Latest on MJJC

Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Status
Not open for further replies.
LastTear said:
I wouldn't go quite so far as comparing him to our Wally :wub: Not quite the same charisma, I notice he always seems to have a bit of a grin on his face, maybe he only has one expression. :hysterical:
Click to expand...

Our Wally:D
I'm not ready to share him and I claimed him first:cheeky:

I meant that Putnam goes with same route than my Wally, he presents his case clear and organised manner.
 
Bubs said:
Our Wally:D
I'm not ready to share him and I claimed him first:cheeky:

I meant that Putnam goes with same route than my Wally, he presents his case clear and organised manner.
Click to expand...

I think Ivy might have something to say about that. lol

But yes you are right I am finding your Putnam clear and concise.
 
Bubs, Jamba he is saying some of the things we said about Panish conclusion not adding up, and about hiring & conduct. I am feeling a little better today with this argument.

So this judge just wanted to be on tv? There she is smiling.

He connects the part about being fit for the job he was hired to perform, to Muarry being fit to work as a MD. We were talking about this and I noticed Panish linked that to Muarry being hired to give prof.
 
Last edited:
Damn he is good with question 2, makes perfect sense.

@Petrarose, I find it a bit scary that Putnam is saying things that what I've been thinking and what we have been saying here.

I wonder if judge is going to apply job in movies or is she going to be next judge Judy, she has been smiling like that since beginning. Does she find this trial funny or whats wrong with her? She is starting to scare me:)


Sorry, ott
@ Lasttear, I saw what you did there:)
I have Wally, you can have Putnam :giggle:
 
Last edited:
Putnam really hammered that point home.

@Bubs, oh gee thanks, very generous. Lol
 
He really started with the bang. I hope Karen fake is at home and watching this as she got questionable honour to be mentioned in defenses closing speech. Putnam was great mentioning the names of the people (Karen fake's name was first) who did nothing to help MJ, dispite being MJ's friends for over 20 years. I wonder if Putnam brings in Karen email in which she said that MJ has tendencies sabotaging his own concerts.
 
Bubs Putnam belongs to me, hands off. He will be so happy when the trial is over because I have been bothering him all the time: Why you did this Putnam? Good job today Putnam! That was not good Putnam! etc. I don't know what it is but anytime I hear a man do his craft well, like Walgren & Shaffer, I am in love.
 
Putnam has relied heavily on clauses in a contract that he believes has not been enforced because it is not signed by all parties. That is conflicting.

It is not enough to say the evidence points to Michael hiring the doctor without stating which particular piece of evidence supports that.
 
Bubs said:
He really started with the bang. I hope Karen fake is at home and watching this as she got questionable honour to be mentioned in defenses closing speech. Putnam was great mentioning the names of the people (Karen fake's name was first) who did nothing to help MJ, dispite being MJ's friends for over 20 years. I wonder if Putnam brings in Karen email in which she said that MJ has tendencies sabotaging his own concerts.
Click to expand...

Did he mention anyone else as a friend that didn't help Michael? who was right there watching him deteriorate but did nothing?
 
^^ I only remember Karen fake, Metzger and he mentioned even Nurse Lee.
He said everybody seemed to be worried about MJ, but none of them did nothing. He said more but I cannot remeber as I was nearly jumping up and down because what he said is damn right. Now those do-nothing friends are pointing fingers at AEG and feeling judgemental and preaching that they should have done something.
 
There was also the person who thought she should call 911 but did nothing and didn't say anything, sorry can't remember the name.
 
^^Ali Shankey or something, the dancer who testified before Travis.
 
Bubs said:
Damn he is good with question 2, makes perfect sense.

@Petrarose, I find it a bit scary that Putnam is saying things that what I've been thinking and what we have been saying here.

I wonder if judge is going to apply job in movies or is she going to be next judge Judy, she has been smiling like that since beginning. Does she find this trial funny or whats wrong with her? She is starting to scare me:)


Sorry, ott
@ Lasttear, I saw what you did there:)
I have Wally, you can have Putnam :giggle:
Click to expand...

Bubs from the moment the judge allowed certain things to be admitted in this trial, I have been suspicious of her. This is just a gut feeling but I think she relished this opportunity to dig into the sordid details of Michael's life and raise her profile in the process.
 
Petrarose said:
Bubs Putnam belongs to me, hands off. He will be so happy when the trial is over because I have been bothering him all the time: Why you did this Putnam? Good job today Putnam! That was not good Putnam! etc. I don't know what it is but anytime I hear a man do his craft well, like Walgren & Shaffer, I am in love.
Click to expand...

We're crushing on lawyers again?! xD

Not I, not this time. I learned my lesson. .___.

With that said, I only tuned in to AEG's closing arguments a bit ago. I overslept. I've been ill, so I didn't get up til just now. :<

Seems he's strong in his rhetoric, and very stoic, relying on specifics and facts. He's not relying on pathos like the Jackson lawyer last night. People who resort to appealing to emotions have little in way of facts to their favour, usually.

Still, jurors are human beings, so it's hard to say which way they'll go. I hope they remember we ought to rely on facts and not appeal to emotions to deliver a just verdict.
 
Is lunch 1 hour today?

Snape yes I remember how your romance went down hill, poor thing.

Chosenone you know I never thought of that. You have something there, because why decide to televise the concluding arguments and get a bigger room. She said the public was interested. I guess the public was not interested in the whole case, but only had a great need to hear Panish and Putnam concluding arguments.
 
Last edited:
TheChosenOne said:
Bubs from the moment the judge allowed certain things to be admitted in this trial, I have been suspicious of her. This is just a gut feeling but I think she relished this opportunity to dig into the sordid details of Michael's life and raise her profile in the process.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised it if that is what she is after. I just find it odd that she is watching the camera all the time and smiling. Her Mona lisa smile started to creep me out :bugeyed
 
I do feel that should AEG lose it would be an emotional verdict, I just can't see how they can get past question number 2.
 
LastTear said:
I do feel that should AEG lose it would be an emotional verdict, I just can't see how they can get past question number 2.
Click to expand...

That murray was fit and competent at looking after mj so he cd perform tii? Clearly he was the definition of unfit and incompetent as all the testimony appears to be that mj deteriorated for the 2 months murray was looking after him.
 
LastTear said:
I do feel that should AEG lose it would be an emotional verdict, I just can't see how they can get past question number 2.
Click to expand...

Yeah it is hard. At the point when he was hired, was he fit? I would say yes. He had what was needed to be a general doc. I think the jury has to really look at the question and answer exactly what it is asking.

-How about "specific vs particular risk" very good.

-Good: should have known about Muarry BEFORE Michael passed.
 
Last edited:
Bonnie Blue said:
That murray was fit and competent at looking after mj so he cd perform tii? Clearly he was the definition of unfit and incompetent as all the testimony appears to be that mj deteriorated for the 2 months murray was looking after him.
Click to expand...

The question is whether Murray was unfit to carry out work relating to general medical needs.... at the point he was hired.
 
Do they have to answer yes to all the questions to get the verdict for the jacksons or all no for aeg?
 
What I don't understand here in my small country behind the seven mountains with the seven dwarfs ist this thing with the non-economic damage.
What are the criterions for it; why is there a difference between children of a rich father/mother and children of a poor father/mother; obviously it is important wheter he was a good father or a not so good father.....
I am shaking my head. Maybe, if a dead father was poor and not so good to his child the child gets nothing????

What is the logic and where is the equality before the law?


/BigApple2:

If I remember right then the judge had forbidden the defendants to mention the word AllGood ... just as the defendants was not allowed to mention or ask about how much money Mrs. Jackson gets form Michael's Estate.

I think AEG with this judge has good points for an appeal.
 
Last edited:
marebear said:
Do they have to answer yes to all the questions to get the verdict for the jacksons or all no for aeg?
Click to expand...

As I understand it if they answer NO to any question then they dont answer any more and the Plantiffs lose, so I guess that would mean that every answer would have to be yes.
 
I gotta say Putnam is good as well.

Both Putnam and Panish mentioned valid points about everything but little focus on who hired Murray.

I wonder what the jurors are thinking of who hired Murray- because thats what this is really about even though its been kinda been put aside.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top