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.
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.

I really like this jury foreman, he too makes sense, so I suppose he is AEG plant:)

"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."

I wonder what the result would have been if it was only AEG?
I liked his answer regarding Kenny O, Debbie and Martinez.
KJ, Randy or Karen fake didn't made in his list of upfront people.
 
Last edited:
honestly, the verdict makes sense to me: AEG hired Murray, that is clear, but true, in that moment he was fit to do his job...you can have the skills to perform and yet choose not to...and I'm glad the Jackson's didn't make money from Michael's death...
 
Tygger;3913639 said:
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.

You cannot say that because someone doesn't recall that the defence has ruled out sleep issues as general medical care. Michael had far more than just sleep issues and I don't think anybody who Michael told he had trouble sleeping would ever think he or anyone would have general anaesthetist to get them through. We both agree as do the courts that AEG were not aware of propofol, so the point would be that it really doesn't matter if AEG knew Murray was also treating Michael for sleep issues.

The key to question 2 are the words 'for which he was hired', no conflict there, only Murray giving a treatment he was not qualified to give.

I sometimes think it would have been better if that contract had been signed given the clause on how AEG would not be held accountable for Murray's negligence.


Many of us here had interpreted that question before Putman gave his closing. Its a very short and clear question.

Re Bolded, they knew by his actions that he was unethical but at the point he was hired there was no sign to AEG that he could have been, so therefore it was unlikely they would hold AEG liable.

This whole trial has been about what AEG knew and the jury have reached their verdict based on that. As you know simply employing someone is not enough to be held accountable for their negligence.

The only way there would have been a conflict would be if AEG were dictating to Murray on treatment for Michael. imo
 
It was great to hear MJ was making fans even during this trial. And it really shows that it takes only to get to know him a bit better, beyond the media sensationalism to grow to like him.
 
Murray wasn´t qualified to give propofol but if he had monitored Michael carefully and used alarms Michael hadn´t died.
I wish Murray had done what AEG said, made sure Michael came to the rehearsals he was needed for.
For me it means Murray should have done everything to keep Michael healthy and alive.
 
ivy;3913481 said:
From Radaronline
While Katherine is coming to terms with the verdict, “she is already being pressured by youngest son, Randy, to appeal the decision,” a Jackson family insider told Radar.

“But Katherine’s lawyers are now heavily in the red on this case, it would seem unlikely they would continue to represent her if she is persuaded to appeal. The fact the decision was unanimous also doesn’t bode well for Katherine’s chances of mounting a successful appeal.”

Family needs to sort out Randy and put him in the mental faculty or something. He has single handedly put the black cloud over whole family, and now all of them are regarded as no good, living off their death brother, dead beat fathers, and exploiting dead brother for money siblings . They should throw Randy to the volves and let him learn his lesson hard way, as it seems that he has no sense of right or wrong. He needs to be kept far away from KJ so she can think clearly what is she doing and at what cost. Then KJ needs to kick all of her advisers and lawyers to the curb as so far they've been good for nothing.

I read it that KJ left from court house in wheelchair. What more Randy wants? KJ leave the court house in coffin?


Btw, if KJ had taken the restitution, she would have been collecting some checks from CM in 3 weeks time to support that loser son of hers, but as she didn't, Randy got $ 0
 
Bubs but they were all waiting to get their shares . Even the third generation were very involved in this lawsuit. It was not only Randy .
Katherine did not need a wheelchair when she buried Mike . However, losing billions was something more devastating to her !:smilerolleyes::smilerolleyes:
 
Bubs but they were all waiting to get their shares . Even the third generation were very involved in this lawsuit. It was not only Randy .
Katherine did not need a wheelchair when she buried Mike . However, losing billions was something more devastating to her !:smilerolleyes::smilerolleyes:

Well they'll have to tour for the rest of their life with AEG.
 
while i don't have much positive to say about AEG and the way they treated Michael, i have to say that the verdict makes sense to me. HOW could AEG possibly have known what went on in MJ's bedroom?
 
while i don't have much positive to say about AEG and the way they treated Michael, i have to say that the verdict makes sense to me. HOW could AEG possibly have known what went on in MJ's bedroom?

If the people who lived in the house didn't know, how could AEG know?

Any medication and propofol CM ordered, the bill was never sent to AEG.
If MJ was so open about his imsomnia issue as some here suggested and said AEG knew, he would have allowed CM to put billing to go through AEG like other expenses, but he didn't. He paid to CM and CM paid by his credit card or checks.
 
Last edited:
If the people who lived in the house didn't know, how could AEG knew?

Any medication and propofol CM ordered, the bill was never sent to AEG.
If MJ was so open about his imsomnia issue as some here suggested and said AEG knew, he would have allowed CM to put billing to go through AEG like other expenses, but he didn't. He paid to CM and CM paid by his credit card or checks.

exactly. In hindsight, NO Murray was not a good doctor, - but when AEG hired him he was, at least on paper, a good doctor and more than fit for the job he was hired to do.
I dont like AEG's treatment of Michael, nor to i have anything positive to say about Murray, - but IMO the verdict is correct.
 
Ivy, do you know what this means, it was in KJ case:
Future Hearings
10/18/2013 at 08:45 am in department 28 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Non-Appearance (Case Review)(RE: FILING PROPOSED JUDGMENT)
 
Secondly, another jacked-up verdict..
Seriously, this isn't a surprise. We already know we can't depend on the court systems to reliably dole out justice. I'm not counting on the courts. I'm counting on God.

really now?

it is the same court system that found Michael innocent in 2005 and it is the same court system that found Murray guilty in 2011. what makes you "know" that we can't depend on the court system? As far as I'm concerned the system has been pretty good in regards to justice for Michael. So isn't this a little hypocritical? When they came back with a verdict you want, the system works but when they come back with a verdict you don't want you can't depend on the court system? Is that it?
 
@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.

Ivy, I missed this post before. Let me clarify: I did not mean the verdict itself will absolve the doctor. The verdict does give Wass hope as it should. Who is to say the appeal judge will see the doctor as a substantial factor? We shall see.

You cannot say that because someone doesn't recall that the defence has ruled out sleep issues as general medical care.

The only way there would have been a conflict would be if AEG were dictating to Murray on treatment for Michael. imo

Last Tear, I did not say that. The defense simply did not connect sleep issues to general care for good reason. If they did, it would point to what the doctor was hired for, what Phillips and Gongaware did not recall, and what the doctor was not qualified to treat. The jurors preferred Putnam’s interpretation of question two and believed the doctor was there to treat the general care of Michael (and his children even though that was not in the contract).

The jurors simply believed the defense. Why combat that? It led to AEG being found not liable. I simply disagree with you and the jurors that a conflict of interest did not exist. I do not believe Michael created the conflict; AEG’s employment of the doctor did and I maintain that.

Ahsoka Jackson, good post! There are some items in your post I do not agree with but, there is more I agree with than not.
 
Nobody is pro AEG here, nobody likes what they did but that doesn't mean people agree with that lawsuit at all.
Being a fan of MJ doesn't mean being a fan of the Jacksons.
 
The same court system that MANY people believe is unfair or unreliable. That doesn't mean they are always wrong. Don't many people - -including MJ fans - - believe Casey Anthony and OJ got off? What about Zimmerman.

Does that mean that these people never believe any verdict? I think not. so, I guess they are all hypocrites, as well, then?

It's hypocritical for me to support specific vedicts but also believe that the justice system is nonetheless unreliable and unfair? I'm honestly surprised MJ was acquitted. I never said the system works, anyway! It just did in that instance, by the grace of God.
 
Ivy, I missed this post before. Let me clarify: I did not mean the verdict itself will absolve the doctor. The verdict does give Wass hope as it should. Who is to say the appeal judge will see the doctor as a substantial factor? We shall see.

Tygger, still I don't think you get the appeal process. Appeal process isn't about the verdict so it's not the job of appeal judge to determine if Murray was an substantial factor or not. Appeal judges job is to determine if the law was correctly followed during the trial. for example Judge Pastor made several decisions such as not sequestering the jury, not allowing Klein on the stand, keeping the time frame limited to last 6 months and so on. That's what Murray's appeal is based on - the claim that there were legal mistakes and it caused him not to get a fair trial.That's what the appeal court would look at. They won't look over the verdict and decide if the jurors got it right or wrong.
 
Nobody is pro AEG here, nobody likes what they did but that doesn't mean people agree with that lawsuit at all.
Being a fan of MJ doesn't mean being a fan of the Jacksons.

People were saying that they hoped AEG would win the case, and afterwards, people were saying they were glad AEG had won. And i already know being an MJ fan doesn't mean liking his family, but I at least think they are a rung above AEG, for God's sake!
 
I'm honestly surprised MJ was acquitted. I never said the system works, anyway! It just did in that instance, by the grace of God.
I think MJ was aquitted because the jury saw the facts.
 
it is the same court system that found Michael innocent in 2005 and it is the same court system that found Murray guilty in 2011.

Conversely that system accused Michael falsely. Twice.

Tygger, still I don't think you get the appeal process. Appeal process isn't about the verdict so it's not the job of appeal judge to determine if Murray was an substantial factor or not. Appeal judges job is to determine if the law was correctly followed during the trial. for example Judge Pastor made several decisions such as not sequestering the jury, not allowing Klein on the stand, keeping the time frame limited to last 6 months and so on. That's what Murray's appeal is based on - the claim that there were legal mistakes and it caused him not to get a fair trial.That's what the appeal court would look at. They won't look over the verdict and decide if the jurors got it right or wrong.

Again, who is to say the judge will not support an appeal? This verdict gave Wass hope and I will simply say I have seen stranger things happen on appeal, that cannot be denied.

It would be grand if posters would stop suggesting others do not understand a concept simply because they do not agree. With all the back and forth about rejected restitution, I never suggested those who disagreed with me did not understand restitution. I suggested why it was rejected. I did not read any post suggesting the Jacksons could sue the doctor civilly which we now see is an option. Those posters who disagreed with restitution "don't get it?" We did find out AEG could sue the doctor civilly as well at a time.
 
Last edited:
People were saying that they hoped AEG would win the case, and afterwards, people were saying they were glad AEG had won. And i already know being an MJ fan doesn't mean liking his family, but I at least think they are a rung above AEG, for God's sake!

Not even the Jacksons family are really against AEG, they are working for them.

If you don't agree with that lawsuit it means for you the lawsuit is baseless. If it's baseless then the defendant have every right to win that lawsuit no matter who the defendant is. Why do you want a plaintiff to win a bullshit lawsuit? Just because you hate the defendants? It's not how a justice system works, sorry.
 
And i already know being an MJ fan doesn't mean liking his family, but I at least think they are a rung above AEG, for God's sake!
Kenny Ortega was included in the lawsuit at the beginning but was later dismissed.
I like him much better than the Jackson family excluding Michael´s children.
 
i don't believe it was a bs lawsuit. They hired a doctor who couldn't even perform CPR properly. And, as I said, it seems to be the only way AEG will have any responsibility at all.
 
Being admin note is being ignored I'm reposting it


Thread cleaned
we do not allow the promotion of Taaj malik or her Teamxxxx websites, twitter etc. on MJJC

Take any discussions to the thread available in controversy please.
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...-TeamMichael777-Crossing-over-to-the-darkside


Thank you for your cooperation and as always if you have any questions or concerns PM Admin do not reply or discuss moderation requests on the board.

Per MJJC Rules: Public Posts arguing about our policies or calling out moderator actions are not allowed in the forums or on the chat. This includes replying to or discussing Warnings or Mod notes placed in threads by Staff. Instead PM the moderator or Admin any concerns or questions you may have with their action or our policies.
@ Ahsoka if you want your post partially restored, you need to PM admin and request that as is stated above.
Also you or anyone can defend the Jacksons all you want. We allow All views to be discussed. What we don't allow on MJJC is personally insulting or attacking members for their views .. no matter what side of the issue you stand. We protect our members including you to discuss your view.
 
Just popping in to add something I forgot to ask: How exactly was Murray determined competent? He didn't even know how to do CPR properly,

You are getting your trials confused, that was in evidence in Murray's trial. I seem to be repeating this answer quite a lot, hindsight, at the time he was employed there was nothing that would lead AEG to think he was incompetent. So if you employed somebody and they took it upon themselves to act outside of the agreed contract, should you be held liable if there was nothing at the time you employed them to make you suspicious and no history of any misconduct?
 
i don't believe it was a bs lawsuit. They hired a doctor who couldn't even perform CPR properly. And, as I said, it seems to be the only way AEG will have any responsibility at all.

Yes, but it's your personal opinion, not mine and not the opinion of everyone here. As for the CPR thing, even if he didn't know how to do CPR, how do you want AEG to know that? Murray had all the qualifications needed.
 
i don't believe it was a bs lawsuit. They hired a doctor who couldn't even perform CPR properly. And, as I said, it seems to be the only way AEG will have any responsibility at all.

For what? Being a*se holes? So you think regardless of the facts they should be held liable just cos the fans want to stick it to them? Take some solace in the fact that this trial has cost them big bucks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top