Murray is the one that should've been sued.. he will tell her what happened to her son because he killed him.. yet she didn't go after him because he had no money.. when he gets out in a couple of weeks he will have more money than Katherine's cubs..
Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG
- Thread starter ivy
- Start date
- Status
Petrarose
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 9,574
- Points
- 0
They may have stayed away because they want it to look as though this is Katherine's case. Where will Jermaine find the money for that investment in Asia? Who is going to give Randy & Rebbie money?
About TMez, you know I respect him as Micahel's lawyer talking about the allegations, but maybe he should not insert himself in any more Randy schemes so that he does not lose his credibility. I am sure if he was studying ALL the evidence, looked at the questions as a disinterested lawyer, or was AEG's lawyer, he would say something different.
Bonnie Blue
Proud Member
Sorry, passy, it's not a fact, it's your interpretation. To ask 'was murray qualified'ie got the doctor's training, is not in the jury instructions, it is 'was murray fit or competent to do general health duties'. To me the words in the jury instructions suggested you would be considering how he practised his doctor's training on mj - and to me he showed incompetence in basic care eg with the evident decline in mj's wellbeing, the weight loss, the insomnia. Anyway, the jury obviously didn't see it that way and they're the important ones in all this but don't tell me the jury don't do any interpreting, that's their job. If we're discussing a question, it means there is interpretation.
More detail
Jury Foreman explains their reasoning behind Katherine Jackson vs. AEG verdict:
The jury foreman, juror number six Greg Barden, said outside the courtroom he felt the appropriate verdict was reached. “We reached a verdict that we understand not everybody is going to agree with,” he said.
Barden also revealed that the wording of the second question on the jury form – asking if Murray was “unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired” – narrowed the jurors’ decision. Barden said jurors thought the second question -- which said, "Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?" -- was confusing and took some time, and several votes, to work out. In the end, they voted 10-2 to answer "No." He said one of the key pieces of evidence was the contract between Murray and AEG.
“Conrad Murray was hired to be a general practitioner. Conrad Murray had a license. He graduated from an accredited college… "We felt he was competent," Darden said. “That doesn’t mean we felt he was ethical, and maybe if the word ‘ethical’ was in the question, it might have been a different outcome,” he said. “In the end, he was very unethical. He did something he shouldn’t have done. "
"There are really no winners in this," jury foreman Gregg Darden said. "Somebody had to die for us to be here. ... It was really a tragic situation."
-------------------------------
edited to add
ABC7 Court News
Juror 9, Kevin Smith, told us they could not answer yes to question 2, because Dr. Murray was fit and competent for the job he was hired. He said Dr. Murray was to be a general practitioner doctor, to treat Michael and his children. He didn't have any malpractice lawsuit.
Jury Foreman explains their reasoning behind Katherine Jackson vs. AEG verdict:
The jury foreman, juror number six Greg Barden, said outside the courtroom he felt the appropriate verdict was reached. “We reached a verdict that we understand not everybody is going to agree with,” he said.
Barden also revealed that the wording of the second question on the jury form – asking if Murray was “unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired” – narrowed the jurors’ decision. Barden said jurors thought the second question -- which said, "Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?" -- was confusing and took some time, and several votes, to work out. In the end, they voted 10-2 to answer "No." He said one of the key pieces of evidence was the contract between Murray and AEG.
“Conrad Murray was hired to be a general practitioner. Conrad Murray had a license. He graduated from an accredited college… "We felt he was competent," Darden said. “That doesn’t mean we felt he was ethical, and maybe if the word ‘ethical’ was in the question, it might have been a different outcome,” he said. “In the end, he was very unethical. He did something he shouldn’t have done. "
"There are really no winners in this," jury foreman Gregg Darden said. "Somebody had to die for us to be here. ... It was really a tragic situation."
-------------------------------
edited to add
ABC7 Court News
Juror 9, Kevin Smith, told us they could not answer yes to question 2, because Dr. Murray was fit and competent for the job he was hired. He said Dr. Murray was to be a general practitioner doctor, to treat Michael and his children. He didn't have any malpractice lawsuit.
As a lawyer, TM should know the jurors had to base their decisions on what was going on at the time the events took place.
Sometimes he says things that shows he can get blind sided. He's an attorney and he knows how the law works.
Snow White luvs Peter Pan
Proud Member
AEG is liable indeed, but I'm glad Katherine, Randy, Jermaine and whoever else agreed with that disgusting lawsuit aren't gonna recieve any penny. The biggest looser as usual is Michael!
i am happy to hear this news~
no matter whether the estate will pay the last bills(that's not so important for me), what i saw so importent is the love( that really doesn't exist in jackson family, we all see now).
as an mature man,michael was so kind,always said little about his family,his mother. he always said he loved his mother.
but what his mother did after his death, sad me. i feel so sick in the last four years ,by watching the Jackson's family "playing for money" .
do they have the real love for michael???
no matter whether the estate will pay the last bills(that's not so important for me), what i saw so importent is the love( that really doesn't exist in jackson family, we all see now).
as an mature man,michael was so kind,always said little about his family,his mother. he always said he loved his mother.
but what his mother did after his death, sad me. i feel so sick in the last four years ,by watching the Jackson's family "playing for money" .
do they have the real love for michael???
Last edited:
I'm finding it astounding what TM is saying in the interview, he is saying CM is incompetent for what he was hired for, but at the end of the day he was not hired to administer propofol which we all know is the reason Michael died and AEG had no knowledge of him doing so as it as behind closed doors and at night, he was hired as a general practitioner for which there isn't any reason to assume he was not competent.
qbee
Proud Member
The fact Murray was competent and fit to do the job he was hired for doesn't negate the fact that he was negligent in doing that. He was capable but chose to be careless and unethical in administering propofol without proper equiptment and left Michael Alone , unmonitored. AEg didn't hire Murray for that and knew nothing about that. He was fit and capable to do what they hired him for... so they were not negligent in doing that. Dr Murray was the negligent one.
for instance an accountant is fit and capable to do his job as an accountant but if he chooses to commit fraud, or do something illegal that doesn't mean he wasn't fit or capable to do hi job right.. just that he chose not to ..
This verdict is not going to help Murray's appeal because it does't negate the fact of the unethical negligent treatment Murray gave to Michael despite him being capable and fit to do the right thing as a Dr... He didnt.
sophie
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 172
- Points
- 0
who knows, murray could still end up being one.. since katherine didn't ask for restitution murray is now free to badmouth mj and get paid for it when he gets out of jail in a few weeks..
this whole situation just makes me sad.
Thats because they put AEG's billions over Michael - only now they have neither,
Good work Jackson's that one certainly backfired - but don't worry we will have the agony and turmoil of when CM is released, cheers I will raise a glass for you all - NOT
crillon
Proud Member
This verdict restores my faith in the justice system, not to mention karma. This is the verdict AEG and the Jacksons deserved.
Last edited:
Autumn II
Proud Member
I am glad this is OVER. I was not invested in any particular verdict, but mostly wish this trial had never happened. I was leaning slightly toward a Jacksons win, NOT because they deserved another red-cent, but because they might have then stopped looking at Michael's children as the only money-stream for the "cubs." I can only imagine the darkness in the Jackson household tonight. . . . .
There was no "smoking gun" in this trial. No AEG hidden agenda was revealed. I didn't expect there to be. My opinion continues to be, that Katherine, and other Jacksons, do not understand that protecting Michael's children (and all the children in their family) is their covenant, and their responsibility. This was a FAIL. This trial damaged Michael's children, pretty sure. And, the Jacksons gambled, and LOST. They declined restitution from Murray, and now he will be everywhere when he is released. The talk-shows. The books. Maybe even the reality show? I shudder to even think of it, actually. Instead the Jacksons went for the gold, and the gold was not theirs to have. As Gaz said, now maybe Randy will have to get a JOB?
I doubt there will be an appeal, or if it's even possible for the plaintiffs to appeal a verdict in a civil suit? (maybe Ivy knows?) If the Jacksons had won, the appeals would have been a permanent condition on mass media. AEG would have appealed until Armageddon, and beyond.
There was no smoking gun. No hidden "truths" were revealed. This was just a time-wasting and expensive FAIL, that caused Michael's children even more grief than they already must carry as a burden.
There was no "smoking gun" in this trial. No AEG hidden agenda was revealed. I didn't expect there to be. My opinion continues to be, that Katherine, and other Jacksons, do not understand that protecting Michael's children (and all the children in their family) is their covenant, and their responsibility. This was a FAIL. This trial damaged Michael's children, pretty sure. And, the Jacksons gambled, and LOST. They declined restitution from Murray, and now he will be everywhere when he is released. The talk-shows. The books. Maybe even the reality show? I shudder to even think of it, actually. Instead the Jacksons went for the gold, and the gold was not theirs to have. As Gaz said, now maybe Randy will have to get a JOB?
I doubt there will be an appeal, or if it's even possible for the plaintiffs to appeal a verdict in a civil suit? (maybe Ivy knows?) If the Jacksons had won, the appeals would have been a permanent condition on mass media. AEG would have appealed until Armageddon, and beyond.
There was no smoking gun. No hidden "truths" were revealed. This was just a time-wasting and expensive FAIL, that caused Michael's children even more grief than they already must carry as a burden.
crillon
Proud Member
Why is the Estate in this position? These legal costs should be paid by Katherine from her monthly allowance. She queued this up and now SHE and her cubs should pay the price. I know that may sound harsh, but her pursuit of this lawsuit did so much damage to Michael's legacy and invaded his privacy and for that she doesn't deserve forgiveness or her legal bills paid, especially by Michael's Estate! imo
Bonnie Blue;3913033 said:
The jury foreman, juror number six Greg Barden, said outside the courtroom he felt the appropriate verdict was reached. “We reached a verdict that we understand not everybody is going to agree with,” he said.
Barden also revealed that the wording of the second question on the jury form – asking if Murray was “unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired” – narrowed the jurors’ decision. Barden said jurors thought the second question -- which said, "Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?" -- was confusing and took some time, and several votes, to work out. In the end, they voted 10-2 to answer "No." He said one of the key pieces of evidence was the contract between Murray and AEG.
“Conrad Murray was hired to be a general practitioner. Conrad Murray had a license. He graduated from an accredited college… "We felt he was competent," Darden said. “That doesn’t mean we felt he was ethical, and maybe if the word ‘ethical’ was in the question, it might have been a different outcome,” he said. “In the end, he was very unethical. He did something he shouldn’t have done. "
"There are really no winners in this," jury foreman Gregg Darden said. "Somebody had to die for us to be here. ... It was really a tragic situation."
Victory22
Proud Member
Exactly! I thought they told the judge early on in the trial that they needed to be in the courtroom with Mother because she was so old and fragile yet today they let her face the bad news alone.
crillon
Proud Member
“Conrad Murray was hired to be a general practitioner. Conrad Murray had a license. He graduated from an accredited college… "We felt he was competent,"
Exactly. Had there been sanctions by medical boards due to malpractice lawsuits, etc. that could have been discovered with a background check, the jury would have answered that question differently. But, Murray checked out (even though AEG didn't run a screen) and could practice medicine in several states. He was competent to practice according to the medical boards who licensed him.
Exactly. Had there been sanctions by medical boards due to malpractice lawsuits, etc. that could have been discovered with a background check, the jury would have answered that question differently. But, Murray checked out (even though AEG didn't run a screen) and could practice medicine in several states. He was competent to practice according to the medical boards who licensed him.
yeah I noticed that too... they didn't show up.. they allowed her to face the news alone.. I bet big head Steven is pissed..
the only thing |'m 'glad' about if you wanna call it being 'glad/happy' is the fact that they weren't rewarded for all the harm they caused Michael. Them throwing Michael under the bus, calling him every disgusting name under the sun, having paid experts there to further sully his name got them nothing. So much resentment toward him, so much hatred, so much anger, they invested so much time and emotions in this case and it got them nothing. I'm glad they weren't rewarded for their ****ery.
Last edited:
Severus Snape
Proud Member
It's finally over... thank goodness.
CherubimII
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6,484
- Points
- 83
I hope this verdict does not put more family pressures unto Michael Jackson's children.
I pray that now Katherine Jackson will concentrate on creating a loving protective environment for Prince, Paris, and Blanket. :angel:
I pray that now Katherine Jackson will concentrate on creating a loving protective environment for Prince, Paris, and Blanket. :angel:
Snow White luvs Peter Pan
Proud Member
I'm also glad it's over but it worries me those vultures will haunt and use more to make money those poor things PPB... :sigh:
Katherine sat up there and allowed her other kids in addition to her attorneys and 'hired experts' to degrade her son and call him all kinds of names all for money... she did nothing to help her son herself so why would she expect AEG to help him when she did nothing herself? she deserved nothing for what she did to MJ.. She was right there in April, May and June 2009 visiting her son and wanting him to join in the AllGOOD show instead of taking care of him and getting him some help..
I am happy with this verdict and I commend the jury. IMO this trial did not help MJ's legacy but even more damage was done to the Jackson family b/c a lot of people saw it as a big money grab. So maybe people will have more understanding of what MJ went through in his life now, not only with his injuries and illnesses, but also with a nonsupportive and demanding family always wanting him to do more for them even when he was facing huge obstacles.
I hope this will be a wake-up call for Mrs. J to start putting first things first, which is not billions of $$ but the wellbeing of the young children who depend on her as their guardian. I hope she will do some soul-searching and become a better person as a result of losing this lawsuit.
I hope this will be a wake-up call for Mrs. J to start putting first things first, which is not billions of $$ but the wellbeing of the young children who depend on her as their guardian. I hope she will do some soul-searching and become a better person as a result of losing this lawsuit.
Severus Snape
Proud Member
One can only hope.
It's too bad the Jacksons simply can't accept they aren't in any way remarkable outside of their relationship to Michael and his children. They need to accept reality and learn to live modestly. It is not at all within their right to have a piece of the pie that is the MJ legacy/estate, so I hope they realise this and leave MJ3 alone.
I have no idea why they think they need to live large to be happy. They're all clearly unhappy people whose only motivation in life seems to be finding novel ways to leech off their dead brother (who, by the way, left them out if his will for a reason, one ought to think).
Petrarose
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 9,574
- Points
- 0
^^I agree. Walgren wanted a restitution, which Panish advised Katherine not to take because it would reduce the amount they could recover from AEG. She said no to the restitution, and gambled on the AEG case. She lost.
Panish's firm spent all those millions and they only charge if they win. They will have to win a big settlement now to cover that loss. Katherine added a lawyer that deals with appeals. I think you have about 60 days to appeal, so maybe the lawyer is already writing the brief?
- Status