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

Neverland_Valley said:

Do we have to assume that this was really written by one of the jurors?

Click to expand...

yes, why doesn't Juror #27 reveal his name?

Want to thank Juror #27 for posting her thoughts on the trial verdict and on Michael. The last 5 months have been very painful as we watched Michael's privacy be so grossly invaded and his personal business broadcast across all forms of media. A media that salivates over salacious details about this lovely man. Based on what this juror explained and a bit of common sense, I agree with the verdict. Personally, I believe that Conrad Murray holds the majority, if not all, the responsibility for his patient's death. And to think his burden of guilt would be diminished in the slightest is totally unacceptable. Rather than the deep pockets of AEG, perhaps justice would have been served by not waiving restitution and hounding that man for every dime he attempts to pocket from what he did.

The fact that this juror and others were able to see the kindness, gentleness and caring that is at the core of Michael Jackson,certainly is a wonderful gift and a reason to finally smile. Thank you for sharing that with us.

In the UK, it is against the law for a juror to discuss a case afterwards. It's different in America though. But yeah, could have been written by anyone.

the speaker of the jurors did also reveal his name and his face. He even did an interview

Neverland_Valley said:

Do we have to assume that this was really written by one of the jurors?

Click to expand...

you are free to assume whatever you want.

maviefly said:

yes, why doesn't Juror #27 reveal his name?

Click to expand...

why would they? it's not like the names of the jurors are public information. Plus that's not wise given some fans tendency to harass others.

------------------------------------------

That being said juror #27 said to me they can post their jury certificate for verification. It's their choice to post it or not. And everyone here can choose to believe or not believe the post.


Edited to add: and can we please stop the fighting.

Juror#27 said:

I couldn't agree more with the bolded. It's practically an epidemic as far as I'm concerned.

I was on this jury, and of all the places I've seen where this is being talked about, this community seems by far to be the most level-headed and approachable. So many passionate MJ fans rationally discussing the verdict rather than lashing out in anger is very nice to see, and makes me think this is probably the best place for me to make a small statement.

Initially I planned to avoid and ignore all the comments about the verdict after the trial ended. Because as soon as we answered 'no' to question 2 in the jury room, I knew how it would be reported and misunderstood ("DURR STUPID JURY HOW CAN CONRAD MURRAY BE FIT AND COMPETENT WHEN HE IS IN JAIL FOR KILLING MJ??? DURRR"). And sure enough, the very first question asked by the media when we got outside was "How could you find Conrad Murray competent?" And of course a bunch of hardcore MJ supporters outside were yelling, calling us stupid and confused, etc. So I figured rather than getting annoyed at misinformation being spread or seeing us called morons ad nauseam, it'd be better to just ignore it all.

Well that lasted about a day before my curiosity got the better of me, and I had to peek around to see what people were saying. I had to see if that version of us as idiots was the main narrative going on. Thankfully most people commenting on the verdict are actually looking at what we were instructed to consider, and agree with our decision. We knew from day 1 that no matter the outcome we would have people agreeing and disagreeing with the verdict, and I'm thankful that this jury did not concern itself with what people would say or think about us and decided to follow the instructions and base our verdict on the evidence in the case.

Just like our jury foreman, I went into this trial about as neutral as one could be towards Michael Jackson. I was 7 when Thriller came out so I grew up with his music and loved it, but I knew very little about his life other than what I'd seen in the media, and I honestly had no strong feelings about him as a person either way. I walk out of this trial completely understanding why he has so many fans who practically deify him. Who are so strongly attracted to his kind spirit, huge heart, gentle nature, love of his children and mother, etc. I totally get it now.

Every single witness who was questioned about whether they thought MJ was a good father (and almost every one who knew him closely was asked) sang endless praises about his love of his kids. If Prince's testimony is any indication, MJ was definitely a great father. The kid is bright, intelligent, caring, has great character and a great personality, and I truly believe MJ did a phenomenal job raising him in the few years he was able to. Honestly, every single juror came away feeling very positive about Michael Jackson as a person and father.

I know there was concern about MJ's image being hurt because of this trial, and maybe to outside viewers it was because of some of the details that came out. But for us in the jury in that courtroom for all these months, we just grew more and more fond of him during the course of the trial.

I'd like to say thank you to all the people I've seen here supporting us jurors in our decision, it really means a lot. I will be happy to answer anything I can about the trial if you'd like to ask and if I am able.

Click to expand...

:give_heart:

Hi, posting from phone but just wanted to quickly say I will answer as many questions as I can, as well as post my jury certificate with my screen name here to prove myself as soon as I get home (~8hrs from now). I understand being skeptical and don't have any problem showing proof.

Thx for your patience.

If I was to ask questions to the jurors, I would be curious about

- What did they think about the witnesses? Who did they believe to be honest and who did they believe to be not honest?

- and if they discussed it or considered it, what did they think about the other questions on the verdict form? or in other words of we assume question 2 wasn't on the form would the verdict change? (it looked like 2 jurors believed AEG didn't and couldn't know what was going on in regards to Propofol. I wonder if this was a widely shared belief)

Juror#27 said:

Hi, posting from phone but just wanted to quickly say I will answer as many questions as I can, as well as post my jury certificate with my screen name here to prove myself as soon as I get home (~8hrs from now). I understand being skeptical and don't have any problem showing proof.

Thx for your patience.

Click to expand...

Strange, that Juror#27 posts again just right after I question his authenticity. For me, an obvious sign of this being a fake account.

ivy said:

If I was to ask questions to the jurors, I would be curious about

- What did they think about the witnesses? Who did they believe to be honest and who did they believe to be not honest?

Click to expand...

I hope the juror tells nothing about this, Ivy!
He would get into trouble if he would answer of such Question. All witnesses were put under the oath and if the juror would say "i believe Mr./Mrs. XYZ was not honest"... now, he could be sued for slandering. (IMO!)

But maybe in US it isn't so????

Ivy you asked the question I wanted to ask too - about question #3 and how the jurors would have answered it, if it was discussed.

And just wanted to add a Thank you to Juror#27 for posting this really nice message. Know that a lot of MJ fans do think you made a reasonable and logical decision with that verdict.

A lot of us who answered the questions from the verdict form, answered with "no" the second question (and the third too).

Don't pay attention to the disrespectful people out there.

Neverland_Valley said:

Strange, that Juror#27 posts again just right after I question his authenticity. For me, an obvious sign of this being a fake account.

Click to expand...

No, not strange. Do you have heard about this little gadgets called 'handy' or 'mobile telefon'?
And sometimes there is in such handy an internet too.
Do you can imagine that the juror is not at home but he is reading our thread but he will answer from his notebook at home?

Why should he be a fake?

We don't all have to agree but we also certainly do not need to disagree just for the sake of it!!

No doubt when the juror posts the certificate, its authenticity will be questioned and a whole host of conspiracies will surface - why did he/she do or say this, why he/she not respond when this was said and on and on, it will go. *Sigh*

Thank you so much for taking the time to post here juror#27, it is defintely appreciated don't let a few people's opinions bother you.

Why didn't the Jackson's sue Conrad Murray?


Now that the AEG trial is over, there is a real question that could be asked. There are enough fans with the power to post this question everywhere and make sure it becomes so widespread, the Jackson family may not want to answer but would most certainly hear about it. The question being, why didn't they sue Conrad Murray (The. Doctor)?.

Given the situation that directly lead to his patients death, any other family of the victim would have pursued legal action against the doctor responsible. If Murray really is broke, a substantial civil judgement against him would first assure that he could not exploit Michael Jackson. It would also assure Murray having to continue paying for his wreckless actions long after being released from jail.

Had The Jackson's sued Murray, given the lower burden of proof there is a very good chance they would have won. Also add the coronors ruling and the fact Murray was found guilty in criminal court, it may have been too much for even the best civil defense to overcome.

So, why didn't the Jackson family sue Conrad Murray? Raising this question would accomplish 2 things. It would cause many outside of the MJ fan base to question the family's true motivation. further exposing a pattern of contradictory statements and behavior that perhaps did not put Michael's legacy or the best interst of his children first.

Two, With AEG found not liable and Murray about to be releaed from jail, all of the focus would be put back on the person responsible for causing Michael Jackson's death.

The MJ fan community may have been devided in their opinion of the AEG trial, but this issue gives something we can all agree on. That being, Conrad Murray is a convicted killer guilty of manslaughter, and that is no longer a question.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Michael-Jackson-was-NOT-an-addict/288817687803025

gerryevans said:

That's basically what Tom Mez was always saying, that if AEG hired him, they assumed the "risk" for him, which always sort of pricked my insides, because MJ was the reason Murray was anywhere near TII, and it means if MJ is bringing someone into the picture, you're assuming some kind of risk, which turns out could endanger your entire company. When the fact of the matter is, EXCEPT for crazy Murray, everyone who worked with MJ professionally was the very best. Even Klien, was once one of the foremost,most respected dermatologist in his field. I understand yours and Mez' point, but can't help it, it bothers me hearing a competency risk is involved with an MJ recommendation.

Click to expand...

An MJ recommendation Yes, that AEG accepted and then hired Murray! Despite the ridiculous amount of money he asked for which should have sent red flags! So what can I say!? But the same thing I already posted!

"But his not calling 911 wasn't about skill or professional know how. A kid knows to call 911. Murray's was about covering himself and covering up. MJ was already dead when Murray started making any calls. And that he DID know."

Juror 27. Though I am not part of the majority here that supports the verdict, I do honestly commend you for having the courage to come here to explain the jury's decision (which I now better understand) and share your feelings but most importantly to acknowledge your softening of heart towards Michael. I always loved Michael's music and had a soft spot for him when the media began their 25 year attack mode but regretfully didn't become a passionate fan until after he died and I read everything I could get my hands on about him. Then I fell in love with the MAN and his goodness of heart. Please understand that Michael's fans have been in battle mode for years, some for decades. It has produced very protective and passionate advocates as we saw the human being behind the genius shredded and ridiculed. For all the joy that Michael gave us - which is immense - we are often a community in pain. Sometimes that bubbles over into overzealousness and anger and we suffer errors in judgment. However, if nothing good came out of this trial except that more people like you came to see the decent and loving and brilliant person that he was, then for that I am thankful. Thank you for caring enough to "talk" to us.

Bubs said:

I don't think that slap was vicious. I think he is kind of type that do a bit of boasting and exaggerating to color his stories.
I don't know whether its a good thing hat they got some major legal bills as they can go to judge with their bills and ask plaintiffs to pay them. Randy is not going to pay them for sure, so it is either Panish's company or KJ, and we know what happen if KJ has to pay those.

Click to expand...

Yeah that is the thing about these bills. Both Katherine and AEG attorneys can use the bills as a business expense, which helps reduce your tax liability to the IRS. Then, if Katherine has any fees to pay to Boyle, her personal attorney, I am sure if she does not have enough from her allowance the estate will have to pay it. In no way would they leave her with a big debt, since it would not look good, & Michael gave very unspecific directives for taking care of Katherine. Randy and Oxman will run around saying the estate is making billions and Michael's mom has no money to pay her bills. I get the feeling that since 09 when Katherine got those lawyers to go to court about the will, she has cost the estate millions of dollars.

What I don't understand is this Boyle situation. He is Katherine's personal attorney and is paid for that, so when he goes to court with Panish he is now acting as her attorney as part of her AEG defense? How does he divide up his payment for the different roles? Is someone clocking in what role Boyle is serving at a particular time, so that he does not try to get money from the estate for being in court for the AEG case? Is Boyle on retainer or just being paid when he does something? The next accounting is going to be a revelation indeed.

Juror 27 Thanks for posting here. I don't see why you have to send in your certification. I think that information should be sent by pm to the staff only. Then the staff can say, we saw it and it is OK. Why should you have to post your private information here on people's demands.

I see some found something or someone new to attack, which is a pity.

Nina Hamilton medical license and board certification is not the same thing. The way you posted made it seem as the same. Also, not every doc is board certified.

Blue the high wage Muarry wanted should have sent ^^Red Flags of What exactly?

A great big thank you to the Juror and this individual's eloquence. What an honor that you have replied on here, I feel like a part of HIStory!

Thanks for posting here Juror #27. Like others have said you should show the credentials to the staff but it's whatever you want to do. Either way welcome to the fandom.

Alicat ^^ that was lovely. This forum has gotten some nice responses from those involved in cases relating to Michael. I hope the forum keeps up its quality.

Thank you to Juror#27. This feedback is very much appreciated.

corlista said:

"But his not calling 911 wasn't about skill or professional know how. A kid knows to call 911. Murray's was about covering himself and covering up. MJ was already dead when Murray started making any calls. And that he DID know."

Juror 27. Though I am not part of the majority here that supports the verdict, I do honestly commend you for having the courage to come here to explain the jury's decision (which I now better understand) and share your feelings but most importantly to acknowledge your softening of heart towards Michael. I always loved Michael's music and had a soft spot for him when the media began their 25 year attack mode but regretfully didn't become a passionate fan until after he died and I read everything I could get my hands on about him. Then I fell in love with the MAN and his goodness of heart. Please understand that Michael's fans have been in battle mode for years, some for decades. It has produced very protective and passionate advocates as we saw the human being behind the genius shredded and ridiculed. For all the joy that Michael gave us - which is immense - we are often a community in pain. Sometimes that bubbles over into overzealousness and anger and we suffer errors in judgment. However, if nothing good came out of this trial except that more people like you came to see the decent and loving and brilliant person that he was, then for that I am thankful. Thank you for caring enough to "talk" to us.

Click to expand...

Absolutely beautiful.

Thank you for the heartfelt post.

It's true that the fan community has been in friction since June 25 2009. it's quite scary when you think about it and I've never seen anything like that since I became a fan 20 years ago. When MJ was alive the community was always united, moving in the same direction. Sure, there was some disagreements, like any other communities out there, but not to the scale we see right now. in fact i'd say we are at war against each other. and it's rather sad.

Hopefully this shall pass and someday we'll be united and stronger than ever before.

Interesting development.

I believe we must be patient here. Juror27 is a new member and only has two posts thus far. Although Juror27 is already listed as a member as opposed to a junior member, the posts may be in moderation as it happens for those with less than 10 posts, i.e., junior members.

I have sent pics of the last two months of service certificates to ivy.

I really wish I had held off posting initially until later. I didn't mean to drop a post and not be around to respond, but since it had to be approved and I didn't know how long that might take I posted right before I went to bed. Then had plans for all day today. So I apologize for my delay in responding.

johnlomas said:

I have a question for you if question 2 had included the word ethical would your personal answer still have been no?

Click to expand...

The problem I have with what our foreman said and the question you are asking is that it mixes up the timelines. If the word unethical was included in question 2, we would still have to assess whether AEG knew that at the time they hired Conrad Murray.

The most the plaintiffs could say in that area was that Murray asked for $5million initially and that should have sent up red flags. Asking for that amount would definitely catch my attention and maybe raise an eyebrow, but it still doesn't qualify in my mind as unethical. Asking for a lot of money doesn't mean one is unethical in my estimation (and I hope the irony of repeatedly implying that in court was not lost on the plaintiffs ;D). Also that Murray was being foreclosed on and had a lot of owed child support. Again, being in debt or being foreclosed on doesn't in itself cross an ethical boundary in my mind.

So no, I don't think we would have answered differently if the question asked whether he was ethical because we didn't see any evidence that showed that AEG knew Murray was going to act unethically.

TheChosenOne said:

I am so relieved that I was unnecessarily worried about the jurors and their perceptions.

I was really hoping that they were able to see Michael as a human being, and a wonderful human being at that!

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I can't stress enough how much we all liked him by the end of the trial. So many witnesses and so much heartfelt testimony. Lots of pure love and affection for Michael poured out over these months and it left an incredible impression on all of us.

suzynyc said:

Juror #27 thank you for your lovely comment. At first I was confused by the jury's answer to question #2 but reading into it further I think I see the logic. Although I had always known Michael Jackson and his music all my life I did not come to be a "super fan" until just after he died when I too began to research and learn more about him as a person and not just the "King of Pop" superstar. I liked what I learned. He was not a perfect person but he was a good person and a good father. I wish my own deadbeat father had been half the father Michael was to his children. Thank you for having an open mind.

Click to expand...

This hits the nail on the head. Throughout all the testimony and witnesses, that was one of the strongest recurring themes -- MJ was a wonderful father and person.

Korgnex said:

Thank you, Juror#27.

Before the verdict was read, we were going through the questions like you guys had to. Though I personally wouldn't have answered question 1 with a "yes", I can understand and thought it was very likely that this question had to be answered by 12 jurors with "yes" because it was realistic that at least 9 jurors would argue that both MJ and AEG Live could have hired Dr. Murray.

If you go through my postings in this very thread here, I was trying to explain the meaning of the terms "unfit" and "incompetent" in question 2 and their association with "the work for which he was hired".
I was also trying to show that even if that question would not lead us to a "no", there was nothing factual in those 5 months for question 3 that could tell us AEG Live had or should have had knowledge of Murray being unfit or incompetent.
Like you, we noticed here that many are confused by the fact that Dr. Murray did infact cause involuntary manslaughter of Michael Jackson and why this fact has nothing to do with determining Dr. Murray being "fit" and "competent" for the work he was hired for.
If you want to take a look at my thoughts on these questions and terms, here are some of my postings:

• thoughts on question 2, possible guiding questions
• about the terms "unfit" and "incompetent"
• Korgnex & Tygger disagreeing about question 3
• Korgnex & Tygger disagreeing about contract theories, "the work he was hired for" and "general medical care"
• Korgnex & Tygger disagreeing about contract "termination" (of what?) [Part I], clause 7.3, other clauses
• Korgnex & Tygger disagreeing about contract "termination" (of what?) [Part II], services of Dr. Murray and fundamental rights
• Korgnex & Charles Thomson (freelancer journalist) disagreeing about terms "unfit" and "incompetent"

As you might have read, there was a particular idea that came up here:
it was whether a conflict of interest due to AEG Live advancing money to Murray (as per draft agreements) would a) be affirmed and b) thus determine Dr. Murray as "incompetent" in question 2.
However I highly disagree with this point of view for these reasons:

• There is no precedent that established a cash-stricken person would automatically provide substandard work / putting a patient at risk.
  [The person in question has to be cash-stricken as otherwise, he couldn't care less about the money and there would be no conflicting interest.]
• Dr. Murray had ordered propofol before Michael even introduced him to AEG Live.
  [You can't establish a conflicting interest that way since Dr. Murray was not affected by AEG Live or any other third party at all.]
• Every doctor that is receiving (advance) payment from a third party would then - after this idea - have to be considered "incompetent" and that's quite untrue.
• A doctor's Hippocratic oath would dwindle in importance since the Hippocratic oath is the fundamental ethic framework for doctors.
  [Dr. Murray breaking his Hippocratic oath was his very own choice, his very own responsibility and noone else can be blamed for being or becoming unethic than the unethical person itself.]

I would be interested what you think about this idea.

Click to expand...

You are right on the money in my opinion.

The conflict of interest idea was countered by the defense saying that in actuality all 3 interests were aligned. It was clearly in everyone's best interest for Michael to be healthy and to do the shows and I see no way to dispute this. MJ being healthy and performing was good for everyone involved. And even if one wants to view this as a conflict of interest, I don't see how the existence of it in and of itself renders Murray unfit or incompetent. We were told over and over that conflicts of interest arise all the time in medicine and are the responsibility of the doctor to mitigate.

So even if a conflict of interest was in place, it was on Murray's shoulders to mitigate it since he was the one providing medical care to MJ.

As for question 1, our first vote had 3 answers.

Hired him.
Didn't hire him.
Unsure.

After first vote it was 6 votes unsure, 4 votes no and 2 votes yes. I initially voted no.

But we then looked at the jury instructions which said that contracts can be written, oral, or partly written and partly oral. It said that oral contracts are just as valid as written contracts, and that implied-in-fact contracts could be valid through the parties' conduct.

So we looked at AEG's behavior in dealing with Conrad Murray, and we felt that between the drawn up contracts, the fact that they backdated his starting date from June 1 to May 1 in one of the drafts, the Gongaware emails about who was paying Murray's salary, that Randy Phillips and Murray were in charge of getting MJ to rehearsals, it was all enough conduct to say that they "hired" him.

It is late here and I'm off to sleep, will answer more posts tomorrow.

Nina Hamilton;3914166 said:

I was very happy to read your words, Jury No.27. that you have joined the band of followers of MJ. Maybe the trial has had a positive outcome after all. However, one or two points are bothering me. If AEG had checked Conrad Murray out, they would have discovered that his medical licences/board certifications in Nevada and Texas had expired in December, 2008. so indicating they were negligent in hiring him knowing that. Perhaps it didn't matter. But something else, I read that CM asked AEG for resuscitation equipment but failed to get it. Surely AEG would have wondered if he was carrying out a risky procedure, and was he competent? Over four years some information may have been forgotten. I don't remember hearing any of that in the civil trial.

Click to expand...

I haven't finished reading all the posts yet so I don't know if you got reply to your questions.
This bit is from CM vs People trial
"K Jorrie had a conversation on Jun 18th with CM about medical equipment needed to be included as a provision in the contract. KJ wanted to know why he needed this equipment including a CPR machine. CM said when MJ was performing at the O2 arena he was going to be performing extraordinary things. Also considering his age, CM wanted the machine. KJ asked wouldn't this be at the arena? CM told her he didn't want to take any chances. KJ was worried MJ might have a heart problem or was unhealthy. CM assured her he was healthy. CM told KJ three times that MJ was in perfect health."

CM asked CPR machine to UK and it was approved, so it would have been in place in UK. I hope above answers to your question.
About CM med licences,
This is what Nevada Medical Board web site says:
Issue Date: 8/17/1999 Expiration Date: 6/30/2011
http://medboard.nv.gov/Verification/Details.aspx?agency_id=1&license_id=7323&

This what Texas Medical board web site says:
Expiration Date of Physician’s Registration Permit: 08/31/2012
http://reg.tmb.state.tx.us/OnLineVe...asp?ID_NUM=481975&Type=LP&LicensePermit=M0502

This is what California med board web site says:
Expiration Date: February 28, 2011
http://www2.mbc.ca.gov/LicenseLooku...Lookup.aspx?licenseType=G&licenseNumber=71169

If I remember right, K Jorrie did check his med licences?
Check her testimony from
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...son-vs-AEG-Live-Daily-Trial-Testimony-Summary

Petrarose said:

Yeah that is the thing about these bills. Both Katherine and AEG attorneys can use the bills as a business expense, which helps reduce your tax liability to the IRS. Then, if Katherine has any fees to pay to Boyle, her personal attorney, I am sure if she does not have enough from her allowance the estate will have to pay it. In no way would they leave her with a big debt, since it would not look good, & Michael gave very unspecific directives for taking care of Katherine. Randy and Oxman will run around saying the estate is making billions and Michael's mom has no money to pay her bills. I get the feeling that since 09 when Katherine got those lawyers to go to court about the will, she has cost the estate millions of dollars.

What I don't understand is this Boyle situation. He is Katherine's personal attorney and is paid for that, so when he goes to court with Panish he is now acting as her attorney as part of her AEG defense? How does he divide up his payment for the different roles? Is someone clocking in what role Boyle is serving at a particular time, so that he does not try to get money from the estate for being in court for the AEG case? Is Boyle on retainer or just being paid when he does something? The next accounting is going to be a revelation indeed.

Click to expand...

We will know soon enough who is going to pay KJ bills, and I certainly have my fingers grossed that the estate doesn't have to pay.

Boyle is partner of Panish's company and not KJ personal attorney? Perry Sanders and Sandra Ribeira are KJ's attorney's and other attorney's are releated to this case. I could see that Perry and Sandra would send billing to KJ, and KJ sends it to the bottomless money bit of MJ's estate.

bluetopez said:

An MJ recommendation Yes, that AEG accepted and then hired Murray! Despite the ridiculous amount of money he asked for which should have sent red flags! So what can I say!? But the same thing I already posted!

Click to expand...

Okay!