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

[Juror#27]

@Juror#27 I apologise if this has already been asked, I'm in a different time zone so I play catch up but I do try to read everything. In your opinion did Randy Jacksons deposition help the defence or the Plantiffs?

It really didn't factor in for either side because what he testified about was not directly related to the questions we were asked. He was never brought up in deliberations since we were focusing on the hiring time period rather than the time Randy testified about, which was the early-mid 2000's mostly.

Another question for u. . if you had to award damages did or have u ever thought about what sort of figure you would go for and how it would be split amongst kj and the kids or have u never even thought

At a certain point during plaintiffs case they were just drilling us daily with the 'nasty' side of AEG (mean emails, Mr. Phillips slapping MJ, etc.). Mr. Panish just went to town on them. I did start to think that I would be OK with awarding some kind of small punitive damages. Something like $10M.

Later in the trial as other information came out and I got a clearer picture of everything, I stopped thinking that they should owe $10M or any money at all.

This is hypothetical question to Juror 27.
This is about the verdict form and if jury was to find AEG liable, what percentage would have been put on Michael.

Plaintiffs agreed that Michael was 20% responsible as per their pie chart

If the verdict would have been AEG liable, what percentage would you have put for Michael?

I was never convinced that AEG's actions in any way caused Murray to give MJ propofol. If AEG had known what Murray was doing they would have shut everything down in a heartbeat.

So on that pie chart I would have had to unfortunately put MJ at 100% and AEG at 0%. I think the instructions said we could put any percentage on each side as long as it equaled 100%. But since AEG is being held liable in this hypothetical, I guess they have to be at least 1% responsible.

The real pie chart should be between MJ and Murray, and after reading a lot the last few days about how Michael died and thinking it over more, I think I'd put Murray at around 90%.

I don't know if Juror #27 is still around, but I was interested in what he said about Briggs' testimony and it implied he was impressed with Panish as a lawyer. I was wondering if he had any comment about the interactions between Panish and Putnam, and between the 2 legal teams in general.

I was blown away by Mr. Panish. What an awesome, commanding presence in the courtroom. Knows the law inside and out. A quick wit and genuinely funny as well. I might not have been buying all of what he was selling, but the sales pitch was the best I've ever seen. Just a master of his craft.

Mr. Putnam I found equally impressive in every regard. He is just as commanding a presence, just as quick witted and funny, and he also knows the law inside and out. I took careful note of how Mr. Putnam handled sensitive witnesses like Prince and Katherine Jackson. He was ever respectful even while asking hard questions. Just a class act all around.

The interactions between the two legal teams was by far the most entertaining thing about the trial. I could not believe the amount of snarky comments and mean looks being thrown back and forth. So many childish arguments ("He started it, your honor!") it sometimes felt like the judge was more of a nanny and she even said something to that effect a few times.

There was one incident where Mr. Panish had heard during a break that an AEG attorney (Ms. Strong) was staring at him while he was questioning a witness. She was seated to his left about 6 feet away. So when Ms. Strong went to the podium (which was a few feet behind Mr. Panish's spot at the attorneys' table) to question the same witness, Mr. Panish turned 180° in his chair and stared directly up at her. That lasted a few minutes before the judge told him to face front. So he faced front, kinda. Then started to slowly turn back around until he was finally staring directly back at her. Ms. Strong says "Your honor..." and motions to Mr. Panish, who is already turning back around. The judge admonishes Mr. Panish a 2nd time, and he says "It's OK your honor, I have her on video now." Mr. Panish had set his laptop camera to capture Ms. Strong and he sat there face front, staring down at his laptop video to watch Ms. Strong question the witness. It was so hard to not laugh out loud at this.

That was something I did not expect, that there would be so much humor in the courtroom. Quips between the attorneys, or an unexpected answer from a witness (Like when Ms. Rowe repeatedly used the phrase "pissing match" to describe 2 doctors who were trying to give MJ more and better drugs -- the judge's reaction to that was priceless), or any other random thing that would happen in there. There were laugh out loud moments almost every day.

Another question--did the jurors (or this juror) feel the trial went on too long and that it was too drawn out and maybe repetitive? Was the jury burned out after 5 months?

Looking back it's pretty clear now that a good amount of what we were shown wasn't relevant to the questions we were asked to answer. I didn't think it was too repetitive, and the times it was repetitive were mostly towards the very end. The beginning and middle of the trial were riveting. I personally wasn't burned out by the length and I don't think anyone else really was either. I think a few just were itching to get back to their normal routine.

Last question: What did Juror #27 think of the witness Earley, the one who did the study on propofol addiction and who had been an addict himself (heroin) at one point?

Thanks! It's been a pleasure to read your clear and well-reasoned responses, Juror #27!!

I really, really dug Dr. Earley. He had some very emotional testimony and I teared up listening to him describe his struggles. How he hit bottom and managed to get himself clean. It was just so inspirational and my heart went out to him.

I was surprised to learn about the propofol study funded by AEG, and hearing him explain that whole thing was fascinating. Dr. Earley was one of the rare witnesses who were questioned by Mr. Boyle, and I thought he stood his ground well when Mr. Boyle was grilling him about a few blog posts he made shortly after MJ's death (I don't know if you've seen them). I do have to say though that I thought those blogs were way too sensationalist and poorly-written. I don't think they damaged his credibility, but I just didn't like them.

 

[Ashtanga]

^^ LOL Admin let me copy that..

Oct. 7, 2013, 8:09 PM EST
WENN
Michael Jackson's mother Katherine is meeting with jurors who cleared AEG Live executives in the King of Pop's wrongful death lawsuit to determine if she should launch an appeal.


A 12-person jury decided last week that although the concert promoters had hired Dr. Conrad Murray to serve as the singer's personal physician ahead of his doomed "This Is It" gigs, they were not liable for damages following the King of Pop's death as the medic was ruled not "unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired."


Bing: Conrad Murray speaks out on 'justice' in verdict


The ruling means AEG Live bosses do not have to pay millions in compensation to Katherine Jacksonand the superstar's three children, who claimed the promoters acted negligently by hiring Murray, who is currently serving time behind bars for involuntary manslaughter after he was convicted of administering the fatal dose of anestheticpropofol that cost Jackson his life in 2009.


The Jackson family matriarch's lead lawyer, Brian Panish, has now spoken out about his client's plans to pursue the case further, revealing he and Katherine are hoping to talk to members of the Los Angeles jury in a bid to understand their actions for dismissing the wrongful death accusations.


They will then make a decision about filing a possible appeal within the next month. Panish tells theNew York Daily News, "She (Katherine) isn't throwing in the towel ... We can't give up until we gather all the information. Today is another chapter."

If it is true :busted: ... I was wondering why. Katherine should take a break and move on. :doh: What more does she want? :blink: Leave Michael alone! errin: PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

​

​

I think if it hasn't yet happened, this "meeting with the jurors" is a sad ploy by Panish et al.

Agree!

 

[Lena Lucy]

Of course they will appeal, Brian Panish wants his 33% of any potential payout.

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2...r-lawyers-owed-millions/#.Uk2-kG6T5ow.twitter

 

[Suparna]

Hello,

I have a few words to say about the decision the jury made in this trial. How could they come up with a verdict that Murray was fit and competent when he is languishing in the jail at this time for involuntary man slaughter? How could you comment upon his competency at the time of being hired alone? Is a pass certificate from a medical school proof enough that the medical school pass- out is a fit and competent doctor? Is it not more important for you to evaluate the doctor's competence in the light of the effect that his treatment would be having on the patient? You seem to have been blown away by Marvin Putnam's comments that AEG had no way of knowing that Propofol was being administered behind closed doors. But as Brian Panish had pointed it out in his closing arguments- AEG did not really have to know about Propofol at all. MJ's health was on a rapid decline- and this was evident to one and all. The numerous emails that were sent to AEG by the likes of Ortega and Faye show that AEG was made aware of MJ's frail condition. Their action as a responsible employer should have been to question Murray and take him to task. Instead, they asked Ortega not to meddle in MJ's health matters and that Murray was an excellent doctor!! Murray could not even do a proper CPR on MJ! Moreover how COULD you dissect ethical consideration from competence?? In my opinion a doctor who is unethical is bound to be incompetent? If you hire a thief to manage your jewelery shop, he is going to be bad manager as he will be stealing all the while! Murray was a cardiologist- and was unfit to treat MJ for his sleep disorders. He could not even tell MJ why one part of MJ's body was hit and the other part cold, so that MJ had to call up the nurse to ask her about it! Murray should have admitted his own unfitness of handling MJ's complex health issues and resigned. AEG should have grilled him for MJ's condition. Would you go to a doctor who may have all the degrees to his name but is known to be dishonest? So if you are not going go to him, it is proof that you will not do so because you fear that the doctor's competence would be heavily compromised by his unethical motives. You seemed to have been puzzled by how the question was framed? After five months of hearing all the witnesses? and you say you have started growing fond of MJ?

]

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Looking back it's pretty clear now that a good amount of what we were shown wasn't relevant to the questions we were asked to answer.

thanks for answering my question. re what you said above. one of the issues many fans had with the judges rulings is she seemed to let anything and everything be heard during the trial. for example the majority of the jacksons case had been thrown out pre trial but the judge still seemed to let witnesses that were more related to the sections that had been thrown out testify in the actual trial. many fans also pretrial and right at the begining felt the judge had a bias against mj as she made several comments that stated her feelings that mj was just another typical druggie rockstar "like the rollingstones" when the evidence clearly shows that was not the case.

i also wonder whats your opinion on the jacksons trying to have their cake and it it interms of in one hand claiming mj was a drug addict who needed saving from himself and was weak and didnt want to do 50 shows and was being bullied by AEG etc etc. yet in the next breath claim he was going to carry on working/touring into his 70s plus and was going to tour with his brothers afterwards (something mj denied himself many a time the last being in late 2008) obviously said to try and increase the damages to the ridiculous figure of 40 bill. seems to me the jacksons were trying to have it both ways in their quest to win lots of $$

 

[Bubs]

@Juror 27

This is from your reply to another poster:

1. I didn't know about restitution being dropped against CM by Katherine.
2. On the surface it does seem to appear that the plaintiffs are looking for deep pockets.
3. I don't think it is my place to question or speculate as to Ms. Jackson's motives.

I personally was surprised that defence lawyer Putnam didn't bring up Katherine dropping restitution more times during the trial, in order to show reason from this trial. Putnam only brought it up during Katherine's testimony. Second issue for me was that Katherine sued AEG Sept 2010 and before Conrad Murray was sentenced to prison, which was Nov 2011. Did this raise any questions in your mind?

We got this from ABC7 tweets:
Putnam: You do believe Dr. Murray has some responsibility for your son's death? Mrs. Jackson: Of course
Putnam asked Mrs. Jackson if Dr. Murray was convicted in the criminal trial. She said yes.
He asked if the doctor is now in jail. "I hope he is," she responded. (ABC7)
Putnam inquired about Mrs. Jackson asking the District Attorney to drop the $100 million restitution against Dr. Murray. Mrs. Jackson said yes, that Dr. Murray has children and has no money. "Because I felt his children needed him to take care of them," she explained. "He didn't have any money."
Putnam: You asked the DA to drop the $100 million restitution claim against Dr. Murray?
Mrs. Jackson: I asked them to drop it because of his children, he has quite a few children, 7 or 8, I don't know.
Mrs. Jackson said she believes the DA may have dropped the $100 million restitution claim.
Putnam: Did you drop the restitution claim so you could file this lawsuit? Mrs. Jackson: No (ABC7)

I quess you cannot remember everything that was said during the trial, but I personally would have wondered greatly that mother of deceased son is more angry at concert promoter for "alledged" hiring than being angry at the real killer of her son.
That to me would have been proper and clear red flag.
Were you aware of that plaintiffs offered settlement twice before the trial?
--------------------
More hypothetical questions:

Regarding that Panish's pie chart, would all the juror have to agree the percentage of responsibility or how it would have worked? If you say MJ was responsible 99%, were other jurors had to be in agreement with that amount, or all jurors put their own percentage and then judge would have decided average?
-----------------------
Also, did all the juror had to be in agreement amount of money awarded or all jurors put their own amount and judge decides average?
----------------------------------

I had a little of thought if jury had awarded plaintiffs with $10 million. Panish company takes 33%, then kids share out of it, and at the end where all the bills and costs paid.

 

[Bubs]

Of course they will appeal, Brian Panish wants his 33% of any potential payout.

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2...r-lawyers-owed-millions/#.Uk2-kG6T5ow.twitter

I was reading some comments there and this caught my eye:
Herr Schadenfreude Janet • 6 days ago
What's more, most contingency cases allow the lawyers, in this instance Mrs. Jackson's, to bill their client for disbursements incurred during the trial, even in a loss. While the lawyers working on contingency have agreed up front not to claim for billable hours, Mrs. Jackson might find herself with a steep mountain of "expenses" as the law firm that represented her (and lost) tries desperately to pick the scabs and get something for its time.


Mary813272 Herr Schadenfreude • 6 days ago
That's the way it works at my hubby's firm. If a case is lost the client doesn't have to pay the billable hours of the attorney's but the client is on the hook for experts and court costs.

:bugeyed
If what they say above is true, and KJ has to pay experts and court costs, experts testimonies were huge, especially if AEG make plaintiffs to pay their experts too.

I found this info:
Paying a lawyer on contingency means that the plaintiff agrees that the attorney's fee will be determined by the amount of the settlement awarded to the plaintiff, should the case be decided in his or her favor. If the plaintiff does not win the case, the attorney will receive no fee. Many people falsely believe that, if they lose the case, they will not have to pay anything. Though they will not have to pay the attorney's fee, they will still be responsible for expenses their attorney incurred in pursuing their case, which could include things like medical reports, investigative services, expert witnesses, court costs, and court reporter fees.

If the plaintiff loses the case, he or she won't have to pay for the lawyer's time and labor, if there is a contingency agreement. Win or lose, however, a plaintiff will be responsible for the other expenses, and the cost of bringing the claim to court will come out of his or her pocket.
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-does-paying-a-lawyer-on-contingency-mean.htm

 

[elusive moonwalker]

We will find out when theres court filings asking the estate to up her allowance or shes asking for a loan from them. she will expect mj to pay just like always

 

[GreenEyes]

I was blown away by Mr. Panish. What an awesome, commanding presence in the courtroom. Knows the law inside and out. A quick wit and genuinely funny as well. I might not have been buying all of what he was selling, but the sales pitch was the best I've ever seen. Just a master of his craft.

Mr. Putnam I found equally impressive in every regard. He is just as commanding a presence, just as quick witted and funny, and he also knows the law inside and out. I took careful note of how Mr. Putnam handled sensitive witnesses like Prince and Katherine Jackson. He was ever respectful even while asking hard questions. Just a class act all around.

The interactions between the two legal teams was by far the most entertaining thing about the trial. I could not believe the amount of snarky comments and mean looks being thrown back and forth. So many childish arguments ("He started it, your honor!") it sometimes felt like the judge was more of a nanny and she even said something to that effect a few times.

There was one incident where Mr. Panish had heard during a break that an AEG attorney (Ms. Strong) was staring at him while he was questioning a witness. She was seated to his left about 6 feet away. So when Ms. Strong went to the podium (which was a few feet behind Mr. Panish's spot at the attorneys' table) to question the same witness, Mr. Panish turned 180° in his chair and stared directly up at her. That lasted a few minutes before the judge told him to face front. So he faced front, kinda. Then started to slowly turn back around until he was finally staring directly back at her. Ms. Strong says "Your honor..." and motions to Mr. Panish, who is already turning back around. The judge admonishes Mr. Panish a 2nd time, and he says "It's OK your honor, I have her on video now." Mr. Panish had set his laptop camera to capture Ms. Strong and he sat there face front, staring down at his laptop video to watch Ms. Strong question the witness. It was so hard to not laugh out loud at this.

That was something I did not expect, that there would be so much humor in the courtroom. Quips between the attorneys, or an unexpected answer from a witness (Like when Ms. Rowe repeatedly used the phrase "pissing match" to describe 2 doctors who were trying to give MJ more and better drugs -- the judge's reaction to that was priceless), or any other random thing that would happen in there. There were laugh out loud moments almost every day.

Looking back it's pretty clear now that a good amount of what we were shown wasn't relevant to the questions we were asked to answer. I didn't think it was too repetitive, and the times it was repetitive were mostly towards the very end. The beginning and middle of the trial were riveting. I personally wasn't burned out by the length and I don't think anyone else really was either. I think a few just were itching to get back to their normal routine.

Thank you so much for the detailed description in the courtroom. It's really interesting to read and envision these two opposing forces facing off in a court of law. I knew that Brian Panish was very good just by taking a look at his winning track record, and it seems Putnam was some real competition for Panish. It takes some real skill to be a trial attorney.

Thanks for giving us a peak into that world. I wanted this trial to be televised. It would have been something to see.

 

[TheChosenOne]

We will find out when theres court filings asking the estate to up her allowance or shes asking for a loan from them. she will expect mj to pay just like always

I guess we will have to wait and see. But I really hope that that is not the case.

And, on another point, if this suit is the only way they can get to the truth about what happened to Michael, why not sue for a nominal fee? If it's not about the money, make it clear that you are giving it to charity!

 

[jaydom7]

all those experts she will have to pay for.. She should've found them to help MJ when he was alive not when he's dead.

 

[twinklEE]

She is not going to pay for anything.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

very true. theres been many symbolic cases were ppl ask for $1 ect. to show its not about money.if the family were only intrested in learning the truth they wouldnt have asked for two settlements where if it had happened they would have found out nothing about what went on. the truth is what suits the families agenda ie mj was a druggie who was gonna tour with his bros into his 70's

I guess we will have to wait and see. But I really hope that that is not the case.

And, on another point, if this suit is the only way they can get to the truth about what happened to Michael, why not sue for a nominal fee? If it's not about the money, make it clear that you are giving it to charity!

 

[jaydom7]

She is not going to pay for anything

Don't forget twinklee, She did absolutely nothing to help MJ with his medical issues.

 

[Allusio]

Not that it matters much, but I'm one of the 6 male jurors.

IDK but I think it’s better to post it one more time

 

[Tygger]

So on that pie chart I would have had to unfortunately put MJ at 100% and AEG at 0%.

There were several posters who agreed with AEG being found not liable who disagreed with me in this thread when I stated the verdict placed Michael at 100% on the pie chart as opposed to the plaintiffs 20%.

 

[LastTear]

@Tygger So it's just as well the jurors stopped when they did.

I was never convinced that AEG's actions in any way caused Murray to give MJ propofol. If AEG had known what Murray was doing they would have shut everything down in a heartbeat.

So on that pie chart I would have had to unfortunately put MJ at 100% and AEG at 0%. I think the instructions said we could put any percentage on each side as long as it equaled 100%. But since AEG is being held liable in this hypothetical, I guess they have to be at least 1% responsible.


The real pie chart should be between MJ and Murray, and after reading a lot the last few days about how Michael died and thinking it over more, I think I'd put Murray at around 90%.

Juror27 is correct the true pie chart is 90% Murray.

But it wouldn't have been Michael v AEG without this trial it would just have stopped at Murray.

 

[ivy]

There were several posters who agreed with AEG being found not liable who disagreed with me in this thread when I stated the verdict placed Michael at 100% on the pie chart as opposed to the plaintiffs 20%.

I kinda disagree and I'll explain why

first let's look to the full reply of juror #27

So on that pie chart I would have had to unfortunately put MJ at 100% and AEG at 0%. I think the instructions said we could put any percentage on each side as long as it equaled 100%. But since AEG is being held liable in this hypothetical, I guess they have to be at least 1% responsible.

The real pie chart should be between MJ and Murray, and after reading a lot the last few days about how Michael died and thinking it over more, I think I'd put Murray at around 90%.

so you can see juror#27's responsibility determination is Murray 90%, Michael 10% and AEG 0%

The issue with that chart is Murray is left out and that's in my opinion due to Jacksons strategy. In case you did not realize they did not sue Murray. From the start they wanted to argue Murray's responsibility is AEG's responsibility as Murray was AEG's employee. But as the court ruled out Murray was an independent contractor and Jacksons claims of high risk position failed, Murray wasn't on the chart or the verdict form.

The correct way to approach this - in my opinion- would be to sue both AEG and Murray and this way ensure the pie chart and responsibility was divided between Murray, AEG and Michael. Obviously putting Murray on there meant a percentage might be taken away from AEG's responsibility -aka less damages that can be collected from AEG- so they did not want that. As their "Murray = AEG" legal strategy failed they were left with AEG versus Michael situation. That was a risk Jacksons taking and it did not work out.

 

[Tygger]

The "real pie chart" had Michael at 20% and AEG at 80%. One can agree or disagree with those percentages however, one cannot add parties to it. Juror27 clearly stated Michael would be at 99-100% and many posters disagreed with me when I said Michael was at 100% with the verdict rendered.

Additionally, this trial did not allow for punitive damages that I am aware of; only economic and non-economic. If the jurors were to approach question six and later, the suggested $10M would have to be agreed upon and characterized as economic or non-economic. How that $10M or even a $1, would have been characterized by the jurors in damage payout would have been interesting.

Murray should have admitted his own unfitness of handling MJ's complex health issues and resigned.

Agreed. A doctor who was not conflicted by the promise of a $150K fee would put the patient first and resign.

 

[serendipity]

The percentage would have been the same even with a different verdict IMO. Except with the current verdict nothing is on record, if AEG were found liable everything was going to be officially put on record.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

The correct way to approach this - in my opinion- would be to sue both AEG and Murray and this way ensure the pie chart and responsibility was divided between Murray, AEG and Michael. Obviously putting Murray on there meant a percentage might be taken away from AEG's responsibility -aka less damages that can be collected from AEG- so they did not want that. As their "Murray = AEG" legal strategy failed they were left with AEG versus Michael situation. That was a risk Jacksons taking and it did not work out.

I'm not understanding that ivy. You mean a trial with 2 separate defendants - aeg and murray. Wouldnt that be really complicated - you would be rerunning the criminal trial, probably have a trial within a trial as to whether murray was aeg's employee, and then whether murray was acting on whose orders, mj or aeg? - just like this civil trial. It was complicated enough with just jackson v aeg, and i don't see what difference it would make. Aeg would have the same defence - they didn't know what murray was doing so you can only conclude that it wd succeed again, so it would just be left at the end with murray and mj. What's the point? There was a criminal trial that already held murray liable (as far as the public were concerned) 100%. The only diff in the new trial wd be that the jury might award a percentage of responsibility from murray to mj, which mj didn't have at the criminal trial which is hardly a positive. Financially the family wd be awarded damages from murray, but as we've seen they don't think much of murray's ability to pay as they rejected restitution, so i can't see what wd be the point of them going down this route. If you've got a criminal conviction against someone, you would only sue them if you want damages. If for some reason all you're bothered about is some new pie chart for resp for mj's death (?), then it wd quite obviously be overwhelmingly dominated by murray as he was the one who injected the fatal dose of prop,not mj and certainly not aeg randy who wasn't at carolwood. Putting forward claims that murray was in some way an agent of aeg was the jackson's only option if they were going for a civil trial, ie getting damages.

 

[Petrarose]

I was reading some comments there and this caught my eye:
Herr Schadenfreude Janet • 6 days ago
What's more, most contingency cases allow the lawyers, in this instance Mrs. Jackson's, to bill their client for disbursements incurred during the trial, even in a loss. While the lawyers working on contingency have agreed up front not to claim for billable hours, Mrs. Jackson might find herself with a steep mountain of "expenses" as the law firm that represented her (and lost) tries desperately to pick the scabs and get something for its time.


Mary813272 Herr Schadenfreude • 6 days ago
That's the way it works at my hubby's firm. If a case is lost the client doesn't have to pay the billable hours of the attorney's but the client is on the hook for experts and court costs.

:bugeyed
If what they say above is true, and KJ has to pay experts and court costs, experts testimonies were huge, especially if AEG make plaintiffs to pay their experts too.

I found this info:
Paying a lawyer on contingency means that the plaintiff agrees that the attorney's fee will be determined by the amount of the settlement awarded to the plaintiff, should the case be decided in his or her favor. If the plaintiff does not win the case, the attorney will receive no fee. Many people falsely believe that, if they lose the case, they will not have to pay anything. Though they will not have to pay the attorney's fee, they will still be responsible for expenses their attorney incurred in pursuing their case, which could include things like medical reports, investigative services, expert witnesses, court costs, and court reporter fees.

If the plaintiff loses the case, he or she won't have to pay for the lawyer's time and labor, if there is a contingency agreement. Win or lose, however, a plaintiff will be responsible for the other expenses, and the cost of bringing the claim to court will come out of his or her pocket.


I guess it is easy to waste money that you did not really earn yourself.
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-does-paying-a-lawyer-on-contingency-mean.htm

My goodness; if this is true, they will bankrupt the estate. The lawyers already paid out in the millions. Don't Katherine and Randy see that this first loss means they get no money but the firm will get some payments. If they lose an appeal, again they get no money but the firm will get some payments. Basically the only people getting money are the lawyers.

 

[twinklEE]

My goodness; if this is true, they will bankrupt the estate. The lawyers already paid out in the millions. Don't Katherine and Randy see that this first loss means they get no money but the firm will get some payments. If they lose an appeal, again they get no money but the firm will get some payments. Basically the only people getting money are the lawyers.

As if Randy, Katherine, Jermaine etc care. If they can't have a piece of the pie they will make sure no one else can either. The deep hatred, resentment, and jelousy that's been shown toward Michael, his three heirs, and his estate is undisputable. As a matter of fact, as sick, twisted, and viscious as some individuals of the Jackson family are, I bet for some this is their way of "getting back at Michael" for leaving them out of something that was NEVER theirs to begin with. Katherine has cost the estate outrageous amounts of $$ ever since Michael died, but do you think there is any gratitude from her side? I bet you not. There is however the unsatisfiable thirst for more.

 

[crillon]

My goodness; if this is true, they will bankrupt the estate. The lawyers already paid out in the millions. Don't Katherine and Randy see that this first loss means they get no money but the firm will get some payments. If they lose an appeal, again they get no money but the firm will get some payments. Basically the only people getting money are the lawyers.

Why is the Estate responsible for Katherine's bills related to this lawsuit? If that's the case, it's just wrong.

 

[marebear]

Because they are suppose to take care of her and her expenses I assume goes with that.

 

[Petrarose]

Why is the Estate responsible for Katherine's bills related to this lawsuit? If that's the case, it's just wrong.

^^This is the way I am looking at it. Michael leaves a will and dictates that the executors takes care of his mom (not exact words). They give her an allowance. When she needed money for Jermaine to pay off Alejandra, remember that child support issue from last year, Katherine went to the estate for the money. They did some creative accounting and gave her a loan, which was actually the money for Jermaine. They took care of the debt with the Koreans, as a loan. She asked for some money in a lump sum to pay off lawyers, some of them she used to fight the estate about the will. She got that. Now the estate can't have Katherine with a lot of bills while it is pulling in money. It will not look good. They are not really going to ask her to pay back any loans. Michael told them to take care of her needs.

If she claims she does not have enough money now, when she gets that big bill from Panish, in no way will she be able to pay for it. Her allowance is used up. Since her allowance is more than her personal bills, it stands to reason that her money is being shared with "we all know who." With a bill in the millions from Panish, she will have to ask the estate to give her some money. The estate will have to do it. Otherwise you will have Randy spreading stories about the bad estate having Katherine living in debt while Branca et al., rake in millions in fees. Michael's kids won't like that because they dote on the grandmother. It would be a mess. That is why it would be interesting to see what the next accounting looks like. I wonder how creative they will get this time. I wonder when Panish will present the bill? It might be around 10 million.

 

[twinklEE]

They should deduct whatever they are giving her now, from the lump sum they will have to give her once the estate is out of probate. Seeing as this could still take years it's highly doubtful that she makes it till then. She is using Michael's own money to destroy what he worked hard for all of his life.

Katherine has always been a huge financial burden on Michael in death and when he was alive, as she was never forthcoming or willing to cut down her expenses i.e. cut her useless, jobless, baby fathering machines off, let go of her ''personal assistant'', butler, various other staff members, umbrella holder, or now according to her own words she doesn't wanna move into Hayvenhurst because ''she likes living in the new house better'' and because she was ''tired of living'' at Hayvenhurst, not wasting a second thought on how much it costs the Estate renting her a lavish villa in Calabasas, while renovating and maintaining Hayvenhurst, along with setting up Jermaine and Randy's baby mama with a nice condo/letting her live in an estate owned condo etc.

Through Katherine all of the siblings, including their offspring, were living lavish lifestyles. Dozens of grown people were given a free ride in a fancy car and they were enjoying it. The AEG lawsuit as well as the possible appeal, are nothing more but vain attempts of securing some money before the gravy train ends once and for all (when Katherine closes her eyes for the final time). These folks are nothing more but a bunch of lazy people, if it wasn't for Michael Jackson those siblings would have had to take up blue collar jobs DECADES ago.

About the Korean lawsuit settlement, they shouldn't have done that imo. Michael didn't settle it for her for a reason, he purposely refused to pay her part of the Korean debt off, and rightfully so (considering it was her's, Joseph's and Jermaine's ****ery to begin with). Remember how she had several judgments against her, and nothing in Hayvenhurst was actually under her name because she couldn't own anything valuable officially, without fearing it would be taken away from her by one of her creditors.

 

[LMAT]

I kinda disagree and I'll explain why

first let's look to the full reply of juror #27



so you can see juror#27's responsibility determination is Murray 90%, Michael 10% and AEG 0%

The issue with that chart is Murray is left out and that's in my opinion due to Jacksons strategy. In case you did not realize they did not sue Murray. From the start they wanted to argue Murray's responsibility is AEG's responsibility as Murray was AEG's employee. But as the court ruled out Murray was an independent contractor and Jacksons claims of high risk position failed, Murray wasn't on the chart or the verdict form.

The correct way to approach this - in my opinion- would be to sue both AEG and Murray and this way ensure the pie chart and responsibility was divided between Murray, AEG and Michael. Obviously putting Murray on there meant a percentage might be taken away from AEG's responsibility -aka less damages that can be collected from AEG- so they did not want that. As their "Murray = AEG" legal strategy failed they were left with AEG versus Michael situation. That was a risk Jacksons taking and it did not work out.

I had not considered the above. If for no other reason, I am relieved that this trial did not move to damages. If the jury had returned w/responsibility of 100% for the deceased and 0% for AEG, damages would be more than substantially reduced...Michael would be 'responsible for his own death' on record, in court and the felon would certainly use that outcome to his own advantage. (He wants his license back).
I had not considered that the way this played out may have been a calculated risk on the part of the plaintiffs. It is terribly disturbing to think that they would gamble so blatantly with Michael's memory...more so than I believe they already did. Gives me chills.

I will continue to hold my view that Conrad is 100% responsible for Michael's death. Michael is responsible for his choices, however, we're not talking about an even playing field here. In the sacrosanct relationship of pt/physician, the doc holds decisions of life and death (at times); a fact that is recognized and accepted when the Oath is taken and the license given. I think of it as a wrongful death suit...if a doc screws up and a patient dies, in court the patient is not indicted for his/her death...the lawyers don't debate whether the victim was an alcoholic, reckless driver, non compliant diabetic, etc., to reduce the doc's responsibility. It falls completely on the physician who is charged with negligence/malpractice that carries the full burden.

 

[B__Marco]

Yes, it was still a decision even if he was being pressured. He could have just as easily decided not to give MJ propofol.

If there was pressure or a conflict of interest, then it was up to CM to choose, "Do I risk my career and freedom by violating my duty as a Dr., or do I do the right thing and refuse to break my Hippocratic Oath?" 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 end is that CM decided to do wrong/go against oat (under clear debt pressure... u have a family , u have to pay your rent and bills. what if they tell u that they pay your salary and u have to do what told otherwise no $ for your bills?) and AEG was / is liable for CM wrongdoing because they hired him, as your verdict of hiring said.

Supervisors exist to check proper work of their employee and remove liability from the company to check if their employee do the right job. AEG did nothing in that sense. IMO AEG is liable

There are warning/worried emails between AEG's ppl, including Brancas' one.

AEG saw distress , nothing was done, apart forcing MJ on stage in any way....they had no time and $ to waste waiting for MJ and getting proper care for MJ...CM , with his "methods" was fine... IMO AEG is liable, no way out.. AEG did not cleared his hands at all with this verdict .. this is not the end

There is 1 thing very important to note :
Thanks to the 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.

Thanks for coming !

 

[ivy]

I'm not understanding that ivy. You mean a trial with 2 separate defendants - aeg and murray.

I mean why not? Joe had a lawsuit against Murray which he tried to combine with this trial, Katherine's lawyers did not want it. To me truth and justice would mean to have separate or joint lawsuits towards both Murray and AEG or seek restitution from Murray. Another alternative could have been to accept Murray was an independent party and include him in the responsibility chart without caring if and how much it can reduce the damages collected from AEG - after all it wasn't supposed to be about money

There was a criminal trial that already held murray liable (as far as the public were concerned) 100%.

not quite true. The criminal trial only required Murray to be a "substantial factor", jury instructions clearly stated there could be other factors including Michael. So you are right that from public's perception Murray was found guilty but technically that verdict did not mean 100%.