KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Possible Appeal [closed]

[Tygger]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Interesting wording by Duke.

The six-month-long trial ended in October with a victory for AEG Live, the concert promoter Jackson's mother and children had claimed was liable for his death because it hired, retained or supervised the doctor convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death.

The jurors who submitted affidavits have cited deliberations as an issue.

The jury voted "no" only after one member convinced them that the question could have only meant "at the time he was hired," two of the juror statements said.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but again this discrepancy is a direct result of the way our foreman handled deliberations. Obviously he was not going to tell the media that he rushed us through deliberations, but the confusion and anger on the part of some jurors says otherwise.

If the foreman "rushed" jurors through deliberations to a favorable verdict for the defendants that is a serious concern. A juror has admitted five months of evidence was ignored completely to render this verdict.

I remember that when that juror said we should ask the judge about question 2

I was not a juror and the jurors names are redacted from the affidavits so I am unclear how definite one can be about which juror(s) submitted the affidavit.

 

[Juror#27]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

If the foreman "rushed" jurors through deliberations to a favorable verdict for the defendants that is a serious concern.

The foreman had no sway on how any of us voted. We could have just as easily "rushed" to a plaintiff victory.

I was not a juror and the jurors names are redacted from the affidavits so I am unclear how definite one can be about which juror submitted the affidavit.

I was there when the juror in question asked whether we should submit a question to the court. I know which juror it is. I see no reason to believe it was a different juror who made that statement in their affidavit.

 

[jamba]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I recall in the 2005 trial there were a couple of jurors who went on the talk shows all upset about the verdict, etc, and I see this as more of the same but now sinmce it is a civil suit and not a criminal one, we have the Panish group pushing the jurors, whereas Sneddon did not get involved in the jurors who complained after the 05 trial.

It seems to be grasping at straws. How can people accept the responsibility to be jurors and to make a decision, then a few months later complain that they were 'convinced' by someone else, as if that makes their original vote invalid? They made the decision. They chose to be convinced. The chance to deliberate was given to them and they made their choice.

I bet Palanzuelos is wishing she had dismissed all the charges.

 

[Tygger]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

The foreman had no sway on how any of us voted. We could have just as easily "rushed" to a plaintiff victory.

Exactly. If no evidence was considered to render a verdict it may show bias regardless of which side is favored.

I was there when the juror in question asked whether we should submit a question to the court. I know which juror it is. I see no reason to believe it was a different juror who made that statement in their affidavit.

Duke is taking sections from the affidavits. If we get access to all four affidavits, we can compare what each juror who submitted one said.

 

[Juror#27]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Exactly. If no evidence was considered to render a verdict it may show bias regardless of which side is favored.

Thanks for the laugh. Evidence was considered.

 

[StellaJackson]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Hopefully there will be a retrial with a new jury where they can examine all the evidence and consider AEG's negligence as separate to the hiring of CM.

 

[LastTear]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Forgive me, but wasn't the jury questionnaire agreed by all sides? I understand that the judge wouldnt allow Panish the additional wording but if he was concerned about it then he should have spent more time addressing it during closing.

 

[HIStory]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I recall in the 2005 trial there were a couple of jurors who went on the talk shows all upset about the verdict, etc, and I see this as more of the same but now sinmce it is a civil suit and not a criminal one, we have the Panish group pushing the jurors, whereas Sneddon did not get involved in the jurors who complained after the 05 trial.

It's not the same AT ALL! Criminal verdicts are reached through a totally different method than civil verdicts. In a criminal it's not that you have to stop if you answer with "no" with one of the questions. You have to answer each and every charge with "guilty" or "not guilty". There's no comparation at all! Michael's jury came back with 14 straight "not guilties". It wasn't some technicality why they decided that way, like it might have been the case here.

And in 2005 those jurors who later at least pretended to change their minds were offered book deals to trash Michael and that's when they changed their minds. There were one or two jurors who later said they felt MJ was "guilty of something" but they all acknowledged there was no evidence and they just base that on a "gut feeling" and following law, facts and evidence they could not convict. And thank God because that's exactly why there is a law and a procedure and facts to follow and not "gut feelings". When people judge based on gut feelings that's when witch burns and lynch mobs happen. Most jury members declared they did not believe Gavin and they did not believe Jason Francia - so they did not believe any of the accusers whom they saw on the stand. So when someone still feels MJ was "guilty of something" that can only be a reference to Jordan, but what they felt about that case is totally irrelevant as that was not discussed in detail in that court. And IMO that's the only reason why some might have had doubts about that case. Had that case been too presented it would have collapsed like the rest of them because then instead of the media myths they would have seen what a farce that case was as well. No wonder Jordan and his uncle Ray both fought tooth and nail to not to have to testify!


BTW, at the end of the 2005 trial the jury released this statement:

"We the jury, feeling the weight of the world's eyes upon us, all thoroughly and meticulously studied the testimony, evidence and rules of procedure presented in this court since January 31, 2005.
Following the jury instructions, we confidently came to our verdicts.
It is our hope that this case is a testament to the belief in our justice system's integrity and the truth.
We would like the public to allow us to return to our private lives as anonymously as we came."




Three members of the jury broke down in tears after all 10 verdicts were read out.

http://news.sky.com/story/353347/jackson-jurys-statement

So this is how they felt about their verdict right after it. But when they came out of the court all the media who wanted to see Michael lynched, attacked them and called them stupid etc., so that pressure also could be a factor in why some later said things like he might be "guilty of something".

 

[HIStory]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I recall in the 2005 trial there were a couple of jurors who went on the talk shows all upset about the verdict, etc, and I see this as more of the same but now sinmce it is a civil suit and not a criminal one, we have the Panish group pushing the jurors, whereas Sneddon did not get involved in the jurors who complained after the 05 trial.

It's not the same AT ALL! Criminal verdicts are reached through a totally different method than civil verdicts. In a criminal it's not that you have to stop if you answer with "no" with one of the questions. You have to answer each and every charge with "guilty" or "not guilty". There's no comparation at all! Michael's jury came back with 14 straight "not guilties". It wasn't some technicality why they decided that way, like it might have been the case here.

And in 2005 those jurors who later at least pretended to change their minds were offered book deals to trash Michael and that's when they changed their minds. There were one or two jurors who later said they felt MJ was "guilty of something" but they all acknowledged there was no evidence and they just base that on a "gut feeling" and following law, facts and evidence they could not convict. And thank God because that's exactly why there is a law and a procedure and facts to follow and not "gut feelings". When people judge based on gut feelings that's when witch burns and lynch mobs happen. Most jury members declared they did not believe Gavin and they did not believe Jason Francia - so they did not believe any of the accusers whom they saw on the stand. So when someone still feels MJ was "guilty of something" that can only be a reference to Jordan, but what they felt about that case is totally irrelevant as that was not discussed in detail in that court. And IMO that's the only reason why some might have had doubts about that case. Had that case been too presented it would have collapsed like the rest of them because then instead of the media myths they would have seen what a farce that case was as well. No wonder Jordan and his uncle Ray both fought tooth and nail to not to have to testify!


BTW, at the end of the 2005 trial the jury released this statement:

"We the jury, feeling the weight of the world's eyes upon us, all thoroughly and meticulously studied the testimony, evidence and rules of procedure presented in this court since January 31, 2005.
Following the jury instructions, we confidently came to our verdicts.
It is our hope that this case is a testament to the belief in our justice system's integrity and the truth.
We would like the public to allow us to return to our private lives as anonymously as we came."




Three members of the jury broke down in tears after all 10 verdicts were read out.

http://news.sky.com/story/353347/jackson-jurys-statement

So this is how they felt about their verdict right after it. And no rushed verdict was there either. They deliberated for 10 days, they all said they went throught the evidence and testimonies very meticulously again, they wacthed again Gavin's taped police deposition etc. So there was no rush there. But when they came out of the court all the media who wanted to see Michael jailed, attacked them and called them stupid etc., so that pressure also could be a factor in why some later said things like he might be "guilty of something".

 

[krikzil]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

If the foreman "rushed" jurors through deliberations to a favorable verdict for the defendants that is a serious concern. A juror has admitted five months of evidence was ignored completely to render this verdict.

Are you applying this logic to Question #1 or only the result you disagree with?

 

[Korgnex]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

As if evidence has allegedly been ignored. That indirect juror statement that was intentionally put out by the plaintiffs' lawyers is basically just another way of saying "if the jurors didn't vote in favor of us [the plaintiffs], 5 months in which we tried to render AEG Live as the 'evil bad guys', the jurors still realized we didn't have sufficient evidence in the first place and they somehow managed to see MJ and Murray acted negligently on their own, damn it!"

 

[LastTear]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

^^^ I agree. Couldn't the juror have refused to vote/answer q2 until it was clearer in their head. Would it have changed the outcome anyway?

 

[Ramona122003]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Hopefully there will be a retrial with a new jury where they can examine all the evidence and consider AEG's negligence as separate to the hiring of CM.

Hiring Murray was the negligence charge. How can you separate them? It is not like it was AEG given Michael drugs or telling Michael he must take drugs. Sorry, putting pressure and being mean to someone is not a cause of negligence, especially when it was someone else who killed someone.

To me, it sounds like these people got a a lot of flank for calling Murray competent after he killed Michael and they want to say, 'well, it said at the time not at all times. If it was all time, he would have been guilty', which goes straight into hindsight.

Seriously, what 'red flag' was there that Murray was incompetent other than him being in debt? If he was incompetent at the time of hiring, it is more Michael's fault than AEG since he insisted on him. Saying that Murray was obviously incompetent at the time he was hired is really saying that Michael was an idiot who should have known better.

 

[krikzil]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

^^^ I agree. Couldn't the juror have refused to vote/answer q2 until it was clearer in their head. Would it have changed the outcome anyway?

Exactly. They were adults. And they were also polled in open court.

I've been researching case law - instead of working on my own trials lol -- "being rushed" won't get a verdict overturned from what I'm seeing. (I'm actually somewhat surprised at the antics Courts have ruled didn't rise to the level that would overturn a verdict.) I'll keep looking.

 

[Ramona122003]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Exactly. They were adults. And they were also polled in open court.

I've been researching case law - instead of working on my own trials lol -- "being rushed" won't get a verdict overturned from what I'm seeing. (I'm actually somewhat surprised at the antics Courts have ruled didn't rise to the level that would overturn a verdict.) I'll keep looking.

From what I have seen, a verdict being rush is never another cause for a retrail. Something like new evident, the jury being corrupt, a misuse of trail processors can get a new trail. The jury complaining that the instructions were not clear when they could have ask for verification from the judge is not enough to get a new trial. If that was the case, Zimmerman should have gotten a new trial since one jury complained about the same thing given Florida's laws and how the instructions were read.

A jury, must live by their decision once given. If those two jurors who voted no felt the instructions were not clear, they should have ask then, not after the fact. What should be ask is how they would have voted on Question 3 since that is where the whole case is based on, 'whether AEG was negligence hiring Murray'. If they answer yes to 2, but no to 3, then the outcome would have still be the same.

 

[Tygger]

Juror #27, Krizkil, I am repeating what was stated in a juror’s affidavit that I did not author. Juror # 27 said the foreman “rushed” deliberations while this particular juror said no evidence was considered to reach the verdict as per their affidavit. It is logical as the deliberations over five months of evidence was rendered rather quickly which predictably favored the defense.

I have asked previously how it was possible that jurors believed and stated to the media that the doctor was to care for Michael’s children in London as per the contract when the contract says no such thing. The plaintiffs’ case spent considerable time on conflicted interest which question two referred to; not if the doctor completed his medical training as per Putnam.

I am very interested in reading these jurors' affidavits.

 

[passy001]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Hopefully there will be a retrial with a new jury where they can examine all the evidence and consider AEG's negligence as separate to the hiring of CM.

Last time I checked it was Murray negligence that KILLED MJ.

 

[StellaJackson]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Last time I checked it was Murray negligence that KILLED MJ.

Correct. But I believe AEG were negligent in their treatment of Michael. I think they treated him like a money making robot and not a person. Obviously that 's not what the trial was about but it seems some of the juros felt the same.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Documents are here

Note: at times embed Scribd documents can give mistakes, use the links to open and read documents.

Katherine Jackson motion for a new trial

Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/191359618/Jackson-Motion-for-New-Trial

[scribd]191359618[/scribd]

Four Jury Affidavits

Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/191359933/Jury-Affidavits-for-new-trial

[scribd]191359933[/scribd]

Note: the documents also have 300 more pages of additional exhibits. They are trial, hearing, deposition transcripts as well as evidence (such as emails etc.)

 

[Tygger]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Correct. But I believe AEG were negligent in their treatment of Michael. I think they treated him like a money making robot and not a person. Obviously that 's not what the trial was about but it seems some of the juros felt the same.

The plaintiffs wanted to have separate charges for negligent hiring and negligence by the defendants however, the judge dismissed the latter charge. We will see if the judge's choice was correct if this goes to appeal.

 

[passy001]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Correct. But I believe AEG were negligent in their treatment of Michael. I think they treated him like a money making robot and not a person. Obviously that 's not what the trial was about but it seems some of the juros felt the same.

MJ did not die because he was treated like a piece of sh**. He died because he was "playing Russian roulette" with his life in his bedroom. All he had to do was to check into a nearby hospital and we would still be here today smiling with his kids and fans.

 

[Ramona122003]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

MJ did not die because he was treated like a piece of sh**. He died because he was "playing Russian roulette" with his life in his bedroom. All he had to do was to check into a nearby hospital and we would still be here today smiling with his kids and fans.

Correction, Murray was playing Russian roulette with Michael's life. I don't think Michael told Murray to leave the room to talk to his girlfriends and shot off emails. As Michael said, he would be find as long as he was monitor, which is correct. Michael died because Murray abandon Michael.

 

[shelly_webster]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Correction, Murray was playing Russian roulette with Michael's life. I don't think Michael told Murray to leave the room to talk to his girlfriends and shot off emails. As Michael said, he would be find as long as he was monitor, which is correct. Michael died because Murray abandon Michael.

They were both playing Russian roulettes with MJ's life. Propofol isn't a sleep aid and MJ knew it.

 

[Tygger]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I believe there were three parties to Michael's passing: Michael, the doctor, and the doctor's employer, AEG.

Only AEG has held no responsibility in Michael's passing. They have only enjoyed profits from the event. As the defendants, they may very well get their comeuppance if the appeal is successful.

 

[Ramona122003]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

They were both playing Russian roulettes with MJ's life. Propofol isn't a sleep aid and MJ knew it.

Whether he knew or not is the not the issue. Murray as the doctor should had told Michael no, plane and simple. Also, it was a doctor that gave Michael the idea that it was safe. Michael may have knew that there was a risk, but figured if anything went wrong, Murray would be there. He wasn't and that is why Michael died.

 

[passy001]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Correction, Murray was playing Russian roulette with Michael's life. I don't think Michael told Murray to leave the room to talk to his girlfriends and shot off emails. As Michael said, he would be find as long as he was monitor, which is correct. Michael died because Murray abandon Michael.

But MJ surely told him to give him Propofol. In fact MJ insisted on it as the ONLY aid that could ever make him sleep despite being repeatedly warned of the consequences. That means MJ made the conscious choice to play Russian roulette with his life.

 

[Ramona122003]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

But MJ surely told him to give him Propofol. In fact MJ insisted on it as the ONLY aid that could ever make him sleep despite being repeatedly warned of the consequences. That means MJ made the conscious choice to play Russian roulette with his life.

No, Michael made the conscious choice to trust his doctor who said he would be find if he was monitor. Michael trusted Murray to protect him and Murray betrayed that trust. Michael hold some responsibility, but Murray was the doctor. He should had said no. The doctor who also gave Michael the idea that it was safe also hold responsibility since Michael did not come up with Propofol as a sleep aid alone.

Also, Michael dealing with Nurse Lee also showed that he was opened to use other methods. If he found something that work, he would not have used Propofol. If Murray had acted as a real doctor, he would have found a healthy solution. If Michael did not want to take it, Murray should have walked away. Saying that Michael was the one playing Russian roulette is no different from people saying that Murray was not at fault since Michael would had just found another doctor anyway.

Michael died because Murray abandoned him and left him to die.

 

[passy001]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

No, Michael made the conscious choice to trust his doctor who said he would be find if he was monitor. Michael trusted Murray to protect him and Murray betrayed that trust. Michael hold some responsibility, but Murray was the doctor. He should had said no. The doctor who also gave Michael the idea that it was safe also hold responsibility since Michael did not come up with Propofol as a sleep aid alone.

Also, Michael dealing with Nurse Lee also showed that he was opened to use other methods. If he found something that work, he would not have used Propofol. If Murray had acted as a real doctor, he would have found a healthy solution. If Michael did not want to take it, Murray should have walked away. Saying that Michael was the one playing Russian roulette is no different from people saying that Murray was not at fault since Michael would had just found another doctor anyway.

Michael died because Murray abandoned him and left him to die.

MJ had more leverage than an average person. in the end he was a participating contributor. even if Murray said no, he would have found somebody else. that's how easily disposable Murray was. that, of course does NOT leave Murray off the hook. the point is they were both contributors, playing Russian roulette with life, MJs sadly.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Well said ramona. u think mj would have agreed if murray said oh by the way i wont use the monitering equipment and ill sit around making phonecalls and leave the room. if mj said yeah sure go a head ill take that chance then yes thats R.R but mj did not know that.he was told it was safe aslong as he was monitered which it is.as shown when he used it in the past.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

spot on.

Hiring Murray was the negligence charge. How can you separate them? It is not like it was AEG given Michael drugs or telling Michael he must take drugs. Sorry, putting pressure and being mean to someone is not a cause of negligence, especially when it was someone else who killed someone.

To me, it sounds like these people got a a lot of flank for calling Murray competent after he killed Michael and they want to say, 'well, it said at the time not at all times. If it was all time, he would have been guilty', which goes straight into hindsight.

Seriously, what 'red flag' was there that Murray was incompetent other than him being in debt? If he was incompetent at the time of hiring, it is more Michael's fault than AEG since he insisted on him. Saying that Murray was obviously incompetent at the time he was hired is really saying that Michael was an idiot who should have known better.