increase the damages.

Some of their points also include that no one knows when Michael wrote those notes, no one knows if he still felt like those when he died and some notes are subject to interpretation.
.

Surely when it comes to damages they would have to look at what was likely to happen, ie some real evidence that Michael was actively working towards those 'wishes'? As far as the notes relating to CM goes we know that Michael was using his 'services' therefore those notes are most likely.

I'm still so confused over the damages, KJ is benefiting from Michael's estate, she hasn't lost all of his income - I don't understand, is she to be paid twice? Or if it comes to it will they pick a figure and subtract everything his estate has earned since his death?

 

[jaydom7]

Surely when it comes to damages they would have to look at what was likely to happen, ie some real evidence that Michael was actively working towards those 'wishes'? As far as the notes relating to CM goes we know that Michael was using his 'services' therefore those notes are most likely.

I'm still so confused over the damages, KJ is benefiting from Michael's estate, she hasn't lost all of his income - I don't understand, is she to be paid twice? Or if it comes to it will they pick a figure and subtract everything his estate has earned since his death?

Katherine doesn't even know... she's getting tons of money.. she wants damages to take care of the grown cubs and their grown children. Jermaine and his kids that are not Gordy's.. Randy and his kids, Rebbie and her family since her husband is dead, Joe and his out of wedlock grown daughter and granddaugter, and Donte ( not sure who he belongs to). Omer is there now so he wants some money etc.. Katherine wants this money to take care of others in addition to buying herself some new blue suits and possibly another recreational vehicle-_-

 

[Petrarose]

Bubs the defense can cross during rebuttal.

Lasttear earlier, I can't remember if it was before the trial began, the plaintiffs were arguing about that issue. They did not want any money they could get being reduced by subtracting all the money Katherine got from his death. That would mean that all the money the estate gave Katherine would be deducted from the damages. (sounds like reducing the restitution amount from an AEG payment, right). I don't remember what came of that. We should ask Ivy. So much has happened I can't keep track.

 

[LastTear]

Bubs the defense can cross during rebuttal.

Lasttear earlier, I can't remember if it was before the trial began, the plaintiffs were arguing about that issue. They did not want any money they could get being reduced by subtracting all the money Katherine got from his death. That would mean that all the money the estate gave Katherine would be deducted from the damages. (sounds like reducing the restitution amount from an AEG payment, right). I don't remember what came of that. We should ask Ivy. So much has happened I can't keep track.

It would seem very unjust if they didn't take it into account. Obviously the emotional loss is another thing all together, but then no amount of money is going to make that right.

 

[Tygger]

As we know it is only the jury who will make this decision and they have been instructed not to read or listen to any news reports and only take instructions from the judge. So it shouldn't make any difference what is in the media, Michaels 2005 trial shows that this does work.

Last Tear, Ivy posted that it does matter what the public perception is since the customary removal of Phillips/Gongaware can be skewed so that the defense may be seen falsely as victorious over the plaintiffs. Ivy has likened the jurors to the public perception although they can ask the judge for clarification if they do not understand the removal.

Are you aware that the general public is the public in public perception?

Why is it disgusting that Panish and the judge found Robson four year old repressed memories humorous?

As for the notes, I agree they are subject to interpretation and not favorable for the defense. If they are presented in closing arguments, how will AEG defend itself against Michael’s note # 9: “hire Conrad exclusive?” Note # 9 also states the doctor has to “practice.” Not the best time for AEG to find out Michael most likely questioned the doctor’s qualifications to administer anesthesia as it seems he may not have woke up refreshed. Michael note about Phillips also confirms his son’s testimony about his father's reaction to him.

Ivy, nice attempt however, you have contradicted yourself.

 

[LastTear]

Last Tear, Ivy posted that it does matter what the public perception is since the customary removal of Phillips/Gongaware can be skewed so that the defense may be seen falsely as victorious over the plaintiffs. Ivy has likened the jurors to the public perception although they can ask the judge for clarification if they do not understand the removal.

Are you aware that the general public is the public in public perception?

Why is it disgusting that Panish and the judge found Robson four year old repressed memories humorous?

As for the notes, they are subject to interpretation. If they are presented in closing arguments, how will AEG defend itself against Michael’s note # 9: “hire Conrad exclusive?” Note # 9 also states the doctor has to “practice.” Not the best time for AEG to find out Michael most likely questioned the doctor’s qualifications to administer anesthesia as it seems he may not have woke up refreshed. Michael note about Phillips also confirms his son’s testimony about his father's reaction to him.

Ivy, nice attempt however, you have contradicted yourself.

Ivy has not contradicted herself, you are twisting it to suit you. She made a statement that public opinion (ie how the media report P & G being removed) isn't important because of the jury's instructions not to view such media. And it is actually a statement of fact.

Yes I am quite aware of what the definition of public is.

It is disgusting because it is wholly unprofessional to laugh or ridicule a witness, any witness.

Yes the notes are subject to interpretation. Note 9 shows that Michael wanted to hire CM exclusively (that one is probably the easiest) and it shows it was his decision to do so. Practice? And yet Michael was willing to be his lab pet. What do you mean it's not the best time for AEG to find out etc.? They didn't find out, and it is already established that Murray was negligent.

Re the Phillips one, I would need to know a date for that one because in another note it appears he is asking Phillips to find accountants etc.

Q. Why didn't these notes come out at Murray's trial?

 

[Annita]

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