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

Neverland_Valley said:
We know what you think. We are not here because we want to judge anyone. This is not a court. The way we act is just our attempt at protecting Michael Jackson and his legacy and is also a way of expressing our feelings. I don't expect you to like it.
Click to expand...

You are not protecting MJ IMO by this sneering disrespect for people here who have not attacked you personally and who are trying to explain something based on reason and not bias but instead you want to attack--this is fine to an extent but the more nasty and personal it gets the less I respect your ability to make a sound judgment regarding this court case. Bubs simply asked you to think like a juror, not an MJ fan, and you misunderstood that.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

So some peopel here really don't think AEG should have any responsibility for what Conrad did? So be the fact that they did not know the reason of MJ's decline, this case really is a matter of if AEG holds legal liability over Conrad or not.. it's not about Right or wrong..

That's why AEG tried so hard to disprove that they hired Conrad or had any involvement with him.. Which clearly they did!!

Not all laws (many are not) are made Fairly.. To be fair i think Murray should have life in prison and AEG to be left alone.. But it's true (from my understanding) that they were in verbal agreement.. Emails even stating about AEG signing the checks not Michael jackson..

So if we believe that AEG was to be the "employer" they are liable.. that's really all this case is about.. we get caught up in the hopela of he said she said, and whats fair, unfair, whats right or wrong..

This case has never been about what's fair.. Only if AEG would be considered Conrads employer which in California holds them liable.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

When AEG saw MJ deteriorating they should've fired Murray. He obviously wasn't helping MJ get better and that was obvious. MJ was getting worse under Murray's care. And the fact that Murray wanted $150,000 per month for general medical care like a common cold is insane. AEG knew Murray was shady but they didn't care as long as 'the freak' was on the stage making them money. They suck and are terrible people but MJ's mother isn't much better.. she also abandoned her son and didn't care about his medical issues at all.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Bubs said:
Yesterday I wrote that we will be hearing from CM or his lawyer after verdict is out, but Wass wanted her opinion out already
From ABC article:
Wass says Murray has been following the five-month civil case in which jurors are asked if concert promoter AEG Live hired him, and if so, were they negligent in supervising him.

Wass believes the jury may get stuck on the second question on the verdict form, which is essential for the Jackson attorneys to prove to win the lawsuit. The question is: "Was Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?"

Wass say Murray's understanding of the work for which he was hired was to treat Jackson's dehydration after laborious performances.

"There was no mention of any sleep issues or addiction issues or addiction issues or anything like that. In fact my client has maintained all along that he did not know about Jackson's addiction and that Jackson kept that from him," said Wass.

Wass says Murray's record shows he was fit as an internist to provide basic medical care for Jackson and his family.

The Jackson attorneys assert that AEG created a conflict of interest for Murray and that they should have looked further into the doctor's financial background to find out he was in debt. Wass rejects that reasoning.

"What is the difference if you and I go into a doctor, and a doctor is having financial problems and the doctor recommends surgery? Should we question it because the doctor is having financial difficulties? We wouldn't know that," said Wass.

Speaking from jail, Murray maintains he did not deliver the fatal dose of propofol and that he wants the medical board to restore his license. Wass is appealing his conviction.

"I'm pretty certain that if his conviction is affirmed on appeal that he would lose his license. If that doesn't occur, then it will be a fight to prove that what happened was an aberration and not something that speaks of his entire history and ability as a doctor :puke::mat:," said Wass.
--------------------------

I cannot believe he still has licence :mat:
I hope his appeal is kicked to the curb and he will never practice again.
Click to expand...

Wass? Oh dear! If Muarry felt he was only hired for dehydration, who was the Muarry who went and ordered all the prof, before he was known to AEG? Are there 2 Muarrys? Who was the Muarry who gave Michael a cocktail of drugs to put him to sleep? Who was making Michael an addict with those benzoes? If you are hired for dehydration, you simple say, "No I am only hired for dehydration and I cannot do this extra service for you because I am not licensed to do so."

Katherine, Muarry, & AEG are all using the addict defense. Wass claims Muarry did not know Michael was an addict and Michael kept that from him. I don't know why she mentions that since Michael died due to the way in which Muarry administered prof and monitored his patient. I guess she got tired talking about self injection and now is going to go deeper into addiction since this case made that issue a focal point.

Now what is going to happen is not only do we have to deal with Muarry's tales when he gets out, but we will have Wass going on tv as this expert about what happened in 09. This is very bad. Thanks a lot Katherine Jackson.
 
@Tygger
[Last Tear, I answered in the affirmative to question three and used evidence to support it. I have seen many posts stating question 2 and 3 are complicated. Be that as it may, the questions have to be answered and they have to have evidence to support it. I would like to see the four questions answered in the negative with evidence from the trial.

Bubs referred to the affirmative defense and the comparative fault of decedent. How did AEG prove that? What evidence points to that? I should believe AEG is not liable because they found doctors to testify to Michael being a “secretive addict” many years before 2009 in their view?


No one disputes Michael chose the doctor. One can say he was hired for general care however, reality showed otherwise. The doctor was hired to deal with Michael’s sleep issues. By stating simply Michael’s demise is his fault 100%, AEG absolves the doctor and in turn themselves if any juror believes they hired him and/or view a relationship between AEG and the doctor./QUOTE]

I answered no to question no 2, and I have to say question no. 1 at best would be AEG hired Murray on behalf of Michael. Given my no to question 2 I haven't spent much time considering no.3.

Isnt reality hindsight? Michael may have hired the doctor for sleep issues but I don't think AEG did.

Originally Posted by Allusio
I say honestly, I couldn’t vote AEG not liable … Somehow I just couldn’t do it.
You do not have to and it is rude for anyone to suggest that a vote for AEG being liable is simply an emotional vote or one is simply relying on their fandom as opposed to evidence.
Click to expand...

My response to Allusio was not intended to be rude, I saw the 'somehow I couldn't do it' and took it as an emotional vote - of which, as I said, I have absolutely not issue with and if that was the case commend their honesty.
Click to expand...
 
BC7 Court News ‏@ABC7Courts1m
Jury worked from 9:36 am until 12:03 pm without break. Almost 2h30.

Öffnen
ABC7 Court News ‏@ABC7Courts4m
No indication of a verdict yet, though.

Öffnen
ABC7 Court News ‏@ABC7Courts4m
Katherine Jackson is present at the courthouse. All of the attorneys for both sides also here.

Öffnen
ABC7 Court News ‏@ABC7Courts8m
Jurors stopped deliberating at 12:03 pm PT for lunch break.



Alan Duke ‏@AlanDukeCNN 20m @K4os_Theory Katherine Jackson was in probate court for an estate hearing today, as well. Same building. No news there.
Details
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Bubs said:
Yesterday I wrote that we will be hearing from CM or his lawyer after verdict is out, but Wass wanted her opinion out already
From ABC article:
Wass says Murray has been following the five-month civil case in which jurors are asked if concert promoter AEG Live hired him, and if so, were they negligent in supervising him.

Wass believes the jury may get stuck on the second question on the verdict form, which is essential for the Jackson attorneys to prove to win the lawsuit. The question is: "Was Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?"

Wass say Murray's understanding of the work for which he was hired was to treat Jackson's dehydration after laborious performances.

"There was no mention of any sleep issues or addiction issues or addiction issues or anything like that. In fact my client has maintained all along that he did not know about Jackson's addiction and that Jackson kept that from him," said Wass.

Wass says Murray's record shows he was fit as an internist to provide basic medical care for Jackson and his family.

The Jackson attorneys assert that AEG created a conflict of interest for Murray and that they should have looked further into the doctor's financial background to find out he was in debt. Wass rejects that reasoning.

"What is the difference if you and I go into a doctor, and a doctor is having financial problems and the doctor recommends surgery? Should we question it because the doctor is having financial difficulties? We wouldn't know that," said Wass.

Speaking from jail, Murray maintains he did not deliver the fatal dose of propofol and that he wants the medical board to restore his license. Wass is appealing his conviction.

"I'm pretty certain that if his conviction is affirmed on appeal that he would lose his license. If that doesn't occur, then it will be a fight to prove that what happened was an aberration and not something that speaks of his entire history and ability as a doctor :puke::mat:," said Wass.
--------------------------

I cannot believe he still has licence :mat:
I hope his appeal is kicked to the curb and he will never practice again.
Click to expand...

^ He says he didn't deliver the fatal dose of propofol? Let me guess, Casper the ghost did? He doesn't deserve a license because he can't do his job correctly. He's supposed to HELP people, not kill them. He still has his license? Seriously?

I hope they take his appeal and shove it in his face with a simple 'Hell no.'
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

KOPV said:
We would be foolish to think that AEG would have any envolvement and not hold any liability for the DR.. We have to remember one thing here, AEG had full rights to demand a specific DR or list of DR's.. Even jobs when you look for a theropist they expect you to go by the guidelines of who they are willing to allow you to have according to ensurence reasons..

That was mistake 1 with AEG!

I think it's rediculous to think that Michael would have the need to get the OK for DR. Murray by AEG yet they would hold no responsibility for what the DR does.. Companies are liable for what they provide to there employees, partners, clients... Even if the employee asks for it!
Click to expand...

^^About the 1st & 2nd bolded: Michael is not an employee, client of AEG. When Michael gets insurance for the tour, the insurance company sets what Michael can/cannot do. That is why you see the insurance company wrote that Mciahel could not meet and greet. AEG can't tell Micahel here is a list of company doctors which you have to see--Micahel is not their employee. They can suggest a list as any person with knowledge of something may give that information to another. You are mixing up a typical business situation with their employees, with Micahel's situation here. Michael is an independent artist. He is a partner with AEG. Each partner could have his/her own doctors from different firms and his/her own insurance. Or, they could decide to get one insurance company to serve both of them, if they get a good deal. For example, 2 doctors who are partners could both have different entities giving each insurance. It does not mean that because Michael was a partner, AEG had to give him a list of doctors that he could see. AEG can't give Micahel a guideline that they would give to their employees, because Micahel is not their employee. It would be Michael's insurance company that would state which therapists he could go to, if the insurance is paying for it. If they are not paying for it, then Michael could go to anyone and pay the therapist himself. Even if AEG decided to get a therapist--notice Micahel had to be asked, and he said NO because it was an invasion of his private space. If Michael said yes, he had the right to get who he wanted ,and he would have to repay that money if AEG advanced payment for the therapist.

2nd bolded: Michael is not getting an OK for a doctor from AEG. He gives a name of a doc he wants, because AEG is setting up the contract/hiring and billing to pay this guy for Michael. Michael is not asking permission. Michael will pay back the money. AEG wants a cheaper doctor, which is why they said NO to the millions. Why, because the less money Michael pays for a doctor, hair dresser, etc., is the more profit Michael & AEG will get. Remember, AEG gets a percent and Michael gets another percent. It is the same with the house. Micahel wanted to get a house that was much more than 100,000 a month. Randy told him not to do that because it will take up too much of his money.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Any news why the attorneys are in court? Katherine has probate business, OK, but why Putnam and other attorneys are there? I wish I lived in California I would run over to the courthouse to see what was happening.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I agree the longer this jury stay out is not good for AEG

AEG should have just advance the money to Michael to pay Murrary that is all their needing to do in the contract it said Artist is responsible for their own doctor all of the experts have said this too.

AEG by getting involed their cause a problem with Michael doctor if their would have left this alone no problem but their got involed.

Just like Putnam said in his closing argument we didn't know Murray and their should have left it at that. AEG by cause this problem and the money that Murray was going to get play a big part in this. Imo it took always the care that Murray was suppose to be giving to Michael it should have been patient first he took an oath Do No Harm. If AEG would have done that there would not be a trial today but because of the death of Michael Jackson we have this trial.

I know alots of ppls feel that AEG is not liable but their took a risk by getting invole AEG put themselves right in the middle.

I have heard this so many times Michael and Murray are grow men that is true so what every Murray and Michael was doing was between them patient doctor relationship. It sad that Michael felt he could trust Murray but in the end it cause Michael his life.
 
Last edited:
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

pminton said:
AEG by getting involed their cause a problem with Michael doctor if their would have left this alone no problem but their got involed.
Click to expand...

^^Do you mean that if AEG did not get involved and just gave Michael an advance, Michael would not get Muarry; Michael would not use prof; Michael would sleep in the night; Muarry would have told Michael no prof; Muarry would sit and watch Micahel?
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7
Jurors back in deliberating. They started at 1:23 pm PT. Total time so far: 13 hours and 18 minutes.
All of the attorneys and Katherine Jackson sitting in the hallway waiting. You can tell everyone is very nervous/anxious.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Petrarose said:
^^Do you mean that if AEG did not get involved and just gave Michael an advance, Michael would not get Muarry; Michael would not use prof; Michael would sleep in the night; Muarry would have told Michael no prof; Muarry would sit and watch Micahel?
Click to expand...

Yes give Michael the advance Michael already had Murray now i wish Murray didn't use prof because that was not the answer to Michael sleep problem. Maybe not if Murray would have gotting him the help that he need for his sleep problem.

Murray should have never gave Michael prof in the first place this is a heart doctor he has no tainning in this field at all it just that Michael trust him.


I wish Murray would have sat there that night and watch Michael
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

13 hours that long so it look like the jury answer yes to the first question so far maybe 2,3,4,5 that is the question.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

ABC7 Court News @ABC7Courts 3m

VERDICT HAS BEEN REACHED. TO BE READ AT 3:30 pm PT.


Edit for everyone asking. Its 1,5 hours left before the jury will announce the verdict.

Livestream link: http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/live
 
Last edited:
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Whoever loses will appeal. This could go on for a long time...
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Verdict in 90 min.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Here we go again Calif law.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Alan Duke ?@AlanDukeCNN 4s
A verdict this fast -- 13 hours of deliberations -- has AEG Live lawyers smiling and Jackson lawyers nervous.

Alan Duke ?@AlanDukeCNN 48s
Katherine Jackson is waiting for the verdict by playing games on an iPad.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I wonder what question did the jury stop on or did their go through all of the 16 questions?
 
KOPV;3912636 said:
Michael was not going to pay Conrad, if he was going to he would have and never gotten AEG invloved!
Click to expand...
This was the first time MJ (his company) was not the producer of his tour.

jamba;3912669 said:
Also CM ordered propofol first time on April 6th, but his contract final draft that he signed put the start date for work as May 1st. This is a big discrepancy. He ordered the propofol before contract start date. Under whose authority/request did he order the propofol on April 6th--who can argue it was under AEG and not MJ's auspices and awareness?
Click to expand...
That’s why I initially thought the jury might have given a “No” for “Question 5: Was AEG a substantial factor...?”.
I know it doesn’t have to be the “only” factor, but a “substantial” one. Obviously as I quoted above from KOPV, if AEG was not the producer and was not “advancing” the money, Murray would not have been on board, but not only Murray, the whole project... On hindsight, we could now say, “oh, better would’ve been nothing”, and I agree, maybe they were (not only Michael) not fully prepared, maybe they should have given themselves more time for everything.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

pminton said:
I wonder what question did the jury stop on or did their go through all of the 16 questions?
Click to expand...

We cant know if they stopped or not but I would say question 3 was tricky.

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?"
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I have no idea what will happen. I know this will sound weird but after all this time I don't know how I will feel to whoever wins.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Petrarose said:
^AEG can't tell Micahel here is a list of company doctors which you have to see--Micahel is not their employee. They can suggest a list as any person with knowledge of something may give that information to another.

That is not true, AEG can make any obligation they want, they were financing THIS IS IT! They could say they expect him to eat 4 blue m&ms a day and put that in contract if they wanted.. A BIG part of there job was to make sure Michael was physically to par for the concerts.. That is FACT!! That is why Michael even had the conversation with AEG about a DR. he did not go to an insurance company.. All the physical testing that he had to do that AEG claimed he passed with flying colors etc.. They would have had NO involvement if it wasn't part of there job.

PS. I hardly ever proof read what I write, so if I don't make sense.. sorry!

AEG and Michael had a multi Million dollar deal, to ensure that the artist they are working with would actually do his job.. They of course would have documentation regarding Michaels capability of doing the shows.. otherwise Michael could have just decided, "you know what I don't feel like waking up today" and AEG couldn't do anything about it.. They were able to force him to rehearsals to make sure he fallows guidelines they laid out to make sure the concerts are a success..

It was 1. stupid on AEG's part to agree to Conrad Murray for many reasons.. 2. they were negligent on making sure Michael was capable of doing the concerts.. 3. they covered it up on purpose..

While they were lying saying MJ was 100% etc, they were sending emails about how sick and about how worried they were about IF he could pull it off.. That is complete reckless mangement of the artist and there own business.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

pminton said:
I wonder what question did the jury stop on or did their go through all of the 16 questions?
Click to expand...

Good let's be done with this. Time for a new album announcement!
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Havnt followed the trial. so what do u guys think that have been. duke thinks this is a quick decision and good for AEG. any opinions.
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

will there be a live stream?
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I wonder what games Katherine plays on her ipad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top