Latest on MJJC

Murray Trial - 7 October - Day 9 - Discussion

Ramona122003 said:
Another bullet hole through that AEG lawsuit. I wonder if Randy is crying right about now? By the time this case is over that lawsuit is going to be swiss cheese served on a platter.
Click to expand...

LOL...I see we were having identical thoughts. I just posted almost the same.

ETA: But I like the way you put it a lot better.
 
Last edited:
wendy2004 said:
Well, there it is. Michael hired Murray but was to be paid (financed) via AEG. Michael was to be his employer.
Click to expand...

Nope. It's the OPPOSITE. If I pick out a yard-guy, but the owner of the house is to pay the yard guy to maintain the yard, the employer is the one who PAYS. The oral agreement, and contract if there is one, is between the one who pays, and the one who performs the work. (Whether or not Michael was to pay back AEG eventually, is irrelevant, in terms of who the employer IS at the time the work was done.)

Suppose the yard guy is doing shoddy work? The one who can FIRE him, is the one who pays. The one who picked out the employee can ASK the employer to fire, but does not have that intrinsic right. Same yard guy can keep cutting the grass. .. . .. as long as he gets paid. (or in Murray's case, not paid?)
 
Ramona122003 said:
Another bullet hole through that AEG lawsuit. I wonder if Randy is crying right about now? By the time this case is over that lawsuit is going to be swiss cheese served on a platter.
Click to expand...

You know it. Boom Boom Pow!

They acted like Murray dropped out the sky one day...some random doctor MJ did not know who AEG put in place to look after him. The medical records alone tell that Murray was in the picture long before AEG was a factor. But why let that get in the way of a lawsuit?

Time for me to get some lunch, too!
 
The employer is the one who PAYS the employee, regardless of who recommended the employee for the work.

(edit) That actually is clearer now! Analogy. If a friend recommends me to a potential employer to perform specific work (as has happened with my consulting work), the employer is the one who PAYS me.
 
Autumn II said:
Nope. It's the OPPOSITE. If I pick out a yard-guy, but the owner of the house is to pay the yard guy to maintain the yard, the employer is the one who PAYS. The oral agreement, and contract if there is one, is between the one who pays, and the one who performs the work. (Whether or not Michael was to pay back AEG eventually, is irrelevant, in terms of who the employer IS at the time the work was done.)

Suppose the yard guy is doing shoddy work? The one who can FIRE him, is the one who pays. The one who picked out the employee can ASK the employer to fire, but does not have that intrinsic right. Same yard guy can keep cutting the grass. .. . .. as long as he gets paid. (or in Murray's case, not paided?)
Click to expand...

His salary was being FINANCED. Think of it in terms of buying a car. You buy the car but go thru a bank to make the payments on it. Murray was the car, Michael was the driver, AEG was the bank.
 
Autumn II said:
The employer is the one who PAYS the employee, regardless of who recommended the employee for the work.
Click to expand...

There was clause in the contract that Michael could fire Murray at any time and he would be the one paying him between the shows break. So Michael was the primary employer. AEG may had the ability to step in, but Michael chose Murray himself. The AEG lawsuit said that AEG was the one who found and hired Murray.

Also, Murray was Michael's doctor and he payed for his services before.
 
Autumn II said:
Nope. It's the OPPOSITE. If I pick out a yard-guy, but the owner of the house is to pay the yard guy to maintain the yard, the employer is the one who PAYS. The oral agreement, and contract if there is one, is between the one who pays, and the one who performs the work. (Whether or not Michael was to pay back AEG eventually, is irrelevant, in terms of who the employer IS at the time the work was done.)

Suppose the yard guy is doing shoddy work? The one who can FIRE him, is the one who pays. The one who picked out the employee can ASK the employer to fire, but does not have that intrinsic right. Same yard guy can keep cutting the grass. .. . .. as long as he gets paid. (or in Murray's case, not paided?)
Click to expand...

You've got it wrong. The employer is the one who HIRES someone for his services. It's irrelevant who pays the employee. AEG was merely footing the bill, But Murray was working FOR MJ. It's MJ who hired him and NOT AEG. Therefore MJ was the employer. AEG was like a bank just paying murray as part of the advances to MJ. AEG was going to recoup that money through the proceeds from the London concerts.
 
Ramona122003 said:
Another bullet hole through that AEG lawsuit. I wonder if Randy is crying right about now? By the time this case is over that lawsuit is going to be swiss cheese served on a platter.
Click to expand...

One problem. This directly contradicts the contract, isn't it? The contract says that Murray is hired by AEG as an independent contractor but paid by MJ. Unless I totally misunderstood the testimony from the lawyer who drafted the contract.
 
Ramona122003 said:
There was clause in the contract that Michael could fire Murray at any time and he would be the one paying him between the shows break. So Michael was the primary employer. AEG may had the ability to step in, but Michael chose Murray himself. The AEG lawsuit said that AEG was the one who found and hired Murray.

Also, Murray was Michael's doctor and he payed for his services before.
Click to expand...

passy001 said:
You've got it wrong. The employer is the one who HIRES someone for his services. It's irrelevant who pays the employee. AEG was merely footing the bill, But Murray was working FOR MJ. It's MJ who hired him and NOT AEG. Therefore MJ was the employer. AEG was like a bank just paying murray as part of the advances to MJ. AEG was going to recoup that money through the proceeds from the London concerts.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
passy001 said:
You've got it wrong. The employer is the one who HIRES someone for his services. It's irrelevant who pays the employee. AEG was merely footing the bill, But Murray was working FOR MJ. It's MJ who hired him and NOT AEG. Therefore MJ was the employer. AEG was like a bank just paying murray as part of the advances to MJ.
Click to expand...

True,

Say I hire someone to do services, but I have my parents pay for it because I'm broke and don't have the cash at the moment. If that employee do something to get themselves in legal trouble, it's on me because I hired him. I can't pin it on my parents because they're the ones flipping the bill. The only thing my parents could had done is stop the payment.
 
justnat said:
One problem. This directly contradicts the contract, isn't it? The contract says that Murray is hired by AEG as an independent contractor but paid by MJ. Unless I totally misunderstood the testimony from the lawyer who drafted the contract.
Click to expand...

Not even MURRAY knew who, exactly hired him! That is in testimony now.

The contract said Murray was HIRED by AEG, with Michael to reimburse. That would have been detailed in a separate contract with Michael, as to how that would be accomplished. When asked who hired him, I HEARD Murray say it wasn't clear. Obviously he already knew and had treated Michael. That is old news. So this is the doctor Michael wanted. We know that. The rest is SO far from clear-cut, that not even Murray knows! One would expect that would be for a civil court to sort out?
 
passy001 said:
You've got it wrong. The employer is the one who HIRES someone for his services. It's irrelevant who pays the employee. AEG was merely footing the bill, But Murray was working FOR MJ. It's MJ who hired him and NOT AEG. Therefore MJ was the employer. AEG was like a bank just paying murray as part of the advances to MJ. AEG was going to recoup that money through the proceeds from the London concerts.
Click to expand...

That bank analogy is really good. MJ was basically borrowing money from AEG to pay an employee. LIke when our company borrowed money from its bank to expand and hired new employees. The bank provided the funds, but the workers are my company's.
 
Autumn II said:

Not even MURRAY knew who, exactly hired him! That is in testimony now.

The contract said Murray was HIRED by AEG, with Michael to reimburse. That would have been detailed in a separate contract with Michael, as to how that would be accomplished. When asked who hired him, I HEARD Murray say it wasn't clear. Obviously he already knew and had treated Michael. That is old news. So this is the doctor Michael wanted. We know that. The rest is SO far from clear-cut, that not even Murray knows! One would expect that would be for a civil court to sort out?
Click to expand...

How can you say he doesn't know? He clearly states that it ended up being that his salary was TO BE FINANCED. He strictly used the word FINANCE. And Jorrie's testimony was that the contract was between Murray and The Artist with AEG to foot the bill. She testified that Murray called her to have the contract changed from being between Murray and AEG to: Murray and The Artist. That was one of the changes she had to make.

ETA: And it was Michael who hired him. Murray got a call from MAW and then MJ followed-up and called Murray directly. No one from AEG picked up the phone and made those initial calls. They didn't know Murray from a can of paint at that point...but Michael knew him.
 
I'll tell you this much. I'm grateful for the camera being in the courtroom so fans can see the process for ourselves without the media leaving out facts and giving their spin. And I'm also glad that we can see and hear evidence for ourselves for the purpose of context and clarity without having to depend on other fansto translate and tell us what was said (not that I haven't appreciated that or anyone's efforts. I do.) Sometimes things get lost in translation. It happens.
 
wendy2004 said:
How can you say he doesn't know?
Click to expand...

How? Because I've heard ALL the testimony, and have taken notes? He was asked who hired him. He said (paraphrase) Michael selected him, and AEG was to pay him. Whatever pay-back arrangement there was, Murray was not a part of, and didn't need to be. That was another contract between Michael and AEG. Doesn't matter if it was "financed," or to be in a lump sum, or what. When asked who hired him, Murray did NOT say, "Michael did." It's very clear on the audio recording.

wendy2004 said:
He clearly states that it ended up being that his salary was TO BE FINANCED. He strictly used the word FINANCE. And Jorrie's testimony was that the contract was between Murray and The Artist with AEG to foot the bill. She testified that Murray called her to have the contract changed from being between Murray and AEG to: Murray and The Artist. That was one of the changes she had to make.

ETA: And it was Michael who hired him. Murray got a call from MAW and then MJ followed-up and called Murray directly. No one from AEG picked up the phone and made those initial calls. They didn't know Murray from a can of paint at that point...but Michael knew him.
Click to expand...

That is a matter for yet another courtroom, not really relevant for this trial. We ALREADY know that Michael knew Murray and recommended him. We also know that correspondence exists between Murray and AEG, asking for equipment (that has been in testimony in THIS trial). We also have seen Kenny Ortega's email to Randy Philips where he says, ". . now that WE have the doctor on board." (who is "we?")

My POINT is, who hired Murray, i.e. in terms of responsibility, will no doubt be a part of any lawsuits against AEG, but has little or no bearing on THIS trial. And it really IS far from clear. Murray did NOT say, "Michael hired me." I know. I was listening.
 
wendy2004 said:
ETA: And it was Michael who hired him. Murray got a call from MAW and then MJ followed-up and called Murray directly. No one from AEG picked up the phone and made those initial calls. They didn't know Murray from a can of paint at that point...but Michael knew him.
Click to expand...

True dat!

And if I recall correctly, Katherine Jackson lawsuit says something to the effect that: "AEG picked out and hired Murray to be Michael's doctor." Her lawsuit never addresses the fact that Michael already had a relationship with Murray way before AEG came on the scene.

I ain't trying to get off topic, but I ALWAYS said that AEG didn't want any parts of Conrad Murray. They wanted Michael to pick a doctor in London. In my opinion, they were done with Murray right after he asked for that initial 5 MILLION DOLLARS! And him getting all up in Ortega's face probably didn't help his cause either. Just my little ole opinion.
 
I really wish Michael would've listened and told Murray to **** off (in no way am I blaming him), if he had just picked an UK doctor, we probably wouldn't have to see this day today. But I guess Michael didn't know what an asshole Murray was/is
 
Last edited:
That is actually an entirely different court-matter, and not significant in Murray's trial? SOMEBODY hired him. (Looks like nobody paid him, though). I'm sure the legalities of all of that will be explored ad nauseum, if the AEG case ever gets to trial? It was clear from Murray's answer, as a matter of record, now, that he was NOT clear on that, and that's as far as we can go with it, without combing through the contracts, emails between Murray and AEG, and so on. But not for THIS trial, probably. I can't see that it has any bearing on what Murray did or did not do on June 25?
 
Autumn II said:
How? Because I've heard ALL the testimony, and have taken notes? He was asked who hired him. He said (paraphrase) Michael selected him, and AEG was to pay him. Whatever pay-back arrangement there was, Murray was not a part of, and didn't need to be. That was another contract between Michael and AEG. Doesn't matter if it was "financed," or to be in a lump sum, or what. When asked who hired him, Murray did NOT say, "Michael did." It's very clear on the audio recording.



That is a matter for yet another courtroom, not really relevant for this trial. We ALREADY know that Michael knew Murray and recommended him. We also know that correspondence exists between Murray and AEG, asking for equipment (that has been in testimony in THIS trial). We also have seen Kenny Ortega's email to Randy Philips where he says, ". . now that WE have the doctor on board." (who is "we?")

My POINT is, who hired Murray, i.e. in terms of responsibility, will no doubt be a part of any lawsuits against AEG, but has little or no bearing on THIS trial. And it really IS far from clear. Murray did NOT say, "Michael hired me." I know. I was listening.
Click to expand...

Using my car analogy, if I get into an accident in the car that is being financed, who is responsible if I'm driving drunk and hit someone with that car? It surely wouldn't be the bank. It would be up to me and my insurance to handle the matter. The bank has nothing to do with it as I'm technically the owner of the vehicle. Now, having said that, I agree with you that how much responsibility AEG may have had in other matters is for a court to decide.

The "WE" thing, imo, can also be interpreted as in Michael AND AEG, not necessarily AEG alone without Michael's knowledge or consent. I think some fans are trying to separate Michael from the whole deal when there's no way you can knowing full well it was Michael who reached out to Murray.

Anyhoo, I bow out of this debate, respectfully, with my previous opinion unchanged. Peace.

twinklEE said:
I really wish Michael would've listened and told Murray to **** off (in no way am I blaming him), but if he had just picked a UK doctor, we probably wouldn't have to see this day today. But I guess Michael just didn't know what asshole Murray was.
Click to expand...

Walgren called it in his opening statement: Misplaced trust.

Not Michael's fault at all.
 
So anyway back on topic the defense is going with it wasn't Propofol that killed MJ but, lorazapam? That MJ alegedly took while murray was conveniently out the room? Can they really say that the auptosy is irevalant like that?! I don't think so!
 
So anyway back on topic the defense is going with it wasn't Propofol that killed MJ but, lorazapam?
Click to expand...
thats what flanagan tried to imply in one of his questions to anderson
 
Well I don't see how they can blame both Demerol and now Lorazapam. I know there trying to raise reasonable doubt but, this just look like straight up lying which it is. I hope the Jury catches that their throwing everything out there to see what sticks. But, it's nothing but B.S. It was Propofol that Murray gave him that really killed him along with the other meds Murray gave before the blow of Propofol.
 
mikes was very thin he knew he was seeing other drs i did not find any major issue when he did a health check except a problem with mjs hip. nothing else. amir called him on the 24h met him at carolwood. asked about any probs with mj at rehearsals there was no problems. he spent every night at the house except sunday nights at mjs requests. not cause of a health issue
 
In this interview, Murray says he look at his watch on 24th June to see the time. At the hospital, he says he did not have any watch, hence, not able to tell the time. BUSTED!!! Walgren must somehow point this inconsistency out and proof that Murray as usual LYING!!!!
 
Just going back to the toxicology part, I still don't get the lorazepam amount in MJ's stomach. 1/43th of a 2mg pill or 5 pills of 2mg pills that the defence is claiming?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top