Do they have to answer yes to all the questions to get the verdict for the jacksons or all no for aeg?
The question is whether Murray was unfit to carry out work relating to general medical needs.... at the point he was hired.
But wasn't that exactly what Michael was doing?
Murray was a heart doctor with NO proper knowledge in the administration of propofol, nor how to alleviate any problems that might arise from same.
Michael knew it also, that's why he continued to search out a person with propofol experience. Just my opinion.
To say mj knew murray was a rookie re prop is pure supposition. I can't see a man like murray admitting this, he wanted the gig so wd do his best to convince mj.
Panish goes again tomorrow?
^^Yeah he has the rebuttal closing.
Well I have to say Putnam's closing made me realize we missed a lot of key testimony. We were only getting tweets that helped the family side. Now from what Putnam said I see a lot of information came out that supported AEG. I did not know they had a timeline with Muarry's activity with Michael before AEG's first contact with Muarry, for example. If we had that, we could have discussed all this at the time.
Mneme, All Good did come up with the email between Phillips and Branca so it was not forbidden; it simply did not have relevance. Michael himself said his stress was from the TII tour.
Annita, I would like to see Dileo declaration as well. I would like to see proof Michael's legal team, who would advise him regarding the three party conflicted interest contract, did indeed see it.
Last Tear, AEG believes there was no written contract and that is correct; it was implied. Putnam suggested in closing that the jury review the indemnity clause that would protect them as the third party against the doctor's actions. Putnam would like the jury to see the non-executed written contract's indemnity clause as a valid clause in the implied contract but it was not discussed explicitly there.
The same with the "general care" phrase. Putnam wants the jurors to believe the doctor was fit for general care as per the non-executed written contract however; the doctor was not performing general care duties. In the implied contract, the doctor did what was necessary to ensure Michael showed up for rehearsal although he was not qualified to do what was necessary.
Putnam wants the jurors to believe AEG would have no foresight to be suspicious of the doctor however Gongaware spoke with two of Michael's tour doctors who forewarned him about Michael's health issues on tour. Previous tour doctors dealt with Michael's addiction and sleep issues in an non-ethical manner on two successive tours. Gongaware had to assure Finkelstein Michael was clean for TII as Finkelstein remembered what happened on the Dangerous tour. Gongaware and Phillips testified to not remembering discussing Michael's sleep issues for TII.
Actually we knew those points, like Gonga refuse point blank 5 million and hung up, and we knew the timeline when CM was ordering propofol, but what we didn't do was to put it all together like Putnam did, and if this case was to go on jury now, I would be willing to bet that plaintiffs lost their case.
Additional note, I think Alan Dukes article about defense's closing article is going be rather short today.
When did Murray start ordering Propofol, did that come up in Mr. Putnam's closing at all?
And I remember you said the sleep issues came again later so MJ had the right to not remember about it during medical for insurance. You can not have this both ways. Again double standard. You definitely present Michael Jackson as a little boy who needs an adult with him during a medical examination.
After listening to the AEG closing I'm even more disappointed at Jacksons. Their greed totally destroyed the chance of improving Michael's image for general public consumption. Whatever he was doing in privacy of his bedrooms or doctor's offices he was doing it with dignity keeping it private. Even as an "addict" he still was able to work hard and support his children, his mother and other Jacksons. We absolutely did not need to hear about all the details which came to the light during this trial. At least not so soon after his death. It will take a long time when his name will be mention by presidents or any business advertisements. This trial didn't present Michael Jackson as a role model for sure and I don't blame AEG for this. They are not the ones who started to promote "the addict" image, they just followed Jacksons clues.
Did Tito's boys testify as to their knowledge regarding Michael's SEVER insomnia issues?
I was just wondering, since they have always "claimed" how close they were to their Uncle Mike.
Did Tito's boys testify as to their knowledge regarding Michael's SEVER insomnia issues?
I was just wondering, since they have always "claimed" how close they were to their Uncle Mike.
As far as I remember, they didn't say anything about MJ's sleeping problem, but Randy said MJ didn't have any problems for sleeping and loved to tour, and he was addict in need for countless intervention, and Tito's boys testified they never saw MJ on under influence.
morinen;3908792 said:Why is the plantiff allowed a rebuttal? Isnt't the defendant supposed to have the last word?