Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[ivy]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

What does 'particular' mean?

well the best way to explain is by an example.

a guy has a history of domestic violence, getting into fights with coworkers and customers. so if a company is to do a background check on him they would see that this person has the particular risk of violence.

so it's not enough to say "this guy is dangerous", you need to have particular risk involved - such as a guy that has been in 10 fights being likely to be involved in more fights in the future.

AEG and Jacksons are disagreeing on how specific this particular risk should be. AEG's position has always been the "particular risk" is Propofol and Jacksons have always maintained a more general point of view to particular risk.

Who are the "others"--why not say Michael Jackson? Was Murray going to harm anyone else? MJ's kids? AEG personnel? Who?

as you can see from the above example this risk isn't limited to one single person. it's not like Jack hates John so he starts a fight type of situation. the guy with history of violence gets into fights with many people and he's a particular risk to many and even all people he interacts - hence the use of others.

 

[Justthefacts]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

And how do you know he was lying? He probably did check Murray out. And before June 25, you would not have found anything on Murray. How was anyone let alone a company suppose to know that Murray was doing what he was doing? They could not even ask such a question. IMO the jury won't make it past question three

 

[ivy]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

RP lying that he checked Murray when he knew he was lying! That's all! Good Night!

And how do you know he was lying? He probably did check Murray out.

Jorrie testified that she googled murray and told Phillips what she found out about him - clinics, licenses etc. That's what RP repeated. So they did check Murray out - by a google search and not a background check

 

[rsggamer123]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Well initially I was HIGHLY leaning towards AEG not being liable but because the very first question the jurors need to answer is 'Did AEG hire Murray' I would have thought the answer would of been no and the verdict would of been chosen FAST. But knowing that in the two hours they did had not yet reached a verdict leaves me to believe that possibly they have answered YES to that question which therefore makes me think its more likely they have found AEG liable.

Hope that makes sense!!

 

[barbee0715]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Even if the jury says yes to question 1...a "NO" to any of the other questions will still let AEG off the hook.

So if the jury decides AEG DID hire Murray....there's still 4 other questions that have to have yes answers for the jury to deliberate on damages.For me, the question I think that could let AEG off the hook is question 3.

I've been totally against this trial from the get-go, but I tried to answer the 5 questions today as if I were on the jury-I said yes to no #1-even though there was no SIGNED contract in place, many people work with a verbal one-and it was implied Murray was working for the show with the meetings they had with him, the email from Gongaware, etc. Everyone treated him like he was on board with the show. The signed contact was a formality. BUT I had to say no to questions 2 and 3-I don't see how they could possibly think Murray was unfit with the checks they did on his practice and Michael's recommendation. When Ortega rang warning bells, they immediately called a meeting and Murray assured everyone that Michael was fine-and yes, it seemed like he was those last few days. Everybody said that. That Michael was back-when I went to see TII, I went in expecting the worst and was stunned at how great he was-Michael definitely wasn't going through the motions-he wanted that show to happen. And to be great. So in my mind when the AEG execs were watching those final rehearsals they probably thought Murray was a great doctor.

 

[Tygger]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I believe Panish's rebuttal was amazing as he clarified many issues AEG discussed in their closing that had no bearing in this trial. Those issues were discussed to confuse. There is video of the rebuttal on the internet. If anyone chooses to really listen to it, you will hear Panish clarify those four questions (AEG conceded (finally) to question four) and may make them easier for others to answer. Even if it is a no answer, at least the question would be clearly understood.

It is also interesting the defense objected during the rebuttal in which they were overruled.

StellaJackson and Zakk are right about the clips the defense showed and Panish spoke to that in the rebuttal as well.

Last Tear, Panish spoke to this concept about AEG knowing about propofol and how that relates to the trial and the verdict form questions. It is up to you if you are open to hearing that.

AEG could also fire the doctor anytime they wanted. I mean, doesnt that kinda indicate they had at least some control over Murray? If Murray was solely hired by Michael, how come AEG could fire a person that was not hired by them? "We did not hire him, but we can fire him anytime we want"! In what world does that make sense?

Planet Oppositeville!

Seriously, Vici, you are correct and it is rarely discussed. The written contract the doctor signed allows AEG to terminate the doctor but, does NOT allow Michael to terminate him. That is dangerous when a third party is allowed to terminate your personal doctor. It is not acceptable only because AEG is the third party, the patient is Michael, and the plaintiffs share his last name.

AEG and Jacksons are disagreeing on how specific this particular risk should be. AEG's position has always been the "particular risk" is Propofol and Jacksons have always maintained a more general point of view to particular risk.

Ivy, Panish equated "particular risk" to "bad medical care" to Michael due to the doctor's conflicted interest (being beholden to AEG and not Michael).

Jorrie testified that she googled murray and told Phillips what she found out about him - clinics, licenses etc. That's what RP repeated. So they did check Murray out - by a google search and not a background check

Jorrie is not an AEG employee. AEG did not do any background check or any research on the doctor. Jorrie did a ten minute Google search which found two of the doctors' four offices (two were faux offices that she could not find).

 

[LastTear]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

@Tygger

Last Tear, Panish spoke to this concept about AEG knowing about propofol and how that relates to the trial and the verdict form questions. It is up to you if you are open to hearing that

I had promised myself that I wouldn't get into it with you anymore because we end up running around in circles, but I do just need to highlight 'concept' - I need evidence that AEG knew, at the time - not in hindsight.

 

[Tygger]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

@Tygger

I had promised myself that I wouldn't get into it with you anymore because we end up running around in circles, but I do just need to highlight 'concept' - I need evidence that AEG knew, at the time - not in hindsight.

I have no issues with you not agreeing with me. I have shown I have no issue with any poster disagreeing with my posts time and time again over several months.

I hope you find the answers you seek.

 

[Tygger]

Question No. 1
Did AEG Live hire Murray? Yes.

If you believe AEG solely or AEG and Michael hired the doctor, the answer is yes. The answer can only be no if Michael solely hired the doctor. There is NO evidence Michael hired the doctor on his own.

Question No. 2
Was Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired? Yes.

Panish stated the doctor can be unfit at anytime not only at the time of being hired. Michael needed a sleep professional and the negligent cardiologist was not qualified for this role.

Question No. 3
Did AEG Live know or should it have known that Murray was unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk to others? Yes.

Again, particular risk is “bad medical care” as per Panish and I am fine with this definition. The doctor was beholden to AEG and not Michael making him unfit to care for Michael. As per Panish. this conflict could result in “bad medical care” which is what AEG should have known NOT if Michael was receiving propofol.

Michael deteriorated under his incompetent administration of propofol among other substances the doctor gave him. When others complained to AEG (not to Michael or to the doctor, always to some AEG employee or agent which speaks to the doctor/AEG relationship) about Michael’s deterioration, AEG sought to quiet them as opposed to addressing the doctor.

Question No. 4: no need to answer as the defense has conceded to this question.

Question No. 5
Was AEG Live's negligence in hiring, supervising or retaining Murray a substantial factor in causing Michael Jackson and the Jackson plaintiffs' harm? Yes.

I found Panish’s direct connection to the use of lidocaine in May (Panish actually said May 6th) for use with propofol administration and the retroactive contract starting in May to be utterly stunning. Propofol cannot be given without lidocaine.

 

[LastTear]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I have no issues with you not agreeing with me. I hope you find the answers you seek.

And nor do I you. I'm glad for you that you have your answers and they fit - unfortunately for me this trial has not brought any closure but I guess it never would for the reasons we have discussed way back when.

The trial has changed one thing for me but for now I'm not ready to share because it may not come across in the right way at the moment.

 

[LastTear]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I would just like to make one thing clear although I think my opinions have been fairly clear, I will not be celebrating any win for any party.

 

[Korgnex]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

You know what I find sad? Fans labelling other fans as "AEG-supporters", "Estate-sponsored degenerates", "trolls", "defamers of the [holy] Jackson family [dynasty]", "illegitimate fans", "beLIEvers" etc. [I can't think of an insult for the other side because I haven't seen one.]

And when doing this these fans feel they would be doing this all for Michael. A weird logic.
If you know Michael that well, you'll remember this:

Before you judge me
try hard to love me

PREJUDICE IS IGNORANCE
Do NOT judge other fans without knowing them.
Do NOT practice compartmentalization.
That trial is just another thing (of many) that people should agree upon to differ. You cannot proclaim your individual opinion as objectively correct and go storm-shitting on everyone who disagrees.

I guess fans never come to piece about anything. Sad...
Everyone has its own opinion and everyone can come to a conclusion using one's own mind. Defaming fans for their opinion is utterly WRONG.
And no, I don't feel the need to add some childish random hashtag to tag my opinion.

I needed to say that.

 

[rsggamer123]

Question No. 1
Did AEG Live hire Murray? Yes.

If you believe AEG solely or AEG and Michael hired the doctor, the answer is yes. The answer can only be no if Michael solely hired the doctor. There is NO evidence Michael hired the doctor on his own.

Question No. 2
Was Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired? Yes.

Panish stated the doctor can be unfit at anytime not only at the time of being hired. Michael needed a sleep professional and the negligent cardiologist was not qualified for this role.

Question No. 3
Did AEG Live know or should it have known that Murray was unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk to others? Yes.

Again, particular risk is “bad medical care” as per Panish and I am fine with this definition. The doctor was beholden to AEG and not Michael making him unfit to care for Michael. As per Panish. this conflict could result in “bad medical care” which is what AEG should have known NOT if Michael was receiving propofol.

Michael deteriorated under his incompetent administration of propofol among other substances the doctor gave him. When others complained to AEG (not to Michael or to the doctor, always to some AEG employee or agent which speaks to the doctor/AEG relationship) about Michael’s deterioration, AEG sought to quiet them as opposed to addressing the doctor.

Question No. 4: no need to answer as the defense has conceded to this question.

Question No. 5
Was AEG Live's negligence in hiring, supervising or retaining Murray a substantial factor in causing Michael Jackson and the Jackson plaintiffs' harm? Yes.

I found Panish’s direct connection to the use of lidocaine in May (Panish actually said May 6th) for use with propofol administration and the retroactive contract starting in May to be utterly stunning. Propofol cannot be given without lidocaine.

You mean that jurors can answer yes to question one even if both MJ and AEG live hired Murray? Man I didn't think of it like that! Maybe AEG will be found liable!

 

[Vici]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

You mean that jurors can answer yes to question one even if both MJ and AEG live hired Murray? Man I didn't think of it like that! Maybe AEG will be found liable!

Yes, thats what Panish said yesterday... "Who hired him? AEG, Michael OR it could have been BOTH". "Did AEG AND MJ hire Dr Murray?",

Panish was overall better yesterday in his rebuttal and took many shots at AEG. He told AEG to make up their mind, at one point AEG is saying Michael requested Murray and on the other hand they say MJ never consented it.

 

[Vici]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Question No. 1
Did AEG Live hire Murray?

Yes / No

I believe there is a chance the jury will answer Yes.

Question No. 2
Was Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?

Yes / No

Yes

Question No. 2Question No. 3
Did AEG Live know or should it have known that Murray was unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk to others?

Yes / No

No. I dont believe that AEG knew.

Question No. 4
Did Murray's unfitness or incompetence harm Michael Jackson and the Jackson plaintiffs?

Yes / No

Yes

----

What if the jury decided something like this. They believe that AEG hired Murray, either solely or together with Michael but they answer NO to question 3 'Did AEG know or should have known Murray was unfit'. What will the outcome be? The Jacksons will lose?

 

[rsggamer123]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

after just viewing the full rebuttal I'm now totally split on what the verdict will be. If I was part of the jury I would be leaning towards yes to the most important question, did aeg hire Murray.

 

[Annita]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I believe there is a chance the jury will answer Yes.



Yes



No. I dont believe that AEG knew.



Yes

----

What if the jury decided something like this. They believe that AEG hired Murray, either solely or together with Michael but they answer NO to question 3 'Did AEG know or should have known Murray was unfit'. What will the outcome be? The Jacksons will lose?

If Jury answers the 3rd question with NO, like you did they will not go to question 4 or 5. I will be over and AEG is not liable. If they answers all 5 question with yes AEG is liable and they go further to damages etc.

 

[LastTear]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I believe there is a chance the jury will answer Yes.



Yes



No. I dont believe that AEG knew.



Yes

----

What if the jury decided something like this. They believe that AEG hired Murray, either solely or together with Michael but they answer NO to question 3 'Did AEG know or should have known Murray was unfit*. What will the outcome be?

But if you answer NO to any of those questions then it's game over. I still can't get past number 2, for me that is still a NO, inducing a coma is not general medical care.

Ivy, perhaps you could add something to this because I'm worried I'm looking at this question in a black or white sense. I'm answering NO without the use of hindsight plus I'm taking the term general medical needs literally, to be anaesthesia is a specialist profession.

after just viewing the full rebuttal I'm now totally split on what the verdict will be. If I was part of the jury I would be leaning towards yes to the most important question, did aeg hire Murray.

I don't think that is actually the most important question, AEG can hire Murray but still not be liable if the jury decides it wasn't negligently. The negligence is the most important question in my mind.

 

[Justthefacts]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

The third question IMO is the most important. And I think there is no way they would know something that was a secret. Michael didn't even tell Dr. Adams about it but wanted to hire him. Your medical care is between you and your doctor not the people who hire you.

 

[Mneme]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I have to say nothing in this thread und I would like when the General discussion opened again.

For me it would be more interesting when we would make a discussion about the contradictions between the witnesses and the contradictions between deposition and testimony on court.
We could together work on a timeline on the basis of the testimonies. And others more...


I know the courttransscripts are very expensive. On the other hand we have only fragments here and therefore we have not enough material for an objektiv judgment.
We should think about wheter we collect money and do a request to ivy for bying the scripts (maybe ivy could call a bankaccount for us so we can pay).

At All: What do you mean for that?

 

[ivy]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

First of all I recommend everyone to refer to the jury instructions while determining your answers. As you all know, jurors are supposed to follow the law while making their decisions

the verdict would of been chosen FAST. But knowing that in the two hours they did had not yet reached a verdict leaves me to believe that possibly they have answered YES to that question which therefore makes me think its more likely they have found AEG liable.

2 hours is too soon for anything. When they started deliberating, they needed to select a jury leader and determine a way to how they would deliberate. They are supposed to discuss first before they take any type of vote. It's not like they go there and say "let's vote". So my point is 2 hours is pretty short for anything.

Ivy, Panish equated "particular risk" to "bad medical care" to Michael due to the doctor's conflicted interest (being beholden to AEG and not Michael).

and I said that - Jacksons have always maintained a more general point of view to particular risk.

Jorrie is not an AEG employee. AEG did not do any background check or any research on the doctor. Jorrie did a ten minute Google search which found two of the doctors' four offices (two were faux offices that she could not find).

and I said that too.

What if the jury decided something like this. They believe that AEG hired Murray, either solely or together with Michael but they answer NO to question 3 'Did AEG know or should have known Murray was unfit'. What will the outcome be? The Jacksons will lose?

If you answered question 3 with a no, then you stop. it means AEG isn't liable.

for a win for Jacksons the jury need to answer first 5 questions as yes

Ivy, perhaps you could add something to this because I'm worried I'm looking at this question in a black or white sense. I'm answering NO without the use of hindsight plus I'm taking the term general medical needs literally, to be anaesthesia is a specialist profession.

refer to jury instructions for the law. what is Murray hired for and what is particular risk is going to be determined by the jury.

 

[mjjmsc]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I would answer Yes to the first five questions, but I would also answer positive to the last three: AEG hire Murray, Murray incompetence killed Michael, but Michael was an adult so he has his responsibility too...so I would probably rule in favor of the Jacksons, but I would award reduced damages...

 

[Justthefacts]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

And how would AEG know something that was between Michael and his doctor?

 

[Big Apple2]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Question No. 2
Was Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?

I'm gonna start with Question No. 2: what exactly was Murray "officially hired" to do?

Did the contract spell out what Murray's duties would have been?

 

[jaydom7]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

And how would AEG know something that was between Michael and his doctor?

by asking... Murray wanted $150,000 per month... my question would've been what exactly will you be doing that entails that much money? also since MJ was deemed 'fine and healthy' during his physical what the hell are you needed for? especially being a cardiologist for a man with no heart problems

 

[jaydom7]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I'm gonna start with Question No. 2: what exactly was Murray "officially hired" to do?

Did the contract spell out what Murray's duties would have been?

That's my issue.. AEG is a multi-billion dollar company and they were willing to pay a doctor $150,000 per month not even knowing what his duties would be? I would've been asking all kinds of questions if someone wanted a salary that high

 

[Big Apple2]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

by asking... Murray wanted $150,000 per month... my question would've been what exactly will you be doing that entails that much money? also since MJ was deemed 'fine and healthy' during his physical what the hell are you needed for? especially being a cardiologist for a man with no heart problems

But didn't AEG also stress that there were great doctors in London and that those London doctors would be cheaper then hiring Murray and schlepping him and the "instrument" (I'm sure she would be going also) all the way to London.

So I wouldn't exactly say that they didn't automatically agree with Michael choice's, but it's what Michael wanted and that's the bottom line.

You have the biggest star on the planet requesting that he bring his personal doctor along with him, what do you do?

 

[LastTear]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I'm gonna start with Question No. 2: what exactly was Murray "officially hired" to do?

Did the contract spell out what Murray's duties would have been?

General medical care.

by asking... Murray wanted $150,000 per month... my question would've been what exactly will you be doing that entails that much money? also since MJ was deemed 'fine and healthy' during his physical what the hell are you needed for? especially being a cardiologist for a man with no heart problems

By asking would be a true invasion of Michaels privacy rights. Would you like your employer to be given a run down on all your personal medical issues. Who better to take care of an athlete than a cardiologist?

 

[LastTear]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

That's my issue.. AEG is a multi-billion dollar company and they were willing to pay a doctor $150,000 per month not even knowing what his duties would be? I would've been asking all kinds of questions if someone wanted a salary that high

But that money is not coming out of their pockets, it doesn't effect them - its Michaels money.

 

[Big Apple2]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

That's my issue.. AEG is a multi-billion dollar company and they were willing to pay a doctor $150,000 per month not even knowing what his duties would be? I would've been asking all kinds of questions if someone wanted a salary that high

Were Murray's "duties" spelled out in the contract? That's my question.

Also, wasn't it Michael, himself, that said AEG should offer Murray $150,000.00 per month and wasn't that money going to be paid from Michael's share of the proceeds?