No, Tygger is correct. Only the State could initiate CRIMINAL proceedings against Murray-based on their police investigation, etc.:lmao: @ the Jackson's couldn't initiate a criminal trial. That was a good one. The Jackson never do anything for Michael unless there is lot's of money involved.
No, Tygger is correct. Only the State could initiate CRIMINAL proceedings against Murray-based on their police investigation, etc.
The Jacksons could have sued Murray in civil court, but they waived that right, remember?
Well, you're both right. Only the state can initiate a criminal trial.Yes, I know the Jackson's or any lone person can initiate criminal proceedings and I don't think they would go after Murray even if they could without money being involved. It's just funny to see how Tygger tries to cover for their lack of love, decency and care for MJ.
barbee0715;4072427 said:Well, you're both right. Only the state can initiate a criminal trial.
And the Jacksons or family members can initiate a civil trial-but I'm sure they waived that right because AEG has much deeper pockets-Murray has no money. I'm very disappointed that they did that to be honest. Very disappointed.
No Tygger. I was not explaining this in order to twist anything. There is a difference in a criminal trial than a civil trial as you know, and who can pursue them.
Victory had it mixed up. And I know that AEG could have sued Murray and I've thought about that a lot, but I think your reasoning behind it is exactly why they didn't.
I did state my own disappointment over them not suing Murray for any kind of restitution because IMO this would prevent him from making any kind of money off Michael's and continuing to destroy his good name. I would do it in a heartbeat for my child. I wouldn't want him dragged through any more dirt. He's had enough. Way more than enough. Mothers protect their children.
She would have won and there would be no more books. No more paid interviews. Much like Goldman did for his son against OJ Simpson.
Had she gone after Murray, I'm sure all of AEGs bad behavior would have come out in that trial anyway and she would have learned about those last days.
Tygger;4072441 said:Barbee0715, I did not misunderstand your post. As rude as it may sound, if you only said I was correct, it may have been mistaken for acceptance of some action by some Jackson family member. No worries.
Restitution has been discussed ad nauseam and I have nothing to add; I would be repeating my views. The doctor has not profited from Michael’s name since his release.
I personally would not equate Katherine’s actions to not protecting the son she lost. There is no protocol for grief and I support her actions.
It is not true that what was discovered in the civil trial against AEG would have been discovered in a possible civil trial against the doctor. Evidence would mirror the criminal trial evidence.
And Katherine Jackson did say the reason they turned down restitution was financial so...
Edited to add, dropping insurance claim is not the same as dropping restitution.
And Katherine Jackson did say the reason they turned down restitution was financial so...
Restitution attempts to make whole. AEG decided to forego restitution and profit with the TII project.
Just a reminder: that referred to the doctor's ability to raise his children. Most media outlets and some fan ignore that as it did not align with the greed theory. I would also have to be reminded who the "they" were as I believe she said it was her decision.
By the way, terms of a settlement may have included sealed documents and the plaintiffs wanted the trial as public as possible.
Passy001, Bubs, surely you did not forget the details of those events?
You may want to review the legal definition of restitution. You may also note AEG was asked why they did not pursue restitution for themselves as Michael was their business partner. They were made whole by the Estate who reimbursed them for cost including tour costs and the Lloyds' life insurance policy value. (That is why AEG was removed as defendants versus Lloyds'.) They also profited from the TII project.
Everything I posted is fact in the subforum for the civil trial for your review.
Just a reminder: that referred to the doctor's ability to raise his children. Most media outlets and some fan ignore that as it did not align with the greed theory. I would also have to be reminded who the "they" were as I believe she said it was her decision.
By the way, terms of a settlement may have included sealed documents and the plaintiffs wanted the trial as public as possible.
Victory22;4072603 said:I have never in my life until Katherine's alibi heard of the mother of a murder victim worrying about the killers ability to support the kids of his baby mamas.
Tygger;4072615 said:Appeal anyone??
Justthefacts, Victory22, while I appreciate your responses containing your views, I simply do not share them and I did not before, during, and after the civil trial. My post stated the facts as they were.
By the way, the facts are restitution was rejected by the Michael’s parents, their lawyers, and lawyers for Michael’s children. No sibling of Michael's was involved.
I am not aware of any other mother who lost her son because of the negligence of a doctor the son’s business partner(s) hired. Provided such mothers do exist, I will not assume they all accepted restitution and rejected possible civil trials against the business partner(s).