Gerryevans, you are suggesting using propofol as a sleep aid is not general care however; the method to help Michael sleep is hindsight. Many here said a general care doctor can assist with sleep issues. AEG conceded that the doctor was unfitness or incompetency did cause harm to Michael and the plaintiffs. It was the jurors who found the killer fit and competent and they stated their reasons pubically.
Gerryevans, Serendipity, the jurors admitted in their affidavits five months of evidence were heard but, not reviewed during deliberations. I can only assume evidence was remembered. There is no need for me to fabricate testimony. Phillips and Gongaware both could not recall if the doctor was there to treat Michael’s sleep issues. Fact.
Last Tear, twist and spin as you like. The fact remains: AEG conceded to question four. The plaintiffs did not concede to question two. Again, the judge allowed both lawyers to express their views on question two to the jurors. The majority of jurors agreed with Putnam’s view. Many jurors and many here were confused about timing regarding question two. I am not fabricating that. You can go and review those posts and the jurors’ interviews after the verdict for yourself.
serendipity;3954732 said:
I'm sure. It's just that Katherine played all clueless about it.
If that is what you want to believe.
To prove the hiring was negligent the plaintiffs had to show AEG did know about MJ's drug issues, no? So they DID bring up the drug issues first -- Karen Faye and others testified for the plaintiffs about MJ's drug issues, no? They wanted to show MJ was a knows addict. And this happened before AEG responded with the opposite - that he was a secretive addict. So the plaintiffs did bring the drug issues first, it's a fact and there's no denying it. AEG didn't deflect, they simply responded to what the Jacksons brought up first.
Review the testimonies. The plaintiffs maintained they would not deny Michael’s issues and that others knew as well; there were no secrets as those witnesses testified to. AEG continued to plead ignorance to those issues and used the medical records the doctor retrieved for insurance purposes to detail Michael’s secretive addiction.
Repeating the plaintiffs did it first is not substantial; look deeper. What “dirty” details did you learn from the plaintiffs’ witnesses about Michael’s medical past compared to the defense? Be honest.
Ivy, I am aware other fans are boundless however, that did not extend to the jurors. Again, any potential crisis has been averted and in the defense’s favor.
ivy;3954812 said:
I'm not going to argue about this as it was one of the questions in the case and everyone would come to their own conclusions in regards to what to believe.
An honest response with no spin to benefit the defense. Thank you.
So you see what I'm trying to say just because Murray had debt wouldn't necessarily make him unfit for the job and just because some other doctor could be rich,successful doesn't mean they won't do questionable stuff.
Apologies, but, your response is spin. You and other posters actually suggested the plaintiffs cast aspersions on everyone who currently carried debt because that is what AEG lawyers said before trial began. Their statement was a purposeful generalization done to induce fear. The plaintiffs always referred to one, individual doctor who killed the person the plaintiffs lost, including the HR expert.
There are fans that did not support either side in the civil trial, did not follow the civil trial and did not follow the criminal trial as they prefer not to deal with Michael’s passing in a legal manner.
I find it interesting that you seem to encourage minimization and derision of the efforts of these fans only because they did not support the view you approved of and/or believed. As I remember, you were in the civil trial subforum creating the daily summaries, using contributions from members here to purchase transcripts that you summarized, and responded almost daily to posts where you believed the defense was not supported and I never saw any poster who supported the plaintiffs attempt to minimize your efforts or deride your beliefs.
That article you posted is actually derisive of Michael Jackson fans. Many in the media saw Michael and his fans as a whole in less than favorable terms. This article discussed how some of Michael’s fans, in the author's view, deified him and may have deified his mother. Let us put this article into context as it was not simply about fans who supported the plaintiffs being less than sane as the title suggests. Please do not skip the part of the article that summarized 3 decades of Michael’s career this way:
For nearly 30 years, Jackson was a force of raw star power and goodwill, a boy prodigy who became the single most famous entertainer in the world. All the while, he seemed almost unbelievably gentle and benevolent, with awe-inspiring displays of philanthropy and songs such as "We Are the World" and "Heal the World."
But in 1993, the father of a 13-year-old boy accused Jackson of child molestation.
What followed were more hits, increasingly vicious tabloid articles and more child-molestation allegations that led to his arrest, trial and eventual 2005 acquittal.
The public seemed to convict him. Jackson died in 2009 of a drug overdose as he prepared for an AEG-produced series of 50 London concerts dubbed "This Is It."
ivy;3954914 said:
3. That [name of employee]’s [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] harmed [name of plaintiff];
Ivy, Krizkil, I appreciate the clarity, however, what you both fail to realize is that the defense CONCEDED to question four which would be the third element requoted above. When one element is subtracted from four, it will always leave three.
