Latest on MJJC

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

Tygger said:
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.
Click to expand...

I believe hat AEG could have hired Murray but not be responsible for his negligence. The contact I reviewed shows that Michael could fire Murray.

We have already established that some evidence the police found were not accessible to a lay person.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I also don't understand how so many people are possibly defending AEG against Michael Jackson on a Michael Jackson forum. Impossible.

crillon said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Neverland_Valley said:
I also don't understand how so many people are possibly defending AEG against Michael Jackson on a Michael Jackson forum. Impossible.
Click to expand...

yeah, I also wonder what's going on here
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Neverland_Valley said:
I also don't understand how so many people are possibly defending AEG against Michael Jackson on a Michael Jackson forum. Impossible.
Click to expand...

maviefly said:
yeah, I also wonder what's going on here
Click to expand...
What's going on in a nutshell.
No one here is against Michael Jackson. I'm sure you realise Michael Jackson doesn't have a case against AEG. No one is upholding all of AEG's actions but some just don't see AEG is responsible for DR Murray's actions and Michael's death. All love and support Michael here but many don't agree with Katherine Jackson's choice of turning down restitution offered by the court against Murray and going after $$AEG$$ instead.

Now myself I don't support or defend either side because Michael doesn't win here no matter what. His life was put on trial by both sides and he was thrown under the bus and to the wolves by boths sides IMO .. I see no justice here for Michael or his children no matter who $$$$WINS$$$
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Neverland_Valley said:
I also don't understand how so many people are possibly defending AEG against Michael Jackson on a Michael Jackson forum. Impossible.
Click to expand...

maviefly said:
yeah, I also wonder what's going on here
Click to expand...

Because Michael Jackson fans love HIM and are still individuals, and don't give up their right to think as individuals because of that love. It's quite insulting that they are expected to.

I don't believe anyone but Murray should be liable for millions and millions of dollars for MJ's death. I don't support AEG, but I cannot blame them for Conrad Murray giving MJ a lethal medication, and then leaving him to go talk to his women. I don't believe they trained, supervised, or hired him to do so. That's not supporting AEG or even defending them, it's not believing in this case.

qbee said:
What's going on in a nutshell.

No one here is against Michael Jackson. I'm sure you realise Michael Jackson doesn't have a case against AEG.

Now myself I don't support or defend either side because Michael doesn't win here no matter what. His life was put on trial by both sides and he was thrown under the bus and to the wolves by boths sides IMO .. I see no justice here for Michael or his children no matter who $$$$WINS$$$
Click to expand...

Agree. Agree. That bold part should be on a banner in the sky. This is not an MJ civil suit, but a KJ suit.
 
Last edited:
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

the sooner the better that the verdict comes out IMO, for everyone involved. To me it's 50/50..
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Neverland_Valley said:
I also don't understand how so many people are possibly defending AEG against Michael Jackson on a Michael Jackson forum. Impossible.
Click to expand...

To try and help you understand consider this. As a Michael Jackson fan it's insulting to think I should be used as a mindless DRONE of the Jackson's in their get rich quick plots. I have a very simple philosophy; if it hurts MICHAEL JACKSON I won't support it no matter if it's his mother behind it. I'm a Michael Jackson fan first and only which means I want his memory protected and his name honored not wrecked in an attempt to support his siblings. I don't think Michael would agree to his personal medical and financial information being released to the public and all of his flaws hung out to dry for all the world to view while his murderer (Conrad Robert Murray) is let off the hook and free to make a living slandering Michael.
 
Last edited:
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

First of all let me say I detest certain members of the Jackson family for their ill treatment of Michael Jackson in the past, and I detest them (Katherine, Joe, Randy, Janet, Rebbie, Jermaine, and even Tito) for their current ill treatment and neglect of his children. (I am sure there are other unidentified members of the Jackson family guilty of the ill treatment and neglect of MJ's children.) I pray Michael Jackson' s children are protected from them. I don't believe MJ's greedy relatives should benefit in any way from his premature death.

However, in the video below the Plaintiffs' lawyer make a strong argument against AEG.
AEG treated Michael Jackson in a ruthless uncaring manner.
AEG did have a contract with Murray and indeed AEG is in the "WRONG"!!!!
God Bless and protect Michael Jackson's children: Prince, Paris, and Blanket Jackson. :angel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll_hTD1KI9k





 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

These things a derailing threads again and again. I'm a bit tired of it!

A discussion board is a discussion board only if ppl are allowed to have different opinions.

I personally am tired of being judged a 'Jackson family fan' or 'Katherine Jackson fan' only because I find AEG should be found liable! I am no way that for sure!!! lol

As wrong it certainly is to judge others only because they find AEG should be not found liable to be 'against Michael Jackson'.

Michael Jackson is not even a side in this trial. I'm wondering also at times what his stand would be... however he wasn't, well couldn't be asked just like his children weren't asked according to Katherines own testimony.



Geeeeez really ppl are you living in dreamy land? where things are only black and white?
Get ready for that life is colorful... you'll not make it far if you take the easy and fast judge hammer.
Everybody is welcome here to show up with their opinion I think just try a bit to back it up! MJJC stands for respect, tolerance and openess towards everybody who call themselves MJJfans... just like Michael himself has always kept it!
That's why me is visiting this board!
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Tygger said:
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.

[...]

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.
Click to expand...

The question is still: Did AEG Live hire Murray? And if so, what did they hire him for?

You CANNOT assume an oral agreement (in this case you'd take those emails to establish it) to suddenly create a contract between AEG Live and Murray when at the same time, draft agreements for a contract between Michael and Murray with AEG Live as a third party for money advancement were still revised and were meant to be presented to Michael once finalized.
An oral agreement CANNOT be based on a sole written (personal) request that is nowhere even specifying what kind of obligations would emerge for Murray and what on the other hand AEG Live would be bound by contract.
To get Michael to show up for rehearsals is not only vague, it is NOT complying with the essentialia negotii that would be needed for a contract involving a doctor.
That email was actually a breach of authority on Philipp's side.
But even if you want to argue that this would have established an oral agreement, you could only derive "general medical care" there of because "showing up for rehearsals" does not indicate any special treatment and no other communication that would indicate this has emerged.

[Excursus: A little bit more about Philipps:
This email of him is similar to Philipps saying in a public TV interview that "we hired him" which plaintiffs tried to pass off as proof. However like the commercial talk in "This Is It" (focusing on Michael's success only), what he personally said (another example being "we check everyone out") is simply his personal awareness and subjective, not objective. He certainly didn't remember that contract too well. Advancing money is not hiring.
You have to wonder why he said that. He's not a lawyer, as a quirky businessman, he didn't see or didn't care about the specifics of that contract as requested by Michael. All that was important to him as a businessman was that they had to advance the money first, that's why he personally considered Murray as an employee of AEG Live. He didn't do the accounting either.]


Back to your posting: Let's take a look at Question 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?

You are saying the following:
  • The conflicted interest placed Michael in danger.
    • In other words (as phrased in that question): the particular risk is that danger emerging from the conflicted interest. That's what you want to say, right?
    • Now take a close look as to what question 3 requires you to answer:
      • knowledge or legally assumed foreseeability ("should have known") - OK, let's check option 2 at least
      • Murray having been unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk to others
        • particular risk = danger from the conflicted interested - OK, checked (see above)
        • And now we are facing our problem again: Was Murray unfit or incompetent? And "unfit or incompetent" refers to "the work he was hired for" (Question 2)
          • As you're establishing an oral agreement between AEG Live and Murray from that email, the work Murray was hired for could only be:
            • a) the vague "showing up to rehearsals"
            • b) "general medical care"
            • [Remember: there is nothing to suggest they agreed on some special treatment.]
            • Option b) means "fit" and "competent" - even though Michael died (totally irrelevant)
            • What about option a)? Is there anything to suggest that "showing up to rehearsals" is a request by AEG Live to consider a risky treatment, providing sub-standard care or enforcing a treatment for which Murray was not qualified?
    • The plaintiffs are not saying by hiring the doctor, AEG should have known the doctor would administer propofol.
      • Yes, they have also argued that AEG Live could have found that out later, theoretically. They didn't manage to provide sufficient evidence for this theory though.
        But let's take a look at this theoretical scenario:
        If there was a contract between AEG Live and Murray and AEG Live found out about the propofol infusion, what would that mean legally?
        • Could they dissolve the contract with Murray?
          On the one hand generally yes.
          But on the other hand you have seen the draft agreements that specified "services requested by the Artist" and it can only be Michael who requested this treatment, so everything was fine, legally at least.
        • Could they cancel the tour?
          Yes, they could, of course. There would be lots of reasons why.
        • And now to the actual question:
          Would it be illegal for AEG Live to continue with the tour?
          A clear answer: No!
          Michael's general right of personality is unviolable and the duty of care on the part of AEG Live is (rightfully) restricted to fulfilling their contractual obligations and the duty of utmost good faith and unless Michael would have been declared to be of unsound mind, Michael's and Murray's affirmation that everything was fine (with Murray saying they should do what they are supposed to do and let him do what he is supposed to do) meant there was no legal basis (yet) to assume Michael's life was in danger. There was also no way for AEG Live to know all kind of treatments Michael had and how Murray was dosing propofol and other fluids.
          So again, a clear answer: No!
          Ethical and moral issues are no infractions of the law.
 
Last edited:
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I like this jury because based on their jobs, it seems they will be able to handle the facts well. How come the jury is working such short days? Does anyone know why they did not work a full day on Friday.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Petrarose said:
Does anyone know why they did not work a full day on Friday.
Click to expand...

they worked a full day friday but after breaks and such a full day is around 4 hours.

(they start around 10 AM and leave around 4:00 PM, they have a 90 min lunch and two 15 minute breaks)
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

LastTear said:
I believe hat AEG could have hired Murray but not be responsible for his negligence. The contact I reviewed shows that Michael could fire Murray.

We have already established that some evidence the police found were not accessible to a lay person.
Click to expand...

Where can Michael terminate the doctor in the contract?

There is no way around this: AEG did not vet the doctor. Period. I am not fabricating that, AEG's own testimony and actions proved that without a shadow of doubt.

Korgnex, the final draft was emailed directly to the doctor and bypassed Michael and his team. I am not going to argue your logic regarding oral agreements because that is your view. However, oral agreements are legally binding particularly if both parties show an agreement. I did not establish that simply by the doctor being tasked with Michael's rehearsal appearance. The actions of both parties show understanding. Look at any other independent contractor on the TII tour who was paid for their services after Michael passed. The doctor did email AEG with the phrase "per our agreement" at the end of May and no one at AEG showed confusion regarding that phrase.

As for Phillips, the jurors will simply find him trustworthy or untrustworthy. I view him as the latter.

I am confused by the ethics and morals discussion as it is not necessary. The question is simple so I will simply ask you: did the doctor's substandard care put Michael at risk? Fact: he deteriorated and others saw it and complained. Yes or No?
 
Last edited:
Neverland_Valley;3910451 said:
I also don't understand how so many people are possibly defending AEG against Michael Jackson on a Michael Jackson forum. Impossible.
Click to expand...

You can also reverse it and say how can people defend Michael´s mother and siblings on a Michael Jackson forum, after all things they have done.
No side is on Michael´s side.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Tygger said:
However, oral agreements are legally binding particularly if both parties show an agreement.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the law. I'm familiar with the various constellations of how a contract can be made.

Tygger said:
Look at any other independent contractor on the TII tour who was paid for their services after Michael passed.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting that there were no conflicting draft agreements for any of those.
Btw, "per our agreement" is a double-edged sword and does not imply Murray felt he had established a contract between him and AEG Live.
Because of Michael's contractual commitment to the concerts, they talked to Murray in the first place.

Tygger said:
did the doctor's substandard care put Michael at risk?
Click to expand...

Yes, the improperly conducted propoful infusion was sub-standard care and thus put Michael at risk.

Tygger said:
Fact: he deteriorated and others saw it and complained. Yes or No?
Click to expand...

AEG Live can only rely on the following (limited) information:
There were people that claimed to have seen him deteriorate and complained.
There were people that talked to the person in question plus his doctor and both of them affirmed everything was fine.

Only with constantly recurring complaints or some actual proof they could evaluate that both Michael and Murray weren't speaking the truth.
 
Last edited:
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

So let's take a look at this poll.

The guys who are saying 'AEG is NOT liable' - are you really aware this also means: It was all Michael's fault? Whose else?

And this especially to the public.

This is devastating for Michael's reputation.

And we as a fan community are responsible for his reputation.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

^ Huh? It was both Murray's and Michael's fault. But due to the doctor's Hippocratic oath it was mainly Murray's responsibility because he had or should have had more knowledge about the risk.
I haven't seen anyone who thinks it was all Michael's fault. That's why the Hippocratic oath exists for doctors.
So, of course, Murray is the No. 1 person to blame. Why else was he (rightfully) convincted of involuntary manslaughter?

;)
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

maviefly said:
So let's take a look at this poll.

The guys who are saying 'AEG is NOT liable' - are you really aware this also means: It was all Michael's fault? Whose else?.
Click to expand...

If Jury decides AEG is not liable they doesn`t say anything about Michaels fault.

But if they dicide AEG ist liable, then they will decide if Michael is also liable and how much percentage is Michaels fault. You are lucky with this?
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

maviefly said:
It was all Michael's fault? Whose else?
Click to expand...

who else? who else? how about someone named Conrad Murray. the guy who is actually found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and put into a jail.

why is Conrad Murray conveniently forgotten or left out? why can't it be all Murray's fault?
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

maviefly said:
So let's take a look at this poll.

The guys who are saying 'AEG is NOT liable' - are you really aware this also means: It was all Michael's fault? Whose else?

And this especially to the public.

This is devastating for Michael's reputation.

And we as a fan community are responsible for his reputation.
Click to expand...

This trial is what could damage Michaels reputation, I believe it has to an extent as it backs up some tabloid stories. However, who brought the lawsuit?

Where on earth to you get that anyone would think this was all Michaels fault, Murray was the doctor, he was the one in a position of trust, he is the one who chose to carry out this treatment, he killed Michael!
 
Tygger;3910641 said:
Where can Michael terminate the doctor in the contract?

There is no way around this: AEG did not vet the doctor. Period. I am not fabricating that, AEG's own testimony and actions proved that without a shadow of doubt.

Korgnex, the final draft was emailed directly to the doctor and bypassed Michael and his team. I am not going to argue your logic regarding oral agreements because that is your view. However, oral agreements are legally binding particularly if both parties show an agreement. I did not establish that simply by the doctor being tasked with Michael's rehearsal appearance. The actions of both parties show understanding. Look at any other independent contractor on the TII tour who was paid for their services after Michael passed. The doctor did email AEG with the phrase "per our agreement" at the end of May and no one at AEG showed confusion regarding that phrase.

As for Phillips, the jurors will simply find him trustworthy or untrustworthy. I view him as the latter.

I am confused by the ethics and morals discussion as it is not necessary. The question is simple so I will simply ask you: did the doctor's substandard care put Michael at risk? Fact: he deteriorated and others saw it and complained. Yes or No?
Click to expand...

Right here

This agreement will be terminated if the Artist, for any reason,does not want Conrad Murray’s services
Click to expand...

So AEG did not check to see if Murray had any medical malpractice suits brought against him?

Michaels signature was was the final signature before the contract was binding and active, doesn't that make sense that he and his people would see it last?

Can you quote the passages that show how AEG can terminate the contract please.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

maviefly said:
So let's take a look at this poll.

The guys who are saying 'AEG is NOT liable' - are you really aware this also means: It was all Michael's fault? Whose else?

And this especially to the public.

This is devastating for Michael's reputation.

And we as a fan community are responsible for his reputation.
Click to expand...

Michael's fault? Wait...wha-? The only other person who's fault it is is Conrad Murray's. HE left Michael to go talk on the phone, HE made the promise to help Michael..Michael never thought he'd die because of a lousy negligent doctor.

And it's devastating MJ's reputation? Maybe, but they already devastated it to most of the public. Have them so darn brainwashed they'll never believe any good about Michael. But you can blame Randy for convincing Katherine to go with this stupid idea in the first place. To be truly honest, this money is not gonna bring Michael shamoning and moonwalking back to us. It won't even make things better. What the hell were they thinking is my question? The answer is, Michael Jackson equals $$$$$$. Yeah, spilling all of his medical info and financial info will DEFINITELY heal the world. Katherine should've been helping with making MJ's legacy even greater than it already was. But because of $$ and Randy >>we're here
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

maviefly said:
So let's take a look at this poll.

The guys who are saying 'AEG is NOT liable' - are you really aware this also means: It was all Michael's fault? Whose else?

And this especially to the public.

This is devastating for Michael's reputation.

And we as a fan community are responsible for his reputation.
Click to expand...

If Michael's family had been concerned about his reputation none of what you are asking would be an issue. I am mad as hell Katherine and the siblings moved forward with this trial knowing full well that MICHAEL'S private life and personal business would be put on trial! I refuse to be held hostage by Michael's relatives! The damage to MJ's rep has already been done so I don't have to try and destroy AEG to cover up the mess. I can't protect Michael now that the barn has been burned down so I can freely say what I feel is right.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

ivy said:
"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."

"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
Click to expand...

This is an interesting article that Ivy posted. I've posted excerpts, and the rest is at the link (a few pages back now?)

One thing I've been trying to say is that jurors rule based on both logic and emotion, as just a part of human nature. The jury instructions have to do with the "logic" part of it, and the strictness of the law. But human nature being what it is, emotion can't be ruled out in terms of coming up with a verdict. The article talks about "left and right brain" thinking. The left is logical and rational, and the right more intuitive and emotional. People are usually a blend of both those types of thinking, but some are much more one than the other, and the lawyers have tried to appeal to both. As the article says, the defense appealed more to the left-brain, and the plaintiffs more to the right, i.e. showing the home movies. Given that there was no quick verdict, I can guess that the jury's answer to the first question was probably that AEG at least "co-hired" Murray (and if so, probably because of those emails), and the jurors went on to the next questions? (that seems reasonable to assume at this point). In my opinion, it would be hard to get around those emails reminding Murray of "who hired him."

Can't agree to that last sentence in the article, though, about "what a loss would mean emotionally to the Jackson kids." This TRIAL has been a loss to those kids. They don't need the money. There was no smoking gun or bombshell that proves anything sinister except what we already know from the Murray trial. As I've said, I don't really CARE that much who wins -- I just want it to be OVER!
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Conrad Murray was already found guilty. This is not the question we are talking about. We are talking about AEG and their responsibilities.

Have you ever thought about the public perception of the upcoming verdict, which can be more than counter productive, in case IF AEG would be found not liable?
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Haven't they reach a verdict yet? That's insane! I don't support any side because AEG is indeed partially responsible in a minor degree for Michael's passing but if someone has to lose, I prefer Katherine Jackson for what she allowed strangers to do with his private life and throwing him under the mud for money.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

@maviefly Conrad Murray will shortly be released and he will be free to sell his tales to anyone who will pay. How about Michaels reputation being protected from that onslaught?

So to you Michaels personal life being brandished around this trial is ok so long as AEG are found liable? How are you going to feel if the jury find AEG 50% liable and Michael 50% liable? even Katherine finds him 20% responsible.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

@maviefly: It wouldn't take away the fact that it was Murray's fault.
Why do you think AEG losing would suddenly stop all people that see Michael as a drug addict, a pedophile or simply as "w**** j****"? No verdict would change that.

However the pure existence of this trial did add fuel to the flames about tabloid talk, you can thank the Jacksons for that. Because they never searched for any truth with this trial as Katherine claimed and as Randy claimed again only recently. This trial was always about money.


@Snow White luvs Peter Pan:
Jurors had only about 6.5 hours (2.5 on Thursday and 4 on Friday) to deliberate so far. They won't continue until Tuesday. With such a lengthy lawsuit they might want to have some in-depth discussions first before they feel ready to vote.
 
Last edited:
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

You know everyone says or implies what a crazy addict Michael was but this trial like the Murray trial did not show me that. Yes he had issues that he himself said but he had a lot medical issues and I understand a lot more why he wanted to use propofol.

I always wondered why that and why Michael would take the risk and use it but it's because he truly believed it was safe. He believed that because of people in the medical profession who made it look safe to him. Not some stranger on the street. It wasn't about getting high but just to get some sleep. I can't imagine not being able to sleep. I get cranky just getting 5 hours of sleep. I never knew he used it on the history tour and I can see why he would choose it again. Michael like everyone else is responsible for the choices they make but I don't fault him for trusting the doctors in his life. It's the doctors who should be judged. They are suppose to know what is right and wrong and ethical. They failed Michael.

As for AEG, I don't like how they treated Michael and things they said behind his back. I don't believe that they knew about the propofol. I think only Michael and Murray knew about it. I don't know what will happen because it could go either way. I will always be on Michael's side.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

maviefly said:
Conrad Murray was already found guilty. This is not the question we are talking about. We are talking about AEG and their responsibilities.

Have you ever thought about the public perception of the upcoming verdict, which can be more than counter productive, in case IF AEG would be found not liable?
Click to expand...

You cannot take away Murray or forget about him. Regardless of whether AEG is found liable or not, Murray will still be guilty.

Also it is important to understand what this trial is about. This trial still says Michael's death was due to Murray's negligence and AEG should share some responsibility because they hired Murray. If the jury answers any of the first 5 questions as "no" they would determine AEG didn't hire Murray or wasn't negligent in doing or could not foresee Murray's risk. So as you can see such verdict only shows AEG's inability to foresee what happened, it wouldn't take anything away from Murray.

Perhaps you should also consider the last question and what happens if Katherine wins. If that's the case jurors will put a percentage of responsibility on Michael on the record. How about public perception of that? What if the jury says "yes AEG is negligent but it's Michael's responsibility too at 50%". Where's your unhappiness with that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top