- Jacksons state AEG showed no evidence that Jackson lawyers engaged in improper or coercive tactics to get the 4 juror declarations.
I think it is quite clear that they did.
- Jacksons submit an affidavit by an investigator they hired in December to contact jurors and get the affidavits. She mentions she met with 4 jurors, read them the affidavits, 2 of them made changes and they signed the affidavits with no pressure and was unaware of the other juror affidavits.
Isn't that improper tactics or is it normal in US? To Hire private investigator after jurors?
- Note: Chang's interview notes allegedly from this juror includes stuff like Q2 was too specific, that they looked to the contract and considered "general practitioner".
Interestingly the notes also mention in the jury there were opposite views and 2 people made it clear they would vote in favor of Jacksons no matter what and 2 people who would vote against Jacksons. This juror also commented that if they could get pass Q3 , Q4 and Q5 would be easily answered in Jacksons favor.
This juror must have been one of who would have voted for plaintiffs favour, no matter what. Scary stuff:bugeyed
I wouldn't like to be on trial in US if jurors vote for favour of something, no matter what, and no matter what evidence is shown. Chang's notes must be written when she was dreaming or have a nightmare?
- Panish submitted an affidavit saying that he met with one of the jurors boss in a social setting
Very believable, not.I think that private investigator told Panish where to find that boss, and he made a beeline to that social setting. How believable it is that out of all people in California and social settings, attorney meets juror's (who vote against his case) boss in that setting? I say next to slim, miracles can happen, but in this case I don't believe it.
ivy;3943696 said:
Perhaps it is Jacksons strategy that has backfired. They tried to argue anything and everything. For example they had witnesses that claimed Murray's debts made him unfit during his time of hiring, they argued his area of expertise made him unfit and so on. All of these pointed to "during/at the time of hiring". So perhaps from Jacksons perspective they should have went with the hiring wasn't negligent - that Murray was fit and competent for the general practitioner job he was hired - but that the supervision/ retention was negligent.
I don't get that negligent supervision. If you are just a normal everyday Joe with no experience of medical issues, how do you supervise a doctor? In order to supervise a doctor, you yourself have to be a doctor.
Plaintiffs didn't prove or show any evidence that AEG was aware of CM's nightly treatment to MJ, nor did they showed evidence that AEG knew it was CM that caused MJ's declining health.
You posted a few articles on page 15, and in one of them was written:
"Should the law require any company promoting a concert to inquire into the specific treatment those doctors are providing? Is this not why we have doctor-patient confidentiality? There are any number of medical ailments, concerns or treatments that any person would want kept private.
A concert promoter should not be required to observe treatments in the privacy of an artist’s house just on the off chance the doctor will commit a criminal act.
This argument becomes even more problematic for Panish if you consider that requirement from Michael Jackson’s perspective. If AEG Live had inquired further into Murray’s treatment or asked to observe his late-night medical sessions, should Jackson have even let them observe?
It seems pretty clear he wouldn’t want them to, as evidenced by the locked doors, security and secrecy; but, if AEG Live did inquire, should Jackson let them in to his private chambers? He was in his private bedroom with his private doctor.
What right does a concert promoter have to violate his privacy in such an intrusive fashion? So why should the law require that AEG Live investigate at this level?
A verdict in favor of Katherine Jackson could have established a precedent whereby the law would require that all employers as well as any party hiring independent contractors (like a plumber or electrician, to use the examples brought up during closing arguments) be responsible for the bad decisions and drug use of others.
Individuals are allowed to make their own decisions. Michael Jackson was not a juvenile. He was a 50-year-old man, and he made a bad decision choosing to allow Murray to administer propofol."
I agree with the person who wrote that bit.