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

Final verdict

  • AEG liable

    Votes: 78 48.4%
  • AEG not liable

    Votes: 83 51.6%

  • Total voters
    161
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Ivy when the jury talk, can you ask the foreman if he could do a Q&A about question #1 or all of them?

or Q & A with Randy?
 
Dear Ivy
Thank you so much for all you have done for the Kat vs AEG Trial. I know you worked very hard to bring us all the information for over 5 months. Updating the news, doing the summaries and explaining legal matters etc etc. I'm very sad you have been attacked and vilified :( by certain factions of the fan base outside of MJJC as you were doing this for us. But you never gave up or quit on us. Please know how much you are loved and appreciated for all you do. :heart:

this sums it all up - thank you - so much it is very much appreciate and I've learned a lot about the american law.:flowers:

But sometimes the american law goes not conform with my feelings as a fan of Michael.:(

I hope now Michael may finally rest in peace.:angel:
 
Which reminds me we need to start a discussion thread about his release in Trials and Tribulations forum because we won't be continuing that discussion in here - Its a different Topic .. and this is perfect to start it out with

EX Dr. Murray will be released in a few weeks [Discussion Thread] His latest delusion
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...w-weeks-Discussion-Thread-His-latest-delusion

I agree qbee you are right.

Murray has lost it how can he fix his mouth to say that.
 
Jury foreman speech outside court.

video link : http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=9271553&pid=9271439

Foreman: As for the case this was a difficult decision for us to make, it wasn't easy for anyone. After all it took the tragic passing of tremendous father, son and brother for us to be even here. Of course nobody won at that.

We reached to a verdict that we understand that not everyone is going to agree with but the decision was reached after a very careful consideration of five months of testimony, thousands of documents and of course the guidance of the court. It's been an exhausting 5 months and it's been extremely stressful last 3 or 4 days so we would field a few questions.

Question: What made you think that Conrad Murray was competent?

Foreman: You have to read the question, the full question. The court gave us a series of questions to answer and in each question it did not just stop with "is Conrad Murray competent" , it went, it asked "was Conrad Murray competent for the job he was hired to do?". Okay? Conrad Murray was hired to be a general practitioner. 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. Now that does not mean we felt he was ethical. And maybe the word ethical been in the question, it could have been a different outcome but because it was "for the job he was hired to do" that's what we had to focus on.

Question: How many votes have you taken on question 1 and 2?Tell us a little about the process, how it worked?

Foreman: when we first entered the jury room after 5 months of being around each other and not being able to talk about it at all, we just felt like we had to let out some steam so we spent the first several hours letting out steam just talking about things and I think that was important for us to do. We took a vote on question 1 then we started discussing it and question 1 took us a long time and we did not reach that easily, there were several votes taken, mine was changed more than once, in the end we did agree 12 to 0 , that one was unanimous that we felt like Conrad Murray was hired by AEG, some people thought by both but the instructions were if he was hired by both then we had to say yes. So I would say overall on question 1 maybe we took 3 or 4 votes (jurors reply yes).

Question number 2 , you have to look to the wording of question number 2. we took a vote on that and right away we came out 12 to 0 with a no but we started looking at wording of it and realized everyone was not comfortable with that and it was end of yesterday we felt like we needed to come back this morning and discuss it more and that's what we did. We spent the morning clarifying the question in our minds and to each other and again votes changed, I would say at least 3 or 4 times before we were able to come to the final tally and the tally on that vote was 10 to 2 and it takes 9 to 3 to carry.

Question: Did the amount of attention this case has gotten put any pressure ... on your decision at all?

foreman : I will say no but some of my fellow jurors might want to answer that too.

(jurors agreeing that pressure did not influence them, no , absolutely not etc heard).

Question: (asking about question 2) you said it was 12 - 0 to start, which way?

Foreman: for a no answer

Question: Did the full jury understand not only the full question in number 2 and but also it's full effect on the bearing of this case?

Foreman: One of the jurors here, juror 11, after the vote she was very , she said do we understand the ramifications of this answer and we were very through in that respect. Everyone I believe understood the ramifications, and again that's why we went back and revisited it this morning.

Question: Your opinion not about this case but in general about the job Conrad Murray eventually come to do?

Foreman: In the end he was very unethical. He did something he should not have done but again if you read the question it did not refer to... it refer to the job he had to do- what he was hired for.

Juror 9 : If AEG had known what was going on behind closed doors , it would probably made a world of difference but they didn't. Michael Jackson was pretty used to getting his own way, he was a big star, he had all these doctors who wanted to be his doctor and he could pretty much get what he wanted and if anybody said "no", well they were out of the mix, he'd find somebody else. And all along we saw the same pattern going on, nobody could go up the stairs and see what was going on up there. and this was after Murray became his doctor and was hired by AEG concurrently. And how AEG could have done anything about it when they were kept in the dark?

Question: Was there any fights during deliberations?

Foreman: There were differing opinions but the conversation never got heated or loud but in case of arguments and getting personal nothing like that ever happened, no

Question: Murray's lawyer was in the courtroom and she let out a gasp when she heard no he wasn't unfit and incompetent. She then told me this was vindication of Conrad Murray. Do you see your verdict as a vindication of Conrad Murray and would you ever hire him as your doctor?

Foreman: Absolutely not. I don't see it as a vindication of Murray and no I would not hire him as my doctor. It's not a vindication again it was the way the question was worded , if the wording of that question was different the outcome could have been different but we had to focus on the wording of the question and go with the jury instructions.

Question: So do you say this was not a vindication of AEG Live either?

Foreman: We went by the jury instructions and the questions we were asked to answer and that's the verdict we came up with.

Question: What were the issues that you struggled with?

Foreman: Well the issue in the first question was obvious, who hired him. there were so many things said that Michael hired him, there were so many things said AEG hired him and that was a battle back and forth.

Question: Do you think the jury instructions put the jury in an awkward position?

Foreman: Not at all

Question: What kind of materials you have reviewed during deliberations? We know you asked for a ruler

Foreman: Those were things for individual jurors to use. But the things we reviewed were, we watched videos, sky news video we watched a couple times, we did see the "This is it", we reviewed a lot of emails, and the other exhibits. The contract. The contract was a biggie.

Question: What was the most difficult thing about this whole process?

Foreman: Each and every person had to answer that. For me it was stressful at the end trying to come up with a decision. I said this inside and I'll say it here, there are really no winners in this. As I said in the opening statement somebody had to die for us to be here. So there's really no winners. So we don't walk away thinking it was a victory for one side or another. It was really a tragic situation so that's probably the most difficult thing. I feel we made the correct decision.
 
@mjchris: Murray is an unethical doctor, however, of course he did have both the technical knowledge (thus being fit) and the licence to provide general medical care (thus being competent). That was a sore spot to Panish's case and that's why he lost.

His unethical actions were not relevant to that question and both Panish and Putnam were fully aware of the wording of that question as the questions were determined by both parties and affirmed by the judge. Panish knew too well he could lose if the jury understands the relation between these two terms and "the work he was hired for" part as plaintiffs have failed to prove that Murray was hired for some special treatment.

And regarding your first example:
Are you sure you would prefer to be found liable if you hire a doctor for treating your mother that kills her
a) if the doctor was fit and competent?
b) if you had no knowledge that the doctor was unfit or incompetent?

I think it's quite logical you should only be liable if you knew/should have known the doctor was unfit or incompetent for what you hired him for.

And about your second example:
mjchris said:
so everyone that wants to kill someone, hiring an doctor. the doctor kills the guy. and everything is ok.

That would be mediate perpetration through a human being as a cat's-paw. So nothing would be ok.
 
there is no evidence AEG didnt know what murray have done
What´s the evidence that tell us that AEG knew what happened in Michael´s bedroom?
 
Thamk Ivy you are the best beautiful job you did and you took the time to explain it.
 
jury foreman on nancy grace


GRACE: With me right now is the jury foreperson, Gregg Bater (ph). Thank you for being with us.

GREGG BARDEN, JURY FOREMAN: Hi.

GRACE: Excuse me, Greg Barden. Thank you, Mr. Barden, for being with us.

BARDEN: Hi, thank you.

GRACE: Well, Mr. Barden, you knew you were on a high profile trial. And you knew whatever the verdict was going to be would be controversial one way or the other.

I agree with the verdict. But I`m very surprised that it was actually rendered. Tell me the jury`s thinking. I mean, to say that Dr. Conrad Murray was fit when you know he`s in jail for a homicide charge for letting Michael Jackson die and pumping him full of propofol? Was the jury at all concerned that Michael Jackson`s family, particularly his father and the others, were sucking Jackson dry, and this was their last chance at money?

BARDEN: You know, that never came into our thought process at all. We really didn`t say that Conrad Murray was fit.

I guess you have to understand they didn`t just throw us in the room and say tell us was AEG liable or not. They gave us a series of guiding questions, and the first five questions we had to answer, which really broke it down for us.

And question two, it doesn`t stop at just saying was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent. It goes on to say, was he unfit or incompetent for the work which he was hired to do? He was hired to be a general practitioner for Michael Jackson. And to look at the definition of fit and competent, he -- all his licenses were intact. He had gone to a legitimate school. He had passed all of his doctor board exams. So he was fit and competent to be a general practitioner was the way we felt.

Now, was he unethical? You bet you, because he went beyond what he was supposed to be. So maybe had the word unethical been in there as opposed to unfit, I think the decision could`ve gone the other way.

GRACE: So you believe -- the jury believed that Dr. Conrad Murray, who is sitting behind bars right now for pumping Michael Jackson full of propofol until he died, you believe that doctor is fit to practice medicine?

BARDEN: No. He was fit at the time that he was hired as a general practitioner.

What we know now in hindsight, absolutely not. He was unethical. I certainly wouldn`t hire him as my doctor. But at the time, he was fit. Nobody knew that he was unethical and would pump Michael Jackson full of propofol.

GRACE: One of his doctors. We`re getting a flood of e-mails and twitters about Conrad Murray, how long had he known Michael Jackson? So the bottom line is, he had been Michael Jackson and the Jackson family doctor for over three years.

Out to jury foreperson Greg Barden. Again, thank you for being with us.

You were saying earlier that the jury found Conrad Murray fit to be a doctor. That no one knew he was pumping Jackson full of propofol. Is that the standard in your mind whether people believed he was fit, because they didn`t know what he was doing?

BARDEN: Well, at the time that he was hired, he was fit. He had, like I said, he had the licenses. He was -- had no complaints against him. He certainly had no malpractice lawsuits. You could have checked him out six ways to Sunday and there were no complaints there. So at the time, you know, looking backwards now, of course you realize that when you know he was pumping him full of propofol, you know now that he wasn`t. But at the time, all signs pointed to the fact that --

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Oh, you`re saying -- wait a minute. I think I get it, Greg. Are you saying that AEG at the time they hired him had no reason to know he was unfit?

BARDEN: Right. And there was -- you know, Nancy, there was not one shred of evidence presented over five months to back up the fact that AEG could have known Conrad Murray was doing that.
 
Thanks,Ivy,for the speech transcription.
News were offering bits&pieces,but it's easier to get the full picture with the Q&A in order.

Again,I may have a different point of view,but I understand the basis of their decision.
 
Attorneys for Katherine Jackson released the following statement on her behalf:

"AEG has denied for years, and continues to deny, that they hired Dr. Conrad Murray. The jury found unanimously that AEG hired Dr. Murray. AEG has repeated the mantra that this lawsuit was a shakedown. Such a statement is a slap in the face of the entire judicial system that allowed this case to get to a jury. We have said from the beginning that this case was a search for the truth. We found the truth. AEG hired Dr. Conrad Murray, the man who is in jail for killing Michael Jackson. All options regarding the balance of the jury verdict are being considered."
 
Michael Jackson’s Life Was Trashed for No Reason Thanks to Family
http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/10/0...fe-was-trashed-for-no-reason-thanks-to-family
10/03/13 1:17am Roger Friedman

Well, that’s it. If there are any more skeletons in Michael Jackson’s closet even I would be surprised. Thanks to his family’s single minded effort to get his money, Michael’s whole life was trashed in public for no reason. His finances, personal life, peccadilloes, love life, marriages, parenting skills, and drug abuse have all been laid open to inspection.

And what was accomplished? Nothing. We know now what we knew before: Michael was the architect of his own demise. He hired a bad doctor who needed money and was vulnerable. He did what Michael asked. And he wound up killing him. The doctor went to jail for a short time. Soon he’ll be out. He’ll write a book, get publicity, and move on.

What won’t be changed is Michael Jackson’s musical legacy. Tonight in some club a deejay will put on “Don’t Stop Til You Get Enough” and everyone will dance. The music will never end.

But that’s it for Michael’s siblings’ quest for his money. There will be no Rolls Royces or big houses or fancy clothes. The Jacksons will have to keep touring and playing casinos and state farms. Randy Jackson will have to get a job. There will be no more kidnappings of grandma. Joseph Jackson has finally been stopped. Katherine will have to say no when relatives come to her for money.

What a crazy, long trip this has been. Four years, three months, and a few days since Michael Jackson died, he can finally be put to rest.

What’s next? Who’s going to pay that legal bill for Brian Panish, et al? This will not be pretty.
 
Taj's pathetic tweet about his family not finding closure? LMAO,! (What the heck does Taj do anyway. ? He clearly isnt a real film producer/director unless anyone takes Code Z serious. I havent seen him work since 1996)
How about his family failing to do the right thing? seeking restitution against the guy who killed Michael?! If Michael meant half as much as they all claim he did, they would have gone after his killer relentlessly. For Katherine to have the audacity to decide for Michael's children whether or not they want to pursue restitution or not, is beyond selfish especially when you consider her reasons not to do so. She gambled and lost and I am glad she did. Those children are the ultimate loser's, apart from Michael. I am glad Michael got to experience the kind of unconditional love his kids gave him, I truly believe they were the only ones who loved him unconditionally, sure his mother loved him as well but there is no denying that she also saw him as a meal ticket, and quiet frankly she loved his money more- after all he was her very own ATM. Rest in Peace sweet angel, you won again, you surpassed them in life and once again showed them in death. As for Friedbrain calling out Randy, wasn' t Steven one of his sources back in 2007 when he was doing his weekly updates on how hooked MJ was on drugs? And LMAO @ HIM painting Murray as the victim.
 
Last edited:
fyi - if you pay attention to jury comments (jury 6 at nancy grace and jury 9 outside court) it is obvious to me that even if this jury answered yes to question 2, they would have answered no to question 3. It doesn't look like they were sold on the "AEG known or should have known" part.
 
I'm very angry about the verdict now, it makes me more miserable.
 
MIST;3913318 said:
What´s the evidence that tell us that AEG knew what happened in Michael´s bedroom?

Michael's obvious physical and mental deterioration weeks before his passing, despite having a personal doctor for 150,000 $ a month
 
Let me correct some misinformation:

Charles Thomson said:
According to the AEG jury foreperson's logic, outlined outside the court yesterday, Harold Shipman was also 'fit and competent'. [Thomson is making that analogy]

They said [Murray] was 'fit and competent' because he had a license and went to medical school. That's what the foreman said yesterday.

By that logic, no qualified doctor can ever be unfit or incompetent.

Harold Shipman was a serial killer. Thomson's analogy doesn't work for various reasons:
  • A serial killer is mentally ill, thus not being "competent" to work as a doctor.
  • The fact that a serial killer might still have a license is irrelevant, it does not reverse his dangerousness.
  • A serial killer would not lose his technical knowledge but any legal prerequisites like a license are no longer of any relevance to determine "competence", a serial killer is shut off from society for obvious reasons.

Thomson claims that it would be totally impossible to consider a qualified doctor to be unfit or incompetent. That's utterly wrong:
  • qualification is relevant to determine "competence" - as I explained earlier.
  • fitness has nothing to do with qualification, fitness is all about having (and being able to conduct) the technical knowledge, eg there are doctors that managed to obtain a certain license but who are lacking the required skill(s) for the work they have been hired for, these doctors are "unfit"
  • see above example with Shipman that would still lead to "incompetent"


Thomson isn't understanding the jury's verdict at all:
Charles Thomson said:
The juror currently ranting on TV has just proved that the panel had absolutely no idea what this case was even about.

He is ranting that AEG couldn't have known about propofol. That is utterly irrelevant - and jurors were instructed that it was irrelevant.

It was the Jacksons' lawyer who specifically instructed the jurors that the issue this man is ranting about was irrelevant.

No comment.
 
Last edited:
My Thoughts on Kathrine Jackson vs. AEG verdict:


I may get a little bit of heat for saying this, but I’m glad it is finally over. I feel strongly that Kathrine and the rest of the family should move on with their lives, that way Michael’s kids can have peace and continue to grow and learn. I want the children to be able to have a normal, happy , and stable transation into adulthood.


While I’m glad Kathrine was able to show AEG’s true colors of how they treated Michael, I feel that the kids did not need to be involved. Because of this, they will have to deal with the press a lot more than ever before.
My love, prayers and support goes out to Prince, Paris, Blanket, The MJ fan base and Michael’s close friends. May this close the door and let another one opens so we can all heal from everything that has happened
 
You know, this verdict makes sense actually. I'm glad Katherine didn't win, because she obviously didn't care for Michael either.
What I'm not understanding though, is why in God's name she didn't seek restitution against Murray? He's the one who killed her son. Yeah, AEG was responsible too, but they didn't walk out on their patient to go talk on a phone.

The love of money is ridiculous, and I'd like to give Randy's big head a slap for telling Katherine to do this.
 
She didnt seek restitution against Murray because her lawyers told her doing so would minimize any damages she'd get from a possible lawsuit win against AEG. She chose to opt for AEG because she was after the big $$ not tiny $$. What could Murray possibly offer her.? A couple of $$? That's not what she wanted, she was after millions of $$ if not billions and she went after whoever had it, in this case AEG. She gambled and lost and it serves her right.

I am convinced the psychopath of a son of hers (Steven Randall) is on the verge of exploding. He will definitely go try to go after the Estate again.
Wonder who will fund the greasy one's hotel now?
 
Last edited:
She didnt seek restitution against Murray because her lawyers told her doing so would minimize any damages she'd get from a possible lawsuit win against AEG. She chose to opt for AEG because she was after the big $$ not the tiny $$. What could Murray possibly offer her.? A couple of $$? That's not what she wanted, she was after millions of $$ if not billions and she went after whoever had it, in this case AEG. She gambled and lost and it serves her right.

I am convinced the psychopath of a son of hers (Steven Randall) is on the verge of exploding. He will definitely go try to go after the Estate again.

Oh boy, here we go again, when will Randy learn to shut up?!? This is just too much...:doh:
 
Since 1993 the MJ fan base has had to deal with many tribulations in support of our beloved Michael. There were times when it wasn’t easy being a Michael Jackson fan, but we remained loyal and strong, building on the strength of each other. But through each and every challenge we all knew where to stand ---beside our Michael and against those who wished to harm or destroy him (including the ultimate destroyer, Conrad Murray). This is the very first time we as the MJ family have been out there on our own. There was no “Michael’s side” to stand on.

There are sure to be other challenges ahead. The road will not always be easy in the coming months and years. There are those who were just waiting for this trial to end in order to begin their attack. We as “soldiers” for the love of Michael must come together and heal in order to be strong enough to fight for Michael in the future.

I have my opinions about the civil suit just like everyone else in MJ fan base. But my opinion doesn’t matter. Conrad Murray told Matt Lauer via a telephone interview on the Today show this morning that as soon as he gets out of jail in a few weeks he will come on the show.

Let’s begin to build strategies for dealing with what is ahead.
We miss you Michael, oh how we miss you.
 
Murray was well qualified to provide general health care. that's a fact. it's not a question of interpretation.
For the second time passy it's a question of interpretating q 2, not a 'fact'.

Barden repeatedly referred to questions, calling them confusing and saying the group wrangled with the language. "There were several votes taken, minds were changed more than once."
Q2 wasn't unanimous, it was 10-2 split. If you say that q 2 was factually based purely on murray being licensed and not having killed anyone before mj - those are indisputed facts, the plaintiffs never alleged otherwise. So for you the trial was a slam dunk, there was simply no way a jury cd not have found murray competent - so why was there a trial? And why did aeg spend so much of their case on trashing mj and his doctor shopping, his pres drug abuse, his lack of success in his later career and put forward an affirmative defence that mj's death was down to his own negligence not down to who negligently hired murray. Your absolute confidence that murray was 'fit and competent' didn't seem to be shared by the court or by aeg. It was left to the jury to decide and interpret as they saw fit.

korgnex said:
If Murray was hired for general medical care, him causing manslaughter of MJ wouldn't make him unfit or incompetent for performing the work for which he was hired. However I think, like you, some jurors also might not know these legal terms here:
"unfit" means Murray was not skilled for the particular work he was hired (eg technical knowledge)
"incompetent" means Murray was missing a legal prerequisite for the particular work he was hired (a qualification).
Why wd jurors know what your legal terms for fitness and competence are? If they were necessary for them to reach their decision they wd be in the jury instructions. Are they in as i didn't see them. If they're not in, the jurors wd just use what they regard as their own interpretation of these words, not yours.
 
Last edited:
^^ Did Matt offer for Murray to come to the show, or did Murray volunteer? And if Murray volunteered, did Lauer reject or accept the offer?

And I agree that we need to be proactive as opposed to reactive. We need to make it clear that treating Murray like a celebrity, instead of a criminal, is disgraceful and unacceptable.
 
My biggest fear is that he will be treated as a celebrity after all he he took down Michael Jackson. Many tried just that but in vain, including the media. I pray to God that common sense will prevail and people will not treat him as a hero. He took a human beings life he shouldn't be rewarded for that.
 
I am disappointed in the outcome. I am sure Conrad Murray was a good doctor for everyday medical needs. But so was Harold Shipman (Americans who do not know Shipman was a English doctor who killed numerous of his patients) But he is in jail for homicide I hear he is due out next month. He should serve his whole sentence. Hope he never practises again. He should not be allowed to write a book on the subject. How many out there would pay for this. I think the wording of the jury form should have been different. Maybe and appeal. Anyway, AEG are an arrogant bunch and don't deserve to win!
 
^^ Did Matt offer for Murray to come to the show, or did Murray volunteer? And if Murray volunteered, did Lauer reject or accept the offer?

And I agree that we need to be proactive as opposed to reactive. We need to make it clear that treating Murray like a celebrity, instead of a criminal, is disgraceful and unacceptable.

End of interview...
Matt: Dr. Murray we will look forward to talking to you hopefully when you get our of jail in a couple of weeks. We thank you for your time this morning.

Murray: I look forward to speaking with you, I'd like to have a conversation in its entirety when I get out.

Matt: Ok, we look forward to it.


Not sure if this link for interview will work:
http://www.today.com/video/today/53173679#53173679
 
Why wd jurors know what your legal terms for fitness and competence are? If they were necessary for them to reach their decision they wd be in the jury instructions. Are they in as i didn't see them. If they're not in, the jurors wd just use what they regard as their own interpretation of these words, not yours.

These are not my definitions, these are legal definitions that apply to international law in various countries.
Does this answer your question?
Greg Barden (jury foreman) said:
[...] And to look at the definition of fit and competent [...]
 
Last edited:
wednesday;3913376 said:
Michael's obvious physical and mental deterioration weeks before his passing, despite having a personal doctor for 150,000 $ a month

It could have been something Klein gave him, it could have been mentally(just like Ortega thought)
In the Murray trial experts couldn´t say why Michael was so much better his last rehearsals, it was possible it had nothing to do with drugs it could have been mentally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top