Tygger
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 2,316
- Points
- 0
Fact: The chances for a successful appeal from the appellate judges and/or the Supreme Court are slim. The appeal lawyer allowed her fee to be capped at $200K with an additional $100K as a success bonus. The monies for the appeal will come from the MJ Estate. A verdict overturn means another jury for a second trial; not simply another chance at the jury’s award.
View: Katherine will see this process to the end despite the slim chance and I support and applaud her for that particularly because she is a grieving mother and this is a wrongful death trial. I also believe the legal team chosen is not unethical, have most likely told her her chances are slim, and believe in her mission because the appeal lawyer lowered her fee while Panish's team is contingency-based meaning they would only receive payment on a successful verdict.
I believe a person who was wasteful with monies from her son’s estate would not have secured Panish’s team who worked on a contingency basis on the civil trial and an appeal lawyer who would cap her fee at $200K with a $100K bonus if successful on appeal (I believe this includes the pending Supreme Court appeal as well). As it stands, Katherine’s costs are AEG’s court costs ($800k+) and the appeal lawyer fee (maximum $300K). Katherine’s top-tier legal team is quite budget-friendly and she deserves credit for that.
Monies from the MJ Estate belong rightfully with the beneficiaries; Michael’s mother and children. They are the only ones who will feel any possible decrease in funding. The monies do not derive from the executors who are paid handsomely for their service. I do not believe fans can or should dictate how the beneficiaries spend any funding they receive from the Estate. The children have not spoken publicly about the funding of the trial or the trial itself. We do know that Michael’s oldest son testified, willingly against AEG.
It is not a given a possible second trial would be successful however; a new trial/jury may ensure a new interpretation of the evidence as bias may have played a part in this verdict. This trial may have benefited from a change in venue. Michael was not particularly respected in California (he was noted as saying NL was his home, not California) and AEG has an extremely strong financial foothold in California. This jury believe the doctor was competent because he held a medical degree; this is not what makes a doctor competent. Jurors for this trial made comments after the verdict that did not align with the five months of evidence and could not seem to grasp the conflict of interest that occurred between Michael, the doctor and AEG which was and is still worrisome to me.
Fact: When cross-examined by AEG lawyer, Putnam, Katherine testified it was her choice ALONE to initiate the civil trial against AEG. She did not discuss the initiation of the trial with Michael’s father, his minor children, or her own children. She discussed it with her adult children AFTER she decided to initiate the trial. As for the initiation, she testified: "I wanted to find out, I think I owe it to my son to find out what really happened to him." (This quote can be found in the Daily Summaries.)
She also testified she did not accept restitution because she feared how the doctor would care for his several children without any money. Any money he had, she felt, should go to them. She testified that the civil trial had nothing to do with her rejection of restitution. Restitution was rejected after a consultation with DA Walgren and Katherine, Joe, their respective lawyers, and lawyer(s) for Michael’s children. Restitution could have been sought by AEG as well from the doctor who killed Michael. Before the civil trial, AEG was asked by a judge why they did not seek restitution and they replied they were made whole which means they had no claim for restitution. The Estate could have joined in the civil trial against AEG.
View: I do not believe Katherine perjured herself on the stand and obviously, neither did AEG. If the rejection of restitution harmed Michael’s children in any way, their lawyer would have protested. The Estate did not join in the civil trial against AEG as that was their business partners in TII. I cannot remember if the Estate made disparaging statements/comments against the beneficiaries because of the trial however; I would not be surprised if they did.
Fact: Plaintiffs offered two settlements to AEG which were rejected. There is no evidence Katherine was behind the settlement offers. AEG’s legal costs were paid by their insurance company. The insurance company would have paid an accepted settlement. AEG is in a lawsuit with their insurance company over legal fees. Because they were found not liable, the plaintiffs have to pay their court costs and fees. A settlement would mean the world would not have access to the evidence at trial. We would not know about AEG and Michael’s last moments but, Katherine would.
View: I believe the settlement had more to do with Katherine’s legal team than Katherine as has been suggested. There is an offer of judgment rule that is to encourage settlements before trial and it is active in California as well as other states in the U.S. This rule says if the plaintiffs win a trial after a settlement offer to the defendants, they are eligible for certain costs incurred - after the offer I believe - from the defendants, over and above the amount awarded by the jury, at a judge’s discretion. This cost includes expert witness’ fees. They may also receive 10% interest on the jury’s judgment from the date of the settlement offer. Yes, this rule applies to wrongful death trials.
Spyce, I truly appreciated your post that looked at Katherine as a mother who loved and grieved the son she lost. Your post allowed her to be viewed as human. I understand that some fans clamor for books and such that humanize Michael because they fear others do not see Michael as human. I oftentimes believe that is because they sometimes do not see him as human. If he is not human, his parents are not, his siblings are not, and his children are not. I have seen this woman defend Michael while he was alive ferociously, attending court with him when he needed that support and attending court cases about him after he passed. Constantly connecting Katherine to cold, calculating financial decisions and characterizing her as a woman who did not love her son creates a fictional distance between mother and son and dehumanizes her the way her son was dehumanize and continues to be by some.
View: Katherine will see this process to the end despite the slim chance and I support and applaud her for that particularly because she is a grieving mother and this is a wrongful death trial. I also believe the legal team chosen is not unethical, have most likely told her her chances are slim, and believe in her mission because the appeal lawyer lowered her fee while Panish's team is contingency-based meaning they would only receive payment on a successful verdict.
I believe a person who was wasteful with monies from her son’s estate would not have secured Panish’s team who worked on a contingency basis on the civil trial and an appeal lawyer who would cap her fee at $200K with a $100K bonus if successful on appeal (I believe this includes the pending Supreme Court appeal as well). As it stands, Katherine’s costs are AEG’s court costs ($800k+) and the appeal lawyer fee (maximum $300K). Katherine’s top-tier legal team is quite budget-friendly and she deserves credit for that.
Monies from the MJ Estate belong rightfully with the beneficiaries; Michael’s mother and children. They are the only ones who will feel any possible decrease in funding. The monies do not derive from the executors who are paid handsomely for their service. I do not believe fans can or should dictate how the beneficiaries spend any funding they receive from the Estate. The children have not spoken publicly about the funding of the trial or the trial itself. We do know that Michael’s oldest son testified, willingly against AEG.
It is not a given a possible second trial would be successful however; a new trial/jury may ensure a new interpretation of the evidence as bias may have played a part in this verdict. This trial may have benefited from a change in venue. Michael was not particularly respected in California (he was noted as saying NL was his home, not California) and AEG has an extremely strong financial foothold in California. This jury believe the doctor was competent because he held a medical degree; this is not what makes a doctor competent. Jurors for this trial made comments after the verdict that did not align with the five months of evidence and could not seem to grasp the conflict of interest that occurred between Michael, the doctor and AEG which was and is still worrisome to me.
Fact: When cross-examined by AEG lawyer, Putnam, Katherine testified it was her choice ALONE to initiate the civil trial against AEG. She did not discuss the initiation of the trial with Michael’s father, his minor children, or her own children. She discussed it with her adult children AFTER she decided to initiate the trial. As for the initiation, she testified: "I wanted to find out, I think I owe it to my son to find out what really happened to him." (This quote can be found in the Daily Summaries.)
She also testified she did not accept restitution because she feared how the doctor would care for his several children without any money. Any money he had, she felt, should go to them. She testified that the civil trial had nothing to do with her rejection of restitution. Restitution was rejected after a consultation with DA Walgren and Katherine, Joe, their respective lawyers, and lawyer(s) for Michael’s children. Restitution could have been sought by AEG as well from the doctor who killed Michael. Before the civil trial, AEG was asked by a judge why they did not seek restitution and they replied they were made whole which means they had no claim for restitution. The Estate could have joined in the civil trial against AEG.
View: I do not believe Katherine perjured herself on the stand and obviously, neither did AEG. If the rejection of restitution harmed Michael’s children in any way, their lawyer would have protested. The Estate did not join in the civil trial against AEG as that was their business partners in TII. I cannot remember if the Estate made disparaging statements/comments against the beneficiaries because of the trial however; I would not be surprised if they did.
Fact: Plaintiffs offered two settlements to AEG which were rejected. There is no evidence Katherine was behind the settlement offers. AEG’s legal costs were paid by their insurance company. The insurance company would have paid an accepted settlement. AEG is in a lawsuit with their insurance company over legal fees. Because they were found not liable, the plaintiffs have to pay their court costs and fees. A settlement would mean the world would not have access to the evidence at trial. We would not know about AEG and Michael’s last moments but, Katherine would.
View: I believe the settlement had more to do with Katherine’s legal team than Katherine as has been suggested. There is an offer of judgment rule that is to encourage settlements before trial and it is active in California as well as other states in the U.S. This rule says if the plaintiffs win a trial after a settlement offer to the defendants, they are eligible for certain costs incurred - after the offer I believe - from the defendants, over and above the amount awarded by the jury, at a judge’s discretion. This cost includes expert witness’ fees. They may also receive 10% interest on the jury’s judgment from the date of the settlement offer. Yes, this rule applies to wrongful death trials.
Spyce, I truly appreciated your post that looked at Katherine as a mother who loved and grieved the son she lost. Your post allowed her to be viewed as human. I understand that some fans clamor for books and such that humanize Michael because they fear others do not see Michael as human. I oftentimes believe that is because they sometimes do not see him as human. If he is not human, his parents are not, his siblings are not, and his children are not. I have seen this woman defend Michael while he was alive ferociously, attending court with him when he needed that support and attending court cases about him after he passed. Constantly connecting Katherine to cold, calculating financial decisions and characterizing her as a woman who did not love her son creates a fictional distance between mother and son and dehumanizes her the way her son was dehumanize and continues to be by some.
Last edited:
, or that have an effect on a large portion of the California population, or that have had conflicting decisions made by various Courts of Appeal throughout the state.