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.
Yes, but it's your personal opinion, not mine and not the opinion of lots people here. As for the CPR thing, even if he didn't know how to do CPR, how do you want AEG to know that? Murray had all the qualifications needed.

By the by, I do actually think Murray knew how to give CPR, I think he left Michael for enough time for it to be too late, and he knew it - plus he was panicking. But either way, totally unforgivable..
 
By the by, I do actually think Murray knew how to give CPR, I think he left Michael for enough time for it to be too late, and he knew it - plus he was panicking. But either way, totally unforgivable..

I think MJ was already dead when Murray found him and Murray knew it and did a show in order to save his ass.

The AEG people were huge asshole but that doesn't make them liable for his death.
 
Tygger;3913752 said:
Ivy, I missed this post before. Let me clarify: I did not mean the verdict itself will absolve the doctor. The verdict does give Wass hope as it should. Who is to say the appeal judge will see the doctor as a substantial factor? We shall see.



Last Tear, I did not say that. The defense simply did not connect sleep issues to general care for good reason. If they did, it would point to what the doctor was hired for, what Phillips and Gongaware did not recall, and what the doctor was not qualified to treat. The jurors preferred Putnam’s interpretation of question two and believed the doctor was there to treat the general care of Michael (and his children even though that was not in the contract).

The jurors simply believed the defense. Why combat that? It led to AEG being found not liable. I simply disagree with you and the jurors that a conflict of interest did not exist. I do not believe Michael created the conflict; AEG’s employment of the doctor did and I maintain that.

Ahsoka Jackson, good post! There are some items in your post I do not agree with but, there is more I agree with than not.

I still maintain that I am at a loss to see where this verdict might help Wass, happy to discuss if you want to expand your thoughts.

We are on slight cross purposes here, I understand what you are saying regarding sleep issues, but I am saying that without some suspicion or knowledge that such excessive treatments would be considered then it doesn't matter whether sleep issues (on there own) were known about. For eg if Michael had said I want Murray to treat me for x & y plus also sleep, it still don't think it would be a red flag. You see? You say not connecting sleep issues and I say it wouldn't matter if they did.

The children would not be on the contract, they weren't part of TII

I'm not combating anything, we are just discussing the verdict.
 
Ahsoka Jackson;3913775 said:
i don't believe it was a bs lawsuit. They hired a doctor who couldn't even perform CPR properly. And, as I said, it seems to be the only way AEG will have any responsibility at all.

This Trial was NOT about any punishment for AEG for what they have done.

No matter whether they are liable now or not, certain people from AEG still would live their happy lives.

So it was not “the only way AEG will have any responsibility”…

It was not the way at all !!!

It made too much injustice to Michael and it hurts deep.
 
i don't believe it was a bs lawsuit. They hired a doctor who couldn't even perform CPR properly. And, as I said, it seems to be the only way AEG will have any responsibility at all.

In the end, the fact is that Michael allowed CM to treat his kids (did he check CM can do CPR in case something goes wrong?), Michael wanted CM to be his personal doctor (did MJ check with CM that he is qualified to administer propofol and is cabable doing CPR in case something goes wrong?) for reason only him and CM knew, and Michael refused AEG suggestion to have a doctor from UK. I understand that many fans are angry with result of the trial, and lashing out, but AEG didn't bring CM in the fold, MJ did.
AEG didn't tell MJ and CM to take care of MJ's insomnia with anethesia, it was other doctors along the road that told him it is ok to use for insomnia.

Why KJ didn't get help for Michael when he was young and insomia got out of the hand? Do you know why? Because their money making machine would have been out of doing concerts with no good siblings, so who was going to make money for them if MJ couldn't do tours and concerts night time? If KJ had gotten some help for MJ, his insomia would have been treatable or at least he would have learnt to cope with it without needing propofol, which eventually led to his death.
 
Just popping in to add something I forgot to ask: How exactly was Murray determined competent? He didn't even know how to do CPR properly,

Nobody knew he was a quack until after he killed Michael. Including Michael himself. Do you think he would pick a doctor to treat him and his kids if he knew he was no good? The whole point is they didn't know at the time he was picked and hired.
 
And i already know being an MJ fan doesn't mean liking his family, but I at least think they are a rung above AEG, for God's sake!

hmmm...
I have no knowledges about "rungs" and ladders to the divinity. But what I know is that all Gods dont't love the arrogance and the presumption.

For my taste there is a bit much conjuration of God:
I'm counting on God.
by the grace of God.
for God's sake
 
In the end, the fact is that Michael allowed CM to treat his kids (did he check CM can do CPR in case something goes wrong?), Michael wanted CM to be his personal doctor (did MJ check with CM that he is qualified to administer propofol and is cabable doing CPR in case something goes wrong?) for reason only him and CM knew, and Michael refused AEG suggestion to have a doctor from UK. I understand that many fans are angry with result of the trial, and lashing out, but AEG didn't bring CM in the fold, MJ did.
AEG didn't tell MJ and CM to take care of MJ's insomnia with anethesia, it was other doctors along the road that told him it is ok to use for insomnia.

Why KJ didn't get help for Michael when he was young and insomia got out of the hand? Do you know why? Because their money making machine would have been out of doing concerts with no good siblings, so who was going to make money for them if MJ couldn't do tours and concerts night time? If KJ had gotten some help for MJ, his insomia would have been treatable or at least he would have learnt to cope with it without needing propofol, which eventually led to his death.

Katherine said MJ didn't discuss his insomnia with her:bugeyed she is always playing clueless and dumb .. MJ didn't leave home until he was 28 years old. This was after the Pepsi scalp burn, so I am sure he was having pain and insomnia issues then. Why didn't she know if he was still at home at Hayvenhurst?
 
I'm going to reply in a few hours but for the time being I recommend reading media story below

Was The Michael Jackson Jury Wrong In Ruling For AEG?

This week’s jury verdict sent shock waves through Michael Jackson fans who were hoping to see concert promoter AEG Live held at least partially responsible for Michael Jackson’s death. Many expressed outrage at the verdict. At first blush, the jury verdict does seem odd.

The jury unanimously answered the first question in favor of the Michael Jackson heirs: AEG Live did hire Dr. Conrad Murray, the jury determined. This was a hotly disputed issue, with AEG Live arguing that Michael Jackson had hired the doctor himself. Michael Jackson’s legal team cleared that first hurdle.

Question two pertained to whether Dr. Murray was “unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired.” Based on the criminal conviction and the fact that Dr. Murray administered propofol to Michael Jackson in an unmonitored setting, contrary to medical and ethical guidelines for its use, it would seem that this question would have been an easy one for the jury to answer in the affirmative.

Instead, the jury voted 10-2 that Dr. Murray was not “unfit or incompetent” when he was hired. After the trial, the jury foreman said that if the verdict form had used the word “ethical”, the vote may have been different. Instead, he said, the jury believed that because Dr. Murray was licensed and graduated from an accredited college, he was not unfit or incompetent.

This takes a very narrow reading of the words “unfit or incompetent.” Being a properly educated and licensed doctor does not make one “fit,” at least in the minds of most people. Certainly, ethics can and should play a part in it.

So does this mean the jury got it wrong? Not so fast. While the attention has been placed on that particular question because it was the one that triggered the verdict for AEG Live, the next few questions would have made a verdict in favor of Michael Jackson’s mother and children unlikely, based on how the jury viewed the evidence.

Even if Dr. Murray had been found to be “unfit or incompetent,” the next questions addressed whether AEG Live knew or should have known about his unfitness and whether AEG Live’s conduct was a “substantial factor” in causing Michael Jackson’s death. Based on statements made to the media, it seems clear that the jury likely never would answered these questions in favor of Katherine Jackson and her grandchildren, even if they did answer the second question differently.

One of the juror’s pointed out how Michael Jackson was used to getting his own way, and if Dr. Murray had not done what he wanted, Jackson would have replaced him with another doctor who would have. Further, as AEG Live attorneys pointed out throughout trial, the company did not know the specifics of what was going on behind closed doors, between Jackson and Dr. Murray.

However, at trial, there were compelling arguments and evidence presented from both sides. The jury had to balance Michael Jackson’s dangerous choices versus the financial pressure from a corporation who wanted him to perform. In the end, Michael Jackson’s own behavior convinced the jury that AEG Live’s conduct wasn’t enough to create legal responsibility for his death.

It’s hard to say that this wasn’t a reasonable decision by the jury, in terms of how the law looks at it. Our legal system has to trust juries to make tough decisions like this, and then to accept their decisions (unless there was a legal error committed along the way).

And for that very reason, chances are good that the verdict will stand up if challenged. The Michael Jackson legal team can attack it, both by asking the trial judge to overturn the jury verdict, and by appealing and seeking a new trial. Neither approach will likely work.

Our legal system is built on the concept of letting a jury of our peers resolve disputes after reviewing the evidence and listening to the testimony and lawyers’ arguments. If enough was presented by both sides so that a reasonable person could decide in either direction, then the jury verdict should stand.

That’s why litigation can be so costly and risky. No one ever knows what a jury will decide. It all depends on who is on that particular jury, and what those jury members believe. This leads most people and companies involved in court battles to settle, rather than take the risk. AEG Live said it never considered settling, because it always believed the jury would rule in its favor.

AEG’s position was very risky, however, and the jury easily could have decided differently. And, certainly, AEG spent many millions of dollars in legal fees defending the case. Most people going through litigation — from estate feuds to wrongful death claims — should think carefully about settling and not taking on the risk and expense of a trial. No one ever has a crystal ball to accurately predict the outcome.

In this case, AEG Live was proven correct. Ultimately, the majority of the jury members were not prepared to find AEG Live legally responsible in light of Michael Jackson’s own decisions. Regardless of how the jury verdict questions were worded, nothing likely would have changed this outcome based on how this particular jury felt about the evidence. And there was enough evidence presented by AEG’s attorneys to justify the verdict.

So, legally, the jury was not “wrong”. Even if Michael Jackson’s fans think the verdict was not right.
 
I wish that read SOME of Michael Jackson fans! I guess in this case those that shout the loudest get heard.
 
Katherine said MJ didn't discuss his insomnia with her:bugeyed she is always playing clueless and dumb .. MJ didn't leave home until he was 28 years old. This was after the Pepsi scalp burn, so I am sure he was having pain and insomnia issues then. Why didn't she know if he was still at home at Hayvenhurst?

She did knew insomina because she said it so in one interview that Michael used to walk around the house in the middle of the night while others were sleeping. It is just a case of closing her eyes and not dealing with "bad" things.
Funnily enough, she dealt a lot of bad things during 2005 trial, CM trial and now this trial, but when she is supposed to deal Michael's health, then she says she cannot take bad news.
 
Conversely that system accused Michael falsely. Twice.

Jordan Chandler accused MJ; not the system, the first time around. (His dad Evan manipulated the system to his advantage.) In the end though, the system worked -- Jurors saw through Sneddon's and Murray's crap and rendered a just verdicts.


Again, who is to say the judge will not support an appeal? This verdict gave Wass hope and I will simply say I have seen stranger things happen on appeal, that cannot be denied.

There's the possibility (remote, but there) the Appellate Court might rule favorably with regard to Murray's appeal, but this verdict for AEG will have no bearing on such decision. That Court will be concerned solely with proceedings during Murray's criminal trial and whether certain things occurred -- legal error, ineffective defense counsel or juror misconduct, for example -- and were great enough to have had an effect on the outcome of the trial.

It would be grand if posters would stop suggesting others do not understand a concept simply because they do not agree.

Didn't you state you felt the jurors were "confused" when you disagreed with their verdict?
 
I just wanted to say a big thank you to everyone who contributed to the many threads and posted such valuable information. Especially IVY. Your summaries and articles were terrific. Thank you so much

I didn't post during this trial but I did stay updated in the threads. The reason is it hurt to read these things and it hurt to know we were debating how MIchael died. I just felt so sad.

Even today watching the news this morning, it felt so strange to think people were talking about him like a distant memory, Sometimes he feels so alive, especially when you hear his music, But sometimes the enormity of what everyone lost hits you and you realise how much you wish he was still here. How much you miss his little quirks. But then you feel relief that he isn't here to see all this.

It's all still so confusing and conflicting.

I'm just very grateful the fans are here together:)

Yes, the same as above from me. Thank you all for such an interesting and spirited debate in these AEG threads. I've enjoyed following the discussions and a shout out for Ivy's dedication and for the person(s) who bore the costs, making transcripts available for fans.
 
Forbes' article reminds me of Putnam's closing. It is not what is said, it is how it is said and who says it. I said before the verdict is a shared decision that is not right or wrong. I do not agree with their decision and that does not make me right or wrong; it just is and life goes on.

Last Tear, we are not crossing paths on the sleep issue. Panish asked Phillips and Gongaware several times were they aware Michael was being treated for sleep issues by the doctor and they maintained they do not recall. Had they recalled, the jurors may have made a connection the doctor was there to treat sleep issues that he was not qualified to do. Despite not recalling, the jurors still believed Phillips and Gongaware.

Payne testified otherwise and felt Gongaware was aware the doctor was there to treat sleep issues and the jurors did not believe his testimony. The jurors believe the doctor was hired for general care of Michael and his children despite the children not being mentioned in the contract. Jurors interviewed said that, not me. The jurors did not believe the doctor was there to treat sleep issues. AEG was found not liable based on this so that is why I do not understand combating sleep issues.

Panish showed the doctor may have been more than likely hired for those sleep issues that Phillips and Gongaware did not recall him being there for. Panish also showed that a doctor hired by a third party and being beholden to that third party primarily and not the patient made the doctor conflicted and thereby, unfit and incompetent. The jurors simply did not agree. I will have to review their interviews to see if any juror mentioned conflicts of interests and if they felt it applied to this trial at all.
 
Last edited:
Tygger But so what if they did recall, Murray was qualified to deal with certain sleep issues? They would have to have known about the extreme lengths that were resorted to.
 
sleep issues can be included in general care and I think Murray could write prescriptions for sleeping pills
 
The same court system that MANY people believe is unfair or unreliable. That doesn't mean they are always wrong. Don't many people - -including MJ fans - - believe Casey Anthony and OJ got off? What about Zimmerman.

Does that mean that these people never believe any verdict? I think not. so, I guess they are all hypocrites, as well, then?

It's hypocritical for me to support specific vedicts but also believe that the justice system is nonetheless unreliable and unfair? I'm honestly surprised MJ was acquitted. I never said the system works, anyway! It just did in that instance, by the grace of God.

first of all it's not really appropriate to make blanket statements about "many" people. There are probably equally same amount of people that believes the system works.

Every single person looks to those high profile cases and come to a personal opinion about what the verdict should be. But public are different from jurors. While public can operate on a really wide base, jurors operate within the limitation of evidence presented, the law and the jury instructions. So that means for example a member of public can know in their gut that a person is guilty but a jury needs to look to the facts, laws, rules and come to a conclusion without reasonable doubt / more than likely setting.

So you, me and everyone else do have the choice to agree or disagree with any verdict but just because you or anyone disagrees doesn't mean that the verdict is wrong.

Let's talk about your examples.

OJ Simpson's defense is actually taught in law schools as one the best examples of defense / reasonable doubt. "If it(glove) doesn't fit, you must acquit," was the mantra. In the end the glove did not fit and it created the reasonable doubt.

Same goes to Casey Anthony, while no one had any questions about the body was disposed, there was reasonable doubt about how the death occurred. Drowning defense might not be the truth but it brought a reasonable doubt. Similarly if you followed Zimmerman's case there were a lot of witnesses with conflicting testimonies about who was on top during the fight, and that equals reasonable doubt.

So while we might not agree with those verdicts, we really cannot say that the jury got it wrong. The law clearly states "without reasonable doubt" and they had doubt. It means they followed the law.

Another difference between public and the jurors is that, public use emotion while American jurors are notoriously known for their non emotional approaches to verdicts. All of the above examples - which included brutal and/or sensitive deaths, emotions wasn't a part of the jury's verdict.

Some people criticized me for my emotionless approach to this (and any other ) trial but that's the way it should be if you are truly trying to understand the law and the case and if you truly want to prepare yourself for the verdict.

For example Randy Phillips's "I slapped him". While it was highly emotional information and while it without doubt proved that AEG execs are douchebags, it was highly irrelevant to the verdict form as well as the jury instructions. How many people on this thread said "AEG should be held liable because of the way they treated Michael"? Yes AEG did not treat Michael in a nice way but it was mainly irrelevant to the case and questions in this case (was AEG negligent in hiring Murray) but some people fell to that emotional trap. At the end it did not matter to the jury.

In this instance we are given a really detailed explanation to the jury's verdict and regardless of whether we agree or not, they gave a reasonable explanation. I typed 2 interviews with the jury foreman, I recommend everyone to read those.

For question 1 "did AEG hired Murray", they said they did not believe there was a written contract but they believed oral and/or implied contract was satisfied. some believed Murray was hired by both AEG and Michael but the instructions told them to say "yes" to that question if they believed dual hiring.

Question 2: depended on their understanding of "work he was hired for" which the jury said was to be a general practitioner. They determined fit and competent based on education, licenses and complaints. It's apparent that they did not believe debts or conflict of interest to be a factor in determining fit or competence. Which makes sense if you realize that there are a lot of Americans - probably jurors too- who have debts but still good citizens. I also don't believe there was any confusion in that question. Their first vote was 12 to 0 saying no. So they were leaning towards that answer strongly from the start. As the jury foreman said they probably realized the significance of their decision and wanted to discuss it further.

Now as the forbes and even Alan Duke - who happens to be extremely pro-Jackson- realized and wrote, it's also clear that it wouldn't make any difference if these jurors said yes to question 2.

Question 3 was the negligent hiring question and if you read the instructions you will see that it would require "AEG known or should have known". Foreman stated there wasn't a single evidence presented, juror 9 said AEg did not know what was going on and was kept in the dark. It's apparent that their answer to question 3 would most probably be "no". Furthermore Juror 9 called Michael an addict, and said he got his way, would probably replace Murray if he didn't give him what we wanted. Foreman was a lot nicer but also mentioned Michael had a problem with drugs and with spending. All of which suggests the jury would likely to place high levels of responsibility on Michael's actions and award not so much money in the billions. Which also in line with the American thinking of everyone is the master of their own destiny - good or bad.

So as far as I'm concerned, everyone is free to agree or disagree with the verdict but the jurors have given us a pretty clear picture of their reasoning and how the verdict will happen regardless of question 2. and honestly regardless of whether we agree or disagree with any verdict, there's not much to do but to accept it. Sure jacksons can pursue an appeal but unless there's a legal error nothing will change. Chances of an appeal being successful is in 20-25% range. It's a possibility but I wouldn't count on it or spend years waiting for it to make any difference.

My comment about "hypocritical" is the approach of after 2005 verdict fans saying "justice is served" and today saying "justice is not served". In my mind you either believe the system works or you don't. You can't really be selective and say system works when there's a verdict you agree with and say the system doesn't work when there's a verdict you don't agree with. (note: by you, I don't mean you personally. I'm using it in the general sense)

Conversely that system accused Michael falsely. Twice.

no people accused Michael, system acted on the accusations and correctly cleared Michael.



Again, who is to say the judge will not support an appeal? This verdict gave Wass hope and I will simply say I have seen stranger things happen on appeal, that cannot be denied.

Judge might support an appeal (although chances aren't that high) but I'm 99.9% sure that if they support the appeal it won't have anything to do with a civil jury saying Murray was competent. Civil and criminal trials are two separate worlds and that's a fact.

It would be grand if posters would stop suggesting others do not understand a concept simply because they do not agree.

I don't see this specific example as "because they don't agree". Verdict on civil courts has no effect on criminal courts. It's a fact, it's not something we can agree or disagree on - unless we are ignoring the law.
 
Don't mean to be rude guys but what's the use of keep on arguing? Many of us are happy the Jacksons didn't get a penny. It's time to pass the next page.
 
Last edited:
Tygger But so what if they did recall, Murray was qualified to deal with certain sleep issues? They would have to have known about the extreme lengths that were resorted to.

AEG did not have to know about the treatments, that is hindsight. The conflict existed when the doctor was hired and a conflicted doctor is not fit or competent. I previously said if the doctor simply gave Michael Tylenol PM as treatment, he would still be unfit and incompetent because he was conflicted. That is my belief. That is not the belief of the jurors. AEG was found not liable; time to rejoice.

no people accused Michael, system acted on the accusations and correctly cleared Michael.

Semantics.

As for the rest I clarified what I said about the verdict but, you repeated it in an effort to feel correct against something I said which I know is the routine. Five months taught me that much. In those five months I saw no posts from any poster who was against rejected restitution being corrected about the Jacksons being able to sue civilly despite said rejection either so that analogy is fair.
 
In those five months I saw no posts from any poster who was against rejected restitution being corrected about the Jacksons being able to sue civilly despite said rejection either so that analogy is fair.

what? statue of limitations for Katherine to sue Murray has passed. and Joe jackson dropped his lawsuit against Murray. So I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Semantics.

and I disagree. they system is about a fair process. If the system fairly come back with a not guilty verdict in 2005, it means the system did not fail Michael. Also I believe here the discussion is the "jury verdict" part of the system.
 
@Tygger, Wouldn't a doctor only be conflicted if their employer were dictating treatment.

You haven't seen me rejoice, I do think the jury made the right and just decision based on the charges but there is nothing about this trial that makes me want to celebrate, I don't believe it should have been allowed to continue in the first place.
 
Don't mean to be rude guys but what's the use of keep on arguing?

You are right that there's not much sense on arguing about the verdict. As I said regardless of whether we agree or not with the verdict, there's nothing to do but accept the verdict.

Jacksons have the option to appeal it and about 20-25% chance of being successful in their appeal - only if there was a legal error. An average appeal takes about 2-3 years. If they appeal, we will start a thread and keep track of the process.
 
what? statue of limitations for Katherine to sue Murray has passed. and Joe jackson dropped his lawsuit against Murray. So I'm not sure what you are talking about.

You might want to review the articles and posts after the verdict. The window is brief.

and I disagree. they system is about a fair process. If the system fairly come back with a not guilty verdict in 2005, it means the system did not fail Michael. Also I believe here the discussion is the "jury verdict" part of the system.

The same system allowed two extortion attempts against him of which the first was successful for the family of extortionists and the second was successful for Michael.

@Tygger, Wouldn't a doctor only be conflicted if their employer were dictating treatment.

You haven't seen me rejoice, I do think the jury made the right and just decision based on the charges but there is nothing about this trial that makes me want to celebrate, I don't believe it should have been allowed to continue in the first place.

The AEG/doctor/Michael was a three party doctor-patient relationship which created conflict for the doctor and I will always maintain that. I am sure others are rejoicing and that does not make them right or wrong. It is just how they choose to express themselves and I have no issue with that. Personally, I am happy the jurors did find AEG hired the doctor. No more alleged hiring!
 
Last edited:
You might want to review the articles and posts after the verdict. The window is brief.

if you want me to review anything you need to start giving sources. As far as I know the statue of limitations is 2 years in medical malpractice / wrongful death so I believe time has run out for Katherine. The minor kids might have a window to file after they turn 18 but I don't know the specifics. If there's anything else, if I'm wrong, if there are stuff I don't know and so on, either provide sources to back up your claims or let's just call it a day.



The same system allowed two extortion attempts against him of which the first was successful for the family of extortionists and the second was successful for Michael.

I thought it was the decision of the insurance company to pay the first settlement. How can you put the blame on the system for it? And you do admit that the second one was successful for Michael. So it bring us to my question. Does the system work or doesn't work? Or are we being selective here? When there's a result we agree we say it works, and when there's a result we don't agree we say it doesn't work? and isn't that being hypocritical?
 
if you want me to review anything you need to start giving sources.

I did not post the article so you may want to take any issue you have with that to the other poster who did in the "verdict articles" or similarly titled thread.

I thought it was the decision of the insurance company to pay the first settlement. How can you put the blame on the system for it? And you do admit that the second one was successful for Michael. So it bring us to my question. Does the system work or doesn't work? Or are we being selective here? When there's a result we agree we say it works, and when there's a result we don't agree we say it doesn't work? and isn't that being hypocritical?

I will not baited with this argument. Again, this is an argument you can have with the poster who originally posted that thought. I maintain two extortion attempts were allowed against Michael and he was successful with one and the extortionist family was successful with other.

Didn't you state you felt the jurors were "confused" when you disagreed with their verdict?

Krikzil, I missed your post. My posts were more in depth than simply saying they were confused only because I disagree with their interprtation of question two.
 
Last edited:
Some feel Katherine's lawsuit against AEG was an extortion attempt. "System" allowed it to proceed.
 
Krizkil, exactly! It is a matter of perception.

Both Forbes and CNN's Duke have stated the jurors did not see an unethical or conflicted doctor as unfit and incompetent however there are those that see that quite differently and more plainly than these jurors.

Neither side is right or wrong; it is simply their view. For the jurors, it is a shared view or shared decision that we are free to agree or disagree with in this subforum.
 
Some feel Katherine's lawsuit against AEG was an extortion attempt. "System" allowed it to proceed.

I find there is something distasteful about these types of cases, where people take advantage of a loophole or technicality to sue for millions. In this case, you have Michael and AEG acting as though Muarry was hired, so legally Muarry is hired. Someone jumps on that & with no evidence whatsoever, accuse AEG of negligently hiring Muarry. It seems the only evidence that allowed the case to go forward was for oral hiring, but there was no evidence for negligent hiring. The judge felt the jury should decide. As a result of this, Michael's personal issues had to be paraded in court. I could never respect people who file cases like this. My brother's 2-year-old has a permanent dark disfiguring scar under his eye, the full width of his eye. When the baby was born, during an examination, the doc tried to open the eye and due to the delicate skin, it bruised the baby. As the baby grew, it seems to me that the scar spread. When the injury first took place, several people told the parents to sue. However, the parents said no because it was a mistake, even though they would get money. That is a good example of a doctor with all his credentials, whose doctoring caused a problem. Now I guess some will say he is unfit to do the job. He never referred the parents and baby to a dermatologist.
 
To me, the deciding issue is at the time he was hired was there any reason to believe he was incompetent or unfit, setting aside theories of how conflicts of interest would lead or could lead to dire consequences and also setting aside that he was in debt. Just on the face of it, he had the required licenses and he lacked malpractice suits, etc. The only complaint in his file was that he did not return a call when he was supposed to. He was licensed in 4 states. So at the time he was hired, he passed the fit and competent criteria. Later, he showed himself to be unfit and incompetent, but that was not until MJ was already dead, and after an investigation and a trial that documented all the ways he failed to adhere to the standard of care, including not calling 911 right away. At the time of the 19th of June, MJ could have had the flu, mental issues due to stress, etc. There was no way to decisively "know" it was nightly injections of propofol, or anything else CM did, that were the cause.

People who think the fact that MJ was called 'the freak" in an email he never saw, or that RP wrote in an email he 'slapped him" and 'yelled at him so hard the walls shook" is enough to find for negligent hiring and supervision are not grounded in reality b/c yelling, slapping, name-calling does not kill anyone and is not an indication that you are going to kill anyone. Also, to me it's clear RP was in a stressed state at the time he made these remarks and was exaggerating--does anyone really believe the 'walls shook"???

Then there is Panish saying AEG didn't care about MJ and they only wanted him for the money he would bring--yes, it's called capitalism and that's the system we're operating under. If you buy something in the marketplace, the maker of the product does not 'care' about you. Caring is not part of capitalism. That's not how it works--it was a huge struggle for Ralph Nader to get seatbelts and airbags installed in cars as standard safety features. Companies resist making changes that cost them $$ even when public safety is at stake and there are many instances of this (unfortunately). AEG didn't have to care but they had to not be negligent.

I was impressed with that foreman and the jury. In order to have liability you have to prove negligence and the evidence to show that AEG knew what depths of incompetence CM could sink to at the time they hired him or even at the end, was just not there.

edit: And just as AEG could not forsee the depths CM would sink to in terms of incompetence, neither could MJ. I am sure he never thought that CM would abandon him, that he wouldn't call 911, that he didn't know the basics of resuscitation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top