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

Big Apple2 said:
Were Murray's "duties" spelled out in the contract? That's my question.

Also, wasn't it Michael, himself, that said AEG should offer Murray $150,000.00 per month and wasn't that money going to be paid from Michael's share of the proceeds?
Click to expand...


Well according to Gongaware's email AEG was paying Murray's salary not MJ... that's what he said in the email
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

LastTear said:
General medical care.
Click to expand...

Thanks LastTear, i.e. general medical care.

If that's the case, I would have to say YES, Murray was qualified to perform "general medical care."

Case in point, Michael first met Murray because the children were not feeling well. Murray performed general medical care and I'm guessing that everything turned out alright. Right?
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

jaydom7 said:
Well according to Gongaware's email AEG was paying Murray's salary not MJ... that's what he said in the email
Click to expand...

Yeah, but we all know that NOBODY was paying Murray's salary. So, in my opinion, that email is moot.

If AEG did in fact pay Murray any money, then it would be a wrap. Whole different set of circumstances, in my opinion.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Question 2 is a tricky one indeed.
Question 2:
Was Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?


  • Which work was he hired for?
    • General medical care?
      • Of MJ?
      • Of MJ and his kids?
      • Was Murray unfit or incompetent for general medical care?
    • Some special treatment (including propofol infusion)?
      • Was Murray unfit or incompetent for that special treatment (including propofol infusion)?
      • Did AEG hire Murray for that special treatment (including propofol infusion)?
        • Did plaintiffs prove there was a contract for that special treatment?
        • Did plaintiffs prove there was an oral agreement for that special treatment?
        • Did plaintiffs prove there was a draft agreement for that special treatment?
        • Did plaintiffs prove that defendants had any knowledge or should have had about that special treatment?
        • Did plaintiffs prove that defendants had any say in Murray's special treatment?
        • Did plaintiffs prove that Murray thought he was performing the work for AEG Live?
        • Did plaintiffs prove that Murray requested any money for his work from AEG Live?
        • Did plaintiffs prove that Murray received any money for his work from AEG Live?
        • Did plaintiffs prove that the money that was budgeted for Murray was on AEG Live's request?
        • Did plaintiffs prove that the money that was budgeted for Murray was for that special treatment?
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

ivy said:
Question No. 1
Did AEG Live hire Murray?

Yes / No
Click to expand...

In my opinion, this question can go either way.

I say that because "some" folks are sticklers for a SIGNED document and "some" folks believe that a HANDSHAKE is sufficient when doing business.

In America we are over saturated with courtroom programs like: Judge Judy, Judge Milan, Judge Mathis, and Judge Alex (to name a few), and the first question they ALWAYS ask is "do you have anything in writing." I watch those programs and I'm sure members of the jury watch those programs as well.

Lastly, what is the language in the contract that explains why Michael's signature was needed to COMPLETE the deal?
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

If AEG went to Michael and said b Michael this is your doctor this is the guy we want then you could have said they should should have known. But Michael bought Murray to them
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Big Apple2 said:
I'm gonna start with Question No. 2: what exactly was Murray "officially hired" to do?

Did the contract spell out what Murray's duties would have been?
Click to expand...

I also keep asking the same question to myself. The contract said "general care", if we are determining on that Murray was competent but if we are looking it from the perspective of anesthesia / insomnia he wasn't competent.

I agree that these questions look simple but not that simple.

jaydom7 said:
by asking... Murray wanted $150,000 per month... my question would've been what exactly will you be doing that entails that much money? also since MJ was deemed 'fine and healthy' during his physical what the hell are you needed for? especially being a cardiologist for a man with no heart problems
Click to expand...

LastTear said:
By asking would be a true invasion of Michaels privacy rights. Would you like your employer to be given a run down on all your personal medical issues. Who better to take care of an athlete than a cardiologist?
Click to expand...

well they did ask a little bit and Michael replied saying his body was the machine and it needed to be taken care of. Specifics of any treatment is private under doctor patient privacy laws. Even asked both Michael and Murray would have refused to answer and it would be an acceptable behavior.

LastTear said:
But that money is not coming out of their pockets, it doesn't effect them - its Michaels money.
Click to expand...

Big Apple2 said:
Also, wasn't it Michael, himself, that said AEG should offer Murray $150,000.00 per month and wasn't that money going to be paid from Michael's share of the proceeds?
Click to expand...

jaydom7 said:
Well according to Gongaware's email AEG was paying Murray's salary not MJ... that's what he said in the email
Click to expand...

Even though Gongaware wrote "we are paying his salary", this wasn't told to Murray and they weren't paying him anything. Even though they did, they would have gotten the money back from Michael. So technically AEG would have advanced Murray's salary.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I really wish Katherine would've sued Murray for malpractice.. I can't believe that this fool of a doctor willingly gave a man anesthesia to sleep and left him alone at any point thinking he was 'sleeping'.. WTF? Katherine should've sued this MF for everything he had and would have in the future. Murray wanted $150,000 grand a month and he couldn't even monitor MJ... Just tragic..
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

ivy said:
I also keep asking the same question to myself. The contract said "general care", if we are determining on that Murray was competent but if we are looking it from the perspective of anesthesia / insomnia he wasn't competent.

I agree that these questions look simple but not that simple.

well they did ask a little bit and Michael replied saying his body was the machine and it needed to be taken care of. Specifics of any treatment is private under doctor patient privacy laws. Even asked both Michael and Murray would have refused to answer and it would be an acceptable behavior.







Even though Gongaware wrote "we are paying his salary", this wasn't told to Murray and they weren't paying him anything. Even though they did, they would have gotten the money back from Michael. So technically AEG would have advanced Murray's salary.
Click to expand...





Murray knew he was getting his money from AEG.. he told the cops that..
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

a little note about length of deliberations

now some people think a quick verdict favors the defendant however there's nothing to back this up. Also what is "quick" is subjective and it's a matter of how much discussion the jurors have and how certain they are in regards to certain topics.

for example if we assume that Panish did a wonderful job and this jury strongly agrees with his arguments, they can quickly give 5 yes answers and come back with a quick verdict in favor of plaintiffs in a few hours.

on the other hand if they are torn between both sides they can spend hours and hours on a single question and eventually come back with a verdict in favor of defendants in several days.

Time a jury takes to deliberate doesn't really show what the verdict will be. You never know.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

jaydom7 said:
Murray knew he was getting his money from AEG.. he told the cops that..
Click to expand...

he also said he was hired by Michael but being paid by AEG - which happens to be exactly AEG's position that Michael hired Murray and they were advancing his salary. and regardless what he said to the cops are irrelevant. it's not evidence in this trial.

remember this jury is going to make decisions on everything they presented (not only Gongaware's email but also Murray's contract which says he's expense of Michael) and they cannot consider anything that's not in evidence (Murray's police interview)
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

who are you for Ivy?
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

jaydom7 said:
who are you for Ivy?
Click to expand...

jury's verdict.

I made this clear from the start I'm not happy with all the dragging Michael had to endure due to this trial. As far as the verdict goes I don't care either way who wins or who loses. I expressed this before. If you are asking me who would win, I truly think this is a 50-50 case and it could go either way. I wouldn't be surprised with a $2 Billion verdict in favor of Katherine and I equally wouldn't be surprised with a verdict in favor of AEG. I'll accept any verdict from the jury (as I believe in the system) and wait to see if the (almost certain) appeals would make any difference.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Big Apple2 said:
I'm gonna start with Question No. 2: what exactly was Murray "officially hired" to do?

Did the contract spell out what Murray's duties would have been?
Click to expand...

Just going through CM's contract dated 23rd, which he signed, but not other.

Under recitals on first page there reads:
CM represents he is licenced cardiologist practising in LV... and that he acts as The Artists General Practioner.

Under Agreement, again first page:
....CM will provide general medical care the the artists with the greatest degree of care to....

This is what CM was hired to do. Giving propofol at home settings wasn't and still isn't labelled as general medical care from General practioner. Pronto.

Note, AEG was under the impression that was exactly what CM was doing, but CM and MJ never told AEG what was the real reason for CM. I don't think if it fair that AEG has to pay in this case.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

2 and 3 are the tricky questions. I personally would answer with NO both of them, but you never know how the jury would go.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Does anyone remember Putnam talking about this paragraph 9 during his closing speech?
Was that paragraph 9 from CM's contract?
CM contract says on paragraph 9:
Artist Consent
The effect of this agreement is conditioned upon an approval and concent of the artist. Without the artist expressed and written approval of the agreement neither party to the agreement will have any right or obligations to one another arising from agreement.

That doesn't sound like what Putnam was talking about. I remeber he said something that paragraph 9 says MJ is fully resposible of his independent contractors or something similar???

Sorry found it what Putnam was talking about
jackson-agreement.jpg
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

^ No, Katherine and the children as beneficiaries of Michael's will aren't a third party. A third party would be eg another promoter (AllGood Entertainment).
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Bubs said:
Here is the link for CM LAPD interview so you can refresh your memory what CM thought who hired him and who was paying and how. Like Ivy said, this wasn't talked in trial and is not evidence, so jurors don't know about it.
http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/conrad-murray-recorded-interview.pdf
Page 11
Click to expand...

Here's the section (page 11):
Detective Martinez: "The news is reporting that you don't work for Mr. Jackson but you work for A.E.G. Is that correct or incorrect?"

Dr. Murray: "How do I define that? Well, Mr. Jackson asked me to be on his team. I was talking to Mr. Jackson himself. He offered me employment, and I was of the opinion that he would be my employer directly. Subsequently to accepting that, I... I realized that A.E.G. would be the one paying for the salary that he requested. So that was their arrangement as far what they would finance me. So I am an employee for Michael Jackson but paid through A.E.G. Does that help you?"

Detective Martinez: "Oh, yeah. So Michael picked you, but somebody else is getting the tab."

Dr. Murray: "I had no idea that that was the case."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

As the gap is closing in the polls I am interested in hearing from those in favour of AEG being liable their reasons for voting yes to question number two. I don't mean anything by asking other than wanting to understand as question 2 has been a road block for me even since the proposed forms were made public - I just want to see it from a different point of view.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I'm a bit lost here

Putnam said:
AEG was going to loan a broke Jackson money to help pay Murray, according to Putnam. He also says Jackson agreed to be responsible for anyone he brought on the tour with him

and he showed these to slides

murray-draft.jpg


jackson-agreement.jpg


Here is the link to MJ-AEG contract where you can read the full paragraph:
http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books-jetzi-04/10wrh/10wrh199.html
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

didn't AEG claim MJ was broke, almost destitute and in debt up wazoo?? how was MJ going to pay anybody if that's the case
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

What do mean pay anybody, CM?
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

^ It means that they were loaning Michael the money and while the tour was to make revenues for MJ, they would have invoiced that money (by subtracting from Michael's revenues at regular intervals) which they had allocated in advance. The 15.2 term is a non-liability clause. It is a sign that AEG Live was not the party hiring Murray but assuming responsibility for the advance payment (the payment was ultimately from MJ).
 
Last edited:
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Selling_Out_Souls said:

Panish tried to make Propofol seem like anunimportant factor for question 3, but IMO, without Propofol, you have NO'murder weapon'. Without the Propofol, its more likely than not that we'd stillhave Michael.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about this.

But the jury could take question 3 in a different way too, as Panish took that "particular" risk as bad general care, They could think that in spite of knowing Michael was unwell on 19th June and that many people were concerned, Phillips decided they were on the "9th ring", near the end, and decided to trust the doctor and quieten Ortega to any cost.
jamba said:

Question No. 2
Was Murray unfit orincompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?

The problem with these questions is there is notime frame--no "when."

Is the date June 25th, 2009? If so, then thatframes the answers. If it was May 1st, 2009, that's another question. Myquestion is WHEN did Murray become incompetent?
Click to expand...

For me, he became incompetent the very moment he ordered propofol and he bought the cheapest and most unreliable pulxiosimeter in the market. And that's the problem, who hired him for giving prop.and what evidence there is. Besides, that was in April.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Bubs said:
Does anyone remember Putnam talking about this paragraph 9 during his closing speech?
Was that paragraph 9 from CM's contract?
Click to expand...

no that's from Michael's contract

Korgnex said:
Here's the section (page 11):

Detective Martinez: "The news is reporting that you don't work for Mr. Jackson but you work for A.E.G. Is that correct or incorrect?"

Dr. Murray: "How do I define that? Well, Mr. Jackson asked me to be on his team. I was talking to Mr. Jackson himself. He offered me employment, and I was of the opinion that he would be my employer directly. Subsequently to accepting that, I... I realized that A.E.G. would be the one paying for the salary that he requested. So that was their arrangement as far what they would finance me. So I am an employee for Michael Jackson but paid through A.E.G. Does that help you?"

Detective Martinez: "Oh, yeah. So Michael picked you, but somebody else is getting the tab."

Dr. Murray: "I had no idea that that was the case."
Click to expand...

and this is exactly AEG's position. murray was Michael's employee and would be paid through but not by AEG. but as I said it is irrelevant. that interview is not in evidence.

jaydom7 said:
didn't AEG claim MJ was broke, almost destitute and in debt up wazoo?? how was MJ going to pay anybody if that's the case
Click to expand...

Bubs said:
What do mean pay anybody, CM?
Click to expand...

Korgnex said:
^ It means that they were loaning Michael the money and while the tour was to make revenues for MJ, they would have invoiced that money (by subtracting from Michael's revenues at regular intervals) which they had allocated in advance.
Click to expand...

jaydom, perhaps you should read MJ - AEG contract. AEG was advancing Michael the money and when he started to perform and earn money they would cut what Michael owed to them from the money he brings in.

In other words think like this AEG had advanced $26 Million, the first concert brought $3 Million. AEG would take that and Michael's debt would be reduced to $23 M. and once it was paid back he would get 90% of the revenues.

so even if AEG had paid for Murray, Karen Faye and so on, they would have taken back what they paid to them from Michael. So in the end all of their salaries would have come out of Michael's pocket.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Is this jury racially mixed? what is the racial makeup does anyone know? The fact that AEG saw MJ deteriorating in 60 days and did nothing is actually shocking to me.. They should've known if MJ got sick or died that they would be blamed. Just from past experience and his 1993 issues they should've been able to see something wasn't right there. Their best bet was to call it off and tell MJ to go and get himself together physically and psychologically. Randy Phillips said on March 9,2009 that MJ was a mess, self loathing and scared to death.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

jaydom7 said:
Is this jury racially mixed? what is the racial makeup does anyone know? The fact that AEG saw MJ deteriorating in 60 days and did nothing is actually shocking to me.. They should've known if MJ got sick or died that they would be blamed. Just from past experience and his 1993 issues they should've been able to see something wasn't right there. Their best bet was to call it off and tell MJ to go and get himself together physically and psychologically. Randy Phillips said on March 9,2009 that MJ was a mess, self loathing and scared to death.
Click to expand...

...And to know exactly that is heart breaking. AEG is so full of it, they didn't and never will care about Michael. The only thing they thought was 'MJ+Biggest Comeback In Musical History= $$$$$$' they didn't think, "Oh, we have to make sure he's okay. It's better to know he's fine & able to perform than send him out and let him get hurt.'

Did anyone tell Katherine that this money wasn't gonna bring Michael back?

God I hate this...
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

pulling out the old race car to make a point huh?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top