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.
Juror#27 Thank you so much for coming to MJJC and sharing with us. I haven't read too far back so I am sorry if I am asking a question again but did you guys hear what happened to Paris? For all of us who love her father so much it was heartbreaking...
Thank you again for letting us know you came away from the trial knowing that Michael Jackson was a good man who was doing the very best that he could.
:wub::wub::wub::wub::wub::wub::wub::wub::wub::wub::wub:
 
Bubs said:
I don't know can you answer to these questions, but if you can,what was your impressions of Randy, Katherine and Karen Faye's testimony? I know jury loved Debbie and Kenny O, and no wonder, we loved their testimonies too.
Click to expand...
Randy's deposition was interesting. I liked him a lot. The testimony was mostly about the time period where he was trying to stage interventions for MJ, and I believe he really tried his best to help get his brother clean.

Katherine's testimony probably hit me the hardest, emotionally. Late last year I lost my grandmother who raised me, and during her testimony I was reminded of her over and over. Very emotional stuff and I teared up more than a few times. I thought she was a sweetheart.

Karen Faye's testimony and demeanor was off-putting to a lot of the jury. I think I'll leave it at that.
 
Juror#27 said:
Randy's deposition was interesting. I liked him a lot. The testimony was mostly about the time period where he was trying to stage interventions for MJ, and I believe he really tried his best to help get his brother clean.

Katherine's testimony probably hit me the hardest, emotionally. Late last year I lost my grandmother who raised me, and during her testimony I was reminded of her over and over. Very emotional stuff and I teared up more than a few times. I thought she was a sweetheart.

Karen Faye's testimony and demeanor was off-putting to a lot of the jury. I think I'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Thank you
Did you find any of the above testimonies relevant to or have any bearing on the verdict the jury came to.

Karen Faye's testimony and demeanor was off-putting to a lot of the fanbase as well (myself included)
but also some fans found Randy's testimony off putting or unbelievable (only because they know history, the jury was not privy to.) but being it most likely would have no bearing on the verdict at all, there was no reason you should know that in order to make a sound decision. Randy Jackson's history with Michael is a discussion for another thread though.
 
jamba said:
Hi, Juror 27,

Thanks so much for joining us and for your candid and thoughtful comments. Many have already said what I would have said regarding your participation and how honored we are!!! Yay!!! :)

One thing I want to say, I appreciate that you pointed out the word "timeline." It is so important IMO for this trial. Ivy used the word "hindsight" in pointing out that many things re Dr. Conrad Murray were completely unknown until it was too late and MJ was already gone. To judge a hiring on the eventual outcome of Murray's treatment would not be fair to the defendants. The question remains, was there evidence to anticipate or to 'know' that despite his licenses, education, training, he was going to be one of the most incompetent and unfit doctors ever. I am convinced by the evidence presented that such was not a reasonable conclusion at the time he was hired.

As you might have noticed, the MJ 'fan community' has a number of heated, on-going debates within it, and it is sometimes a struggle to deal with these in a way that reflects MJ's message of love and tolerance. People strive to present their opinions in a way that respects the other party's views, but let's face it, we are not perfect--we are human--we make mistakes and we get caught up in our likes and dislikes, our deeply felt convictions, so please bear with us. :)

I would like to ask you this: How well did you think the case was managed? Do you think it should have been dismissed, as some have argued?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is interesting and kind of sad for me to read now about the factions fighting within MJ's fanbase. As I said earlier, I was completely clueless before this trial. Obviously I knew he had millions of fans all over the world, but the in-fighting and schisms and drama was all completely unknown to me. I'm happy to see that even in the midst of all this there are so many MJ fans who continue to remain positive and use his caring, loving nature to guide them along their path.

Looking back it is easy to say that the case should have never been brought to trial, but after considering all the evidence I'm not sure I agree with that. There was an exceptionally high hurdle to cross for the plaintiffs to win this case, but since the burden of proof is lower in civil trials, and considering the words and conduct of AEG themselves, I'm honestly unsure about whether this case should have been thrown out or not. Obviously what that threshold is is determined by the court and gets into legal matters which I as a layperson am not qualified to discuss.
 
Important Note

After discussing with Juror#27, We are publicly sharing their jury certificate for the last month. If you cross reference it with the daily testimony summary thread, You'll see that the dates match to testimony dates & off days. We have already stated any derailing of the thread will not be allowed, and this should be enough to put that topic at rest for good.

2poplqw.jpg



previous post below

For everyone's information

Juror#27;3914436 said:
I have sent pics of the last two months of service certificates to ivy.
Click to expand...

Juror #27 has sent me 2 receipts of certificates of jury service. these receipts shows the days juror #27 was on jury duty in the months of August , September , October and the payment for jury services.

The last certificate showed that juror #27 was serving jury duty at LA Superior Court on September 3rd, 4th, 6th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, October 1st and 2nd.

these dates and off days match with the court schedule we had on our daily testimony summary thread such as

Jacksons vs AEG - Day 79 – September 4 2013 – Summary
Jacksons vs AEG - Day 80 – September 6 2013 – Summary
Jacksons vs AEG - Day 81 – September 18 2013 – Summary

August dates on the certificate also match to the schedule.

We as the staff are considering this as enough verification. We also realize that some people might not be satisfied or convinced no matter what. Everyone is free to form their own opinions and can choose to believe or not to the posts of juror#27 but let me note that derailing of the thread will not be allowed.
 
Victory22 said:
For Juror #27 I'd like to ask what you thought of the judge in the case. Did you feel she controlled her courtroom well? How did you feel about the attorneys for both sides and which witnesses did you feel were not truthful? Which ones were the most truthful? Thank you again for joining us and giving us your thoughts.
Click to expand...
Judge Palazuelos was awesome, I really liked her. She easily had the hardest job in overseeing this entire case. There were times where I thought she could have cracked down on witnesses or the attorneys a little harder, but overall I thought she did an outstanding job.

The attorneys on both sides were incredible. This was my first time serving on a jury, and it was like going to your first live boxing match and getting to see Ali vs. Frasier. I can't fully articulate how impressed I am with the attorneys.

I didn't get the impression that many witnesses were not truthful. The only time I felt that was with a few of the doctors who were treating MJ in the early-mid '00s. Most truthful I thought were Debbie Rowe and Kenny Ortega. They felt the most neutral and did the least filtering of their answers, Debbie especially.
 
Mod note: In reply to a member post asking why a certain post was allowed or not deleted. The post is not allowed and was deleted. As well as your reply about it. Please report posts so mods can be notified and make a decision, before you ridicule mods for allowing it or not being quick enough to delete it. We depend on (you) members to help us in these matters, because we can not be in the thread reading every post, 24/7 . Thanks
 
so aeg was found not liable due to the wording of the second question

nothing against the jurors but thats just ridiculous
 
Juror27. the jury foreman gregg barden said the following to reporters "Conrad Murray had a license, he graduated from an accredited college and we felt he was competent to do the job of being a general practitioner".

if you go by that logic, no qualified doctor can ever be unfit or incompetent

whats your take on that??
 
Michael's death has been hard on everybody. I think it's like we have to keep our guard up for the next fight for Michael because there is always another one coming. It seems like even in death Michael gets no peace. I think most of the fans mean well because they care and love Michael so much.
 
"Juror#27: The decision to deviate from the standard of care and to ignore his Hippocratic Oath was CM's, not AEG's."

Does "Juror#27" call it "decision", the being forced by AEG via threatening CM, being financially broken ?

Let's remind CM who is paying his salary...we want MJ's butt on stage, no matter what...
 
^^^^^ In order to have a licence a doctor needs no malpractice suits etc against them, or their licence is taken away. Murray is still a doctor but he has no licence atm and couldn't get employment or insurance without a licence.
 
Thrill said:
so aeg was found not liable due to the wording of the second question

nothing against the jurors but thats just ridiculous
Click to expand...

second question came from Jacksons proposed questions - see below, it's their first question

2ljg55k.jpg
 
Thrill said:
Juror27. the jury foreman gregg barden said the following to reporters "Conrad Murray had a license, he graduated from an accredited college and we felt he was competent to do the job of being a general practitioner".

if you go by that logic, no qualified doctor can ever be unfit or incompetent

whats your take on that??
Click to expand...
You are mixing up what a person should know at one point in time, with what comes to light after the fact.

If I hire a nanny to watch my kids, and after checking her references and checking online I can find nothing that says she has hurt a child, or done anything illegal or unethical, should I be held liable if she kills my children? Liability can only go so far, and in this example as well as the AEG case, the liability for the unethical behavior falls with the individual who acted unethically. Period.

Now, if I did a check on the nanny's references and 2 people told me she hurt their kids and they fired her, or if I looked online and found she had a criminal record for abusing children, and I then hire her anyway, NOW I have been negligent in my hiring. Now I should share responsibility for what she did. So if we apply this logic to the AEG case, Murray passed a cursory check. He was being hired at the request of MJ. The only 'red flag' is the fact that he asked for a ton of money at first. In my opinion that is not sufficient evidence to say someone is unethical, unfit, or incompetent to perform a job for which they are qualified.
 
B__Marco said:
"Juror#27: The decision to deviate from the standard of care and to ignore his Hippocratic Oath was CM's, not AEG's."

Does "Juror#27" call it "decision", the being forced by AEG via threatening CM, being financially broken ?

Let's remind CM who is paying his salary...we want MJ's butt on stage, no matter what...
Click to expand...

exactly.. would murray have deviated from the standard of care if he wasnt pressured by aeg???
 
Juror#27 said:
You are mixing up what a person should know at one point in time, with what comes to light after the fact.
Click to expand...

thank for answering this. to go by your example with the nanny. what if i hire the nanny and as time goes, i start to hear things that should worry me, is that nanny still competent or should i take action?? yes, she WAS competent at the beginning but she's still on my payroll and my employee when i start to hear worrying things. is she competent or not?? she's still hired by me...


during trial we did hear testimony from worried THIS IS IT members that were worried about mjs condition and told various people about it. we know that randy philips, paul congaware and even the ppl above them in the aeg hierarchy were alerted of mjs condition week(s) before mj passed. kenny suspected dr conrad murray was not good and told randy philips. we have seen the emails from Houghdal where he said Mj was detoriating for the past 8 weeks and many other emails. this was all going on during the time murray was hired by aeg and aeg execs were informed.

the jury instructions did not put a timeframe on the second question it if im correct. so during the time murray was hired by aeg, there were OBVIOUS signs that he was not fit and competent to treat mj. did you not concider this at all or did you all base your answer from the time he was hired (may 1)?

like a poster wrote before 'did aeg become negligent in allowing Murray to continue to care for MJ when it was clear to them that Michael was detoriating..???'

remember, jury instructions did not state that you had to base your answer ONLY at the time he was hired (may 1).
 
Last edited:
Tell Jury#27, that with the "AEG hired CM" that THEY deliberated, probably there would be NO need for a jury to prove AEG liability

Tell from me to Juror#27 : Thanks for deliberating "AEG HIRED CM" and say to to Juror#27: Thanks for coming
 
@#Juror27

Just wanted to personally thank you for coming to my community and more so for your kind words about MJJC.

If you have any troubles being here on MJJC be sure to give me or any of my team a shout.

Thanks - Gaz
 
"Juror#27: There was simply no evidence presented which would prove that AEG should have known that CM was unfit"

How about the EVIDENCE of CM performing the CPR on MJ on the bed and how about that MJ ended up dead in CM's hands ?
 
LastTear said:
^^^^^ In order to have a licence a doctor needs no malpractice suits etc against them, or their licence is taken away. Murray is still a doctor but he has no licence atm and couldn't get employment or insurance without a licence.
Click to expand...

This is an incorrect statement. Many docs have been sued, sometimes righteously and often not, and some lose a malpractice case. This does not prevent a physician from holding a license or renewing one. It may affect one's employment or future work opportunities. Depends on the severity of the infraction and the number of suits filed. A state Medical Board can suspend or revoke a license for serious issues such as substance abuse, conviction of a felony or behavior determined to be purposely detrimental to a patient. There are many docs practicing today who have been involved in and lost a malpractice case. That is precisely the reason why there is a National Physician Data Base...all such cases are entered there and available for review.
 
crillon;3914660 said:
I also want to add my thanks to Juror#27. I'm grateful you chose MJJC to share your thoughts and answer questions--something you don't have to do--and you are furthering our understanding of what thought processes you and others on the jury went through to arrive at the verdict. Your commentary here is invaluable and helps us connect the dots on all our conversations and speculations through many months. What you're doing is a gift and I'm among many others here who are very grateful.
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for the kind words. That is why I am posting here. I knew there would be so much speculation and wonder after the verdict so I just hoped to provide a little understanding or clarification. It's also helping me to get my bearings on this whole thing. What a weird experience to sit in silence for 5 months absorbing this incredible story, then deliberate for a few short days and have it all end so abruptly. Talking about it is definitely helping me to sort my mind out and move on.

Mneme;3914661 said:
<> <> <>

/juror 27

if I may ask two questions

1.)
I'm presuming that in the beginning or on the end of the trial the jurors got plaintiffs complaint and statement from AEG.
If yes, do you got the 2 older plaintiff complaints too?


2.)
What was you thinking about Mr. Panish' argument alteration in relation to his opening plädoyer? (i mean addiction; Michael's health etc.)
Click to expand...
1. I'm not sure what you are referring to, but I think there was something to that effect in the jury instructions? In a very basic manner it laid out the claim by plaintiffs and AEG's statement of affirmative defense, but I'm not sure if that is what you are asking about.

2. I thought Mr. Panish handled everything well and I didn't notice too much deviation from his opening statement.
 
Juror#27:

what did the jury think of the fact that Randy Phillips & Paul Gongaware were dropped as defendants a week before the end of testimonies?

Were you all aware that Kenny Ortega was initially one of the defendants? The Jacksons had also accused him of having a hand in MJ's death. I find it ironic that the jurors ended up liking him so much.
 
The thing is, it did fall on Murray's shoulders to put his patient first...regardless of pressures from AEG, his patient, his personal financial difficulties, etc. He was the DOC here...bound by his license and Oath to make decisions with the welfare of his patient as primary focus. It was Conrad's failure, as evidenced by his 17 egregious errors outlined in his criminal trial. Regardless of his patient's life choices, and sometimes because of them, a doc MUST do what's best for his patient; doesn't matter who it is or how much money involved. And Conrad had 20 years experience in the field...he knew and disregarded his Oath anyway.
 
B__Marco said:
"Juror#27: There was simply no evidence presented which would prove that AEG should have known that CM was unfit"

How about the EVIDENCE of CM performing the CPR on MJ on the bed and how about that MJ ended up dead in CM's hands ?
Click to expand...

this is an easy one, even I can answer to that one. you are talking about hindsight, this case was about foreseeability.
 
Thrill said:
im talking about the conflict of interest which have been discussed endless of times
Click to expand...

And this was Juror27 response:

Juror#27 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top