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

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

^ Well he allowed recordings of things that we would have to assume (I say assume because we can't truthfully say KNOW) that Michael would never want out.. Like shmuley recordings or much footage with tape on his nose, which at one point went out of his way to make sure his nose was blurred out in a documentary!! Michael had film fallowing him documenting virtually everything/always. He did not expect all that footage to be seen..

Side note: There is no question that the jury would be so dumb to think the footage is not edited to make MJ look better.. Shoot, in all honesty if I edited it I would make him look the best he can look. it's common sense. I personally think that the 100 hours of footage should have been brought in by force to show the jury!!

Im ready for this verdict.. Come on

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

mdiegee210 said:

I just hope the jurors are smart enough to know that AEG would EDIT out the parts when Michael was sick. And only show footage of his best rehearsals.

Click to expand...

Murray's lawyers couldn't find any footage where MJ looks sick when they watched over 100 hours of unedited footage. One of them made the comment " Even on his bad days he's good".

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

jaydom7 said:

so is watching TII, good for Katherine or good for AEG??

Click to expand...

TII, good for both sides. I did not rush to the theatre to see TII because of the drug addicted, feeble Michael the Jacksons and media were pushing. I was so relieved that was not the case i saw TII 13 more times.

The jurors will get a glimpse of the real MJ. Speaking with his natural voice and all. And i dare say will be quite sympathetic.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

There is a lot of footage on the cutting room floor. And I am speaking about the people who saw MJ and was concern about MJ's health.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

it's not likely at all that we'll see any of the unseen footage in the future at all, AEG will not allow it after being held at court like this. you really think they would allow releases of these thing's after this trial? come on, it's common sense. and as to The final verdict, it could go either way. Panish proved that Phillips said he hired Murray to work on the Tour. there, Phillips should have known how bad of a state Michael was in on the 19th.. I was confused about him being close to 100% on June 20th when they said it :/ speaking realistically about this is it footage, and it's Just in hope that AEG Will be found liable.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Jury has gone home for the day. NO VERDICT yet. They deliberated for 4 hours and a half today. Total of 6 and a half hours so far.

One of the jurors requested next Monday off. So deliberation resumes on Tuesday at 9:30 am PT.

"Only nine jurors will be needed to reach a verdict in the Michael Jackson wrongful-death trial, a case that will answer the question of whether one of the nation’s largest concert promoters is responsible for the pop stars’ overdose death as he prepared for a comeback tour in 2009.
Unlike a criminal trial, in which all 12 jurors must agree on a verdict, only nine are need in a civil case".

Had no idea. I thought it had to be unanimous verdict. There are 12 jurors in this case too but only 9 need to agree the same.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...deliberates-20130927,0,885308.story?track=rss

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Michael Jackson trial: More about the jurors
Friday, September 27, 2013
Miriam Hernandez

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES (KABC) -- The jury in the Michael Jackson wrongful death trial was behind closed doors on Friday conducting its first full day of deliberations.

Jurors have 80 days of testimony to debate. Through court documents, they have disclosed their top priorities. They elected juror No. 6 as the foreperson, a married high school physical education teacher who lives in downtown Los Angeles.

The jurors have requested two pieces of evidence: Dr. Conrad Murray's independent contractor agreement and a DVD copy of the "This Is It" documentary, which portrayed Jackson during the time his family's attorneys say his health was deteriorating.

"They're going to be looking to see what the defense has said for them to look for, is that Michael Jackson was performing very well just before his death," said legal analyst Barry Edwards.

Jackson attorney Brian Panish urged jurors in closing arguments to dismiss the movie because it was AEG that helped produce it, showing Jackson in the best light. As for Murray's contract, it would be the centerpiece of any argument dealing with the first question on the verdict form: Did AEG Live hire Dr. Conrad Murray?

About the foreperson, some Jackson fans have had questions about him. Two wrote a letter of complaint to the judge, which was later submitted into evidence. The fans asserted that the juror had noticeable eye contact with a female AEG lawyer. Fans interpreted it as flirting, but the judge did not.

"The judge did nothing with regards to the complaint and I don't believe there is much importance that can be placed on that by a third party against this juror," said Edwards.

The jurors who will decide this case are:

- Juror No. 1: A white female banker who lives in downtown Los Angeles

- Juror No. 2: A female triage nurse

- Juror No. 3: A t-shirt print businessman from West Los Angeles

- Juror No. 4: A Hispanic female customer service representative for AT&T from Whittier

- Juror No. 5: A female software engineer for JPL from Highland Park

- Juror No. 6: A white male high school physical education teacher

- Juror No. 7: A black female UCLA clinical research coordinator from Westchester

- Juror No. 8: An Asian male who works for Baxter Health Care

- Juror No. 9: A retired civil engineer

- Juror No. 10: A black male retired metal worker

- Juror No. 11: A white female retired UCLA cancer researcher

- Juror No. 12: A male DWP employee from East Los Angeles

Edwards says it's an educated and attentive group.

"Certainly they were taking a lot of notes and they were listening to the testimony quite clearly, and I think that's important to both sides," said Edwards

The jury has Monday off. They will resume deliberations on Tuesday.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/entertainment&id=9265378

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Question 3 is tricky "Did AEG know or should have known..."

Obviously they had no clue of the propofol and I believe everything was Ok at the beginning (April & May minus press conference). It wasnt till the last 2-3 weeks before MJ passed when people first started to alert AEG that something was wrong with him; Kennys email, missing rehearsals, rambling, not ready vocally, having colds, losing weight etc.

How are the jury even gonna answer this question when these things happened successive. At the "end", yes perhaps AEG should have suspected Murray but it seems things were going fine up until then with no complaints.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Did MJ also rehearse Thriller on the 23rd/24th? I think he was wearing the same clothes as in Earth Song.

Anyone know who the 2 fans were who sent the letter re Juror #6?

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

jamba said:

Did MJ also rehearse Thriller on the 23rd/24th? I think he was wearing the same clothes as in Earth Song.

Anyone know who the 2 fans were who sent the letter re Juror #6?

Click to expand...

Yes he did do Thriller the new one 3D on June 24 and yes he had on that outfit i watch it tonight.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Ivy i was just getting ready to ask that question did AEG play a part in produce the DVD This Is It.

Now i see what Putnam want the jury to see that Michael was fine the DVD was edit so the bad parts was tooking out.

I just watch it tonight but there is still i fews things that i notice that Michael did forget things some of the words to his songs, his moves like Panish said Michael didn't do his icon move in the Bille Jean song the 360 turn where Michael is on his tip toes he also had a hard time in hearing the words in his ears he felt like somebody was pushing their fist down his ear.


If the jury saw what i saw then their can see that Michael was having a problems.

Maybe Michael didn't take P on those two days that would explain it imo

Imo i think AEG should have check to make sure Michael was okay i know Michael said he was okay and Murray said Michael was okay but Kenny was telling AEG something was wrong on June 19 so after the meeting everything is fine until that night Michael when home and like Putnam said 12 hr later Mr Jackson was dead



I just feel it was to soon for the DVD to come out in the first place but AEG felt this was the last time that the fans would see Michael on stage for the last time. and for Putnam to tell the jury to look at the DVD.

It is just so sad i hope this is over soon no need to guess because who know how this jury will go we just have to wait see what the verdict will be.

Zakk;3910192 said:

it's not likely at all that we'll see any of the unseen footage in the future at all, AEG will not allow it after being held at court like this. you really think they would allow releases of these thing's after this trial? come on, it's common sense. and as to The final verdict, it could go either way. Panish proved that Phillips said he hired Murray to work on the Tour. there, Phillips should have known how bad of a state Michael was in on the 19th.. I was confused about him being close to 100% on June 20th when they said it :/ speaking realistically about this is it

Click to expand...

AEG no longer has rights or owns the TII footage. They sold the footage to Sony for $60 million in July 2009 before the TII Movie was released. They have no say on what is or is not released. The MJ Estate and Sony will decide what, when and if it wil be released for future projects.

Sony buys rights to Jackson's final rehearsal footage

Aug 5, 2009 edition. Behind the ScenesFinal Footage: Sony Pictures is finalizing a deal to acquire rehearsal footage from Michael Jackson’s This Is It concert run, with hopes of releasing it in theaters just in time for Halloween, according to Variety. Sony reportedly is paying close to $60 million for the 80 hours of rehearsal footage shot at Staples Center in Los Angeles. The footage currently is owned by AEG Entertainment, who were promoting Jackson’s run of 50 shows at London’s O2 Arena. “High School Musical” director Kenny Ortega, who shot the rehearsal footage, will reportedly also sort through it to assemble the film, which Sony plans on having in theaters on October 30.
http://dev.little.am/frostillustrated.com/full.php-sid=6192.html

Click to expand...

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Will Sony show more footage of This It It in the future? There was plan to do but sense this trial came up maybe that will not happen now.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Korgnex said:

None of those examples have anything to do with the "doctor-patient relationship": You're mixing up the draft agreement about advancing Michael the money for Murray and Michael's separate tour contract with AEG Live about the concerts which is the reason why they interacted with Michael (and obviously, if there was a doctor, you'd talk to him, too).

Click to expand...

... what underlines that AEG was no way in the role or acted like a bank usually does... well at least to me.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

So when is the verdict , does anyone know?

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

8701girl said:

So when is the verdict , does anyone know?

Click to expand...

no one can know how long a jury will take to deliberate.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

With so much money at stake, it's understandable that the legal teams for both sides were extremely thorough in their arguments. Omg! spoke with TV legal analyst Darren Kavinoky, a criminal defense attorney at The Kavinoky Law Firm in California (which is not involved with this case), who's also the creator and host of "Deadly Sins" on Investigation Discovery.

"Both sides had strong moments, and certainly offered enough evidence and argument to allow jurors to hang their hats on to support aligning with one outcome or the other," he explains.

"The plaintiff side won the emotional battle. The well-orchestrated home movies and concert footage of Michael struck a strong emotional chord and reminded everyone of the loss suffered.

"The defense did an excellent job of appealing to left brains, and certainly anyone who feels that Michael's decisions were the sole cause of his death will find ample support.

"What could be the most troubling piece of evidence for the defense is the smoking gun email chain where an AEG exec is emphatic in wanting to remind Dr. Murray that he works for them. It wouldn't surprise me to hear jurors tell us that this was the item that tipped the scales in Jackson's favor.

So, What's Next?: It's hard to say definitively. "Cases are won or lost in jury selection," Kavinoky notes. "Either side may have a tremendously strong case, but if the audience isn't receptive to hearing it, their pleas will fall on deaf ears."

What will it mean if the jury comes back quickly, or conversely, takes a long time in their deliberations?

"In this case, a fast verdict favors the defense. The verdict form itself contains 16 separate questions for the jurors to answer, but if they answer 'no' to any of the first five, which all concern AEG's liability, that brings an end to the discussion and the defense wins. It is only if liability is established that the jurors would go on to calculate damages or concern themselves with comparative negligence, reducing the award by whatever percentage they deem Michael to have been responsible for his own death."

And what could the impact be for both sides?

"A loss for AEG is a business setback for a multibillion dollar concern. As bad as that may be for the stakeholders in that uber profitable enterprise, it pales in comparison to what a loss would mean emotionally to the Jackson kids."

http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/celeb-ne...-michael-jackson-estate-vs-aeg-031905783.html

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

8701girl said:

So when is the verdict , does anyone know?

Click to expand...

No one knows. Not even the Jury. could be hours once they go back or days before they reach a verdict. They don't go back into deliberation again until tuesday because a juror needs Mon off.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

StellaJackson said:

No it was the 23rd. It wasn't rehearsed on the 24th. I though Petra meant the 24th because she said 12 hours.

Also, the song is called "They Don't Care About Us". There is no "really" in the title. Sorry but that's one of my pet peeves.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see..and really? My mom just told me the same thing about the song title..woopsy :blush:

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I still don't understand how any corporation could "hire" a medical doctor and be held responsible for that doctor's on-the-job performance without having direct expertise in the medical field. How could they possibly vette that doctor beyond what's customarily available in a background check. Murray checked out and 5 medical boards confirmed his credentials and areas of specialty.

Should AEG lose this case and it's upheld on appeal, this likely will impact the way concert promoters & corporations sub-contract services and consider their liability exposure. And, maybe the medical boards need to say...if there's any conflict of interest involving a doctor, it's the doctor's responsibility to walk away and honor the Hippocratic Oath. Otherwise, the doctor is sanctioned. Doctors are let off the hook in these shady circumstances when the bar should be set so much higher.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Crillon I agree. If AEG is held liable then AEG is being asked to do more checks when hiring a doc than the hospitals do. Hospitals/clinics/companies don't check their doctors financial background. They look for credentials, license, child abuse clearance, complaints/sanctions/criminal activity. The mere fact that Muarry still had his license suggests that there was nothing reported that would show he was an unfit doc to do general medicine. It seems to me that if AEG has to do more then all entities hiring doctors have to do the same.

I won't be surprised if AEG brings up these points in an appeal.

I see some are saying AEG only show the good footage, but don't forget Muarry's team looked at all the original footage that was filmed and found nothing to use in their defense. The only thing I remember about doctoring the footage was when Karen said they wanted her to make him look less thin and she declined. Another witness said they did not want to include the footage with the red jacket, but they did since the red jacket footage is in TII. In hindsight, it is a good thing they did not because we have a true picture of how he looked.

aeg is the victim of ... and they will ... this ... wrongful death case

... fill in the blanks/ replace the ellipses with your own opinion.

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!

Click to expand...

Rsggamer123, as Vici said, yes!

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

Click to expand...

Ivy, yes you did however, I wanted to clarify it as I do not know how many posters had the chance to review the rebuttal.

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

and I said that too.

Click to expand...

Ivy, no you did not. What you said is above. “They” did not vet the doctor at all as “they” is AEG. Their outside counsel, Jorrie, did a ten minute Google search which was utterly inappropriate in my view. If others find it sufficient, that’s their view.

LastTear;3909924 said:

Although the jury questions does not include 'general medical care' it does include 'for work for which he was hired' - if I was asked that question I would first need to establish the job description before I could answer.

Click to expand...

Last Tear, therein lies the dilemma. Some prefer to rely on the written contract and somehow enforce it as it would absolve AEG. It can be relied on however; it is not reality. The doctor did not performed actions as per the contract. His actions are outside of the boundaries of the written contract. If he is outside those boundaries by his actions, how do I reduce him back to the confines of the the contract? I cannot and I am confused how others are able to.

From May to June 2009 (the employment contract last only two months for those who believe it is enforceable), the doctor’s actions proved he was not giving Michael general care. The doctor did specialist work that he was not capable of doing as Michael deteriorated under the doctor’s continued incompetence. AEG was alerted to that deterioration and they sought to silence those who sounded those alarms.

The jury will have to make a decision on that question. We shall see how they decide.

Korgnex;3909903 said:

AEG Live did what your bank does: payment through AEG Live (Michael must pay later) ~ payment through your bank (you must pay later)
[Michael's tour contract with AEG Live about the concerts is the reason why they interacted with Michael (and obviously, if there was a doctor, you'd talk to him, too).]

Click to expand...

Korgnex, that analogy, which the defense and AEG employees repeated, is incorrect.

When anyone pays their doctor with their credit card, the credit card company has no idea who that doctor is or if it is truly a doctor at all. The credit card company is not concerned with the credit card holder’s health and has no relationship whatsoever with the doctor. The credit card company only wants repayment of the advance.

AEG inserted themselves into the doctor-patient relationship when the doctor was not paid with an advance as Klein was. They had a relationship with the doctor and assigned tasks/responsibility to him for their benefit not Michael’s. AEG also could terminate the doctor, not Michael. No one’s credit card company does that.

There is no precedent that established a cash-stricken person would automatically provide substandard work.

Click to expand...

No there is not. It is determined on a case by case basis. In this case, Michael received sub-standard care, he passed under that care, and the doctor was convicted in criminal trial as a result of that care.

The draft agreement(s) and any oral agreement are various versions of one and the same contract.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. The doctor was tasked to get Michael to rehearsal. That responsibility does not appear in the written contract however; it does appear in an AEG email and was communicated to the doctor as he understood it to be his responsibility.

As you, Tygger, can only go with the oral agreement theory (no final contract with MJ's signature and you don't want to go with the draft agreement, obviously because it explicitely states "general medical care"), you're facing this issue:

If you want to assume an oral agreement that includes AEG Live as an employer(!), this agreement CANNOT differ from the "general medical care" specification without substantial evidence to suggest AEG Live hired Murray for "something else" - plaintiffs haven't provided any evidence to suggest this.

Click to expand...

The written contract was not signed so it is not enforceable. AEG stated this ad nauseum however, they would prefer the jurors focus on the written contract as opposed to the implied contract which relied on verbal clues and actions of the parties involved. You are assuming the oral contract that relies on verbal clues and actions must be a match to the written contract and I showed that is not true simply with the rehearsal task the doctor was given.

I will take the written contract for sake of discussion. The contract was to be enforceable on May 1st I assume. (I am using memory here so please correct me if I am incorrect.) In the written contract, the doctor is hired as a general practitioner for Michael as the patient by a third party, AEG or if anyone prefers, Michael and AEG who would still be the third party.

According to Panish, early May is when the doctor administers propofol to Michael using lidocaine cream. The doctor moves to liquid lidocaine in early June as Michael most likely complained about the pain at the injection site that the cream did not control. (Maybe this is what Michael referred to when he wrote his note the doctor had to practice.) Regardless of whether the doctor ordered propofol in April and/or Michael had his own stash in his bedroom; it could not be administered without lidocaine.

That happened without question. Where does this factual scenario fall into the written contract that is not enforceable because it has only one signature?

Nowhere.

So, is the written contract still enforceable?

Only if we can invoke the indemnity clause so that the third party, AEG, who did not sign the contract, can be found not liable of the actions of the doctor the employment contract sought to employ. This way AEG can say they did not hire the doctor however, they can still be protected by the employment contract that did not hire the doctor.

I will add: I did not suggest AEG hired the doctor to administer propofol, aka, "something else." By hiring the doctor, they placed him in a conflicting position where he was beholden to his employer before his patient. As a poster said previously (my apologies for not remembering the poster's screen name), the doctor knew Michael was not well and could not decide what the issue was (which speaks to his incompetence). Regardless of Michael not feeling well, he was not going to step down from his position as Michael's "general care giver" as he would not collect the $150K fee it promised.

Testimony has shown the doctor did not want Dr. Adams, a professional anesthesiologist, to join Michael on tour as it would interfere with his $150K fee. If Michael was his primary concern, would the doctor not step aside, or share his fee with Dr. Adams or do whatever was necessary to get a competent person in place? Is it more clear now that the doctor was conflicted?

That is what the plaintiffs are saying; the conflicted interest placed Michael in danger. The plaintiffs are not saying by hiring the doctor, AEG should have known the doctor would administer propofol.

Re: aeg is the victim of ... and they will ... this ... wrongful death case

Is this thread really necessary?
Should we do another thread but replace AEG with Jackson's?

@Tygger,

Ivy, no you did not. What you said is above. “They” did not vet the doctor at all as “they” is AEG. Their outside counsel, Jorrie, did a ten minute Google search which was utterly inappropriate in my view. If others find it sufficient, that’s their view.

Click to expand...

A bit nit picky here, 'their outside council' if AEG retained Jorrie then Jorrie is included under the umbrella of 'they'. A google search does sound blasé but IMO when researching a doctor you would need to find out if there had been any medical misconduct - that to me is fundamental.

Last Tear, therein lies the dilemma. Some prefer to rely on the written contract and somehow enforce it as it would absolve AEG. It can be relied on however; it is not reality. The doctor did not performed actions as per the contract. His actions are outside of the boundaries of the written contract. If he is outside those boundaries by his actions, how do I reduce him back to the confines of the the contract. I cannot and I am confused how others are able to.

Click to expand...

The draft contract is all the jury have to go on, if there was no draft I don't believe this would have come to trial - somewhere the jury have to be shown that AEG and Murray were clear and in agreement on any hiring, as per jury instructions.

If an employee takes it upon themselves to massively overstep the boundaries of their job description and as a result someone gets hurt, I don't believe the employer should be held responsible.

For me, the way you reduce the doctor back to the confines of the contract is to hold him responsible (personally) for his unethical actions, Murray is the one after all who chose to ignore the oath he took and he chose to overstep his medical capabilities.

From May to June 2009 (the employment contract last only two months for those who believe it is enforceable), the doctor’s actions proved he was not giving Michael general care. The doctor did specialist work that he was not capable of doing as Michael deteriorated under the doctor’s continued incompetence. AEG was alerted to that deterioration and they sought to silence those who sounded those alarms.

Click to expand...

Michael did deteriorate, but then he picked up. I think without hindsight the explanations given at the time were feasible. 'Sought to silence' sounds very dramatic!

LastTear;3910391 said:

A bit nit picky here, 'their outside council' if AEG retained Jorrie then Jorrie is included under the umbrella of 'they'. A google search does sound blasé but IMO when researching a doctor you would need to find out if there had been any medical misconduct - that to me is fundamental.

Click to expand...

Call it what you prefer. The fact is AEG did not vet the doctor.

For me, the way you reduce the doctor back to the confines of the contract is to hold him responsible (personally) for his unethical actions, Murray is the one after all who chose to ignore the oath he took and he chose to overstep his medical capabilities.

Click to expand...

Yes, the indemnity clause. As I wrote to Korgnex above:

Tygger;3910383 said:

This way AEG can say they did not hire the doctor however, they can still be protected by the employment contract that did not hire the doctor.

Click to expand...

Michael did deteriorate, but then he picked up. I think without hindsight the explanations given at the time were feasible. 'Sought to silence' sounds very dramatic!

Click to expand...

Oh? Choose the characteristic phrase you prefer. The result is again the same. Anyone who complained, AEG sought to silence. Interesting you feel Michael "picked up." The doctor did not gain competence in that time. Michael performed at rehearsal the 23rd and 24th. I do not know if he was particularly healthy.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

@Tygger, There was testimony that Michael improved, I'm just going by testimony. I'm not referring to any clause, you said you couldn't understand how Murray could be reduced back to the confines of the draft, I explained how I see it - that Murray did a lot more than overstep the boundaries, he well exceeded them and that blame should be placed well and truly on his shoulders.

You cannot say that AEG did not vet the doctor, that's too much of a blanket statement and is untrue.

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

LastTear said:

@Tygger, There was testimony that Michael improved, I'm just going by testimony. I'm not referring to any clause, you said you couldn't understand how Murray could be reduced back to the confines of the draft, I explained how I see it - that Murray did a lot more than overstep the boundaries, he well exceeded them and that blame should be placed well and truly on his shoulders.

You cannot say that AEG did not vet the doctor, that's too much of a blanket statement and is untrue.

Click to expand...

Testimonies that said Michael improved were not by medical professionals who could say such after an evaluation of Michael. Those testimonies were those witnesses' perception of Michael. Again, Michael performed. I do not equate that to health however, that is my view.

The doctor was held accountable by the State when he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. If you do not want AEG to be held accountable for the doctor then, you may say, they did not hire him. However, the contract you may have reviewed allows AEG to terminate a doctor that they may not have hired. It is rare indeed to be able to terminate someone one did not employ.

I can say AEG did not vet the doctor as it was proven without a shadow of doubt in court. No one from AEG vetted the doctor. Only Jorrie did a ten minute Google search where she could not find half of four offices the doctor fabricated.