KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Possible Appeal [closed]

[goldiee]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Thanks for the response. But I think her pass with many fans has run out. Manipulated or not, there is a side there of entitlement and greed in my opinion that is all her own.

 

[AliCat]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I don't know about the others, but I do still think she is a sweet lady. I think she is wrong to pursue this appeal, and I would not be surprised to find that she is under pressure from various parties (lawyers, family, etc.) to do so. I have a hard time believing she came up with this jury misconduct angle on her own. And even if there was no outside pressure, I would still think she is a sweet lady who is in the wrong and being stubborn.

I shake my head in disbelief.

The disbelief that Katherine Jackson is just in the wrong and being stubborn. I just don't see how that qualifies her to be "sweet."

In defining the word "sweet" as it applies to the reference that describes Katherine Jackson, that of being "marked by gentle good humor or kindliness," I tend to disagree. If your only intent is to drag your main beneficiary, who you have the usual manner of financial means, than "sweet" is not an adjective I would aptly apply to Katherine Jackson. If you find the justification that a mother should be loyal to her other children and to leave them an inheritance, because Katherine feels that this is what Michael would have wanted, Katherine only need to reread the Will that her deceased son left. It is not sweet at all to justify going around Michael's wishes this way!

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

U cant blame the jurror. Remember the gen public are clueless to what has gone on the last five years and the years before that interms of the family and how they acted towards mj. kj is a master manipulator like most of them. remember they were the "normal" ones

 

[Juror#27]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I shake my head in disbelief.

The disbelief that Katherine Jackson is just in the wrong and being stubborn. I just don't see how that qualifies her to be "sweet."

In defining the word "sweet" as it applies to the reference that describes Katherine Jackson, that of being "marked by gentle good humor or kindliness," I tend to disagree. If your only intent is to drag your main beneficiary, who you have the usual manner of financial means, than "sweet" is not an adjective I would aptly apply to Katherine Jackson. If you find the justification that a mother should be loyal to her other children and to leave them an inheritance, because Katherine feels that this is what Michael would have wanted, Katherine only need to reread the Will that her deceased son left. It is not sweet at all to justify going around Michael's wishes this way!

When I said I still thought Ms. Jackson was "sweet lady", I was referring to her demeanor that I have personally observed. Now granted, the amount of time I saw her speak directly was very short, and she was surely doing her best to appear kind and gentle while testifying. But since I don't have any firsthand evidence of her yelling at people, or speaking angrily or maliciously, I don't see any reason to change my opinion of her *demeanor*.

But her demeanor that I witnessed in court is a completely separate thing from her decision to file an appeal, which I am in utter disagreement with. My own grandmother who I would also say was a very sweet woman, was known to sometimes make bad decisions or act in a way that was not very nice. I don't see a problem with holding both those views simultaneously; that a person can have a very gentle and kind demeanor and yet make poor decisions, be stubborn, and do the wrong thing.

Thanks for the response. But I think her pass with many fans has run out. Manipulated or not, there is a side there of entitlement and greed in my opinion that is all her own.

And I understand that as well. I don't know what the fans know with respect to Ms. Jackson, and I am certainly not saying that fans should view her as a sweet old lady. All I have to go on is what I saw in court and her subsequent decision to file an appeal. And I am not discounting the possibility that she is not a sweet lady at all and that I was fooled by a good performance. There may be a degree of willful ignorance on my part to not want to believe she is not as nice as she seems but for now I am OK with that.

 

[marebear]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I wish she would let this go. It's been enough already.

 

[Ashtanga]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Retrial

... Katherine is crazy. :crazy: Move on and leave Michael alone. We've had enough and no need for more. errin: But I know ... the desire to get a lot of easy money is tempting.... :doh: Puke: *big sigh*

 

[xosweetseducingsighsxo]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal




Is she REALLY doing this? Ugh..seriously? Why do they keep doing stuff like this? It's getting old and pathetic. They should be trying to shut CM up instead of this foolishness, but then again, to these people, getting money from AEG is waayy more important than protecting your son/brother's name from getting ran through the dirt. It's safe to say I'm done with these Jacksons.

 

[Aquarius]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I don't know if my mind is playing games with me, but didn't each of the jurors was asked if they agree with the verdict and they answered yes?

So, how can this, "In this same conversation I was also told that a few jurors had expressed dissatisfaction with the verdict be possible? I don't understand why they didn't express their concern before the verdict was read?

I hope this is just a lie from the attorneys.
.

 

[Mechi]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I don't know if my mind is playing games with me, but didn't each of the jurors was asked if they agree with the verdict and they answered yes?

So, how can this, "In this same conversation I was also told that a few jurors had expressed dissatisfaction with the verdict be possible? I don't understand why they didn't express their concern before the verdict was read?

I hope this is just a lie from the attorneys.
.

like a feeling someone is guilty but seeing no evidence results in dissatisfaction but also in the answer 'yes' in agreement with the only possible verdict maybe.

 

[Juror#27]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I don't know if my mind is playing games with me, but didn't each of the jurors was asked if they agree with the verdict and they answered yes?

So, how can this, "In this same conversation I was also told that a few jurors had expressed dissatisfaction with the verdict be possible? I don't understand why they didn't express their concern before the verdict was read?

I hope this is just a lie from the attorneys.
.

It isn't a lie.

The official and final vote we took for question 2 resulted in a 10-2 for "no". 10 of us said no, CM was not unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired. 2 voted yes.

When we were questioned in court, we were each asked to say "yes" if indeed "no" was our individual answer to question 2. So 10 of us should have said "yes", and the two jurors who voted "yes" in our vote should have said "no". For whatever reason, those 2 jurors didn't say "no". So it would appear that it was a unanimous answer to question 2 if you just look at when we were questioned in court. But again the vote we took in deliberations was actually 10-2.

The confusion at the end bothered me a lot, because I really feel like it could have been avoided if we just spent a little more time in deliberations. We had a double negative question on the verdict form, were later asked to say "yes" if we had answered "no" to the double negative, and on top of that had a slight language barrier issue with a juror when we were questioned. If we had gone through everything more thoroughly and spent more time fleshing everything out in deliberations, I'm pretty sure we would have avoided that confusion even if the vote may have had the same result.

I also think that some jurors' dissatisfaction with the way we arrived at the verdict (being unhappy w/ how our foreman handled deliberations) may have bled over into being dissatisfied with the verdict itself.

 

[serendipity]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Still AEG only needed 4 jurors to answer "no" and they had 10! So KJ and her lawyers need to have a seat.

 

[Aquarius]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

It isn't a lie.

The official and final vote we took for question 2 resulted in a 10-2 for "no". 10 of us said no, CM was not unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired. 2 voted yes.

When we were questioned in court, we were each asked to say "yes" if indeed "no" was our individual answer to question 2. So 10 of us should have said "yes", and the two jurors who voted "yes" in our vote should have said "no". For whatever reason, those 2 jurors didn't say "no". So it would appear that it was a unanimous answer to question 2 if you just look at when we were questioned in court. But again the vote we took in deliberations was actually 10-2.

The confusion at the end bothered me a lot, because I really feel like it could have been avoided if we just spent a little more time in deliberations. We had a double negative question on the verdict form, were later asked to say "yes" if we had answered "no" to the double negative, and on top of that had a slight language barrier issue with a juror when we were questioned. If we had gone through everything more thoroughly and spent more time fleshing everything out in deliberations, I'm pretty sure we would have avoided that confusion even if the vote may have had the same result.

I also think that some jurors' dissatisfaction with the way we arrived at the verdict (being unhappy w/ how our foreman handled deliberations) may have bled over into being dissatisfied with the verdict itself.

Thanks for the information.

It would have been nice if all you came out of the deliberation room in agreement with the verdict but still, those two jurors have the opportunity to say "no".

I don't know if it is possible or even permissible, but can you tell us what reasons these two jurors had to believe Murray was not competent at the time or hiring?

Something else. While I don't think it is correct, I think you may be right in thinking the two jurors dissatisfaction with the verdict might be a mirror of their feelings towards the foreman. Thanks again.

 

[Juror#27]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Thanks for the information.

It would have been nice if all you came out of the deliberation room in agreement with the verdict but still, those two jurors have the opportunity to say "no".

I don't know if it is possible or even permissible, but can you tell us what reasons these two jurors had to believe Murray was not competent at the time or hiring?

Something else. While I don't think it is correct, I think you may be right in thinking the two jurors dissatisfaction with the verdict might be a mirror of their feelings towards the foreman. Thanks again.

To be honest I don't know their reasoning, and again I think that shows that we went too quickly from the final vote to buzzing the court. I do have my own gut feelings about their reasoning, but since it would ultimately be speculation on my part I don't think it would be prudent or fair to those jurors for me to express them here.

I would have wanted to discuss the vote further and see if we couldn't get a unanimous answer for question 2 before buzzing the court, but I was so frustrated with everything by that point I kind of withdrew and just went over my notes after the vote.

 

[Victory22]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

yes. as far as I can understand / know, they are asking Judge Panzuelos for a retrial. After their notice of intent they have 10 days to file their motion, AEG has 10 days to respond. The court needs to hear it as soon as possible which looks like will be January 3rd. Then she will make a decision. I would imagine allowing a retrial to happen would be a small possibility and then we will see appeals. Jacksons appealing the verdict if the Judge Panzuelos denies their motion of a new trial and AEG appealing if she allows it.

Wow! What a waste of time and money. JMO.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Michael Jackson death trial jurors: 'Stunned' ... 'cheated' by verdict process
By Alan Duke, CNN

updated 8:35 PM EST, Thu December 12, 2013


Four jurors gave sworn statements to help Katherine Jackson get a new trial
The trial ended with a victory for the concert promoter that Jackson's family had sued
One juror called the verdict form "a trap that prevented us from deliberating on the real issues"
"I do not think that justice was achieved in this case," another jurors says

Los Angeles (CNN) -- Four jurors in the Michael Jackson wrongful death trial said they feel cheated by the outcome, which they blame on a misleading verdict form.

The six-month-long trial ended in October with a victory for AEG Live, the concert promoter Jackson's mother and children had claimed was liable for his death because it hired, retained or supervised the doctor convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death.

The jurors, whose sworn statements were attached to a motion for a new trial filed Thursday by Katherine Jackson's lawyers, said most of the jury wanted to find concert promoter AEG Live liable in Jackson's 2009 death.

Along with arguing that the verdict form was faulty, the Jackson lawyers contend the judge erred by refusing to let them pursue a negligence claim independent of the hiring case.

AEG not liable in Michael Jackson's death, jury finds

Jackson died from an overdose of the surgical anesthetic propofol on June 25, 2009, which Dr. Conrad Murray told police he used to treat the pop icon's insomnia as he prepared for a tour produced by AEG Live.

They jurors used the words "stunned," "upset" and "shocked" when they were told they had to stop deliberations after a majority agreed that the answer was "no" to the second question on the verdict form -- "Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?"

One juror called the question "a trap that prevented us from deliberating on the real issues of the case."

"After sitting through almost six months of the trial in this case, I believed that Mrs. Jackson had proven her case against AEG LIve," another juror said. "Despite this fact, I had no way of voting in favor of the plaintiffs because of the way that the verdict form was worded."

Jackson lawyers, in their arguments for a new trial, contend that Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazeulos erred by denying their request to add the words "at any time" to the question.

The four jurors, whose names were redacted from the documents released by the court, agreed.

"I would like the judge to know that we did not have the opportunity to deliberate or render a verdict on the plaintiffs claims that Dr Murray did not become unfit or incompetent until after the conflict of interest was created, Dr. Murray's duties were changed, pressures were mounting, or even after the contract was prepared and signed by Dr. Murray," one juror said.

The jury voted "no" only after one member convinced them that the question could have only meant "at the time he was hired," two of the juror statements said.

"During our deliberations, I asked to send a question to the judge to explain Question 2, but by then the foreman had already answered 'no' and followed the instructions to sign the form," one said. "I feel so cheated because I sat through five months of trial and listened to a lot of evidence on the ethical conflict created -- yet I never got to even deliberate at all on that issue or even review the hundreds of exhibits that had been brought in."

Another juror said they decided not to ask the judge for direction on the second question because "we did not want anyone to know where we were in deliberations."

"I do not believe that the verdict form was fair or worded incorrectly, and as phrased, Question 2 was a trap that prevented us from deliberating on the real issues of the case," a juror said.

The same juror described the emotional toll it has caused. "Since the jury verdict, I have been very upset, and initially I was unable to eat or even check my e-mails because I was so sorry about the verdict and the fact that justice was not done in this case, because of how question 2 on the verdict form was worded."

"I do not think that justice was achieved in this case," another said.

The affidavits revealed that one of the 12 jurors refused to stop deliberating despite being told it was over. "He insisted that we continue answering the rest of the questions," a juror said.

Judge Palazeulos will hear arguments on the new trial motion on January 3.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/12/showbiz/michael-jackson-new-trial-motion/

 

[krikzil]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Hmm, a couple of those jurors make it seem like they were rushed however, immediately after the verdict, the foreman said it went down with multiple votes and a night's reflection:

"We started looking at the wording of it and realized everybody was not comfortable with that," Barden explained to reporters outside of a Los Angeles courthouse following Wednesday's verdict.

"We spent the morning clarifying the question in our minds and to each other, and again votes changed," Barden added. "I'd say at least three or four times (votes changed) before we were able to come to the final tally."

Juror#27?

 

[Tygger]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

"During our deliberations, I asked to send a question to the judge to explain Question 2, but by then the foreman had already answered 'no' and followed the instructions to sign the form," one said. "I feel so cheated because I sat through five months of trial and listened to a lot of evidence on the ethical conflict created -- yet I never got to even deliberate at all on that issue or even review the hundreds of exhibits that had been brought in."

Magic.

 

[bluetopez]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Not surprised I never agreed with the Verdict, I just accepted it! But never agreed with it! So this is no surprise cause question 2 sucked and was very confusing and limited! However, I doubt a new trial will happen cause this judge would have to admit she herself made a mistake and I don't see that happening! -_-

 

[ivy]

I think Question 2 was wrong/confusing etc. argument is a hard one to win because it's the standard wording in the California jury instructions. See below for the jury instructions.

California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI)
426. Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she] was harmed by [name of employee] and that [name of employer defendant] is responsible for that harm because [name of employer defendant] negligently [hired/ supervised/ [or] retained] [name of employee]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] to perform the work for which [he/she] was hired;
2. That [name of employer defendant] knew or should have known that [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] and that this [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] created a particular risk to others;
3. That [name of employee]’s [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] harmed [name of plaintiff]; and
4. That [name of employer defendant]’s negligence in [hiring/ supervising/ [or] retaining] [name of employee] was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.

 

[krikzil]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

And the California Evidence Code is clear on what does and doesn't constitute jury misconduct. Feeling cheated and some of those other statements are irrelevant.

I was actually concerned that perhaps some legitimate misconduct had occurred -- outside research in our Internet world or a hidden bias which are very serious things that should overturn a verdict.

 

[jamba]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Once the jury answered YES to Q1 (Did AEG hire CM) they had to go to #2 (was CM incompetent or unfit to perform the work for which he was hired) and if they said NO, end of story. So arguing now that Q2 should have said "at any time" to me is not logical b/c the question has to do with a negligent hiring (were you competent at that point and not 3 months down the road). But we have been all over this before.

In any case, trying to argue that Q2 was improperly worded is going up against a standard question in a negligent hiring case, as Ivy pointed out.

 

[Aquarius]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

@Ivy. Please, help me understand this. The questions in the verdict form are they standard or they change according to each case?

Adding "at any time" to "Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?" Wouldn't that be kind of looking ahead? I don't think anyone can tell if your own doctor will become unfit or incompetent.

....
I don't remember when Murray's "duties were changed". Probably I didn't get to read that part of the testimony but to think that pressure made Conrad to act unethical and blame AEG for it, I don't think is correct.

This doesn't make sense to me. "Another juror said they decided not to ask the judge for direction on the second question because "we did not want anyone to know where we were in deliberations." They didn't want anyone to know they were in question 2? I think I'm missing something.
------
Ivy, I just read your second post. So that's the standard wording.

Sorry to ask another question. Can question 2 be modified if a lawyer makes the request? And if not, why are these attorneys hammering on it?

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

@Ivy. Please, help me understand this. The questions in the verdict form are they standard or they change according to each case?

I don't know but initially both sides had their own verdict forms, their own wording on the questions. judge asked them to use the standard instructions. She probably thought their own wording could be problematic and using the standard instructions are less likely to be subject to such claims and appeals we are seeing right now.

This doesn't make sense to me. "Another juror said they decided not to ask the judge for direction on the second question because "we did not want anyone to know where we were in deliberations." They didn't want anyone to know they were in question 2? I think I'm missing something.

Asking a clarification on Q2 would have signal the media that they were divided on that question. Not really an acceptable excuse to not ask a question though.

Sorry to ask another question. Can question 2 be modified if a lawyer makes the request? And if not, why are these attorneys hammering on it?

probably it could be modified. There might have been a request to modify it as well. We didn't see all the documents and the hearings. Some stuff were either sealed or not reported.

 

[passy001]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

we have the words of 4 jurors. even if the plaintiffs are credited with those 4 jurors, they still fall shorts of the quota needed to win. the plaintiffs needed at least 9 jurors on their side to win. and that was HIGHLY unlikely.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

we have the words of 4 jurors. even if the plaintiffs are credited with those 4 jurors, they still fall shorts of the quota needed to win. the plaintiffs needed at least 9 jurors on their side to win. and that was HIGHLY unlikely.

yeah that's correct but also AEG needed 9-3 at least. this now makes it 8 to 4.

 

[passy001]

I think Question 2 was wrong/confusing etc. argument is a hard one to win because it's the standard wording in the California jury instructions. See below for the jury instructions.

California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI)
426. Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she] was harmed by [name of employee] and that [name of employer defendant] is responsible for that harm because [name of employer defendant] negligently [hired/ supervised/ [or] retained] [name of employee]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] to perform the work for which [he/she] was hired;
2. That [name of employer defendant] knew or should have known that [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] and that this [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] created a particular risk to others;
3. That [name of employee]’s [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] harmed [name of plaintiff]; and
4. That [name of employer defendant]’s negligence in [hiring/ supervising/ [or] retaining] [name of employee] was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.

Personally I don't think that was confusing. Murray was hired to provide general health care to MJ. but was it unfit or incompetent to do that? absolutely not. he was a cardiologist who had previously treated MJ and his kids with no prior incident of misconduct. So he had the qualification, expertise, and the experience.

However Murray never performed the job he was hired for. he was trying to treat MJ for insomnia at the direction of MJ which AEG was not aware of and there was no way AEG could have known since both Murray and MJ refused to tell anyone else. in any case, his treating of MJ for insomnia is not what he was hired for. hence he was unfit and incompetent to treat MJ for insomnia simply because he lacked the relevant qualification and expertise.

 

[Juror#27]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Hmm, a couple of those jurors make it seem like they were rushed however, immediately after the verdict, the foreman said it went down with multiple votes and a night's reflection:

"We started looking at the wording of it and realized everybody was not comfortable with that," Barden explained to reporters outside of a Los Angeles courthouse following Wednesday's verdict.

"We spent the morning clarifying the question in our minds and to each other, and again votes changed," Barden added. "I'd say at least three or four times (votes changed) before we were able to come to the final tally."

Juror#27?

I hate to sound like a broken record, but again this discrepancy is a direct result of the way our foreman handled deliberations. Obviously he was not going to tell the media that he rushed us through deliberations, but the confusion and anger on the part of some jurors says otherwise.

This doesn't make sense to me. "Another juror said they decided not to ask the judge for direction on the second question because "we did not want anyone to know where we were in deliberations." They didn't want anyone to know they were in question 2? I think I'm missing something.

I remember that when that juror said we should ask the judge about question 2, many of us said that we should try to figure it out ourselves since we had a huge stack of jury instructions in front of us and we are all reasonably intelligent people. Someone did make the point that if we asked for clarification on the question it would alert everyone about where we were in deliberations, but that was not the reason we decided not to buzz and ask the judge.

I have a lot of opinions on these statements made in these affidavits and it's frustrating to have to bite my tongue, but I think it's best to reserve comment for now.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Personally I don't think that was confusing. Murray was hired to provide general health care to MJ. but was it unfit or incompetent to do that? absolutely not. he was a cardiologist who had previously treated MJ and his kids with no prior incident of misconduct.

However Murray never performed the job he was hired for. he was trying to treat MJ for insomnia at the direction of MJ which AEG was not aware of and there was no way AEG could have known since both Murray and MJ refused to tell anyone else. in any case, his treating of MJ for insomnia is not what he was hired for. hence he was unfit and incompetent to treat MJ for insomnia simply because he lacked the relevant qualification and expertise.

I think this part answers and gives us clues about what these 4 jurors are thinking

Jackson lawyers, in their arguments for a new trial, contend that Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazeulos erred by denying their request to add the words "at any time" to the question.

The four jurors, whose names were redacted from the documents released by the court, agreed.

"I would like the judge to know that we did not have the opportunity to deliberate or render a verdict on the plaintiffs claims that Dr Murray did not become unfit or incompetent until after the conflict of interest was created, Dr. Murray's duties were changed, pressures were mounting, or even after the contract was prepared and signed by Dr. Murray," one juror said.

The jury voted "no" only after one member convinced them that the question could have only meant "at the time he was hired," two of the juror statements said.

so these 4 jurors are the ones who voted yes to Q2 (the 2 jurors) and 2 other jurors. The other 2 jurors voted "no" because they were convinced that the question meant "at the time he was hired". and it looks like one or some of them are claiming the incompetence happened at a later time after conflict was created. So Jacksons argue that judge's refusal to modify the question to say "at any time" was confusing.

we'll see how this pans out. I'll get the documents when they are scanned and on the online court system. AEG's 10 day to respond is starting. We will see what they would reply with as well.

 

[Ramona122003]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Thing is, it was already stated that even if they answer yes to question 2, they would had said no to question number 3, could AEG foresee and known the danger of hiring Murray.

Also 'at any time' is not good since it is asking in 'hindsight' was Murray competent. Yeah, hindsight Murray was incompetent, but how as AEG or anyone else was supposed to know that? The Jacksons presented no evidence of Murray causing harm outside he was in debt and may do something immoral. Michael's failing health also cannot be directly link to Murray since Michael was seeing another doctor and he wasn't telling AEG anything. So, how it is far to say 'well in hindsight AEG should have known Murray was incompetent'.

Whether you agree with the decision, it is all too easy to say this was going on after everything has happened. As they say, hindsight is 20/20 and everyone is playing Monday Morning Quarterback.


Also:

"I would like the judge to know that we did not have the opportunity to deliberate or render a verdict on the plaintiffs claims that Dr Murray did not become unfit or incompetent until after the conflict of interest was created, Dr. Murray's duties were changed, pressures were mounting, or even after the contract was prepared and signed by Dr. Murray," one juror said.


Reading this, it sounds like they are saying that Murray became incompetent because of pressure, not greed. Also, who was providing this pressure? If it is AEG, it was still Murray's duty to care for his patent, not pump him with drugs. If it was Michael, Murray as a doctor should have told Michael no. I also do not see how this translate into foresight. Many doctors face pressure and debt and they don't act like Murray so why would AEG somehow think Murray would act so different from most doctors.

 

[krikzil]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

"I would like the judge to know that we did not have the opportunity to deliberate or render a verdict on the plaintiffs claims that Dr Murray did not become unfit or incompetent until after the conflict of interest was created, Dr. Murray's duties were changed, pressures were mounting, or even after the contract was prepared and signed by Dr. Murray," one juror said.

The jurors came to the decision of what that question meant so that statement is curious. Additionally, what duties changed? AEG wanted general care; they were never party to the Propofol. And originally Murray asked for a lot more money.