View Poll Results: Final verdict

Voters
166. You may not vote on this poll
  • AEG liable

    80 48.19%
  • AEG not liable

    86 51.81%
Page 15 of 114 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 225 of 1699

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

   
  1. #211
    Points: 13,345, Level: 75
    Level completed: 24%, Points required for next Level: 305
    Overall activity: 33.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3,240
    Points
    13,345
    Level
    75
    Thanks
    5,937
    Thanked 3,887 Times in 1,388 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Quote Originally Posted by Tygger View Post
    Testimonies that said Michael improved were not by medical professionals who could say such after an evaluation of Michael. Those testimonies were those witnesses' perception of Michael. Again, Michael performed. I do not equate that to health however, that is my view.

    The doctor was held accountable by the State when he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. If you do not want AEG to be held accountable for the doctor then, you may say, they did not hire him. However, the contract you may have reviewed allows AEG to terminate a doctor that they may not have hired. It is rare indeed to be able to terminate someone one did not employ.

    I can say AEG did not vet the doctor as it was proven without a shadow of doubt in court. No one from AEG vetted the doctor. Only Jorrie did a ten minute Google search where she could not find half of four offices the doctor fabricated.
    I believe hat AEG could have hired Murray but not be responsible for his negligence. The contact I reviewed shows that Michael could fire Murray.

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

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to LastTear For This Useful Post:


  3. #212
    Points: 1,864, Level: 25
    Level completed: 64%, Points required for next Level: 36
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    70
    Points
    1,864
    Level
    25
    Thanks
    307
    Thanked 92 Times in 42 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

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

    Quote Originally Posted by crillon View Post
    I still don't understand how any corporation could "hire" a medical doctor and be held responsible for that doctor's on-the-job performance without having direct expertise in the medical field. How could they possibly vette that doctor beyond what's customarily available in a background check. Murray checked out and 5 medical boards confirmed his credentials and areas of specialty.

    Should AEG lose this case and it's upheld on appeal, this likely will impact the way concert promoters & corporations sub-contract services and consider their liability exposure. And, maybe the medical boards need to say...if there's any conflict of interest involving a doctor, it's the doctor's responsibility to walk away and honor the Hippocratic Oath. Otherwise, the doctor is sanctioned. Doctors are let off the hook in these shady circumstances when the bar should be set so much higher.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Neverland_Valley For This Useful Post:


  5. #213
    Points: 6,987, Level: 55
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 163
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    398
    Points
    6,987
    Level
    55
    Thanks
    791
    Thanked 760 Times in 295 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverland_Valley View Post
    I also don't understand how so many people are possibly defending AEG against Michael Jackson on a Michael Jackson forum. Impossible.
    yeah, I also wonder what's going on here

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to maviefly For This Useful Post:


  7. #214
    Points: 130,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 15.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First ClassOverdrive50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Michigan USA
    Posts
    11,338
    Points
    130,111
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    8,725
    Thanked 17,408 Times in 4,516 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverland_Valley View Post
    I also don't understand how so many people are possibly defending AEG against Michael Jackson on a Michael Jackson forum. Impossible.
    Quote Originally Posted by maviefly View Post
    yeah, I also wonder what's going on here
    What's going on in a nutshell.
    No one here is against Michael Jackson. I'm sure you realise Michael Jackson doesn't have a case against AEG. No one is upholding all of AEG's actions but some just don't see AEG is responsible for DR Murray's actions and Michael's death. All love and support Michael here but many don't agree with Katherine Jackson's choice of turning down restitution offered by the court against Murray and going after $$AEG$$ instead.

    Now myself I don't support or defend either side because Michael doesn't win here no matter what. His life was put on trial by both sides and he was thrown under the bus and to the wolves by boths sides IMO .. I see no justice here for Michael or his children no matter who $$$$WINS$$$
    L.O.V.E. survives
    so we can Rock forever *

    Blog Facebook Twitter Youtube Tumbler
    *


  8. The Following 21 Users Say Thank You to qbee For This Useful Post:


  9. #215
    Points: 12,146, Level: 72
    Level completed: 24%, Points required for next Level: 304
    Overall activity: 15.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,755
    Points
    12,146
    Level
    72
    Thanks
    1,127
    Thanked 2,295 Times in 517 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverland_Valley View Post
    I also don't understand how so many people are possibly defending AEG against Michael Jackson on a Michael Jackson forum. Impossible.
    Quote Originally Posted by maviefly View Post
    yeah, I also wonder what's going on here
    Because Michael Jackson fans love HIM and are still individuals, and don't give up their right to think as individuals because of that love. It's quite insulting that they are expected to.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by qbee View Post
    What's going on in a nutshell.

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

    Now myself I don't support or defend either side because Michael doesn't win here no matter what. His life was put on trial by both sides and he was thrown under the bus and to the wolves by boths sides IMO .. I see no justice here for Michael or his children no matter who $$$$WINS$$$
    Agree. Agree. That bold part should be on a banner in the sky. This is not an MJ civil suit, but a KJ suit.
    Last edited by gerryevans; 28-09-2013 at 11:29 AM.
    "Of all the thousands of entertainers I have worked with, Michael was THE most outstanding. Many have tried and will try to copy him, but his talent will never be matched." Dick Clark

  10. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to gerryevans For This Useful Post:


  11. #216
    Points: 28,174, Level: 98
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 176
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdriveVeteranTagger Second Class25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    England
    Posts
    6,487
    Points
    28,174
    Level
    98
    Thanks
    3,015
    Thanked 4,972 Times in 2,274 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    the sooner the better that the verdict comes out IMO, for everyone involved. To me it's 50/50..

  12. #217
    Points: 10,361, Level: 67
    Level completed: 78%, Points required for next Level: 89
    Overall activity: 18.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westland, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    1,803
    Points
    10,361
    Level
    67
    Thanks
    5,436
    Thanked 3,845 Times in 1,060 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverland_Valley View Post
    I also don't understand how so many people are possibly defending AEG against Michael Jackson on a Michael Jackson forum. Impossible.
    To try and help you understand consider this. As a Michael Jackson fan it's insulting to think I should be used as a mindless DRONE of the Jackson's in their get rich quick plots. I have a very simple philosophy; if it hurts MICHAEL JACKSON I won't support it no matter if it's his mother behind it. I'm a Michael Jackson fan first and only which means I want his memory protected and his name honored not wrecked in an attempt to support his siblings. I don't think Michael would agree to his personal medical and financial information being released to the public and all of his flaws hung out to dry for all the world to view while his murderer (Conrad Robert Murray) is let off the hook and free to make a living slandering Michael.
    Last edited by Victory22; 28-09-2013 at 12:23 PM.

  13. The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to Victory22 For This Useful Post:


  14. #218
    Points: 41,965, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 3.0%
    Achievements:
    Three Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,845
    Points
    41,965
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    1,616
    Thanked 2,331 Times in 925 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

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

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


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





    God, I thank you for allowing Michael to continue to watch over his children:

    Prince Michael, Paris, and Blanket ("Bigi").


  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CherubimII For This Useful Post:


  16. #219
    Points: 9,572, Level: 65
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 78
    Overall activity: 6.0%
    Achievements:
    Three Friends1 year registered5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,465
    Points
    9,572
    Level
    65
    Thanks
    222
    Thanked 508 Times in 182 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

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

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

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

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

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



    Geeeeez really ppl are you living in dreamy land? where things are only black and white?
    Get ready for that life is colorful... you'll not make it far if you take the easy and fast judge hammer.
    Everybody is welcome here to show up with their opinion I think just try a bit to back it up! MJJC stands for respect, tolerance and openess towards everybody who call themselves MJJfans... just like Michael himself has always kept it!
    That's why me is visiting this board!
    Listen!
    Listen most carefully to ppl who are talking bad about others!
    You'll hear them saying most important things about themselves!
    Think!
    Think before you talk! What do you want to say and how you want to say it.
    It will tell the most about yourself!

  17. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Mechi For This Useful Post:


  18. #220
    Points: 17,085, Level: 83
    Level completed: 47%, Points required for next Level: 265
    Overall activity: 4.0%
    Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,226
    Points
    17,085
    Level
    83
    Thanks
    166
    Thanked 1,256 Times in 457 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Quote Originally Posted by Tygger View Post
    Incorrect. The doctor was tasked to get Michael to rehearsal. That responsibility does not appear in the written contract however; it does appear in an AEG email and was communicated to the doctor as he understood it to be his responsibility.

    [...]

    That is what the plaintiffs are saying; the conflicted interest placed Michael in danger. The plaintiffs are not saying by hiring the doctor, AEG should have known the doctor would administer propofol.
    The question is still: Did AEG Live hire Murray? And if so, what did they hire him for?

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

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


    Back to your posting: Let's take a look at Question 3:
    Did AEG Live know or should it have known that Murray was unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk to others?

    You are saying the following:
    • The conflicted interest placed Michael in danger.
      • In other words (as phrased in that question): the particular risk is that danger emerging from the conflicted interest. That's what you want to say, right?
      • Now take a close look as to what question 3 requires you to answer:
        • knowledge or legally assumed foreseeability ("should have known") - OK, let's check option 2 at least
        • Murray having been unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk to others
          • particular risk = danger from the conflicted interested - OK, checked (see above)
          • And now we are facing our problem again: Was Murray unfit or incompetent? And "unfit or incompetent" refers to "the work he was hired for" (Question 2)
            • As you're establishing an oral agreement between AEG Live and Murray from that email, the work Murray was hired for could only be:
              • a) the vague "showing up to rehearsals"
              • b) "general medical care"
              • [Remember: there is nothing to suggest they agreed on some special treatment.]
              • Option b) means "fit" and "competent" - even though Michael died (totally irrelevant)
              • What about option a)? Is there anything to suggest that "showing up to rehearsals" is a request by AEG Live to consider a risky treatment, providing sub-standard care or enforcing a treatment for which Murray was not qualified?




      • The plaintiffs are not saying by hiring the doctor, AEG should have known the doctor would administer propofol.
        • Yes, they have also argued that AEG Live could have found that out later, theoretically. They didn't manage to provide sufficient evidence for this theory though.
          But let's take a look at this theoretical scenario:
          If there was a contract between AEG Live and Murray and AEG Live found out about the propofol infusion, what would that mean legally?

          • Could they dissolve the contract with Murray?
            On the one hand generally yes.
            But on the other hand you have seen the draft agreements that specified "services requested by the Artist" and it can only be Michael who requested this treatment, so everything was fine, legally at least.
          • Could they cancel the tour?
            Yes, they could, of course. There would be lots of reasons why.
          • And now to the actual question:
            Would it be illegal for AEG Live to continue with the tour?

            A clear answer: No!
            Michael's general right of personality is unviolable and the duty of care on the part of AEG Live is (rightfully) restricted to fulfilling their contractual obligations and the duty of utmost good faith and unless Michael would have been declared to be of unsound mind, Michael's and Murray's affirmation that everything was fine (with Murray saying they should do what they are supposed to do and let him do what he is supposed to do) meant there was no legal basis (yet) to assume Michael's life was in danger. There was also no way for AEG Live to know all kind of treatments Michael had and how Murray was dosing propofol and other fluids.
            So again, a clear answer: No!
            Ethical and moral issues are no infractions of the law.



    Last edited by Korgnex; 28-09-2013 at 01:01 PM.

  19. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Korgnex For This Useful Post:


  20. #221
    Points: 22,365, Level: 93
    Level completed: 2%, Points required for next Level: 985
    Overall activity: 9.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdrive10000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    9,563
    Points
    22,365
    Level
    93
    Thanks
    17,306
    Thanked 12,253 Times in 4,026 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

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

  21. #222
    Points: 152,225, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 19.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,467
    Points
    152,225
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    437
    Thanked 34,536 Times in 7,317 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Quote Originally Posted by Petrarose View Post
    Does anyone know why they did not work a full day on Friday.
    they worked a full day friday but after breaks and such a full day is around 4 hours.

    (they start around 10 AM and leave around 4:00 PM, they have a 90 min lunch and two 15 minute breaks)
    Twitter : Ivy_4MJ

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to ivy For This Useful Post:


  23. #223
    Points: 3,360, Level: 36
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 140
    Overall activity: 27.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    2,316
    Points
    3,360
    Level
    36
    Thanks
    1,410
    Thanked 1,274 Times in 703 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Quote Originally Posted by LastTear View Post
    I believe hat AEG could have hired Murray but not be responsible for his negligence. The contact I reviewed shows that Michael could fire Murray.

    We have already established that some evidence the police found were not accessible to a lay person.
    Where can Michael terminate the doctor in the contract?

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

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

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

    I am confused by the ethics and morals discussion as it is not necessary. The question is simple so I will simply ask you: did the doctor's substandard care put Michael at risk? Fact: he deteriorated and others saw it and complained. Yes or No?
    Last edited by Tygger; 28-09-2013 at 02:56 PM.

  24. #224
    Points: 26,280, Level: 96
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 70
    Overall activity: 9.0%
    Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassCreated Blog entryVeteran25000 Experience Points
    MIST's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,705
    Points
    26,280
    Level
    96
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks
    7,503
    Thanked 3,593 Times in 1,731 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverland_Valley View Post
    I also don't understand how so many people are possibly defending AEG against Michael Jackson on a Michael Jackson forum. Impossible.
    You can also reverse it and say how can people defend Michael´s mother and siblings on a Michael Jackson forum, after all things they have done.
    No side is on Michael´s side.
    "How much did I really know about life on earth? What responsibility did I feel for creatures outside my little space?
    How could I lead my life so that every cell of living matter was also benefited?" Michael Jackson
    "Love no violence ever, remember a beautiful future promise of tomorrow "MJ


    stop the killing of pets. Save lifes,spay and neuter your pets
    Adopt from an animalshelter
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seEpf5L8x0M

  25. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MIST For This Useful Post:


  26. #225
    Points: 17,085, Level: 83
    Level completed: 47%, Points required for next Level: 265
    Overall activity: 4.0%
    Achievements:
    Three Friends10000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,226
    Points
    17,085
    Level
    83
    Thanks
    166
    Thanked 1,256 Times in 457 Posts

    Default Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

    Quote Originally Posted by Tygger View Post
    However, oral agreements are legally binding particularly if both parties show an agreement.
    Yes, that's the law. I'm familiar with the various constellations of how a contract can be made.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tygger View Post
    Look at any other independent contractor on the TII tour who was paid for their services after Michael passed.
    You're forgetting that there were no conflicting draft agreements for any of those.
    Btw, "per our agreement" is a double-edged sword and does not imply Murray felt he had established a contract between him and AEG Live.
    Because of Michael's contractual commitment to the concerts, they talked to Murray in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tygger View Post
    did the doctor's substandard care put Michael at risk?
    Yes, the improperly conducted propoful infusion was sub-standard care and thus put Michael at risk.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tygger View Post
    Fact: he deteriorated and others saw it and complained. Yes or No?
    AEG Live can only rely on the following (limited) information:
    There were people that claimed to have seen him deteriorate and complained.
    There were people that talked to the person in question plus his doctor and both of them affirmed everything was fine.

    Only with constantly recurring complaints or some actual proof they could evaluate that both Michael and Murray weren't speaking the truth.
    Last edited by Korgnex; 28-09-2013 at 03:24 PM.

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to Korgnex For This Useful Post:


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •