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.
I just wanted to say a big thank you to everyone who contributed to the many threads and posted such valuable information. Especially IVY. Your summaries and articles were terrific. Thank you so much

I didn't post during this trial but I did stay updated in the threads. The reason is it hurt to read these things and it hurt to know we were debating how MIchael died. I just felt so sad.

Even today watching the news this morning, it felt so strange to think people were talking about him like a distant memory, Sometimes he feels so alive, especially when you hear his music, But sometimes the enormity of what everyone lost hits you and you realise how much you wish he was still here. How much you miss his little quirks. But then you feel relief that he isn't here to see all this.

It's all still so confusing and conflicting.

I'm just very grateful the fans are here together:)
 
Dear Ivy
Thank you so much for all you have done for the Kat vs AEG Trial. I know you worked very hard to bring us all the information for over 5 months. Updating the news, doing the summaries and explaining legal matters etc etc. I'm very sad you have been attacked and vilified :( by certain factions of the fan base outside of MJJC as you were doing this for us. But you never gave up or quit on us. Please know how much you are loved and appreciated for all you do. :heart:


I don't like Ivy. She does not do much work. She only types with different color ink.
 
Wass can successfully pursue the doctor's licenses being removed from suspension. This verdict rendered him fit and competent for general care as it was Michael's request and fault the doctor's good name was put in jeopardy. The verdict means a little more than just no damage payout although that was the focus for some. How humorous some fans fretted about Michael being 20% responsible for his own passing. He is now 100% responsible. They were right however; the jurors did increase the percentage. laughs

I am not sure you understand the verdict.
 
jury foreman on nancy grace


GRACE: With me right now is the jury foreperson, Gregg Bater (ph). Thank you for being with us.

GREGG BARDEN, JURY FOREMAN: Hi.

GRACE: Excuse me, Greg Barden. Thank you, Mr. Barden, for being with us.

BARDEN: Hi, thank you.

GRACE: Well, Mr. Barden, you knew you were on a high profile trial. And you knew whatever the verdict was going to be would be controversial one way or the other.

I agree with the verdict. But I`m very surprised that it was actually rendered. Tell me the jury`s thinking. I mean, to say that Dr. Conrad Murray was fit when you know he`s in jail for a homicide charge for letting Michael Jackson die and pumping him full of propofol? Was the jury at all concerned that Michael Jackson`s family, particularly his father and the others, were sucking Jackson dry, and this was their last chance at money?

BARDEN: You know, that never came into our thought process at all. We really didn`t say that Conrad Murray was fit.

I guess you have to understand they didn`t just throw us in the room and say tell us was AEG liable or not. They gave us a series of guiding questions, and the first five questions we had to answer, which really broke it down for us.

And question two, it doesn`t stop at just saying was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent. It goes on to say, was he unfit or incompetent for the work which he was hired to do? He was hired to be a general practitioner for Michael Jackson. And to look at the definition of fit and competent, he -- all his licenses were intact. He had gone to a legitimate school. He had passed all of his doctor board exams. So he was fit and competent to be a general practitioner was the way we felt.

Now, was he unethical? You bet you, because he went beyond what he was supposed to be. So maybe had the word unethical been in there as opposed to unfit, I think the decision could`ve gone the other way.

GRACE: So you believe -- the jury believed that Dr. Conrad Murray, who is sitting behind bars right now for pumping Michael Jackson full of propofol until he died, you believe that doctor is fit to practice medicine?

BARDEN: No. He was fit at the time that he was hired as a general practitioner.

What we know now in hindsight, absolutely not. He was unethical. I certainly wouldn`t hire him as my doctor. But at the time, he was fit. Nobody knew that he was unethical and would pump Michael Jackson full of propofol.

GRACE: One of his doctors. We`re getting a flood of e-mails and twitters about Conrad Murray, how long had he known Michael Jackson? So the bottom line is, he had been Michael Jackson and the Jackson family doctor for over three years.

Out to jury foreperson Greg Barden. Again, thank you for being with us.

You were saying earlier that the jury found Conrad Murray fit to be a doctor. That no one knew he was pumping Jackson full of propofol. Is that the standard in your mind whether people believed he was fit, because they didn`t know what he was doing?

BARDEN: Well, at the time that he was hired, he was fit. He had, like I said, he had the licenses. He was -- had no complaints against him. He certainly had no malpractice lawsuits. You could have checked him out six ways to Sunday and there were no complaints there. So at the time, you know, looking backwards now, of course you realize that when you know he was pumping him full of propofol, you know now that he wasn`t. But at the time, all signs pointed to the fact that --

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Oh, you`re saying -- wait a minute. I think I get it, Greg. Are you saying that AEG at the time they hired him had no reason to know he was unfit?

BARDEN: Right. And there was -- you know, Nancy, there was not one shred of evidence presented over five months to back up the fact that AEG could have known Conrad Murray was doing that.

Those of you who usually look at Grace, did really not understand this,^^ or was she just acting that way to generate some type of thinking among the viewers? She tells him he said the jury found Muarry fit to be a doctor, when he did not say that. Is she deliberately doing this to cause some effect? The way words are phrased makes a difference, to me.
 
Last Tear, AEG knew better than to equate Michael's sleep issues with general care. Phillips and Gongaware testified they do not recall if the doctor was there to deal with Michael's sleep issues and that is what the jurors believed.

You yourself said the jury could find that AEG hired the doctor without negligence. If the doctor was fit and competent, it means he was not conflicted. If he became conflicted it was not due to his employment by AEG.

The verdict proves the doctor committed a negligent act because Michael asked him to do something he was not qualified to do. The doctor did not have the authority or responsibility to say no to Michael as no one says no to Michael Jackson.

There was a post about the doctor being conflicted and the only one who could have created that conflict was himself or Michael. There was no scenario where AEG could be liable. As per this verdict, that scenario is now reality. Wass can successfully pursue the doctor's licenses being removed from suspension. This verdict rendered him fit and competent for general care as it was Michael's request and fault the doctor's good name was put in jeopardy. The verdict means a little more than just no damage payout although that was the focus for some. How humorous some fans fretted about Michael being 20% responsible for his own passing. He is now 100% responsible. They were right however; the jurors did increase the percentage. laughs

Although the jurors may find support for their decision from some, they will not from many others. That is the beautiful thing about the fan community; its diversity does not allow for one, shared, majority view no matter what.

It seems to me that the fan community was a lot more in synch prior to the Jacksons various 'outings', but that is by the by and only my opinion.

My point was that sleep issues can come under the umbrella of general care, is doesn't need to have a title of its own. AEG didn't not know that Murray had thrown his ethics out the window and was putting Michael at risk. Why should they be held responsible if they didn't know?

Murrays verdict proved he committed a negligent act, this trial confirms that it was his negligence alone that caused Michaels death. Again it is not AEGs fault if Murray did not want to say no.

I have said this many times on here and it's a point of law in the UK that can triple someone's sentence, a doctor, teacher, solicitor, banker etc are people who are in a position of trust and if they deviate and commit a criminal act it is considered an abuse of power. This is what Murray did, and I don't care if Michael offered him the moon or even blackmailed him, he still shouldn't have thrown his ethics out the window.

I don't think Wass will successfully get Murray's licence back without his conviction being overturned. And honestly I feel strongly that this verdict has not helped Murray. The trial as a whole has - which is one reason I was against it. If anything it proves how unethical he is to deviate from his contractural obligations.

We don't know what the jury believe from the trial as a whole, but we know they believed AEG were not aware that Murray was treating Michael in the manner he did. It does not vindicate AEG as a whole, only what they were aware of.
 
As far as I am concerned this trial was a money grub for the family. They didn't want justice, they wanted money. Michael got his justice when Murray was convicted, THAT was justice. This trial imo was unnecessary. I was hoping AEG would not be liable. This family has had a history of leeching money off of Michael; now they are left with nothing. Now of course they will leech off of the kids next- that is inevitable unfortunately. I just hope these kids are strong enough and say NO.

I like Ivy. She always is very factual and unbiased when it comes to these things.
 
If anyone is going to try convincing me or any other fans that agrees with me it wont work..

The Jackson family loves Michael despite stupidity and greed... the love of money is the root of all evil, as we've heard said by MJ himself.. I've seen families fight and completely abuse each other yet in the end of the day still love each other... It's called dysfunction not lack of love.

The family has lived a complete scued lifestyle to what we know as 'normal' they are not normal by any means.. Very dysfunctional and unstable but they do love each other..


 
Last Tear, AEG knew better than to equate Michael's sleep issues with general care. Phillips and Gongaware testified they do not recall if the doctor was there to deal with Michael's sleep issues and that is what the jurors believed.

You yourself said the jury could find that AEG hired the doctor without negligence. If the doctor was fit and competent, it means he was not conflicted. If he became conflicted it was not due to his employment by AEG.

The verdict proves the doctor committed a negligent act because Michael asked him to do something he was not qualified to do. The doctor did not have the authority or responsibility to say no to Michael as no one says no to Michael Jackson.

There was a post about the doctor being conflicted and the only one who could have created that conflict was himself or Michael. There was no scenario where AEG could be liable. As per this verdict, that scenario is now reality. Wass can successfully pursue the doctor's licenses being removed from suspension. This verdict rendered him fit and competent for general care as it was Michael's request and fault the doctor's good name was put in jeopardy. The verdict means a little more than just no damage payout although that was the focus for some. How humorous some fans fretted about Michael being 20% responsible for his own passing. He is now 100% responsible. They were right however; the jurors did increase the percentage. laughs

Although the jurors may find support for their decision from some, they will not from many others. That is the beautiful thing about the fan community; its diversity does not allow for one, shared, majority view no matter what.

And Michael's mother along with his "loving" brothers and sisters should have thought about the impact a loss would have on Murray's medical status as well as % of blame assigned to Michael but all they could see were $$$
 
^^just having some fun with Ivy.

My best news was hearing about Randy crying. Thanks Randy. I hope Katherine is not going to allow Randy to get her in this type of situation again, by listening to his pleas for her to appeal.

Bubs or Ash can I have a picture of a man crying?

Today this man told me he got a tweet yesterday about the verdict. It seems his phone gives him an alert on breaking news. Anyway he asked why would the estate sue AEG since it has a lot of money already and is rich. It seems he thought Micheal's estate was suing AEG, and the Jacksons are part of Michael's estate. Now I wonder what people who did not follow this trial are thinking when they just hear soundbites about this case.
 
Another interview with Jury foreman

video link : http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/vide...reman-sits-down-with-cbs2kcal9s-andrea-fujii/

Question: Tell me the thought process behind question 2?

Jury foreman: We took an initial vote right away and it was 12 to 0 and then we started looking at the question and we realized that not everybody was on the same page what the question meant. so we started discussing it and as we discussed it people said "wow I got to change my vote on that" so they changed their vote and we started discussing it further and we got down to 8 to 4 type of thing and 8 to 4 would be hung jury and we did not want that, we wanted to discuss it further so we took the night off , came home and we went back this morning and some of the jurors asked questions and other jurors were able to interject things made us all understand it and all on the same page and what we thought was he was fit and competent to do the job for which he was hired which was to be a general practitioner to Michael Jackson. He was not hired to administer Propofol. If he had been hired to administer Propofol he would have been unfit or incompetent. He had a license, he was a doctor, he felt he was fit to be a general practitioner.

Question: let me understand this. so yesterday you voted and it could have gone the other way.

Jury foreman: no it would have gone the same way. It was 12 to 0 going the same way but then we start discussing and some people went the other way so it was back and forth that's what I'm saying.

Question: when did it start going back and forth?

Jury foreman: This morning when we came back in.

Question: so as of this morning it was a hung jury

Jury Foreman: I wouldn't say that because we had agreed to talk about it. I wouldn't say it was hung. We definitely wasn't at majority at that point.

question: talk about the outrage from some people wearing I love MJ tshirts. You said if the question were cut "if Murray was competent" you would answer a different way but you had to include the full question.

Jury Foreman: The big thing we felt was Murray was unethical. Had the word unethical were in there, it may have went the other way. He was definitely unethical. He did something that he and no doctor should ever done. That was the evidence that was presented abundantly for the 5 months. Nobody administers propofol by themselves outside a hospital. So that was incredibly unethical but again he wasn't hired to do that. He was hired to be a general practitioner because he had a licence, because he graduated from an accredited university, because he had no complaints against him, he had no malpractice lawsuits. He was fit at that time to be a general physician.

As far as the outrage to be honest, I haven't seen it and I hope I don't. I hope people .. we realize this is a verdict not everyone will agree with but we hope that people will understand how we reached that verdict.

Question : Some of the fans were calling you not smart, mean words were being said. How do you guys deal with that?

Jury foreman: I did not hear it to be honest but the way we dealt with it we knew it was going to happen in the jury room. After we announced we had a verdict, we almost had 2 hours to sit there , they did not let us leave or go anywhere and we talked and what we said we gotta realize there are people out there that will love us and there are people out there that will hate us. The problem is that the people that hate us will be the ones out here. They will be the most voiced ones but the 12 people in that room were very confident that we did the job we did and we were very comfortable with the verdict we came to.

Question : can you tell about question one?

Jury foreman: question number one we spent more time on that than we did on question number two because question number one was of course "did AEG hire Murray". My goodness you can go back and forth on that forever I think. We all kinda agreed that there was no written contract but there's also a verbal contract and implied in fact contract. Most of us felt that there was certainly one of those two between AEG and Murray. Myself I was kinda leaning toward it was a duo situation hiring, Michael and AEG hired him. The jury instructions said if you believe both hired him say yes so that's why I said yes on that. That one was a unanimous vote 12 to 0.

Question: Going back and thinking what is your thoughts on this whole experience?

Jury foreman: I really haven't, some of the lawyers have asked us that. To me it will be a matter of... I'm a very busy person, I'd like to stay busy.. so it will be a matter of having kind of step back maybe this weekend and look back at it. As far experience this was my first time. I have never been on a jury before. There were times it was very very interesting, there were times it was very very boring. but it's your duty, it's what you are asked to do ans we showed up and we did it. I don't think many of us knew, I know I did not know when I reported for jury duty I didn't know Michael Jackson issue was coming up. I did not know about it until I walked in and sat down. I am thankful for having the opportunity to do it. (skipping some parts) I won't say enjoyable. I'll say and the whole jury agreed on this there's no winners in this. for us to be there someone had to die. He was a father, he was a son and he was a brother to somebody. And for us to be there he had to die. so there's no winners. we did what we had to do.

Question: were you a Michael Jackson fan? Are you?

Jury Foreman: Going in the trial, no. Of course I knew who he was, I listened to his music, I thought he was a good singer. but a fan, no. I never went to any of his concerts, I probably wouldn't have crossed to street to see him, I would not have gone out of my way to see him. I have an album and I listen to it. If it came on the radio, I'll listen to it.

Coming out of the trial, I would say I am. Because there was so much we heard about him. I believe he was a humanitarian. He cared about people, he cared about earth. This is all evidence were given in court. I believe he was a tremendous person. I don't want to get too much into my own unprofessional opinion but he had a problem. A lot of people in the world have problems. It doesn't make them bad people. I truly believed that he had the best interest of most people around him in heart but he had the problem of the drugs , the painkillers I should say. He never took elicit drugs, that was very.. that was brought up in court. The other problem he had was the spending problem which I think a lot of people are focusing on drugs but he had a spending problem. and he probably wouldn't have to go back and tour if he did not have that problem. I am a Michael Jackson fan. I watched the videos now and I really wish I had seen him in concert.

Question: Do you wish that the jury instructions and questions were written in a different way so that you could have awarded something to the Jackson family?

Jury foreman: No. We were there to do the job and those instructions I believe came from , they were written by the two sides and the judge and it's not for me to question them.

Question: Of the testimony whose sticks out of your mind the most?

Jury foreman: oh my god. 60 people. who sticks out the most? Well there was a guy named Kenny Ortega. He was the show director. everybody loved Kenny Ortega. he was just totally honest, man did not have a mean bone in his body. Kenny Ortega was outstanding and awesome , entire jury agreed upon that. There was a detective from LAPD, Detective Martinez. He was incredibly up front and honest. As a jury you appreciate people you know to be upfront and honest. I honestly feel most - I won't say everyone - most people were I think trying to be honest on stand , you know there are tricky questions and things like that. I think for the most part , most people were trying to be honest. I really felt Debbie Rowe, his ex wife is another one. I kinda feel bad because I leave some people out I feel were honest. Debbie Rowe was very real and very honest and gave us insight.
 
Wass can successfully pursue the doctor's licenses being removed from suspension. This verdict rendered him fit and competent for general care as it was Michael's request and fault the doctor's good name was put in jeopardy.

I am not sure you understand the verdict.

@tygger , Korgnex is right. This or any other civil verdict has no effect on Murray's criminal conviction, criminal appeal and medical licenses.
What matters in regards to his appeal and his medical licenses is only and only his criminal trial.
 
I am still glad we have the This is It footage. We might not always know what goes on behind the scenes but those rehearsals were real. We got to see Michael do what he loved and we got to see him one last time in a way. Even before the trial I had a hard time watching it but one day I might feel the need to watch it and I will have it with me. We got to see who Michael was and I think it did help others who may or may not be fans and that is a good thing. They were a lot of great moments. I will always be grateful that no matter what Michael was dealing with behind the scenes he wanted something special and wanted the best for his fans.
 
Jurors became Jackson fans
Testimony by 58 witnesses over 83 days included intimate revelations by those closest to the singer -- pulling back the curtain on Jackson's dreams, passions, pain and fears. It shed light into his intractable insomnia that led to Jackson's death from an overdose of the surgical anesthetic propofol just days before the planned premiere of his comeback concert.
Contrary to some expectations that the trial would damage Jackson's reputation with its focus on his drug abuse, jury foreman Gregg Barden said Thursday that what he saw and heard made him a bigger fan of the King of Pop. He bought some of Jackson's albums growing up, but it wasn't until serving as a juror in the wrongful death trial that he realized his talent, generosity and personality, Barden said.
Barden -- a high school football coach -- said he came close to crying in court when Jackson lawyers played a video of Jackson's children as he sang "Speechless," a song he wrote to describe his love for his children.
"This Is It" show director Kenny Ortega also won new fans from the jury.
Barden said jurors believed Ortega was "absolutely truthful" in his testimony about Jackson's deteriorated condition a week before he died, but his "miraculous" recovery at his last two rehearsals.
"He got emotional a couple of times and had to walk off the stand, we really felt bad for him, but he was also a man who put in so much work and so much effort and did everything he could, we felt, to try to help Michael," Barden said.
Several jurors, including Barden, applauded at the end of Ortega's dramatic testimony.
"It was just the absolute honesty of what he was doing," Barden said. "All of the sudden the jurors sitting there for all those months, we watched all these other guys get up there and we were asking 'Is that the truth or is that a lie?' Now all of a sudden we didn't have to do that. We could just relax and listen because everything he said was the truth. That's why he got applauded."
Fit and competent, but unethical?
Barden suggested jurors were boxed in by the wording of the second question on their verdict form: "Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?"
Jurors interpreted "the work" to be as a "general practitioner" who was expected to treat Jackson and his children for routine illnesses -- not to infuse him with profopol to put him to sleep every night, Barden said.
"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," Barden said. "Now, that doesn't mean that we felt he was ethical, and maybe had the word ethical been in the question, it could have been a different outcome. But because it was for the job he was hired to do, that was what we had to focus on."
Jackson lawyers argued that one reason Murray was unfit was because he had a conflict of interest. His deep financial debt made him conflicted to the point that he took dangerous risks with his patient because he feared losing the $150,000 monthly salary that AEG Live agreed to pay him to treat Jackson, they argued.
Jurors apparently did not see medical ethics as an essential element for a fit and competent physician.
HLN's Nancy Grace asked Barden if he believed Murray was unethical. "You betcha!" he answered. "Because he went way beyond what he was supposed to do."
Juror: AEG was 'in the dark'
Interviews with Barden and another juror indicate that even if they had decided Murray was unfit and incompetent, the jury still might not have held AEG Live responsible for the doctor giving Jackson the dangerous nightly infusions of propofol that eventually killed him.
"There was not one shred of evidence presented over five months to back up the fact that AEG could have known that Dr. Murray was doing that," Barden said.
Juror Kevin White agreed. "If AEG had known what was going on behind closed doors, it probably would have made a world of difference, but they didn't," White said.
AEG Live lawyers were apparently effective with their strategy of calling several of Jackson's former doctors to testify about how the singer developed close friendships with them. Jackson was talented at "doctor shopping" and keeping his various physicians in the dark about each other, they argued.
"Michael Jackson was pretty used to getting his own way," White said. "He was a big star. He had all these doctors who wanted to be his doctor and he could pretty much get what he wanted. If anybody said 'No,' well, they were out of the mix and he'd find somebody else."
Murray treated Jackson in an upstairs bedroom at his mansion, where no one else could see, White said. "How could AEG have done anything about it when they were kept in the dark?"
 
Juror: AEG was 'in the dark'
Interviews with Barden and another juror indicate that even if they had decided Murray was unfit and incompetent, the jury still might not have held AEG Live responsible for the doctor giving Jackson the dangerous nightly infusions of propofol that eventually killed him.
"There was not one shred of evidence presented over five months to back up the fact that AEG could have known that Dr. Murray was doing that," Barden said.


I agree with this^^. They had 5 months and could not prove it because it was not true. It is so good to see we have more Michael fans, so this horrible trial did bring some positives.

Ivy about your question, we could ask the foreman for a Q&A.
 
It's over and the Jury reached the correct decision. Prayer's really do pay off!


4aowjhtmugt1xjrfuv2e2ayzq313108716.2.jpg
 
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Yes he was in that position. Michael Jackson had no contract with Dr, Murray. And even if he did, he could terminate / Fire him when ever he wanted. All he would have to do is say I no longer want or require your services and have his Bodyguards escort him out the door, telling him to never return. Dr Murray could later sue for past payment due but that wouldn't stop Michael from having the power to fire him on the spot any time he wanted.


Makes me wish mj didnt let murray near him :(
 
Juror: AEG was 'in the dark'
Interviews with Barden and another juror indicate that even if they had decided Murray was unfit and incompetent, the jury still might not have held AEG Live responsible for the doctor giving Jackson the dangerous nightly infusions of propofol that eventually killed him.
"There was not one shred of evidence presented over five months to back up the fact that AEG could have known that Dr. Murray was doing that," Barden said.


I agree with this^^. They had 5 months and could not prove it because it was not true. It is so good to see we have more Michael fans, so this horrible trial did bring some positives.

Ivy about your question, we could ask the foreman for a Q&A.

I agree. This is another bonus after the verdict--Michael's image may not be as damaged as we feared. The truth of what Michael endured just during the TII phase, which played out in that courtroom over 5 months, appears to have created more sympathy and respect for him. Maybe we fans needed to have a little more faith in the process and the capacity of people to really see the human side of Michael and the extraordinary man he was.

And, I think you made this point earlier, Petrarose--TII truly opened the door on the real Michael Jackson and reframed him positively among non-fans who had biased views about him based on media coverage alone. So, maybe this jury had a similar reaction.
 


Lmao, I can't wait to see Randy's rant on twitter xD




^ I'm dead..My mom says it ain't right to laugh at someone's failure..but this whole thing is killing me. :lol:



Randy is silent. :bugeyed Strange that he is not screaming on twitter on the result this shit trial. :fear: Maybe he's busy thinking about what he will do with his life going forward. :p :lmao:
 
Count me in on thanking IVY for her brilliance, knowledge, fairness, patience, dedication, hard work, perseverance and class. This legal forum is the BEST among MJ fan sites (imho) mostly because of IVY and the really smart people and good conversation found here. It's such a pleasure to be a part of this community.
 
  • If Juray would have said he was unfit in question 2, AEG would still be not liable when they went to 3rd question. Did they know ? Juror foremen said there was no evidence given to show AEG knew of the negligent treatment given by DR Murray to Michael. So verdict would be the same .. Not Liable
 
Last Tear, the defense did not agree sleep issues were a part of general care. Their witnesses, Phillips and Gongaware, testified they did not recall if the doctor was there to treat sleep issues although Payne testified otherwise. The jurors simply believed Phillips and Gongaware over Payne despite the fact that they do not recall if the doctor was there to treat sleep issues.

The juror who was interviewed repeated a number of times AEG was not aware of propofol which was not an issue in this case because that is hindsight. Question two was based on conflict of interest. When a doctor is conflicted, he/she is unfit and incompetent because the patient is not first which was how Panish interpreted the question for the jurors and I agreed.

The jurors felt the doctor was there for the general care of Michael and his children although the contract did not mention his children in any section I reviewed. Juror interviews frequently mention propofol, licenses, medical school, etc. which was not what that question referred to however, that is how Putnam interpreted the question for the jurors and they agreed with Putnam.

Even though the jurors saw the doctor as unethical at some point during his employment, they did not feel an unethical doctor is particularly unfit and incompetent which shows confusion in my view. If they were confused by question two - and I believe they were - they would continue to be confused by question three since that referred to AEG creating the conflict which caused the juror being interviewed to mentioned propofol again.

We do not know if Wass will be successful with the doctor’s appeal; she may very well have that chance. She did not spend time being AEG’s guest a number of times at the civil trial twiddling her thumbs. Some agree that he is fit and competent for general care and he will not find himself in this type of conflict again so, where is the harm?

This is how trials work. The jury’s verdict is not right or wrong; it is a shared decision. I simply do not agree with their decision which is not the same as not understanding it. Life goes on.
 
Last edited:
Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

there's no real logic behind it.

The way it happens is that in any topic you express an opposing opinion. These fans cannot accept opposing opinions. As they see themselves as the only real fans of Michael and strongly believe that their way of thinking is absolutely correct, they see these people with different opinions as plants paid by Sony/ AEG / Estate and whatever. It's just the inability to accept that other fans might have different opinions.

Furthermore there's no proof behind such claims. They act like their assumptions are facts when they are nothing more than delusional fantasy. For example they call me Estate or AEG plant, but the reality is I have never even communicated with Executors or anyone from AEG or anyone from Sony. I got my own day job and weren't paid by Estate / AEG or Sony. Estate / AEG or Sony aren't even aware of a single personal detail about me. And obviously I can prove it all but I don't really see the need. If people want to live in delusional fantasies and call me a plant, they can do it. To me it's actually kinda hilarious.

Funny that there are fans that calls other fans AEG/Sony/Estate plants, and those fans are supportive to family.
Are those fans family plants then :cheeky:
 
Personally I find it sad when fans feel the need to categorize eachother... as if there's only the option of either/or... we're more than only that really.

Also I must say I'm so friends with this verdict now.
I never wanted the Jackson family to get money.
And they didn't prove AEG had the knowledge of Murrays incompetence or were more involved in how Michaels health issues were taken care of (or even not).
So those are the facts on the table (or even not on the table?!) right now.
I can accept that easily.
However to me AEG is still liable. First of all cuz I agree with the jury they hired Murray, second 'I can't recall' is might a possible answer in court, however not an answer valid to me (I simply have it easier than a court cuz to me intuition is a valuable thing for my life lol). To me they just had every chance to know better but they acted as much ignorant as arrogant at times.
It's not proven, yes I agree, however my inside voice is telling me, only because it's not proven doesn't mean it didn't happen... and my feelings are telling me strongly that is what happened.
I do agree with those acting it's not the whole AEG acting this way just those persons Gongaware, Leiweike and Phillips (the last the most)... however those were acting as AEG towards Michael or better in the whole TII project.
However I feel they all do know their parts in this and will have to respond accordingly latest on justice day with more than 'I can't recall' or will be judged for exactly that and I can leave that easily to our creator... that's to me the much better justice for them than if it would have meant dollars for the Jacksons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top