Katherine saying she didn't accept restitution because Murray had to feed his kids was ridiculous IMO. I believe she made that answer otherwise she would have to admit she didn't bother going after him because he has no money and it would have greatly reduced damages from AEG.
Now he'll be out there profiting freely from killing her son.
That is a questionable reason to drop restitution for sure. I have a hard time swallowing that explanation.
Juror#27, you are making way too much sense with your explanations. It's clear to me that the jurors discussed and considered all points and didn't rush the verdict. I find their reasoning logical.
MJ deteriorating didn't make Murray unfit for what he was hired. He was still hired for general care. No one knew MJ was like that because of him and you had Karen sending emails to Dileo telling him MJ was self-sabotaging as this was how he was operating according to her, so why would anyone suspect Murray?
Agreed.
Panish actually admitted outright that Katherine sued AEG and didn't sue Murray for financial reasons:
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-sets-rules-suit-over-144028519.html
So there is nothing to question here, they basically admitted that they dropped complaints againgst Murray in order to be able to go after AEG because AEG had money and Murray didn't.
Hmm. Seems pretty cut and dry from where I'm sitting.
Oh and I forgot to add about Juror"27's point that AEG tried to help - it's true. In the emails they offered to get the best therapist for MJ as they had access due to dealing with sports teams.
And they also got a food person taking ccare of MJ's eating when they were told he wasn't eating much. So it ain't like they completely turned a blind eye. The problem was they were in the dark as to what the real issue was.
Yes. I think Mr. Phillips and Mr. Gongaware could have shown more compassion towards MJ, but that is a matter of my personal morality and what I think I would have done in their situation. At the same time they did make efforts to help him and they certainly wanted him healthy and ready to do the shows. So while I might wag my finger in disapproval at them for not being as caring as I like to think I would have been, I do not agree with holding them liable for MJ's death or forcing them to pay billions of dollars to anyone.
Juror27, there is nothing illegal, unethical, or highly dangerous about the use of propofol.
If you are ordering propofol under false pretenses and administering to someone in a non-medical setting without the proper skills or monitoring equipment, I think that qualifies as being illegal, unethical, and highly dangerous. How can you possibly dispute this?!?
There is nothing illegal or unethical about the administration of propofol even in a home setting. The administration of propofol is highly dangerous and was ultimately fatal when done by a negligent, conflicted, cardiologist. Michael passed from the negligent administration of propofol by the doctor not from simply the substance itself.
You seem to be implying that Michael's choice for curing his insomnia was not dangerous had it been done by a qualified anesthetist. This is counter to what the experts testified at trial, where they showed that being in an induced coma is not restful sleep, and that to continue to use propofol to treat insomnia was an extreme deviation of standard medical care. There was not one expert who testified that it is OK to use propofol to sleep, regardless of whether it was in a home setting, hospital room, or administered by an anesthetist or a layperson. The use of the drug to 'sleep' is highly dangerous FULL STOP.
It was unnecessary for the jurors to know when the doctor would be released from prison. Senneff testified to the state that Michael was found in on the day he passed. The "trustworthy" Detective Martinez and Detective Smith determined the doctor was suspicious in the death of his patient because they believed he was conflicted enough to put his patient second to the $150K fee.
I agree it was not crucial for us to know when CM was getting out of prison. Like I said, it was revealed in an offhand comment towards the very end of the trial. No time was spent discussing it in testimony.
Yes, it is detectives' jobs to be suspicious about things. They were investigating a death. Their post facto suspicion does nothing to convince me that AEG should have been expected to run a check on CM's finances prior to hiring him.
It was also unnecessary that the jurors knew that a plaintiff previously rejected restitution because jurors are not to rely on or express biases to any party. Certain Jackson family members can sue the doctor civilly as AEG could have also sued the doctor civilly. One may feel a plaintiff was "targeting a deeper pocket" however, AEG was made whole by the estate and profited from TII as testified to in court.
I agree, I understand why that information was kept from us.
It did not seem clear to another juror who spoke to the media and stated the children would be cared for by the doctor when they were not listed in the contract. Another juror did not characterize Michael as a junkie however, the juror did characterize Michael as addict who no one would say no to.
You are reading far too much into that comment by the juror. There is no question that MJ was dependent on Demerol and an addict for a period of his life. He checked himself into rehab in case you forgot. And yeah, there was ample testimony that showed that MJ had no shortage of doctors throwing whatever drugs he wanted at him. And there was plenty of testimony that when MJ was challenged or stood up to by someone, he would often cut that person out of his life.
This is evidence we were shown in court. If you want to take that juror's comments as slanderous or malicious in spirit you are free to do so, but Mr. Smith was just as fond of Michael as the rest of us. I know for a fact that he was not intending to disparage MJ.
Jurors are instructed to ask any questions they may have during deliberations. Any concerns about AEG possibly forcing a doctor to continue to care for Michael were to be addressed at that time.
Interesting. So rather than follow your implications to their logical end, you would rather deflect with a meaningless statement. We had no reason to discuss the termination clause because it was a red herring. I was asking YOU to explain your assertion, and your answer speaks volumes.
h34r:
