Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[KOPV]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

While I don't think AEG can be fully at fault for MJ's death and the blood is really on Murrays hands however according to California law they do hold some responsibility in the well being of there client Michael Jackson. May not be 100% fair, but they did act recklessly with the circumstances and did have the capability to do something about it.

If AEG stepped up they as they should have for there employee (MJ) Murray would not have done what he did. They fed the belly of the beast that killed him.


In terms if you are in a store and you slip on some water and break your leg, the store is liable for your injury and not having a safe place for customers. While it could be a single employee or customer that spilled that water. They did not keep it safe for Michael and to make it worse they knew the "spill" was there (Yeah they didnt know the content of the spill) but they did nothing to clean it up!!

 

[wednesday]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

If they come back with a not liable verdict it will feel very, very wrong. That's just how I feel.

 

[Neverland_Valley]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

You need to put your fandom aside and think like not fan.

Well, this is a Michael Jackson forum. So you should be allowed to think like a Michael Jackson fan here. Or should we go to an AEG forum instead? (if such a thing even existed)

 

[Bubs]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

In terms if you are in a store and you slip on some water and break your leg, the store is liable for your injury and not having a safe place for customers. While it could be a single employee or customer that spilled that water. They did not keep it safe for Michael and to make it worse they knew the "spill" was there (Yeah they didnt know the content of the spill) but they did nothing to clean it up!!

If I go by your example, what do you say if customer slipped in the water at home and at night time. Do you still hold store should be responsible?


Btw, Michael wasn't AEG's client, he was partner.

Well, this is a Michael Jackson forum. So you should be allowed to think like a Michael Jackson fan here. Or should we go to an AEG forum instead? (if such a thing even existed)

You can support Michael all you like, I'm not denying it
I know this is going to raise some heat, but I say it any way.
I only question whether some fans are biased and support Michael and family not matter if it is right or wrong?

Ivy posted exaxtly what I wanted to say so I leave it at that.

 

[Neverland_Valley]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I voted AEG is liable.

Some reasons:

'A so-called "smoking gun" e-mail sent by AEG Live Co-CEO Paul Gongaware 11 days before Jackson died said, "We want to remind (Murray) that it is AEG, not MJ, who is paying his salary. We want to remind him what is expected of him."

....There is also a television interview soon after Jackson died in which AEG Live CEO Randy Phillips said AEG Live "hired" Murray.

Executives ignored a series of warning signs that Jackson was at risk in his last weeks, including deteriorating health that included weight loss, inability to perform his trademark dances or remember lyrics to his standard songs, and paranoia, the Jacksons argue.

A sleep expert testified that the nightly propofol infusions robbed Jackson of vital REM sleep, which caused the deterioration.'

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/01/showbiz/michael-jackson-death-trial/index.html

edit:
And there is another very important reason to me: I am Michael Jackson fan. My heart goes out to Michael and I have no words to describe my feelings by reading all the harm they did to him.

I don't think what happened was Michael's fault. Michael was under pressure by AEG. AEG didn't care if Michael was well or not, that's the point. I'm convinced if AEG did care for Michael in the right way, Michael would be still alive.

A great posting, maviefly. I just thought I should quote it, so that more people are able to read it.

 

[ivy]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

You need to put your fandom aside and think like not fan.

Excuse me? I guess this is supposed to be a joke.....

No, it wasn't joke. What I meant it when you view testimonies and evidense presented, you need to view them like outsider, like you have no intrest on this trial.
Better yet, if possible when you view testimonies and evidense, take away Michael and put Joe Doe in his place. Would you still agree with your assessment?

Well, this is a Michael Jackson forum. So you should be allowed to think like a Michael Jackson fan here. Or should we go to an AEG forum instead? (if such a thing even existed)

@maviefly @neverland_valley

I think you are taking this the wrong way. Jury in this case is not MJ fans and they would not be approaching this with the biases any MJ fan has. If the goal is to correctly to guess the jury verdict the better approach would be to leave the fan mindset aside while evaluating the evidence presented.

 

[Neverland_Valley]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

@maviefly @neverland_valley

I think you are taking this the wrong way. Jury in this case is not MJ fans and they would not be approaching this with the biases any MJ fan has. If the goal is to correctly to guess the jury verdict the better approach would be to leave the fan mindset aside while evaluating the evidence presented.

We know what you think. We are not here because we want to judge anyone. This is not a court. The way we act is just our attempt at protecting Michael Jackson and his legacy and is also a way of expressing our feelings. I don't expect you to like it.

 

[Bubs]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

@maviefly @neverland_valley

I think you are taking this the wrong way. Jury in this case is not MJ fans and they would not be approaching this with the biases any MJ fan has. If the goal is to correctly to guess the jury verdict the better approach would be to leave the fan mindset aside while evaluating the evidence presented.

That is what I wanted to say, thanks Ivy

 

[ivy]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

If they answered Yes to question 1, then I'm quite sure then MJ's percentage will raise at the end of the verdict form.
Defense has proved a lot of things which I mentioned in my long post, re MJ wanting AEG to hire CM and having CM his personal physician a lot earlier than AEG came into picture.

We don't know for certain if they passed the first question. Like I said they might have voted on it in an hour or they could be still debating about it if they are divided about it.

As I explained before , I wouldn't be surprised with a yes to question 1.

trying as much to be impartial here, I don't think AEG's "contract wasn't signed" was a strong enough point. As a layperson oral contract, negotiations and a contract stating Murray's services starting at May 1 would be enough for me to say he was hired. to me it sounds like murray was hired but the technicalities of the hiring wasn't finished. (and I have been in that position, working before every single thing was in place and working without pay until they are completed. )

as for who hired him , it could have gone between Michael and AEG. But Gongaware's "we want to remind him" email and Phillips's "we hired him" would tip the scale in Jacksons favor.

so yeah I said this months ago and I totally see a yes to question 1 "Aeg hired Murray" as a high possibility. right now we don't know for sure but it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

as far as I'm concerned Question 2 and 3 are a lot more complex in nature. we will wait and see.

 

[ivy]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

We know what you think. We are not here because we want to judge anyone. This is not a court. The way we act is just our attempt at protecting Michael Jackson and his legacy and is also a way of expressing our feelings. I don't expect you to like it.

well this is totally irrelevant to what I wrote. I was just trying to correct a possible misunderstanding. if you want to turn this into something about me, be my guest. But don't expect me to join to it.

 

[Neverland_Valley]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

well this is totally irrelevant to what I wrote. I was just trying to correct a possible misunderstanding. if you want to turn this into something about me, be my guest. But don't expect me to join to it.

I don't think it is irrelevant at all. I hope that this jury (and any jury) is able to decide what they have to decide without being biased. But we are not on court here. So I (and maybe others) just want to be able express my feelings towards this case as a Michael Jackson fan (because this is a Michael Jackson forum, or did I miss something?). I'm sure you understand that.

 

[LastTear]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

We know what you think. We are not here because we want to judge anyone. This is not a court. The way we act is just our attempt at protecting Michael Jackson and his legacy and is also a way of expressing our feelings. I don't expect you to like it.

I'm not sure who the 'we' is. If you mean the members here then one of the reasons this member is in this thread to understand and keep up to date on what is happening in this trial in the hopes that when the jury come back with their verdict that I may have an understanding of what lead them to it.

 

[KOPV]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

If I go by your example, what do you say if customer slipped in the water at home and at night time. Do you still hold store should be responsible?


To that, the way I see it it is very different than that, Michael did not work a 9-5 and there are no jurisdictions of "location" with Mj's profession. It's not like when he stepped out of Staple Center he no longer was with AEG. Everything Michael did at home or anywhere would be basically be "on the clock" and "on work location"..

If a professional athlete does something inappropriate at home, they could lose there spot on there team or kicked out/suspended out of the league.

A Part of AEG roll is to make sure he makes it to perform his shows, that's 24/7 protection.. That is why Murray was brought into the fold in the first place.

 

[Vici]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I don`t see that much editing. In real you can see many performances in full, in reality you can see diffrent performances in full from one song.
Further there are no witnesses or testomony who said the film is a fake and doesn`give the real the situaiton, for exmaple nothing from Karen Faye. The opposite Karen Faye is the reason why there is no footage where Michael is ill. She said to Ortega it should not be filmed and cameras where off on this days.

Maybe I expressed myself wrong. I would more likely to say the movie probably dont show the whole picture. AEG told the jurors "MJ was great amazing, just look at the movie and you'll see"... BUT the performances in that movie was based on the last two days that everyone said was great. How is that a correct picture of MJs overall health (pshysical and emotional) during that period of time?

Yes, Michael was great in the clips shown in the movie, I dont dispute that... but what about those days where music director Michael Bearden wrote an email 11 days before Michael passed that he was not healthy enough yet, that email from Houghdal where he wrote he had watched MJ deteriorate in front of his eyes over the last eight weeks... or the email where he wrote MJ could do multiple 360 spins in April but he would fall on his ass now (in June) and that MJ needed a shrink and a trainer to get healthy. Kennys concern when he saw MJ with chills and he was rambling/trembling/obsessive and had to cut his food and massage his feet, put some blankets on him and help MJ heat up with a fan. Alif Sankey saying the same thing about Michael rambling. Kenny sending MJ home from rehearsal and MJ not showing up to rehearsals.

There's no way to get around this. Michael was NOT feeling good and great the entire time. AEG want to basically take out two days of rehearsals and say thats how great MJ. However, there were times when there were real concerns.. which are not shown in the movie.

 

[Allusio]

I don't think it is irrelevant at all. I hope that this jury (and any jury) is able to decide what they have to decide without being biased. But we are not on court here. So I (and maybe others) just want to be able express my feelings towards this case as a Michael Jackson fan (because this is a Michael Jackson forum, or did I miss something?). I'm sure you understand that.

I’m sure everybody on this forum understands what you are talking about. It is not that you can’t express yourself, your feelings … I myself couldn’t vote AEG not liable just because I feel hurt for Michael and just couldn’t do differently. But some are here not just to express feelings but to understand court things better, for better undrstanding what is happening there. In this case it is really better to think logically and avoid emotions.

 

[Bubs]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

If I go by your example, what do you say if customer slipped in the water at home and at night time. Do you still hold store should be responsible?


To that, the way I see it it is very different than that, Michael did not work a 9-5 and there are no jurisdictions of "location" with Mj's profession. It's not like when he stepped out of Staple Center he no longer was with AEG. Everything Michael did at home or anywhere would be basically be "on the clock" and "on work location"..

If a professional athlete does something inappropriate at home, they could lose there spot on there team or kicked out/suspended out of the league.

A Part of AEG roll is to make sure he makes it to perform his shows, that's 24/7 protection.. That is why Murray was brought into the fold in the first place.

You put a big responsibility on AEG's shoulder, so big that to me it looks like they were supposed to be MJ's baby-sitters. Since when parters are responsible other partners conduct and what is going on in his own time?

As for last paragraph. AEG didn't know why CM was brought in the first place, or did you hear anyone testify it on this trial, because I certainly missed that. All AEG knew why CM was there was that he was MJ's personal doc and was to provide general medical care, and don't tell me it includes propofol.

You are talking about AEG's responsibility, will we talk about Michael's responsibility too?
Did he have any responsibilities towards AEG and to fulfill his side of their partnership?

 

[Bubs]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 12m
Day 4 of deliberations. Jury began work at 9:37 am PT. Several attorneys here today: Kevin Boyle, Brian Panish, Marvin Putnam, Kathryn Cahan

ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 15m
Hello from the courthouse in downtown LA. Day 90 of Jackson family vs AEG trial -- Week 22!


I wonder if the attorneys are expecting jury to give a verdict today or why they are gathering to court house?

 

[KOPV]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

If AEG had no responisibility than Michael would never had the need to have the conversation with them about having a dr.. For what? If they have no liability or aid in that than Michael would have hired him and that is that..

Michael was not going to pay Conrad, if he was going to he would have and never gotten AEG invloved!

And yes I am holding big responsibility on AEG's shoulders, if they didnt have that, the case would not be happening... That's the whole case reasoning right there.

Do I think they are at fault for MJ's death? no.. But legally they hold some responsibility for what happens to the artists they work with, and when you bring in a provided dr (even under wishes of MJ) they are responsible for the treatment he/she gives.

If my job had home medical care, and I said can we OK a specific dr, and they he/she comes to my house and shoots me in the face.. my paper my family would be able to sue the person that shot me, and the company that brought him to that position.


I did say it's not fully fair to AEG, but it is law.

 

[LastTear]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

@KOPV Your family could try to sue but might be unsuccessful of the doctor was not hired negligently.

 

[Bubs]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Do I think they are at fault for MJ's death? no.. But legally they hold some responsibility for what happens to the artists they work with, and when you bring in a provided dr (even under wishes of MJ) they are responsible for the treatment he/she gives.

I thought judge already decided that AEG cannot be hold responsible of CM's treatment as they were not qualified?

 

[KOPV]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

^ I think for specific treatment you are right.. But from my understanding with the verbal agreement that stood place, they are responsible for the condition of Michael due to the doctors actions. If that makes sense!

We will all know the deal when verdict comes in, those are people that were there every day and studied every aspect of this. I trust the jury and whatever they come with I will respect it..

What I've said is soley on what my understanding is... Ive heard of someone suing over someone that died in home hospice care and winning in the state of california.. So I don't think it's too far fetched for someone winning a case like this.

And while AEG may have not negligently hired Conrad, they negligently did not care for Michael.. Emails have shown that, they knew full well something was wrong, had full capability of changing it. Never once was there document of emails or anything that shows them refering of getting rid of Conrad due to how Michaels physical state was.

They talked crap about the way he was, they said he needed help, and I believe at one point confronted Murray (which Im not sure what document proves that) but they never attempted to get rid of him.. if there was a of any kind saying that they brought reason of suspicoun on Murrays treatment to Michael and Michael said that he still demands him.. THAN if that was the case that would take all responsibility off of AEGs hands... Or would it, because they SHOULD say if you want the concerts to continue you will have to get rid of murray and we can appoint a dr for you. That's how they are supposed to act in the situation.

Do they own all liability.. NOOO! Conrad is #1 to blame, and MJ had his issues that needed tending to by HIM.. But that also does not justify the lacking issues on AEG's part..

 

[Tygger]

Seems Wass took notes when she was the defense's guest during the civil trial on a few occasions.

Regarding the pie chart… AEG maintains Michael is 100% at fault, the plaintiffs assign Michael 20%. Which does one prefer? Assuming the jurors will increase the percentage above 20% as opposed to lowering it is just that; an assumption. The plaintiffs gave a fair reduction to the damages with 20%. Had they said 0%, many would continue the “Jacksons are greedy” chorus.

Anyway, onwards and upwards, what were you saying about question 3?

Last Tear, I answered in the affirmative to question three and used evidence to support it. I have seen many posts stating question 2 and 3 are complicated. Be that as it may, the questions have to be answered and they have to have evidence to support it. I would like to see the four questions answered in the negative with evidence from the trial.

Bubs referred to the affirmative defense and the comparative fault of decedent. How did AEG prove that? What evidence points to that? I should believe AEG is not liable because they found doctors to testify to Michael being a “secretive addict” many years before 2009 in their view?

No one disputes Michael chose the doctor. One can say he was hired for general care however, reality showed otherwise. The doctor was hired to deal with Michael’s sleep issues. By stating simply Michael’s demise is his fault 100%, AEG absolves the doctor and in turn themselves if any juror believes they hired him and/or view a relationship between AEG and the doctor.

I say honestly, I couldn’t vote AEG not liable … Somehow I just couldn’t do it.

You do not have to and it is rude for anyone to suggest that a vote for AEG being liable is simply an emotional vote or one is simply relying on their fandom as opposed to evidence.

I don`t see that much editing. In real you can see many performances in full, in reality you can see diffrent performances in full from one song.

Please state which song(s) is a performance in full and is not an edited performance. It will make it easier for those who want to review TII.

If I go by your example, what do you say if customer slipped in the water at home and at night time. Do you still hold store should be responsible?

Did the employee spill the water? Was the customer's home considered the workplace?

Maivefly, again, the trial is only as complicated as one wants to make it. As I said before: to say AEG is not liable is simple and logical oftentimes in this subforum; to say AEG is liable is complicated and illogical. No juror has taken a comprehension test to decide the facts of this case. They will only look at the evidence as we have attempted to do in this subforum through the court transcripts, media articles and tweets available to us.

You can look at the evidence that shows AEG’s treatment to Michael and if you feel repulsed, you are free to. That treatment supports the conflict that AEG created when they allegedly and negligently hired the doctor. The plaintiffs have never stated to find AEG liable because they have been rude to their business partner. The plaintiffs have effectively used that rude treatment to support the conflict of interest AEG created for the doctor.

I believe the discussion where one’s fandom is questioned should cease. I remember posters supporting Phillips who testified Michael could do multiple spins and that the plaintiffs were incorrect when they showcased Hougdahl’s email were he stated his fear that if Michael did his trademark, multiple 360 spins, he may possibly harm himself. I remember posting a video that showed what Michael’s trademark, multiple 360 spins looked like and those spins were not in TII. I did not question any posters’ fandom because they did not know the difference or ignored the difference in order to support the defense’s witness who was woefully incorrect.

 

[Korgnex]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

In terms if you are in a store and you slip on some water and break your leg, the store is liable for your injury and not having a safe place for customers. While it could be a single employee or customer that spilled that water. They did not keep it safe for Michael and to make it worse they knew the "spill" was there (Yeah they didnt know the content of the spill) but they did nothing to clean it up!!

If only you were still in that store... That analogy doesn't work since Michael was given propofol secretly in a locked room in his own rented mansion. They can't invade Michael's privacy like that to keep it "safe" there from unethical doctors. Even if they loaned Michael the money for that mansion, an habitation, especially a bedroom was taboo for them.

 

[GreenEyes]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

AEG is probably going to lose and will have to pay damages. That's my prediction.:yes:

 

[rsggamer123]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

All I know is the longer it takes the worse it looks for AEG and right now it's beginning to not look good for them. I originally voted not liable but if I could vote now I would definitely be leaning towards liable.

 

[jamba]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Do you think successful verdict is if KJ wins?
Maybe for you and Jackson family, but don't forget a "little" hitch on the way.
If jury finds AEG negligent hiring CM, then they go to awards and start thinking of responsibility percentage.
Panish put out this pie chart

Plaintiffs (meaning Katherine) already gave in and said that MJ is 20% responsible of his own death.

Have you listen the testimonies in this trial? Do you think that MJ's responsibility is going to stay @20%. I'm sorry, but if jury decides AEG negligently hired CM, I can quarantee that percentage for MJ is going to be more than 20%.
Plaintiffs did not prove that anyone at AEG was aware of propofol treatement. Jurors also heard from many medical personnel that they warned MJ that propofol is dangerous.You may want to insert in here that MJ trusted to doctors to monitor him, but that is not AEG's fault that MJ trusted on doctors. They also heard MJ wanted CM despite AEG offering to find another doctor for him from UK. Jurors also heard that MJ wanted CM and he was MJ's doc prior AEG came to picture. Jurors also heard that CM ordered propfol,whether he used it or not prior he was indrtoduced to AEG, but it shows the MJ and CM had intention to use propfol whether or not AEG agreed to any contract.
They also heard that MJ had propofol before, and asked it for treatments that really didn't require anesthesia. Jurors also heard from certain family members and their so called "interventions" and how they failed, which shows that MJ did not listen even his family members and family couldn't help him. You may want to insert here that we know those family members were talking shite, as we know how they operate, but then again if jurors are not fans like us, they believe those family members and think they told the truth, which is that MJ was in constant need for interventions.

Then in comes personal responsibility of your own health. I just ask you 1 question, who is responsible of your own health?

Also on jury instructions page 56
http://www.scribd.com/doc/170454633/Jackson-vs-AEG-Live-Final-Jury-Instructions
Affirmative defense - Patients duty to provide his or her own well-being
A patient must use reasonable care to provide for his or her own well-being.
AEG live claims that MJ death was caused by his own negligent in conncetion with his medical care. To succeed, AEG must prove of the following: That MJ did not use reasonable care to provide for his own well-being, and
that MJ failure to use reasonable care in conncetion with his medical care was a substancial factor in causing his harm.

and next page on jury instruction - Comparitive fault of Decedent
AEG live claims that MJ's own negligence contributed to his death. To succeed on this claim, AEG must prove both of the following:
1 That MJ was negligent, and
2 That MJ negligent was substancial factor in causing his death.

Now consider what evidense defence showed to prove this part.

In case AEG loses and jurors get this far, this part is going to push MJ share on that pie chart higher than 20%.
What if they put MJ share to 90%, do you think that is right?
Plaintiffs wins, AEG wins, CM wins and the only one who loses is MJ.

You posted this earlier:



Even if the jury finds AEG negligent for hiring CM, the outcome still can be MJ's fault as I meantioned above. Think about it, if they find MJ percentage highier than Panish put in his pie chart.

Yes, to this post, Bubs.

Also CM ordered propofol first time on April 6th, but his contract final draft that he signed put the start date for work as May 1st. This is a big discrepancy. He ordered the propofol before contract start date. Under whose authority/request did he order the propofol on April 6th--who can argue it was under AEG and not MJ's auspices and awareness?

 

[jamba]

Seems Wass took notes when she was the defense's guest during the civil trial on a few occasions.

Regarding the pie chart… AEG maintains Michael is 100% at fault, the plaintiffs assign Michael 20%. Which does one prefer? Assuming the jurors will increase the percentage above 20% as opposed to lowering it is just that; an assumption. The plaintiffs gave a fair reduction to the damages with 20%. Had they said 0%, many would continue the “Jacksons are greedy” chorus.



Last Tear, I answered in the affirmative to question three and used evidence to support it. I have seen many posts stating question 2 and 3 are complicated. Be that as it may, the questions have to be answered and they have to have evidence to support it. I would like to see the four questions answered in the negative with evidence from the trial.

Bubs referred to the affirmative defense and the comparative fault of decedent. How did AEG prove that? What evidence points to that? I should believe AEG is not liable because they found doctors to testify to Michael being a “secretive addict” many years before 2009 in their view?

No one disputes Michael chose the doctor. One can say he was hired for general care however, reality showed otherwise. The doctor was hired to deal with Michael’s sleep issues. By stating simply Michael’s demise is his fault 100%, AEG absolves the doctor and in turn themselves if any juror believes they hired him and/or view a relationship between AEG and the doctor.



You do not have to and it is rude for anyone to suggest that a vote for AEG being liable is simply an emotional vote or one is simply relying on their fandom as opposed to evidence.



Please state which song(s) is a performance in full and is not an edited performance. It will make it easier for those who want to review TII.



Did the employee spill the water? Was the customer's home considered the workplace?

Maivefly, again, the trial is only as complicated as one wants to make it. As I said before: to say AEG is not liable is simple and logical oftentimes in this subforum; to say AEG is liable is complicated and illogical. No juror has taken a comprehension test to decide the facts of this case. They will only look at the evidence as we have attempted to do in this subforum through the court transcripts, media articles and tweets available to us.

You can look at the evidence that shows AEG’s treatment to Michael and if you feel repulsed, you are free to. That treatment supports the conflict that AEG created when they allegedly and negligently hired the doctor. The plaintiffs have never stated to find AEG liable because they have been rude to their business partner. The plaintiffs have effectively used that rude treatment to support the conflict of interest AEG created for the doctor.

I believe the discussion where one’s fandom is questioned should cease. I remember posters supporting Phillips who testified Michael could do multiple spins and that the plaintiffs were incorrect when they showcased Hougdahl’s email were he stated his fear that if Michael did his trademark, multiple 360 spins, he may possibly harm himself. I remember posting a video that showed what Michael’s trademark, multiple 360 spins looked like and those spins were not in TII. I did not question any posters’ fandom because they did not know the difference or ignored the difference in order to support the defense’s witness who was woefully incorrect.

Re the TII unedited rehearsals--I believe that the Billie Jean rehearsal was unedited--does anyone know when that was filmed??? I would really like to know. Also the duet with Judity Hill IJCSLY was unedited to my knowledge.

Would like to say I agree so much with your comment re not questioning other people's fandom. I am so sick and tired of that. Enough!!!

 

[jamba]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

^ I think for specific treatment you are right.. But from my understanding with the verbal agreement that stood place, they are responsible for the condition of Michael due to the doctors actions. If that makes sense!

We will all know the deal when verdict comes in, those are people that were there every day and studied every aspect of this. I trust the jury and whatever they come with I will respect it..

What I've said is soley on what my understanding is... Ive heard of someone suing over someone that died in home hospice care and winning in the state of california.. So I don't think it's too far fetched for someone winning a case like this.

And while AEG may have not negligently hired Conrad, they negligently did not care for Michael.. Emails have shown that, they knew full well something was wrong, had full capability of changing it. Never once was there document of emails or anything that shows them refering of getting rid of Conrad due to how Michaels physical state was.

They talked crap about the way he was, they said he needed help, and I believe at one point confronted Murray (which Im not sure what document proves that) but they never attempted to get rid of him.. if there was a of any kind saying that they brought reason of suspicoun on Murrays treatment to Michael and Michael said that he still demands him.. THAN if that was the case that would take all responsibility off of AEGs hands... Or would it, because they SHOULD say if you want the concerts to continue you will have to get rid of murray and we can appoint a dr for you. That's how they are supposed to act in the situation.

Do they own all liability.. NOOO! Conrad is #1 to blame, and MJ had his issues that needed tending to by HIM.. But that also does not justify the lacking issues on AEG's part..

AEG did try and get rid of CM--RP called MJ and had a one-on-one conversation where he tried to get him to hire a UK dr but MJ was not having it. They did not want CM at all.

With hindsight we can say 'they should have known it was CM who was responsible for MJ's decline"--but remember MJ had more than one dr--they did not know who was the problem and suspected Klein. MJ told them he needed CM for the Tour performances--not for rehearsals. He said he needed CM for issues during actual performances where he was going to stress his body with a 90 minute high level workout, suffering dehydration and maybe injuries or even a heart attack. They had no idea why MJ needed/wanted CM before they got to London.

 

[MIST]

Murrays lawyers saw much more footage from This is it rehearsals trying to find a tired and drugged man,That footage wasn´t edited.
The judge in the Murray trial saw it too and they didn´t find it.
It wasn´t just footage from the last evenings.

 

[KOPV]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

If only you were still in that store... That analogy doesn't work since Michael was given propofol secretly in a locked room in his own rented mansion. They can't invade Michael's privacy like that to keep it "safe" there from unethical doctors. Even if they loaned Michael the money for that mansion, an habitation, especially a bedroom was taboo for them.

The analogy does still work because his home was the hospital setting.. somewhat like home hospice care. Where would the jeristictions be in your train of thought? At the Staple Center?? And as to he was going to be hired in London, where was he to be treated by Murray?? Of course in his home in London! Murray does not have a place to practice there.

We would be foolish to think that AEG would have any envolvement and not hold any liability for the DR.. We have to remember one thing here, AEG had full rights to demand a specific DR or list of DR's.. Even jobs when you look for a theropist they expect you to go by the guidelines of who they are willing to allow you to have according to ensurence reasons..

That was mistake 1 with AEG!

I think it's rediculous to think that Michael would have the need to get the OK for DR. Murray by AEG yet they would hold no responsibility for what the DR does.. Companies are liable for what they provide to there employees, partners, clients... Even if the employee asks for it!