That doesn't convince me.
to be clear, I have no intention to convince you. If you read my posts in other threads you'll see that I believe it's futile to try to change a persons opinions when they are already set. I'm just trying to explain you my perspective, nothing more.
what I said is: Travis had a bad impression of Murray, Kai did not ask anything. They did not have Murray's version. you did not answer that ?
Okay and some of them had more & different information than Phillips. To me Kai knowing a doctor is in the house when Michael is sleeping + oxygen tanks is a lot more reasonable to foresee that whatever doctor is doing is associated with sleep.
Who said Michael was fine ? It was Murray, and accidentally AEG in this trial, not the others.It was Murray's job to diagnose the problem, not AEG's. it was Murray who should have told them if it was physical, mental, etc... So Murray saying Michael was fine seems weird and suspicious, it IS common sense.
Passy001 had a wonderful explanation, I'll be brief. According to the coroner Michael was fine. He was healthy. He did not die because of malnutrition, sleep deprivation etc. He died because of Propofol intoxication. If Murray monitored him and did a simple chin lift or called 911 timely Michael would have been alive.
I said earlier that Michael died from Murray's negligence and that it was obvious that Murray was negligent. That was what was foreseeable. Not propofol.
I don't get how his negligence was foreseeable
before Michael's death. Yes criminal trial proved Murray was negligent but that was after Michael's death. I don't get what do you expect people to look
before Michael's death and think "this doctor would harm him".
who ? In the meetings with Murray there was Phillips, Gongaware, DiLeo, Michael and Murray. Ortega was there once I think, on june 20th, stayed 10mn. So are we waiting for Murray's testimony who will testify to lying to Phillips and Gongaware ?
I'm waiting for Ortega.
Ok, so you think Prince is lying, or "confused" about that, about the last time he talked to his dad ?
This is an accusation and twisting what I said. I'll explain it below and I'll make a request from you.
IMO Prince's testimony is NOT confusing.
To me his testimony is confusing. this is what I get or don't get : One meeting prior to June 23 / 24 which Phillips came alone. According to Prince this is the time Phillips talked to Murray (from testimony :
that time when he came by himself, he was speaking to him in hushed whispers. I was bringing him water, and he was talking to Dr. Murray. He was grabbing his elbow and looked aggressive to me.). Prince told this to his father the next morning. Then on either 23 or 24th, Phillips came to the house with Tohme and other man Prince did not recognize. Prince called his father. During direct he kept mixing up Tohme with Murray, it got a lot more confusing during cross.
So as you can see according to Prince that elbow grabbing was before June 23 /24 and he doesn't remember the date.
Now as I said I'm not sure if Prince is right about the dates and he can be mixing them up. There are several reasons for this : one - in my personal experience I can tell you that after 6 months dates get blur and mix up & get combined together in the minds of people. two - jackson lawyer said "I know you're not great with dates, and I know you were 12 years old at that time. " and so on.
As to the meetings I'm 95% sure it happened and Prince witnessed it so no I don't think he's lying. I actually think we know what the discussion is about. Phillips during testimony said he asked Murray if he's aware of Klein and he said yes. Murray in his documentary said Phillips took him to the side and told him AEG was paying for everything - including toilet paper. Now I'm highly skeptical about anything Murray says and I'm sure that both Phillips and Murray admitted to talking to each other
alone and this is what Prince saw and testified about.
Now I keep thinking about "riot act meeting" which was supposedly on June 18 per Karen Faye testimony. She said Kenny & Randy went and then Kenny told her stuff. She wasn't able to say what Kenny said because it was double hearsay (Kenny told Karen what Randy told Kenny). During criminal trial Kenny denied the "riot act meeting". Now I'm waiting to hear Kenny's testimony and being asked about it. But I wonder if june 18 might be the day Phillips went alone to the house, talked to Murray especially about saying "we are giving him the money, he needs this tour" and so on (if you believe Murray), and then came and talked to Kenny telling him about "pulling the plug" and Kenny told it to Karen.
And finally I'm waiting to see what AEG will bring as evidence. I almost expect a security cam footage showing Phillips at Staples or several witnesses. And if that happens, that would work against Prince who confidently said it happened on 23rd / 24th, it would hurt his credibility and it could almost be better if he did not give a specific date.
now my request : you don't know what is in my mind and what I think, so please ask me first before you accuse me of anything.
Phillips and probably Gongaware too knew Murray was spending the night.
probably is not enough for me and probably won't be enough for the jury.
Ivy, are you able to find any cases with these characteristics? I believe this aligns with the current civil trial. How were similar cases (if any) decided?
actually all the examples are about that, some focus on what is not seen as similar, some instances is what is seen as enough. Even you remove the specifics you still need a reasonable person to be able to conclude that AEG could have foreseen "Dr. Murray would harm Michael". That's the minimum Jacksons need to prove. In my opinion AEG will go into specifics - which may not matter for a jury - but it's a valid argument during an appeal.
AEG's Sankey, Faye, Walker, and Payne were aware. AEG's Phillips and Gongaware say they do not remember speaking to the doctor about Michael's sleep issues.
This case is about AEG Live, Phillips and Gongaware - nobody else. First of all I disagree with "AEG's Sankey" description, they were independent contractors not AEG employees or executives. and during a sidebar the judge have said unless what they knew were told to Phillips , Gongaware it cannot be stated that AEG knew.
Would anyone in this thread truly accept our employer/business partner employing our personal doctor? It is inappropriate, unethical, and creates an abundance of conflict. This is why there are so many issues in the professional sports world regarding this.
Actually food for thought - in USA there's workers compensation. This is an insurance that covers work place accidents. Basically what happens is, if you have an accident you go to a doctor, the doctor determines your injuries and depending on the situation the insurance pays your medical expenses and salaries if you can't work temporarily or permanently.
In some states the doctor is
selected & paid by employer and /or employers insurance carrier. In some states the worker can select a doctor from
a list of doctors again determined & paid by state, employer or employers insurance carriers.
In this instance there could be conflicts. Obviously the insurance would not want to pay any money for medical expenses and or salaries, obviously the employer would not want to pay any money for any damages and see an increase in their insurance premiums but the worker would want a workplace accident be covered and not be required to pay for it out of their pocket. You have a doctor in the mix which is selected and paid by the employer or the insurance company but everyone operates on the assumption that the doctor with the oath will make the right decision.
I could not believe when Phillips incredulously said, and I am paraphrasing, if Michael thought the situation between himself, Tohme, and AEG was unethical, he was fine with it. I do not know if Michael showed that document to his lawyer(s) but, it was an unethical situation and he most likely would have been advised against it. Is it not interesting that the doctor's employment contract was never presented to anyone on Michael's legal team?
Technically Michael would see the contracts when signing and hopefully he would have a representative, lawyer with him. You would expect him to read, make changes and refuse signature. For example check Leonard Rowe's hiring letter. It's apparent that he came to Michael with a prepared letter and Michael made changes to it in his handwriting before signing it.
Similarly conflict of interest is okay if parties are aware of it and if they consent to it. There are even some release forms.
I thought Branca's comment to Phillips about the TII PPV vs. the PPV Michael was interested in doing with his family very interesting as well. Branca seemed to support TII (without contacting his client first)
that email was June 20 when Michael had already signed to do TII 6 months ago. Anything with the family would have been a breach of contract with AEG.
I do not believe the plaintiffs would appeal.
you think if Jacksons lose they won't appeal?
Phillips was discussing a pending business option/contract which would be adverse to the TII venture and its contracts. He warns of AllGood being a litigious company.
and he was correct. Allgood not only moved to stop TII concerts, they also sued Michael and later MJ Estate for $300 Million.
Michael chose a cardiologist to help him with his sleep issues. This is a red flag. AEG will not be able to explain accepting a cardiologist working with Michael on sleep issues because no reasonable person can explain that.
I'm pretty sure their explanation would be they did not know the sleep issues or that Murray was chosen for sleep issues. their point would be what is written in the contract "general care".
What you point out is the crux of all of it--unsigned contract and no payments made=no culpability. The only reason Murray was even there is because Michael needed his "milk" to sleep so he could perform. AEG had nothing to do with that. Murray was Michael's idea.