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

[Thrill]

so, while Murray was not fit and competent for treating acute insomnia, he was perfectly fit to provide general health care.

ok but as times pass and mjs health is detoriating, was he fit and competent????

they see mj detoriating and what do they think??? what made kenny to believe it was dr murrays treatment that affected mjs health? kenny alerts aeg but they tell him the doctor is a good guy.

im sorry but if i have a personal doctor with me who is suppose to help me but im getting weaker and weaker, isnt that an alarm that something is wrong and that its the DOCTOR causing it????

But he was a lot better on the 23rd and 24th. Everyone who testified said that it was an unbelievable transformation from the 19th and that he looked perfectly healthy.

mj is detoriating for 8 weeks, has a meeting with aeg and murray where they basically tell mj to get it together and are concerned about whats going on. im sure oth mj and murray knew they needed to improve or they would cancel the shows which leads to mj being pressured and murray being afraid he will lose his $150,000. so mj comes back in great shape for TWO days only and all is good???

 

[Bonnie Blue]

@Juror 27 - thanks v much for taking the time to post on a mj fanforum. It was really nice to hear about how you came to appreciate mj through the trial testimony, even though alot of it was related to his prescription drug issues.

I'm a little confused as to what you say led to your decision on q 2. As thrill pointed out, alot of posters here assumed before and after the verdict that the fitness and incompetence of murray was only to be considered 'at the point of hiring', although there is nothing in the jury instructions that say that. You seemed to back up that interpretation,

What we were looking for was disciplinary action against Murray...something that would give a reasonable person cause to find Murray unfit or incompetent at the time they hired him.

Murray passed a cursory check. He had been hired at the request of MJ. The only red flag is the fact he asked for a ton of money at first. In my opinion that is not sufficient evidence to say someone is unethical, unfit or incompetent to perform a job for which they are qualified.

So it seems that the jury only considered the qualifications of murray and the fact there were no malpractise lawsuits against him. These facts were not disputed or even dwelt on much by either side, so i wondered if you ever thought why is this case even brought to court and why did aeg concentrate so much on mj's own responsibility in his death if all they had to prove was that murray was a doctor.

But then in another post, you say you considered murray's competence during the period of his hiring.

We did consider murray's competence over the entire period and whether what AEG saw was enough to conclude that he was not fit. We felt that based on what they saw and were communicated, there was not enough to say that they should have known CM was breaking his sworn duty to do no harm.

So i'm confused as to what you looked at, as it seems contradictory to what you said earlier. Was you def of incompetence breaking the hippocratic oath as in the above post. Or was it whether he was qualified to do general medical work as in your other posts.

 

[Member Service]

Admin note: Thread cleaned
There is a forum for Jackson family discussion and if Juror 27 wants to visit the 2300 forum he is welcome.

Forum: 2300 Jackson Street - Its All About The Jackson Family
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/forums/59-2300-Jackson-Street-Its-All-About-The-Jackson-Family

You don't rudely bombard other new members in that manner. So please don't do it now. Also please watch your tone in how you are replying to others and or insulting others that dont hold your views or opinions. You know that is the number one rule to abide by on this board. Again Tone down the "mean spirited hateful" posts against the Jackson's. That is also against MJJC Policy. Thank you for your cooperation

As always if you have any questions or concerns PM Admin do not reply or discuss moderation requests on the board.

 

[Erikmjfan]

Thanks to juror #27 for taking the time!

I wonder how you felt over the testimony of Gongaware and Phillips, did they seem truthfull or were they hiding info and not being totally honest with all their "I dont remember"?

 

[Tygger]

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.

A "red flag" is only a phrase meaning to be warned, suspicious, or similarly to proceed with caution. Meglen and Gongaware admitted the amount was excessive and rejected the amount. It is an interesting view to see the doctor's request as an attempt to fleece Michael but, to not see that attempt from a personal doctor as a precursor to unethical or conflicting behavior.

CM was giving propofol to MJ well before MJ introduced him to AEG as his personal physician.

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.

Wrong. The doctor ordered propofol and did NOT administer it until he received lidocaine AFTER May 1st.

First you need to know what Murray was hired for?

The contract states very clearly to provide general health care.

Phillips and Gongaware testified they did NOT RECALL if the doctor was there to treat Michael's sleep issues while Payne testified otherwise. Phillips and Gongaware's testimony regarding if the doctor was there to treat sleep issues did not figure into the verdict as the jurors relied on the "general care" phrase in the written contract. The jurors also included general care of Michael's children although they are not listed in the contract at all.

Thrill, I truly understand why you felt like crying.

 

[Thrill]

Thanks to juror #27 for taking the time!

I wonder how you felt over the testimony of Gongaware and Phillips, did they seem truthfull or were they hiding info and not being totally honest with all their "I dont remember"?

id love to know this too. there were many ''i dont recall/i dont remember/i dont know'' from aeg.

i have a few more questions if you'd like to answer.

1) what did you think of aegs witness eric briggs when he testified that mj would not have earned a dime because it was all too 'speculative'? what did you think when eric said 'mj would not even had survived the first show' and what was your overall reaction when you was informed that mjs assets were greater than his debt and he could have easily erased the debt if he sold his share in sony/atv catalogue. your overall impression of eric briggs?

2) how did you react to when aeg exces tried to downplay mjs success with the ticketsales? you agreed with their opinion or not?

3) do you believe that THIS IS IT was going to be a worldtour or not.

 

[Juror#27]

About Randy Jackson - His testimony mostly revolved around the mid 2000's when he and his family were trying to stage interventions for Michael. The story about Randy flying to Neverland with another sibling by helicopter and Michael refusing to see them was corroborated by another witness who was there, Michael's security at the time Mr. LaPerruque (I'm sure I spelled that wrong). Now whether Michael refused to see them because he didn't want to confront his substance problem or because of some personal issues he had with Randy was not for us to consider.

So i'm confused as to what you looked at, as it seems contradictory to what you said earlier. Was you def of incompetence breaking the hippocratic oath as in the above post. Or was it whether he was qualified to do general medical work as in your other posts.

Thank you for the kind welcome.

To answer your question, it was not an either/or, we looked at both the time of hiring and the 2 month period of 'deterioration', but we felt that the most pertinent part was the time of hire. I'll explain why.

Murray was brought to AEG by Michael. They would have had nothing to do with him if not for MJ's insistence. So when they were entering into an agreement with him they did a check, he checked out fine, and they (in the weakest sense possible, in my opinion) 'hired' him. OK, he's hired.

So time goes on, and there are some concerns raised to AEG about MJ's health. We know AEG are aware because of the emails where Mr. Phillips says "is it chemical or physiological", "getting him (to rehearsal) is not the problem, it is something deeper", etc. But again, none of these concerns link MJ's condition to what CM was doing with him. I think the hindsight is what causes the problem in understanding here.

It is easy to look back with all we know now and lump everything together and say "They should have known ______." I don't buy that. I think it is important to put yourselves in the AEG executives shoes at that time and ask if it is reasonable for them to remove MJ's personal physician because of a few concerns. In my opinion that would completely overstep their boundary as promoter.

Michael would be the best person to know whether the medical care he was getting was adequate or not, NOT AEG. Why is Michael treated as if he was unable to voice these concerns himself or fire Murray himself? He had that ability. If Michael was a minor under AEG's guardianship, I think the negligence angle becomes a lot stronger. But Michael wasn't a child, he was a grown man receiving the specific care that he asked for.

AEG made a horrible mistake in getting involved with CM, but I don't think it rises to the level of liability because they checked CM out at the time of hiring, and the concerns raised over the 2 months were not enough to reasonably conclude that MJ's declining health was due to the actions of his own doctor. For me it takes too large a mental leap to say that AEG should have known that based on what they saw at the time.

As for why AEG denied hiring CM so vigorously, I think it should be obvious. If they are found to have hired CM, then a huge hurdle has been crossed and the possibility of them being liable for damages opens up. It makes sense to me to try to say that they never hired him in the first place to block that path to damages.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

^Mr juror, thanks for the reply,i guess i wd have thought if mj was declining, his $5k a day doc wd be the guy in the crosshairs. I accept that in the jury's view the decline in mj didn't warrant a def of incompetence, and i'm actually glad that this aspect was discussed as it wd have ticked me off if all that happened was if you looked to see if murray was qualified to be a doctor. I do entirely accept your argument about what options were open to aeg at this point. My own personal view wd be to stop/postpone tii, but as you rightly imply this isn't what aeg are being accused of not doing. It's not a negligence lawsuit so aeg don't own a duty of care to mj, it's only a case on negligent hiring/supervising/retention of murray. Not sure if you're aware but the jacksons had multiple claims against aeg, and it was only this one claim that was allowed to go through.

The conflict of interest idea was countered by the defense saying that in actuality all 3 interests were aligned. It was clearly in everyone's best interest for Michael to be healthy and to do the shows and I see no way to dispute this. MJ being healthy and performing was good for everyone involved.

Yes i remember that aeg expert saying that. I'm not sure how it can be seen that mj's being healthy and performing was compatible and therefore one would be in conflict with the other. Clearly if mj had to be put in a drug induced coma every night just to manage rehearsals, never mind for the 50 show tour, then this is a danger to his health, this wd be blindingly apparent to murray. Mj was feeling ill and knew his weight loss and insomnia were huge problems for performing yet was financially and career wise 'locked into' tii and felt he had no choice, and as far as aeg was concerned, they admitted mj was on a decline in the lead up to tii and saw the state he had got in just for doing the press conf, so not sure how mj's health, physical or mental, was much of a priority for them as opposed to doing the shows.

And even if one wants to view this as a conflict of interest, I don't see how the existence of it in and of itself renders Murray unfit or incompetent.

I think it was interesting, and for me relevant, that randy phillips clearly regarded there being a conflict of interest going on with murray. When he was trying to convince kenny ortega on 20 june that mj should go ahead with this is it, he told kenny that murray felt it was best for mj to perform, and seeing that murray was successful and didn't need the gig, this judgment was unbiassed and ethical. Clearly aeg felt murray's financial reliance or otherwise on the tour going ahead would affect his judgement as mj's doctor.

If there was pressure or a conflict of interest, then was up to CM to choose...he made that decision, and i do not see that AEG's pressure was ever so great to say that it alone is what caused him to act unethically.

The jury instructions i think made clear that AEG didn't need to be the only cause of what happened. There could be multiple contributory causes to murray's actions.

 

[Thrill]

I don't buy that. I think it is important to put yourselves in the AEG executives shoes at that time and ask if it is reasonable for them to remove MJ's personal physician because of a few concerns. In my opinion that would completely overstep their boundary as promoter.

they could remove him because thats what the contract said. kathy jorrie also testified on stand that aeg could remove the doctor without mjs consent. whether that was overstepping or not, thats what the contract said (which imo strengthen that aeg hired murray).

 

[Juror#27]

id love to know this too. there were many ''i dont recall/i dont remember/i dont know'' from aeg.

i have a few more questions if you'd like to answer.

1) what did you think of aegs witness eric briggs when he testified that mj would not have earned a dime because it was all too 'speculative'? what did you think when eric said 'mj would not even had survived the first show' and what was your overall reaction when you was informed that mjs assets were greater than his debt and he could have easily erased the debt if he sold his share in sony/atv catalogue. your overall impression of eric briggs?

2) how did you react to when aeg exces tried to downplay mjs success with the ticketsales? you agreed with their opinion or not?

3) do you believe that THIS IS IT was going to be a worldtour or not.

1. Mr. Briggs never said that MJ would not earn a dime. He said that any projections of earnings would be speculative. (which drove me up the wall since it was so self-evident. it was like bringing him in to say something as obvious as "we are sitting in a courtroom"). Mr. Briggs was relying on another witness's testimony when he said MJ's life expectancy was so short. He didn't come up with that himself. The size of MJ's debt and the value of the Sony/ATV catalog were just astonishing to me. It didn't really factor in to what we looked at, but it was such a crazy amount I definitely did a double take. Mr. Briggs was not a popular witness among the jury because he steadfastly refused to answer Mr. Panish's questions which were very pointed and direct (which made his testimony drag on forever), and some thought he came across as arrogant. I didn't really get that vibe, I just got the feeling this is a guy who is out of his depth when trading with the likes of Mr. Panish.

2. Both sides manipulated ticket sales. Plaintiffs projected way too many, and the defense tried to downplay his success as well.

3. I really don't know. I think 50 shows is a huge number, and I have a hard time believing that MJ would do a grueling 50 shows, and then go on to do another 200+ or whatever it was around the world. We heard about how much MJ hated flying and traveling for tours and I am really skeptical that it would have played out anything like what Mr. Erk testified to had MJ lived. The number just seems way, way too excessive.

 

[Thrill]

thanks for answering ^^

did evidence point out that aeg were planning to make a worldtour???? (not asking if you believe mj would actually go on). aeg denied this fiercly but then we heard other testimonies that This IS IT was a 2 year project

 

[Juror#27]

Thanks to juror #27 for taking the time!

I wonder how he felt over the testimony of Gongaware and Phillips, did they seem truthfull or were they hiding info and not being totally honest with all their "I dont remember"?

When they were direct examined by plaintiffs, they were painted into all kinds of corners with loaded questions and asked about 4 year old emails and conversations. So there was definitely a lot of squirming by those guys but I believe also that it is reasonable to not remember specific emails from 4 years ago. Especially considering the volume of emails these guys were exchanging daily. Hundreds of emails a day.

If I had to rank the main AEG execs based on how forthcoming and honest they were under direct examination, I would say from most honest to least it was:

Meglen
Gongaware
Phillips
Leiwicke

 

[Juror#27]

thanks for answering ^^

did evidence point out that aeg were planning to make a worldtour???? (not asking if you believe mj would actually go on). aeg denied this fiercly but then we heard other testimonies that This IS IT was a 2 year project

There was a little evidence for a world tour being contemplated but it was all very flimsy. It came in the form of very early tour production emails, comments made in T.I.I., hearsay, etc. Nothing definitive whatsoever.

 

[Juror#27]

^Mr juror, thanks for the reply,i guess i wd have thought if mj was declining, his $5k a day doc wd be the guy in the crosshairs. I accept that in the jury's view the decline in mj didn't warrant a def of incompetence, and i'm actually glad that this aspect was discussed as it wd have ticked me off if all that happened was if you looked to see if murray was qualified to be a doctor. I do entirely accept your argument about what options were open to aeg at this point. My own personal view wd be to stop/postpone tii, but as you rightly imply this isn't what aeg are being accused of not doing. It's not a negligence lawsuit so aeg don't own a duty of care to mj, it's only a case on negligent hiring/supervising/retention of murray. Not sure if you're aware but the jacksons had multiple claims against aeg, and it was only this one claim that was allowed to go through.

I agree with you that the correct course of action given what AEG knew at the time should have been to cancel or postpone the shows. But that is very easy to say for a person who has not invested over $30Million in the project. I would have liked to see some more compassion from the AEG side, but they are in a ruthless business and there is not a lot of room to fit compassion and caring into a for-profit venture. And I should point out that there were a lot of emails that did show care and concern for MJ coming from the AEG folks. They are not the heartless, soulless evil suits that so many want to paint them as. I just don't think it's fair to ignore that they did try to help and accommodate MJ and then turn around and say "well you should have done more, and it's your fault he's dead".

Yes i remember that aeg expert saying that. I'm not sure how it can be seen that mj's being healthy and performing was compatible and therefore one would be in conflict with the other. Clearly if mj had to be put in a drug induced coma every night just to manage rehearsals, never mind for the 50 show tour, then this is a danger to his health, this wd be blindingly apparent to murray. Mj was feeling ill and knew his weight loss and insomnia were huge problems for performing yet was financially and career wise 'locked into' tii and felt he had no choice, and as far as aeg was concerned, they admitted mj was on a decline in the lead up to tii and saw the state he had got in just for doing the press conf, so not sure how mj's health, physical or mental, was much of a priority for them as opposed to doing the shows.

MJ's health was definitely a priority for them because without a healthy Michael there are no shows at all. Now you can say that they should have done more to keep him healthy, and my instincts tell me to agree with that, but how much more? At what point do AEG go from being a business partner to a parent? And why is it their duty to keep Michael healthy and not Michael's?

It's just my feeling that AEG was in a no-win situation. Were they supposed to force MJ into a hospital? For what ailment? They should have forcibly removed CM from MJ? How could they even do that? MJ and CM were a package deal and AEG had no authority or ability to remove CM from MJ's life.

I think it was interesting, and for me relevant, that randy phillips clearly regarded there being a conflict of interest going on with murray. When he was trying to convince kenny ortega on 20 june that mj should go ahead with this is it, he told kenny that murray felt it was best for mj to perform, and seeing that murray was successful and didn't need the gig, this judgment was unbiassed and ethical. Clearly aeg felt murray's financial reliance or otherwise on the tour going ahead would affect his judgement as mj's doctor

To me this was one of the stronger parts of plaintiffs case. What it comes down to, is that AEG was going on the information provided to Kathy Jorrie by Conrad Murray. He said he was bringing in $1M a month from his various practices, he did pass a quick check to show that he actually did have practices, and for them that was enough to bring him into the fold. Mr. Phillips acknowledges that there is a potential conflict of interest, but as far as he was aware, CM was successful so he would not be conflicted by the promise of money. This is why plaintiffs spent so much time saying that AEG should have checked out CM's finances. Because it would have revealed that he was in financial trouble, and that potential conflict of interest was a lot stronger than Mr. Phillips thought. That makes sense to me, except that I don't believe that most people do credit checks on their doctors. There was a lot of testimony from two Human Resources ladies, and even the plaintiffs expert had to concede that when companies are hiring personnel, they only perform credit checks something like 3% of the time. And usually credit checks are performed only when the job entails sensitive financial information. This is AEG's policy as well, we were shown that in court multiple times. And on top of that, the HR ladies said that you are only supposed to do background checks that fit with what the job you are hiring for, otherwise you open yourself up to lawsuits for discrimination.

So with all that considered, it is my opinion that AEG should not be held liable for failing to perform a credit check on Dr. Murray.

The jury instructions i think made clear that AEG didn't need to be the only cause of what happened. There could be multiple contributory causes to murray's actions.

Correct, and I should have not used the word "alone". I meant to say that AEG's pressure did not appear to me to be the main cause of CM's unethical actions.

 

[Juror#27]

they could remove him because thats what the contract said. kathy jorrie also testified on stand that aeg could remove the doctor without mjs consent. whether that was overstepping or not, thats what the contract said (which imo strengthen that aeg hired murray).

I'm talking about removing him from MJ's side. Even if AEG banned him from their facilities and severed all contact with him on their end, he would still have been free to visit MJ at night and give him propofol.

 

[MIST]

I don´t think they could decide about a world tour until Michael had done some concerts..and got a feeling for it.
After I read about how scared Michael was to do the announcement ,I think -after all that had happened to him- he was scared to do the shows too,..how the fans would react etc.
But he was exited at the same time.
I think he would have needed some- or maybe it was enouh with one-concerts to feel comfortable on stage again
Maybe they could start planning it when This is it was scheduled to have a break if Michael felt it was ok .
It might be the musicians who said the rehearsals were the hardest part and compared to that concerts were like holidays.

 

[Juror#27]

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?

I'm drawing a blank here. Was this something she said in her testimony? All I remember was that she said they brought AEG to trial to search for the truth about what happened to her son. I don't remember hearing about why she chose not to seek restitution from Murray.

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.

Just to clarify this a little bit, we were explicitly told that we could not reference a dictionary for these terms, and that we were to use our common sense to guide us. We heard a lot of testimony regarding fitness and competence, so we absolutely understood the precise meaning of both of those terms.

 

[passy001]

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

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.

This is a fantastic post. very informative and straight to the point.

 

[Juror#27]

ok but as times pass and mjs health is detoriating, was he fit and competent????

they see mj detoriating and what do they think??? what made kenny to believe it was dr murrays treatment that affected mjs health? kenny alerts aeg but they tell him the doctor is a good guy.

im sorry but if i have a personal doctor with me who is suppose to help me but im getting weaker and weaker, isnt that an alarm that something is wrong and that its the DOCTOR causing it????

I'm sorry but if that is the case would you wait around for someone else to come around and remove the harmful doctor, or would you act in your own best interest and get rid of him yourself????

mj is detoriating for 8 weeks, has a meeting with aeg and murray where they basically tell mj to get it together and are concerned about whats going on. im sure oth mj and murray knew they needed to improve or they would cancel the shows which leads to mj being pressured and murray being afraid he will lose his $150,000. so mj comes back in great shape for TWO days only and all is good???

So MJ comes back in great shape for two days, tells AEG he is fine and ready to go, and they should respond by removing his personal doctor????

 

[Thrill]

And I should point out that there were a lot of emails that did show care and concern for MJ coming from the AEG folks. They are not the heartless, soulless evil suits that so many want to paint them as.

which emails? can you be more specific???

i guess you are not talking about the emails where they called michael 'the freak'...

 

[passy001]

ok but as times pass and mjs health is detoriating, was he fit and competent????

they see mj detoriating and what do they think??? what made kenny to believe it was dr murrays treatment that affected mjs health? kenny alerts aeg but they tell him the doctor is a good guy.

absolutely fit and competent. he had the qualification and the technical skills to provide general health care. the man is a cardiologist and you don't become one by accident.

MJ was deteriorating because Murray was treating him for an illness he lacked the technical skills and qualification. Murray was not hired to treat acute insomnia. please go check the contract again. He was hired to provide general health care which is essentially basic health care. He was not hired to treat serious illness such as chronic insomnia. so when you look at q2 try to focus on what Murray was hired for. His contract states very clearly that his duty is to provide general health care services and treatment for chronic insomnia falls way outside the scope of his work.

im sorry but if i have a personal doctor with me who is suppose to help me but im getting weaker and weaker, isnt that an alarm that something is wrong and that its the DOCTOR causing it????

if i have a personal doctor with me who is supposed to help me but im getting weaker and weaker, shouldn't I be seeking another doctor? should I really wait for my employer/business partner to do it for me? in the end who is responsible for my own health? is it me or my employer/business partner?

 

[Thrill]

So MJ comes back in great shape for two days, tells AEG he is fine and ready to go, and they should respond by removing his personal doctor????

im not asking that, im not asking why didnt aeg remove murray. im asking how can you claim murray was fit and competent when ppl are alarmed for 8 weeks but two days are good and thats all that matters for you??? those two last days were the dealbraker????

unreal

 

[Juror#27]

which emails? can you be more specific???

i guess you are not talking about the emails where they called michael 'the freak'...

That 'freak' email came from an office in London, not from anyone directly involved with Michael, and Mr. Trell in his response to that email was clearly not in agreement with calling MJ a freak.

I can't point you to a specific email since I don't have access to the evidence, but I absolutely remember a lot of language in various emails where Mr. Phillips and Mr. Gongaware showed genuine care for Michael. I'm not saying they were saints, but I don't believe that they were malicious or evil either.

 

[Thrill]

That 'freak' email came from an office in London, not from anyone directly involved with Michael, and Mr. Trell in his response to that email was clearly not in agreement with calling MJ a freak.

oh really??????

Trell responded to the email with: "Apparently. Not sure how I feel about that. Interesting for sure, but kind of creepy."

 

[Juror#27]

im not asking that, im not asking why didnt aeg remove murray. im asking how can you claim murray was fit and competent when ppl are alarmed for 8 weeks but two days are good and thats all that matters for you??? those two last days were the dealbraker????

unreal

Like someone said earlier, it is not like Michael was on death's door every day for those 8 weeks. The way you are painting it is that MJ came to rehearsals every day looking like a dead person. I don't think that is accurate.

You have to go on what you see at the time. MJ's health is in decline, people are getting concerned, they go to see him and he is fine. He comes to rehearsals and looks great. He says he is fine to continue.

Is it not a fact that sometimes people are sick and then they get better? Is it not the case that people go in funks and depressive episodes sometimes and then pull themselves out?

oh really??????

Trell responded to the email with: "Apparently. Not sure how I feel about that. Interesting for sure, but kind of creepy."

Yes, and I don't take that as Trell calling MJ a freak. The counsel from London called him that. Creepy is such a vague and overused term that it just doesn't register for me as a major offense, I'm sorry.

 

[Thrill]

Yes, and I don't take that as Trell calling MJ a freak. The counsel from London called him that. Creepy is such a vague and overused term that it just doesn't register for me as a major offense, I'm sorry.

u should know better. trell agrees that he is not comfortable to meet with MJ ''the freak''. he calls the meeting creepy (he is gonna meet the freak and its creepy). this is not an offense to you?????? ohh i forgot im talking with a person that understood why randy phillips screamed and slapped michael. its never acceptable to scream and slap a partner inspite how stressed out the situation is.

im sorry for your sake that you cant see that trell saying he is gonna meet a future client is creepy is offensive. a FREAK and a CREEP they are gonna make millions off.


why are you defending their behaviour????? can you please explain?

 

[Tygger]

Testimony from Jorrie showed no one at AEG vetted the doctor. The defense was wise enough to not suggest Jorrie’s Google search was a vetting process so it interesting that it is being suggested the jury would see it as such. Panish would destroy that suggestion if the defense attempted it simply because the search did not discover the doctor’s two faux offices that he fabricated.

Jurors were not to decide if AEG knew about propofol or any treatment the doctor administered to Michael. AEG was the ONLY party in the three- party contract that could terminate the doctor so the “boundaries of the promoter” were already crossed thus, the conflicted interest of the doctor.

The jurors were to decide if AEG hired the doctor and the jurors did. Jurors were then asked if the doctor was unfit or incompetent for the job he was hired for which speaks to his conflicted interest during his two months of employment.

It is interesting that it is being suggested the doctor was hired in “the weakest sense possible” yet; it was that contract, where only AEG could terminate the doctor that the jurors relied on to answer no to question two. The doctor was considered fit and competent by the jurors to provide general care to Michael as per the contract and to his children who were not included in the contract.

It is also interesting that there was no response regarding the doctor’s attempt to fleece Michael of $5M being seen as a precursor to unethical or conflicting behavior.

 

[Korgnex]

Isn't it like whatever Juror #27 writes about key points of this trial, you'll tell him the jury got it all wrong?

About that "freak" and "creepy" email exchange:
Seriously, even if you think the "creepy" remark is such an insult, is there any question remotely dealing with that? Nope. Yet Panish was of course putting emphasis on that. He did so in order to make jurors believe AEG Live would be a company full of "creeps" - how insulting should we call that? Jurors didn't buy that.

 

[Juror#27]

u should know better. trell agrees that he is not comfortable to meet with MJ ''the freak''. he calls the meeting creepy (he is gonna meet the freak and its creepy). this is not an offense to you?????? ohh i forgot im talking with a person that understood why randy phillips screamed and slapped michael. its never acceptable to scream and slap a partner inspite how stressed out the situation is.

im sorry for your sake that you cant see that trell saying he is gonna meet a future client is creepy is offensive. a FREAK and a CREEP they are gonna make millions off.


why are you defending their behaviour????? can you please explain?

I'm not defending calling MJ a freak. I find that comment disgusting and reprehensible. I'm saying that Trell's response is not on the same level as the initial email. I had a coworker who was prone to calling large women 'whales'. He'd say stuff like "Hey did that whale pick up her order yet?", and I would answer yes or no or whatever, but the fact that I didn't correct him doesn't mean that I agree with what he called them.

Furthermore, this has nothing at all to do with whether CM was negligently hired/retained/supervised by AEG, so is this just an appeal to emotion?

Testimony from Jorrie showed no one at AEG vetted the doctor. The defense was wise enough to not suggest Jorrie’s Google search was a vetting process so it interesting that it is being suggested the jury would see it as such. Panish would destroy that suggestion if the defense attempted it simply because the search did not discover the doctor’s two faux offices that he fabricated.

And why exactly should AEG be expected to conduct this extensive vetting process for a doctor that was being brought to them by their star performer, especially since they were in essence doing nothing more than giving MJ a loan to pay him?

"Hey guys I want to bring my doctor aboard the team. He's been my family physician for years and I insist on him."

"Yeah well we don't trust you or your doctor MJ so we are going to perform a thorough background check of this doctor including his financial status"

Yeah I can't swallow that response as reasonable.

Jurors were not to decide if AEG knew about propofol or any treatment the doctor administered to Michael. AEG was the ONLY party in the three- party contract that could terminate the doctor so the “boundaries of the promoter” were already crossed thus, the conflicted interest of the doctor.

Where are you getting that AEG was the only party who could terminate CM? The contract clearly spelled out that if at any time and for any reason MJ did not want CM's services, he could fire him. Maybe you are thinking of an earlier draft before "producer" was changed to "artist" in the clauses?

The jurors were to decide if AEG hired the doctor and the jurors did. Jurors were then asked if the doctor was unfit or incompetent for the job he was hired for which speaks to his conflicted interest during his two months of employment.

It is interesting that it is being suggested the doctor was hired in “the weakest sense possible” yet; it was that contract, where only AEG could terminate the doctor that the jurors relied on to answer no to question two. The doctor was considered fit and competent by the jurors to provide general care to Michael as per the contract and to his children who were not included in the contract.

You are all over the place here. We did not buy the conflict of interest argument. Sorry. AEG was not the only one who could terminate Murray. The kids were going to go to London, and if they were to get sick while over there it would be Murray who would treat them. That they were not named in the contract does not mean that Murray would not have attended to them while in London.

It is also interesting that there was no response regarding the doctor’s attempt to fleece Michael of $5M being seen as a precursor to unethical or conflicting behavior.

Because the mere act of asking for a large amount of money does not make a person unethical in my opinion, nor does it indicate a precursor for unethical behavior. I think that line of thinking is irresponsible and dangerous and I reject it wholeheartedly.

 

[ivy]

unreal

oh really??????

u should know better.

Thrill, you really should chill a little. You are given answers and explanations. You don't need to agree with them but please let's not turn this to a argumentative and rude exchange.