Latest on MJJC

KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Possible Appeal [closed]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

ivy said:
they are suggesting that Murray could have been competent and fit for the general practitioner role - for what he was hired but then he could have been given additional duties for which he was unfit and not competent.
Click to expand...

But "getting mj to rehearsals" as the jacksons put it is such a generic term that it is hard to argue that Murray was unfit and incompetent to do it. I mean how could AEG determine that murray was unfit and incompetent for that? by the way doesn't that fall under general care? or are they suggesting AEG should have hired a nany to handle those?

the jacksons are trying to work around the fact that murray was secretly treating mj for insomnia using propofol and as such AEG had no knowledge of it.
 
Last edited:
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

This is a mess.. Let it go and sue Murray for malpractice.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

ivy said:
they are suggesting that Murray could have been competent and fit for the general practitioner role - for what he was hired but then he could have been given additional duties for which he was unfit and not competent.
Click to expand...

I don't see how that would work, unless they can show the additional duties was to administer propofol or to administer dangerous drugs or basically to do a treatment that they knew he was incompetent for.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

passy001 said:
But "getting mj to rehearsals" as the jacksons put it is such a generic term that it is hard to argue that Murray was unfit and incompetent to do it. I mean how could AEG determine that murray was unfit and incompetent for that? by the way doesn't that fall under general care? or are they suggesting AEG should have hired a nany to handle those?

the jacksons are trying to work around the fact that murray was secretly treating mj for insomnia using propofol and as such AEG had no knowledge of it.
Click to expand...


serendipity said:
I don't see how that would work, unless they can show the additional duties was to administer propofol or to administer dangerous drugs or basically to do a treatment that they knew he was incompetent for.
Click to expand...


they are making a lot of leaps in their reasoning. for example check the document I posted on the previous page. Page 8 "making sure MJ got enough sleep to counter KO's concerns" and "treating deteriorating insomniac" and on Page 7 footnote 4 it states " changed his work duties to include the provision of Propofol for inducing sleep".

Now correct me if I'm wrong but did MJ's insomnia ever raised in those meetings (Phillips, KO, Murray, MJ etc) at all? I thought it wasn't discussed. And how did they every come up with "provision of Propofol"? How could anyone equal "let's make sure MJ attends rehearsals" with "pump him Propofol"?
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

If the jurors wanted a definition of 'unfit' and/or 'incompetent' they could have asked for one. Didn't they discuss question 2? Answer: Yes, they did, so the issue must have come up and been discussed, and if any juror didn't understand the definition, he/she needed to speak up, take action and let the judge or foreman or other jurors know.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

ivy said:
they are making a lot of leaps in their reasoning. for example check the document I posted on the previous page. Page 8 "making sure MJ got enough sleep to counter KO's concerns" and "treating deteriorating insomniac" and on Page 7 footnote 4 it states " changed his work duties to include the provision of Propofol for inducing sleep".

Now correct me if I'm wrong but did MJ's insomnia ever raised in those meetings (Phillips, KO, Murray, MJ etc) at all? I thought it wasn't discussed. And how did they every come up with "provision of Propofol"? How could anyone equal "let's make sure MJ attends rehearsals" with "pump him Propofol"?
Click to expand...

At the end of the day they simply didn't prove their case, I get the impression from the documents you kindly obtained for us that they are throwing everything at it and hoping something will stick. Even if they had focused more effort on the 'getting Michael to rehearsals' aspect I am not convinced that a jury would find it unacceptable or unreasonable, they would have to provide evidence/testimony that he had to get him to rehearsals - at any cost, whatever it takes. IMO
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I think I don't understand the statement that AEG requested the propofol treatment. Being that TTI was such a huge investment, wouldn't AEG, instead of risking their investment, hire an anesthesiologist rather than let a cardiologist do it?

Since they're suggesting AEG requested the propofol treatment, do they have to prove it before the judge gives her decision or they can get a new trial based on lies?
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I guess now they are saying that AEG gave Muarry additional duties such as getting Michael to rehearsals. The implication is that AEG instructed Muarry to give Michael prof, so that he could get Michael to rehearsals. Of course they forget they have no facts to back this up. Earlier in the trial they were going with the idea that AEG pressured Muarry & created a conflict of interest, causing Muarry to act in the way he did. It is almost as though Muarry's 10+ deviations from the standard of care was caused by AEG creating a conflict of interest.

I don't see the judge finding evidence for a new trial. Some of the points seem to be rehashed arguments from pre- and during trial.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

ivy said:
they are making a lot of leaps in their reasoning. for example check the document I posted on the previous page. Page 8 "making sure MJ got enough sleep to counter KO's concerns" and "treating deteriorating insomniac" and on Page 7 footnote 4 it states " changed his work duties to include the provision of Propofol for inducing sleep".

Now correct me if I'm wrong but did MJ's insomnia ever raised in those meetings (Phillips, KO, Murray, MJ etc) at all? I thought it wasn't discussed. And how did they every come up with "provision of Propofol"? How could anyone equal "let's make sure MJ attends rehearsals" with "pump him Propofol"?
Click to expand...

It wasn't discussed and plaintiffs did not bring any evidence during the trial that any AEG staff was even aware of propofol treatments. Panish is sly.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

^^^^ Yes, it's funny how he bemoans that the jury were not able to consider it and yet the jury are supposed to consider the evidence presented - not engage in conspiracies.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

LastTear said:
^^^^ Yes, it's funny how he bemoans that the jury were not able to consider it and yet the jury are supposed to consider the evidence presented - not engage in conspiracies.
Click to expand...

In this case juror were supposed to consider the evidence that was not presented in the trial:)
They put out that propofol thingy like it was clear to anyone that staff at AEG knew about it, but forgot to present their evidence. Must be Chang dreaming again that they did presented it but in fact their didn't:doh:

@Aquarius
"Since they're suggesting AEG requested the propofol treatment, do they have to prove it before the judge gives her decision or they can get a new trial based on lies?"

I was under the impression that they have to go according what was presented during the trial, and AEG requesting propofol treatment was not presented during the trial.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

The hearing on the 3rd, is that only to hear and decide the motion for a re-trial or is there more to it?
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

If Katherine had no clue about MJ's physical or mental health, how was AEG supposed to know? According to Janet, Randy and Rebbie they all knew MJ had some sort of 'problem' but he was in denial. So maybe all 3 of them should've warned AEG to watch MJ carefully and don't hire any doctors because he has a problem that we've been trying to help him with for years.. Why didn't MJ's siblings go to AEG with their concerns?
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

LastTear said:
The hearing on the 3rd, is that only to hear and decide the motion for a re-trial or is there more to it?
Click to expand...

depends.

Judge might have a tentative ruling prepared based on the documents filed and after hearing arguments she can adopt it as the final order on the spot on Jan 3rd. She might listen to oral arguments and then take it under considerations and make a ruling in a few days. She might even hold another hearing for herself such as calling some jurors to question & testify etc.. We'll see.

Edited to add: I think by law she has to rule within 30 days of the initial motion filed and that is January 13th. So there'll be a decision by then the latest.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

^^At least this part of the process is going quickly. January 13 is not far away, and if a decision is made on the 3rd, better still.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

AEG has filed a reply to Jackson's reply

This one is going to get a little technical so bear with me

- AEG states that the Civil Code of Procedure only allows for a motion for a new trial and an opposition to be filed so they claim Jacksons reply is not allowed by the law. AEG also states Jacksons did not file their reply brief 5 court days before the hearing as well. So they ask the judge to disregard Jackson's reply but if chooses to consider it also consider AEG's reply to it.

- In their reply AEG is claiming Jacksons have misrepresented the law and facts and that Jacksons started to mention new stuff in their reply such as "incompetent and unfit" wasn't defined or that 4 juror affidavits meet the burden of proof for the possibility of a different verdict (hung jury)

- AEG mentions that Jackson lawyer repeatedly asked for and included Q2 in their verdict forms and the transcripts also show that some of their claims aren't true. Such as Panish saying "I'm not saying pick BAJI" and so on. There's a whole section talking about how Jackson lawyers misrepresented section 647.

- AEG states Jacksons for the first time in their reply mention that "incompetent or unfit" wasn't defined and that was an error. AEG says not only this argument should be disregarded as it wasn't in Jackson opening brief and Jacksons should have asked for a definition to be given to the jurors while they are preparing the verdict forms. Also AEG states that Jacksons failed to show that "incompetent or unfit for the job for which he was hired" was so far beyond the understanding of ordinary jurors that a special definition was needed.

- AEG again states that jury affidavits that are about juror's mental processes are inadmissible. They say that after verdict during interviews it's not uncommon for jurors to express confusion, sympathy, even regret and jurors might say things in the interviews to please both sides.

- In order to give example of the above AEG mentions what the 4 jurors told them during their interviews which is conflicting to what is written in their affidavits submitted by Jacksons.
--- The first Jackson affidavit juror told AEG that the experience as a juror was positive and he/she believed AEG did not know anything about what Murray was doing to MJ.
--- The second Jackson affidavit juror told AEG that deliberation process was good, everyone had the opportunity to be heard before the verdict reached and the verdict form and instructions were clear and understandable.
--- The third Jackson affidavit juror told AEG that he/she wanted to ask about Q2 to the judge but then jurors talked about it and figured out what it meant and he/she was ultimately satisfied with the verdict.
--- The fourth Jackson affidavit juror told AEG that satisfaction with the verdict, made decisions based on facts and Jacksons did not prove their case.

- AEG states even there was an alleged confusion with Q2, Jacksons was unable to show that the verdict would have been different. AEG states 4 jurors claims that negligent supervision and retention wasn't considered is countered by the 7 juror affidavits that say such claims were discussed.

- AEG also points out that out of the 4 juror affidavits only 2 of them state they wanted to vote for Jacksons and the other 2 only mentions dissatisfaction with the deliberation process and want to deliberate more.

- AEG also rejects Jacksons claims that AEG was required to provide 9 juror affidavits to show the verdict wouldn't be different. AEG states the burden of proof is on Jacksons. AEG states Jackson lawyers had 3 months after the verdict and they were only able to get 4 affidavits which only 2 said they would vote for Jacksons and AEG was able to get 7 affidavits in 9 days right before Christmas. They state this indicates majority of the jurors would have voted in AEG's favor in both Q2 and Q3. They state that even the jury was hung on Q2 they could move on the next question and come to a verdict in AEG's favor based on that.

- AEG also filed a second document to oppose Jacksons and support their motion to strike jury affidavits. AEG again claims Jacksons are misrepresenting the law and the examples they given. AEG's main point is that jury affidavits can only be admissible if they are about a jury misconduct. AEG gives several examples of cases which rejected juror affidavits and they also state that the 4 case examples Jacksons gave (that showed Judge accepting the juror affidavits) all had jury misconduct element. Such as in one of examples Jacksons gave jurors actually considered attorney fees and income taxes while they were determining damages , Court and appeal court ruled to inflate the damages to offset lawyer fees and income tax was a jury misconduct. As I mentioned AEG gives several examples how subjective mental processes of the jurors and even confusion isn't admissible.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

- In order to give example of the above AEG mentions what the 4 jurors told them during their interviews which is conflicting to what is written in their affidavits submitted by Jacksons. --- The first Jackson affidavit juror told AEG that the experience as a juror was positive and he/she believed AEG did not know anything about what Murray was doing to MJ.
--- The second Jackson affidavit juror told AEG that deliberation process was good, everyone had the opportunity to be heard before the verdict reached and the verdict form and instructions were clear and understandable.
--- The third Jackson affidavit juror told AEG that he/she wanted to ask about Q2 to the judge but then jurors talked about it and figured out what it meant and he/she was ultimately satisfied with the verdict.
--- The fourth Jackson affidavit juror told AEG that satisfaction with the verdict, made decisions based on facts and Jacksons did not prove their case.
Click to expand...

This is interesting, I presume they have the interviews on record.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

- In their reply AEG is claiming Jacksons have misrepresented the law and facts and that Jacksons started to mention new stuff in their reply such as "incompetent and unfit" wasn't defined or that 4 juror affidavits meet the burden of proof for the possibility of a different verdict (hung jury)

That mentioning new stuff in their reply also includes the propofol thingy, I hope?

- AEG states Jacksons for the first time in their reply mention that "incompetent or unfit" wasn't defined and that was an error. AEG says not only this argument should be disregarded as it wasn't in Jackson opening brief and Jacksons should have asked for a definition to be given to the jurors while they are preparing the verdict forms. Also AEG states that Jacksons failed to show that "incompetent or unfit for the job for which he was hired" was so far beyond the understanding of ordinary jurors that a special definition was needed.

This is interesting.

- In order to give example of the above AEG mentions what the 4 jurors told them during their interviews which is conflicting to what is written in their affidavits submitted by Jacksons.
--- The first Jackson affidavit juror told AEG that the experience as a juror was positive and he/she believed AEG did not know anything about what Murray was doing to MJ.
--- The second Jackson affidavit juror told AEG that deliberation process was good, everyone had the opportunity to be heard before the verdict reached and the verdict form and instructions were clear and understandable.
--- The third Jackson affidavit juror told AEG that he/she wanted to ask about Q2 to the judge but then jurors talked about it and figured out what it meant and he/she was ultimately satisfied with the verdict.
--- The fourth Jackson affidavit juror told AEG that satisfaction with the verdict, made decisions based on facts and Jacksons did not prove their case.

Like Lasttear said, hopefully this is on record.
If this is true, seemingly those 4 jurors opinion swings both ways depending on who is asking the questions?

- AEG states even there was an alleged confusion with Q2, Jacksons was unable to show that the verdict would have been different. AEG states 4 jurors claims that negligent supervision and retention wasn't considered is countered by the 7 juror affidavits that say such claims were discussed.

Clever.

- AEG also points out that out of the 4 juror affidavits only 2 of them state they wanted to vote for Jacksons and the other 2 only mentions dissatisfaction with the deliberation process and want to deliberate more.

I was thinking this yesterday and thought it wasn't 100% sure that those 2 jurors had changed their mind even if they had deliberated more. Plaintiffs really can't say that juror dissatisfaction to deliberating process automatically meant that these jurors were going to vote for their favour.


- AEG also rejects Jacksons claims that AEG was required to provide 9 juror affidavits to show the verdict wouldn't be different. AEG states the burden of proof is on Jacksons. AEG states Jackson lawyers had 3 months after the verdict and they were only able to get 4 affidavits which only 2 said they would vote for Jacksons and AEG was able to get 7 affidavits in 9 days right before Christmas. They state this indicates majority of the jurors would have voted in AEG's favor in both Q2 and Q3. They state that even the jury was hung on Q2 they could move on the next question and come to a verdict in AEG's favor based on that.

Strong argument.


Ivy, do plaintiffs file another document after AEG's reply or is this the last of it?
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Bubs said:
Ivy, do plaintiffs file another document after AEG's reply or is this the last of it?
Click to expand...

I don't know. there's not much time left though. Today is a holiday and the hearing is first thing Friday morning. So that only leaves tomorrow.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

So the big question is were some jurors feeling threatened, embarrassed or offered some incentive. Why would you have such opposing statements? A juror should know if a particular issue like supervision was discussed.

- AEG also points out that out of the 4 juror affidavits only 2 of them state they wanted to vote for Jacksons and the other 2 only mentions dissatisfaction with the deliberation process and want to deliberate more.
^Are those 2 saying they felt Muarry was unfit for the job he was hired to perform? It would be so interesting if the judge call these jurors and question them about their different answers to each side.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

The plaintiffs never wanted to end their case--they wanted to go on and on--they took 3 full months to present it and finally it was the JUDGE who had to TELL them they had rested their case or else they never would have! These replies and the appeal itself are ways to refuse to end their case and come up with more arguments that they didn't think of when they had a chance to do so in court. They will keep presenting whatever resembles in their minds an argumant that MIGHT work until a judge, hopefully Yvette P., tells them to stop.

btw, one blogger makes a point that 4 juror affidavits plus 7 juror affidavits = 11 juror affidavits, and asks where is the 12th affidavit? I guess there was one juror who refused to get involved in this.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Jeez :doh:

This is the same person who came here @MJJC and had a hissy fit if you dared to disagree with her opinion and if you didn't support Jackson family by default.

I read some of her blog but I just couldn't finish it all as it was full of conspiracy theories, AEG, MJJC and jurors tied nicely together:)
A little bit that caught my attention what she wrote in her blog about jurors statements:
"All seven of them repeated that statement almost word for word which made their replies practically identical."

Did this Helena person read plaintiffs documents at all?
From plaintiffs documents:
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.

So according to this Helena person, it is ok from plaintiffs attorney to write up affidavits and jurors sign it, but if defence does the same thing, it is big conspiracy and highly suspicious? Basically affidavits from 4 jurors that sided with Jacksons or had some concerns, were the same, but it only raised her suspicions when AEG brought out 7 jurors affidavits which were done in the same way.
I thought attorney interviews with jurors, then writes up summary of their thoughts and then juror signs it , and this is what both sides does.

After that blunder I just cannot take her seriously.


jamba said:
btw, one blogger makes a point that 4 juror affidavits plus 7 juror affidavits = 11 juror affidavits, and asks where is the 12th affidavit? I guess there was one juror who refused to get involved in this.
Click to expand...

As far as I know that once they have done their duties and verdict is reached, they don't have to get involved with aftermath. If 1 of them don't want to say anything to media or attorney, it is his/her right.
 
Last edited:
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Let's not post links to blogs/websites that use the documents posted by us but simultaneously attack/accuse us.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Bubs said:
Jeez :doh:

This is the same person who came here @MJJC and had a hissy fit if you dared to disagree with her opinion and if you didn't support Jackson family by default.

She wrote:
"All seven of them repeated that statement almost word for word which made their replies practically identical."

Did this Helena person read plaintiffs documents at all?
From plaintiffs documents:
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.

So according to this Helena person, it is ok from plaintiffs attorney to write affidavits and jurors sign it, but if defence does the same thing, it is big conspiracy and highly suspicious?

After that blunder I just cannot take her seriously.




As far as I know that once they have done their duties and verdict is reached, they don't have to get involved with aftermath. If 1 of them don't want to say anything, it is his/her right.
Click to expand...

Yes that is the same person. She has some nerve using transcripts and information provided here and then spewing as much hate on MJJC and it's members as she can muster. It's also amusing that she noticed, just by chance of course, that this thread was members only for awhile but then imagined some great conspiracy around it. Lol

Edit. And you are right, the jurors are now free to discuss the trial with whomever they like, they could even go to the media if they so wanted.
 
Last edited:
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I hope this person has asked for permission to post the documents on her blog. She's also copying and pasting Juror#27 posts - did she get permission to do that? And you gotta love how she based her whole article on the assumption that Juror#27 has not given an affidavit, when there's no way of knowing that for sure. Just like the Jacksons some of their supporters are grasping at straws.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

serendipity said:
I hope this person has asked for permission to post the documents on her blog. She's also copying and pasting Juror#27 posts - did she get permission to do that?
Click to expand...

permission? of course not. Also as a bonus, all of us are being accused and insulted in the comments section.

And some people don't understand why I get fussy about such things. I'm paying for those documents & some content is MJJCs. I don't care if anyone likes us/me or not but I don't think expecting a little courtesy is too much. Or at least toning down the insults / accusations.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

serendipity said:
I hope this person has asked for permission to post the documents on her blog. She's also copying and pasting Juror#27 posts - did she get permission to do that? And you gotta love how she based her whole article on the assumption that Juror#27 has not given an affidavit, when there's no way of knowing that for sure. Just like the Jacksons some of their supporters are grasping at straws.
Click to expand...

She has done it before. She used to read and post here, and she didn't like my comments of KJ or other family members and copied my post over her blog as an example of a person who they should not be.
You are supposed to kiss every single Jackson's arse (pardon my language) if you are fan of Michael's, no matter what they are doing.
Their mantra is: question everyone else, but don't dare to question Jacksons, they are always right.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

jaydom7 said:
If Katherine had no clue about MJ's physical or mental health, how was AEG supposed to know? According to Janet, Randy and Rebbie they all knew MJ had some sort of 'problem' but he was in denial. So maybe all 3 of them should've warned AEG to watch MJ carefully and don't hire any doctors because he has a problem that we've been trying to help him with for years.. Why didn't MJ's siblings go to AEG with their concerns?
Click to expand...

Because Mrs. Jackson visited her son 10 days before his dead and she said in an interview that on this day he was glad, happy, good looking and he was joking to her.... She said in this interview too this was the last time she saw her son and that she want Michael in her memory how she saw him at this day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top