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

[Tygger]

Again, allow me to preface this post by stating I am neutral on the validity of Juror27.

Juror27, jurors are not qualified to speak for other jurors regarding personal biases possibly being relied on against either party. I can only hope biases were not expressed.

In reviewing your posts however, almost every concept and view that was voiced by those who preferred AEG be found not liable as far past as the pre-trial discussions has been repeated.

Agreed, and we never discussed damages while deliberating. I was simply turning the plaintiffs' logic against themselves. They told us that someone asking for an outrageous sum of money is a red flag of unethical behavior. Does that logic not also apply to them? I ask only in a playful, rhetorical sense, because had we decided to award damages the ethics of the plaintiffs were completely irrelevant and would not have factored in at all.

The ethics of a mother who lost her son and three children who lost their father would have been an unknown to the jurors and most others so I agree it would not be relevant or factor into those decisions.

Although the amount of monies Michael Jackson could command may seem outrageous to some, he simply could command those and similar sums due to his outrageous, extraordinary, and unparalleled talents. An expert’s testimony and supporting documents were used to quantify the amount of monies requested for potential damages had jurors reached that point to agree/disagree with. Those figures were not chosen at random as was the $5M request or the eventually accepted $150K fee.

Interesting indeed and I believe illogical that damages in this trial would be characterized as "outrageous" and "unethical."

Ivy, this has been a busy time howerver, I hope you have had a chance to review the article(s) about the Jacksons being able to sue the doctor civilly in the article thread despite the rejection of restitution.

 

[ivy]

Ivy, this has been a busy time howerver, I hope you have had a chance to review the article(s) about the Jacksons being able to sue the doctor civilly in the article thread despite the rejection of restitution.

No I did not. As I mentioned to you, if you give me a link and possibly a legal link to the law as well I can look over it when I have free time. Otherwise I'm not going on a chase to find an article. I already wrote what I believe to be the case as far as the law goes - which is: they could have gotten restitution or pursue a civil lawsuit but they refused restitution, dropped the civil case they had and the statue of limitations has now passed at least for Katherine. Minors might have some window to file but I did not check specifics. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me with legal sources.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, again, I did not post the article(s) in that thread so your request has to go to the poster(s) that did. I only wanted to know if you had time to review and now I know you did not.

 

[morinen]

I just want to point out that the attorneys did a really good job in selecting the jury. Judging by posts of Juror#27, it was a reasonable, intelligent, sane jury. Juror#27, I hope you'll stay, we need more people with common sense in the fan community

 

[Juror#27]

Juror #27

Though it's been said over and over, I (like everyone else) am greatly appreciative of you finding this forum and reaching out to us.

I totally didn't expect to see a juror posting answers to our questions on here...

My question for you is how did you/other jurors seem to feel specifically about Randy Phillips stating in an email that he had slapped MJ and screamed so loud at him that the "walls shook" before the announcement of the TII concerts?

I'm not saying it should have had any impact on the final outcome of the trial, but just in general how did it make you feel (or the other jurors if it was brought up in deliberations)?

Thanks in advance!

Thank you CrazyVegasMJ, it has been a pleasure to talk with you all.

We did not discuss that incident in deliberations, but I know that a few other jurors and myself cringed pretty hard when hearing about it. It's pretty damning testimony and I remember a lot of heads shaking and disapproving looks when we heard it.

I felt really bad for MJ because it seemed pretty clear that he was in a bad place mentally at that moment and was crippled by fear and doubt about the reception to his announcement. Mr. Phillips screaming at him and slapping him is obviously not cool, but at the same time I have to remember the stress he was under since they were already late and MJ was so out of it. That absolutely does not excuse him for slapping and screaming at MJ, but I think it is important to remember that this was an isolated incident and happened during a moment of incredible stress and pressure for both of them.

Again, allow me to preface this post by stating I am neutral on the validity of Juror27.

Juror27, jurors are not qualified to speak for other jurors regarding personal biases possibly being relied on against either party. I can only hope biases were not expressed.

In reviewing your posts however, almost every concept and view that was voiced by those who preferred AEG be found not liable as far past as the pre-trial discussions has been repeated.

And that proves what, exactly?

The ethics of a mother who lost her son and three children who lost their father would have been an unknown to the jurors and most others so I agree it would not be relevant or factor into those decisions.

Although the amount of monies Michael Jackson could command may seem outrageous to some, he simply could command those and similar sums due to his outrageous, extraordinary, and unparalleled talents. An expert’s testimony and supporting documents were used to quantify the amount of monies requested for potential damages had jurors reached that point to agree/disagree with. Those figures were not chosen at random as was the $5M request or the eventually accepted $150K fee.

Interesting indeed that damages would characterized as "outrageous" and "unethical."

Ivy, this has been a busy time howerver, I hope you have had a chance to review the article(s) about the Jacksons being able to sue the doctor civilly in the article thread despite the rejection of restitution.

You can't trick me here, sir. I never called the damages claim unethical. I said that if I used the logic presented by plaintiffs that asking for large sums of money raises red flags about a person's ethical character, that would be quite ironic since they themselves were asking for quite a large sum.

 

[Tygger]

And that proves what, exactly?

I simply find your responses familiar.

You can't trick me here, sir. I never called the damages claim unethical. I said that if I used the logic presented by plaintiffs that asking for large sums of money raises red flags about a person's ethical character, that would be quite ironic since they themselves were asking for quite a large sum.

I updated my post slightly however, the view has not changed. It is NOT ironic. It is an illogical comparison as the damage request was quantified with supporting documents by an expert and were amounts Michael Jackson could command. The defense had their own figures they felt Michael Jackson could generate albeit those figures were lower than the plaintiffs' figures. Again, the damage request was not not a random request as was the $5M by the doctor so there is no comparison.

 

[Juror#27]

I updated my post slightly however, the view has not changed. It is NOT ironic. It is an illogical comparison as the damage request was quantified with supporting documents by an expert and were amounts Michael Jackson could command. The defense had their own figures they felt Michael Jackson could generate albeit those figures were lower than the plaintiffs' figures. Again, the damage request was not not a random request as was the $5M by the doctor so there is no comparison.

The plaintiffs did not once mention the word "random" when referring to CM's initial request of $5M. Whether Murray arrived at his figure by random chance or through some figures he concocted was not once presented as a reason why we should see it as unethical. They said it was an outrageous sum of money and that the size alone should send up red flags.

 

[Tygger]

They said it was an outrageous sum of money and that the size alone should send up red flags.

AEG's Meglen and Gongaware said it was an excessive amount as well.

 

[Juror#27]

AEG's Meglen and Gongaware said it was an excessive amount as well.

Yes they did. Gongaware also said that when it came to MJ, people thought he had more money than God. That it was very common for people to ask for excessive fees all the time in connection with working for MJ. I don't find that hard to believe, and if they were used to having people ask for excessive amounts of money when it came to MJ, I can't fault them for not viewing the initial $5M request as a red flag.

 

[qbee]

Just to remind members there is a sticky now posted with Juror #27 Q & A Only, so you dont have to wade through this thread to find them all. Also his Juror certificate is posted in there as well for your convenience.


For easy reference: Juror #27's answers to fans' questions (No Discussion)
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...7-s-answers-to-fans-questions-(No-Discussion)

 

[Bubs]

exactly.. would murray have deviated from the standard of care if he wasnt pressured by aeg???

He did deviated standard of care without any input from AEG.
CM was giving propofol to MJ well before MJ introduced him to AEG as his personal physician. According to his LAPD interview, he gave propofol 6 weeks, and in my opinion, he got delusional and found that he has better things to do than monitor Michael. I find it extremely alarming that you are taking away CM's responsibily as doctor to obey his hippocratic oath, and put the blame on someone else. I repeat again, not matter how much pressure CM faced from anyone, it was up to him and him only to hold on to his oath.

This wasn't brought up in this trial but I give you something to chew.
Conrad Murray ordered propofol
April 6 10 vials of 1000ml and 25 vials 20ml
April 28 40 vials 1000ml and 25 vials of 20ml
and more in May.
Where do you think those 6000ml of propofol went if he needed to order more in May again?
According to contract, his starting date was to be 1 May, but if in May he needed to order more propfol, despite having ordered 6000ml in April (before his starting date), it means that he was already started his "work" for MJ, and CM wasn't introduced to AEG peope untill later.
So to answer to your question would CM deviated standard of care without pressure from AEG, the answer is yes. CM deviated standard of care the moment when he first time gave propofol to MJ at his bedroom, and AEG had nothing to do with it.

 

[Korgnex]

the doctor that was suppose to take care of mj failed miserably. his treatment lead to mj detoriating and how on earth can the jurors say he was fit and competent???? kenny suspected the doctor.

you don't understand the term "competent", I'll try to explain it again:

By your logic every doctor causing involuntary manslaughter of his patient would be "incompetent" and that's quite untrue!

"Competence" is NOT determined by the end result or unethical choices/negligent actions (in this case: improperly conducted propofol infusion).
To determine "incompetent" it does NOT matter whether the patient is detoriating or dying at all!
Colloquially you'd often say that someone is "incompetent" if he's failing at what he's supposed to do. But that is NOT the legal term "incompetent".

"unfit" means Murray was not skilled for the particular work he was hired (eg technical knowledge)
"incompetent" means Murray was missing a legal prerequisite for the particular work he was hired (a qualification)

Legally, he was fit and competent to provide general medical care (he was not for the propofol infusion).
And all that matters here is the law and its legal terms.

It is actually the term "unfit" that you are arguing about, not "incompetent".

• If a doctor is screwing up his work, does that automatically mean the doctor was not skilled for the work, thus "unfit"?
  • It does NOT because there are 6 possible scenarios:
    • a) the doctor was indeed not skilled
    • b) the doctor was skilled but made a crucial mistake for whatever reason (be it some unethical choice/negligent action eg.)
    • c) the doctor screwed up his work intentionally
    • d) the doctor was threatened to screw up his work
    • e) the doctor screwed up his work because he was misled about the specifics of his work
    • f) higher powers (=forces of nature, NOT AEG Live^^) caused the doctor to screw up his work
  • Murray was fit (and competent) to provide general medical care. As we all know he screwed it up, however scenario a) was NOT the cause.

Do you understand it now?


Kenny suspecting the doctor would be relevant for question 3, NOT 2.
And for that question, the jury has to consider that AEG Live can only rely on the following (limited) information:
There were people that claimed to have seen him deteriorate and complained.
There were people that talked to the person in question (=Michael) plus his doctor (=Murray) and both of them affirmed everything was fine.

Only with constantly recurring complaints or some actual proof they could evaluate that both Michael and Murray weren't speaking the truth.

 

[Korgnex]

As expected: plaintiffs are trying appeal
http://www.roscommonherald.ie/2013/10/06/michael-jacksons-mother-to-appeal-verdict-over-his-death/

 

[Bubs]

As expected: plaintiffs are trying appeal (which will fail, too):

http://www.roscommonherald.ie/2013/10/06/michael-jacksons-mother-to-appeal-verdict-over-his-death/

I wouldn't consider this as confirmed source as that Roscommon Herald copied their news from NY Daily news
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/*****-mom-appeal-lawsuit-loss-article-1.1477148
Nowhere in NY Daly news it said that they are going to appeal, they say considering appeal.

I think we need to wait for more reliable news source to confirm it.

PS, I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Randy is not going to roll over without fight and KJ will be his puppet.

 

[Korgnex]

I agree, it's not confirmed.

Thanks to your verdict about "AEG Hired CM" there are legal grounds (much stronger than before) for the Jackson Family to have AEG liable , via an appeal and probably without even passing through a jury.

I feel a Q/A is pointless , when aimed to defend AEG from their liability, because there are legal grounds that are NOT based on a jury opinion , that set in stone AEG's liability...

A de novo appeal (there's no room for an appeal on the record) is about legal errors made by the court and if it was granted, there would still be a jury to make a verdict in re-trial.

 

[knowle]

This may be a stupid question, I apologise if it is. Did the lawyers know at the beginning of the trial the questions that would be asked on the jurors form. I know both lawyers and the judge agreed to them. But Panish not think the answer to 2 might go against them.

 

[Korgnex]

No, I think, like many fans, Prince and the family (but NOT Panish who understands it very well) believe "incompetent" would have the same meaning as how the word is colloquially used: not doing sth right / failing to handle sth successfully = incompetent.
"incompetent" has become a swearword nowadays with the same meaning as "bungler" and "fumbler", see dictionaries.

 

[Soundmind]

How did the jury feel about katherine not asking for a penny from murray ? Did you really buy her excuse ?

 

[Bubs]

How did the jury feel about katherine not asking for a penny from murray ? Did you really buy her excuse ?

Very good question. I would love to hear what juror 27 thought Katherine's excuse/explanation for not taking restitution from her son's killer Conrad Murray?

 

[maviefly]

Mrs. Jackson wants to appeal the verdict of her wrongful death lawsuit against AEG Live? Good! I hope she'll be successful. This will be the last chance to correct the worst and most bizarre verdict since Zimmerman.

 

[Soundmind]

Mrs. Jackson wants to appeal the verdict of her wrongful death lawsuit against AEG Live? Good! I hope she'll be successful. This will be the last chance to correct the worst and most bizarre verdict since Zimmerman.

I dont know what is more bizzare Katherine begging AEG to settle with her using insurance money which her lawyer himself said would have meant AEG would not lose a penny themselves, or katherine jackson chosing not to go after murray who killed her son ?

 

[#MJforever57]

Michael Jackson’s Life Was Trashed for No Reason Thanks to Family
http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/10/0...fe-was-trashed-for-no-reason-thanks-to-family
10/03/13 1:17am Roger Friedman

Well, that’s it. If there are any more skeletons in Michael Jackson’s closet even I would be surprised. Thanks to his family’s single minded effort to get his money, Michael’s whole life was trashed in public for no reason. His finances, personal life, peccadilloes, love life, marriages, parenting skills, and drug abuse have all been laid open to inspection.

And what was accomplished? Nothing. We know now what we knew before: Michael was the architect of his own demise. He hired a bad doctor who needed money and was vulnerable. He did what Michael asked. And he wound up killing him. The doctor went to jail for a short time. Soon he’ll be out. He’ll write a book, get publicity, and move on.

What won’t be changed is Michael Jackson’s musical legacy. Tonight in some club a deejay will put on “Don’t Stop Til You Get Enough” and everyone will dance. The music will never end.

But that’s it for Michael’s siblings’ quest for his money. There will be no Rolls Royces or big houses or fancy clothes. The Jacksons will have to keep touring and playing casinos and state farms. Randy Jackson will have to get a job. There will be no more kidnappings of grandma. Joseph Jackson has finally been stopped. Katherine will have to say no when relatives come to her for money.

What a crazy, long trip this has been. Four years, three months, and a few days since Michael Jackson died, he can finally be put to rest.

What’s next? Who’s going to pay that legal bill for Brian Panish, et al? This will not be pretty.

Thank for saying this Michael song (Remember The Time) just came on as i was reading this at 10:00 am Louisville time and yes i will be dancing now.

I agree Michael musical legacy will live on that will never die.

 

[jaydom7]

I can't believe Katherine wants to appeal.. She is very diligent with this case.

 

[jaydom7]

yeah I heard, "off the wall' this morning on my way to work... long live MJ!!

 

[serendipity]

I dont know what is more bizzare Katherine begging AEG to settle with her using insurance money which her lawyer himself said would have meant AEG would not lose a penny themselves, or katherine jackson chosing not to go after murray who killed her son ?

Seriously. It's mind boggling the "justice" some fans are crying about. Will Randy & Co lining their pockets make them feel better and that justice have finally been served for MJ? While his actual killer is out slandering him and profiting from it?

 

[qbee]

WTH is going on .. poor juror #27 sheesh - ...... run >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[marebear]

I hope we can all come together and support Michael when Murray comes out very soon. There is no restitution against him and he is going to try to make as much money as he can off of killing Michael. Maybe we all cannot agree with the verdict and how everything went down but we all know it was Murray who killed Michael and we need to be united against his garbage and with the whole Wade thing down the road too. People out there might think MJ fans are crazy but we are the best fan base when we all come together and support Michael. I say this because I feel our fighting days are not over and people will expect us to move on and not care about Michael and support him. I have felt drained and confused about things but nothing has changed my love for Michael.

P.S- I am not trying to tell anyone what to do. Just my hopes for the future.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

you don't understand the term "competent", I'll try to explain it one more time:

"Competence" is NOT determined by the end result or unethical choices/negligent actions (in this case: improperly conducted propofol infusion).
To determine "incompetent" it does NOT matter whether the patient is detoriating or dying at all!
Colloquially you'd often say that someone is "incompetent" if he's failing at what he's supposed to do. But that is NOT the legal term "incompetent".

"unfit" means Murray was not skilled for the particular work he was hired (eg technical knowledge)
"incompetent" means Murray was missing a legal prerequisite for the particular work he was hired (a qualification)

Legally, he was fit and competent to provide general medical care (he was not for the propofol infusion).
And all that matters here is the law and its legal terms.

I asked you about your definitions a few days ago but didn't find you answered my question. Why are you implying that your legal defs of incompetent and unfit are the only definitions that matter? Are they in the jury instructions? If not, then the jury is free to use their own definition. Jurors are not lawyers, they are there to bring their own life experience, common sense to the deliberations. You yourself say that there are different defs, legal and colloquial.

I find it extremely alarming that you are taking away CM's responsibily as doctor to obey his hippocratic oath, and put the blame on someone else. I repeat again, not matter how much pressure CM faced from anyone, it was up to him and him only to hold on to his oath.

Why is it 'alarming' for thrill to suggest aeg put pressure on mj - it doesn't take away from murray's responsibility any more than suggesting that it was purely mj who put pressure on murray. That is what the case was about - who controlled murray, mj, aeg or mj and aeg. It's accepted by nearly everyone that it wasn't murray's idea to put mj in a drug induced coma everynight, he was clearly subject to some pressure.

Actually if you want to be alarmed, instead of at a forum poster, try aeg who in their defence was wiping out murray's responsibility by claiming that mj's death was caused by mj's own negligence, rather than murray's negligence.

 

[Mneme]

This may be a stupid question, I apologise if it is. Did the lawyers know at the beginning of the trial the questions that would be asked on the jurors form. I know both lawyers and the judge agreed to them. But Panish not think the answer to 2 might go against them.

I think that framework for the questions were there right from the beginning. At least for the plaintiffs attorneys because the questions for the jurors were quasi a summery of their points in Mrs. Jacksons complaint.
But I guess the attorneys will have they at least 50 times up-dated, corrected, remodelled til to the definite version.

 

[TheChosenOne]

Yeah, Juror#27 - run, run, save yourself!!! LOL!

We can get a bit intense but generally we are well-meaning bunch!