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

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

POSTPONING THE SHOWS! If only it was that easy.

I remember, like it was yesterday, when it was announced that "A FEW" of the shows would have to be pushed back do to production matters.

SOME of Michael's fans nearly lost their minds. Folks, or should I say, Michael's fans were calling him all out his name. The reaction to that news was swift AND it was ugly.

Had he and/or they cancelled those shows there would have been a full out riot, in my opinion.

You misread my post. You're supporting my point. Aeg had a conflict - mj's health was up against going ahead with the tii tour. They chose the tii tour. They just crossed their fingers that somehow mj cd pull off this amazingly arduous 50 date tour, despite phillips seeing the state mj was in before the press conf and had to acknowledge in emails afterwards that there was going to be a problem to get mj on stage, and despite seeing how mj was deteriorating in health and fitness instead of improving before the rigours of the tour had even started. I don't think a reasonable layperson would see the 50 yr old mj described during this trial as being fit and able to handle this all singing, all dancing 50 date tour.

 

[Autumn II]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I'll just say that my attempt to answer the questions on the jury form are my opinions, only, and I won't be debating any of that. It just is what it is, and others might have other viewpoints, and that's just fine. It's not really possible to guess, even educated guessing, what a jury will do! Like in the Casey Anthony case, where the verdict seemed obvious -- and then she was acquitted (and there are a lot of other similar examples). So there remains that wild-card of . . . . just not knowing what any jury will do. I do think that juries rely on common-sense a lot more than some people may realize? Some of the complicated details might be lost in the deliberations?

Not sure of the law here, but I don't think that Katherine's projected life-span is part of the deliberations (if it gets that far) about amount of settlement. If she wins and actually GETS that settlement (there would probably be endless appeals. . .), that money then would be HERS, and her heirs would inherit upon her death.

I have NO idea at this point what the jury will do. . . . . .

 

[Mechi]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

A bank usually doesn't make contracts with ppl working for you or negotiates those or cares what you pay these ppl.

A bank usually doesn't calls in meetings with ppl working for you.

A bank usually doesn't even care too much what you're doing with the money it's lending you.



A bank only gives you money and only cares if you pay back in time according to the agreement you have with that bank.



That's to me not really comparable to the role AEG had in this...

 

[ivy]

Question No. 2
Was Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?[/B]


Yes. To me, key here is “the work for which he was hired.” I assume that in a general sense, that was to provide medical care for Michael. He did that. He killed him. This may seem far too simple, but it’s not impossible that the jury will give a lot of weight to this particular fact. Murray killed Michael.

yes but aren't you talking about hindsight? I take it as they need to answer this question as the hiring date - may 1st or whatever. I think they need to answer this with the information of cardiologist and internal medicine, licensed in 4 states, 2 clinics and perhaps in debt part.

Bit worried they are watching TII...I'm not sure it will help much..... Now if the 'suppressed' footage was available, that would be a different matter .....

I wonder if this means that they have got past the discussion of 'was Murray hired?', and they are working on 'how much compensation?' already.

Putnam asked them to watch it and I take it as they are watching it. Panish wasn't that fond of them watching it.

As for voting, I would say that it is too early for voting IMO. Again jurors don't go into deliberations with "let's vote", they should be discussing it first.

Independent contractor agreement?

What EXACTLY is an "Independent contractor agreement"?

Can somebody break that down for those of us who are not familiar with that term. Thank you.

Isn't it a copy of CM's contract?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/158739657/Murray-AEG-June-23-Contract

They want to read it, which is good. There they see with their very own eyes what was CM supposed to do.
General medical care. And it only take 4 jurors to say no for 1 of 5 questions, then it is all over for plaintiffs.

yes, they asked for Murray's agreement. It is called "independent contractor agreement"

 

[LastTear]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Please understand that for AEG to know the doctor was administering propofol is hindsight!

They should have understood that when they inserted themselves into the doctor-patient relationship the doctor would be beholden to them and not the patient. This is the risk!

The doctor became conflicted because he did what was necessary to receive payment. As a conflicted doctor Michael was to receive substandard care because the doctor was more concerned about satisfying his responsibility to AEG first and his patient second. You do not need to know what that care is!!

The jury questions donot include the phrase "general medical care." The written contract only the doctor signed does.

Although the jury questions does not include 'general medical care' it does include 'for work for which he was hired' - if I was asked that question I would first need to establish the job description before I could answer.

 

[Big Apple2]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I'm a bit jealous of jurors. They are having a coke and watching TII

Shoot, I'm jealous also.

Add some RUM to that coke, put in the TII video and it's a party. Hey!

 

[Big Apple2]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Putnam asked them to watch it and I take it as they are watching it. Panish wasn't that fond of them watching it.

Thanks ivy. I was just going to ask about that.

But what would be the purpose of the jury watching it? Why did Mr. Putnam make that suggestion. I'm lost as to it's importance.

 

[qbee]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Although the jury questions does not include 'general medical care' it does include 'for work for which he was hired' - if I was asked that question I would first need to establish the job description before I could answer.

I agree to answer they need to look at the job description for which Murray was hired for. Was he capable to do what he was hired for as laid out in the contract. I think the Jury will look to the contract to see what he was hired for.

 

[rsggamer123]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I would say its bad for AEG if the jurors are watching TII. Would probably mean they have moved past question one and question two, the two most important IMO.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

yes but aren't you talking about hindsight? I take it as they need to answer this question as the hiring date - may 1st or whatever.

Why, it's not in the jury instructions. Was murray fit and competent to carry out general medical care. Seeing mj deteriorated in the 2 months murray was hired to be his doctor, got thinner, missed rehearsals, needed 'intervention' meetings, i would say he was pretty poor at his job. Even murray was forced to admit mj was declining and yet cd offer no explanation to aeg.

 

[Big Apple2]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

They chose the tii tour. They just crossed their fingers that somehow mj cd pull off this amazingly arduous 50 date tour, despite phillips seeing the state mj was in before the press conf and had to acknowledge in emails afterwards that there was going to be a problem to get mj on stage, and despite seeing how mj was deteriorating in health and fitness instead of improving before the rigours of the tour had even started. I don't think a reasonable layperson would see the 50 yr old mj described during this trial as being fit and able to handle this all singing, all dancing 50 date tour.

This "THEY" that you speak of, does that include Michael, or was he not part of the "THEY" and the "THEY" to which you speak of just made decisions for Michael and he had no input. Is that what you are saying?

And what about the 50-year old man, what do you think he saw when he looked in the mirror?

 

[Korgnex]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

A bank usually doesn't make contracts with ppl working for you or negotiates those or cares what you pay these ppl.

A bank usually doesn't calls in meetings with ppl working for you.

A bank usually doesn't even care too much what you're doing with the money it's lending you.



A bank only gives you money and only cares if you pay back in time according to the agreement you have with that bank.



That's to me not really comparable to the role AEG had in this...

None of those examples have anything to do with the "doctor-patient relationship": You're mixing up the draft agreement about advancing Michael the money for Murray and Michael's separate tour contract with AEG Live about the concerts which is the reason why they interacted with Michael (and obviously, if there was a doctor, you'd talk to him, too).

 

[Annita]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I would say its bad for AEG if the jurors are watching TII. Would probably mean they have moved past question one and question two, the two most important IMO.

They asked about the TII-film and Murrays contract in the first note. They haven`t answered question 1 in my opinion.



ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 36m
Note 1:
- 12 highlighters
- 12 red pens
- 12 black pens
- video player
- This is it documentary
- 12 copies independent contractor agreement

 

[Korgnex]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Yeah, that note doesn't tell us anything about their answers.

 

[smoothlugar]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

In my opinion, the unfit doctor was CO-SIGNED by his patient, when said patient said "I'm fine."

Even if he was fine on the day of the meeting, he wasn't on the previous day. The lack of concern from the doctor remains as proof of UNFITNESS and rudeness, by the way.

I'm not so sure a "good" doctor would consult with somebody who was not his patient, i.e. Mr. Orgeta.

Depends on the cases, of course. But if the patient was unconcious or unaware at the time, or with memory loss, yes.

In my further opinion, Mike basically deaded the entire concern point when he said "I'm fine." He had everybody in the room, and he COULD have said "I'm NOT fine, I'm having a problem sleeping, I need help."

Yes, and they relied on that to keep the show going on. But, the truth remains that on 19th he was not fine.
Phillips himself expressed some doubts after the meeting in his emails, but decided to put them aside, because it was too late now.

Folks really need to stop talking like Michael wasn't even in the room when all of this was going down.

Hey, the meeting was precisaly about how unwell MJwas on 19. A good doctor should know how to deal with this, in a subtle way.

 

[passy001]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Why, it's not in the jury instructions. Was murray fit and competent to carry out general medical care. Seeing mj deteriorated in the 2 months murray was hired to be his doctor, got thinner, missed rehearsals, needed 'intervention' meetings, i would say he was pretty poor at his job. Even murray was forced to admit mj was declining and yet cd offer no explanation to aeg.

Then how come prior to meeting AEG he had no issues providing general medical care to MJ and his children for 3 years?

Besides, what is general medical care? Does that include the treatment of insomnia? if not, then he was fit and competent for the job. In fact I would argue Murray was overqualified.

 

[bobmoo79]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

They asked about the TII-film and Murrays contract in the first note. They haven`t answered question 1 in my opinion.



ABC7 Court News ?@ABC7Courts 36m
Note 1:
- 12 highlighters
- 12 red pens
- 12 black pens
- video player
- This is it documentary
- 12 copies independent contractor agreement

I agree.

 

[Korgnex]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

^ Yes, general medical care does NOT include the treatment for insomnia, for that Murray was unfit indeed

 

[Big Apple2]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Even if he was fine on the day of the meeting, he wasn't on the previous day. The lack of concern from the doctor remains as proof of UNFITNESS and rudeness, by the way.

In my opinion, the FACT that he was Michael's doctor for 3-years before AEG came on the scene is where the fitness or non-fitness comes in.

Murray was Michael personal doctor for 3-years, and everything appeared to be in check, so why would anybody think that Murray was unfit? Murray also apparently treated Michael's children and all went well.

 

[LastTear]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

General medical care could cover insomnia, your GP might give you sleeping pills or such, but as we all know propofol is not a treatment for insomnia.

 

[ivy]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Thanks ivy. I was just going to ask about that.

But what would be the purpose of the jury watching it? Why did Mr. Putnam make that suggestion. I'm lost as to it's importance.

Putnam asked the jury to take the time to watch TII to see Michael and how he was. He clearly pointed out to them what he was wearing on June 23rd.

Panish later on said don't watch it as it's an edited footage.

Why, it's not in the jury instructions. Was murray fit and competent to carry out general medical care. Seeing mj deteriorated in the 2 months murray was hired to be his doctor, got thinner, missed rehearsals, needed 'intervention' meetings, i would say he was pretty poor at his job. Even murray was forced to admit mj was declining and yet cd offer no explanation to aeg.

why what? in my opinion the jurors cannot say "murray is negligent because he killed Michael" as it is hindsight. that's what my post was about.

 

[Autumn II]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Sure, that Michael died at the hands of Murray is "hindsight." The jurors will use logic and the testimony they've heard, but I think "emotion" will be a wild-card, and there isn't anyone on that jury who doesn't know that Murray was convicted of killing Michael. That's why I think jury verdicts are such a crap-shoot, and I really have no idea at this point which way it'll go.

 

[ivy]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Besides, what is general medical care? Does that include the treatment of insomnia?

general medical care is the basic health care. for example going to an annual check up, getting labs done etc will all fall under it. they can look after small illnesses, they can even do xrays and so on. so think like , small, common, easy to handle they would do it. Anything extra or anything that would need more detailed or specific care, they send you to a specialist.

Insomnia could fall under general care but a general care physician would only prescribe sleep medicine and if doesn't work out then refer to you to a specialist.

 

[passy001]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

General medical care could cover insomnia, your GP might give you sleeping pills or such, but as we all know propofol is not a treatment for insomnia.

Going by your logic your GP can treat cancer, heart diseases, and even psychological disorders. he must be one kind of a GP.

Insomnia requires specialized skills, therefore the treatment does not fall under general medical care.

 

[rsggamer123]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

How likely is it we will get a verdict today?

 

[Korgnex]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

General medical care could cover insomnia, your GP might give you sleeping pills or such, but as we all know propofol is not a treatment for insomnia.

Yes, a GP could do that, of course. But in order to even diagnose one of the many different sleep disorders you'd have to consult a specialist in sleep medicine and Murray was not. A consultation would be needed especially because the delayed sleep phase syndrome eg is often mis-diagnosed with primary insomnia. And Michael would have required a specialist due to the fact he had a physically exhausting work schedule forthcoming.

 

[passy001]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

general medical care is the basic health care. for example going to an annual check up, getting labs done etc will all fall under it. they can look after small illnesses, they can even do xrays and so on. so think like , small, common, easy to handle they would do it. Anything extra or anything that would need more detailed or specific care, they send you to a specialist.

Insomnia could fall under general care but a general care physician would only prescribe sleep medicine and if doesn't work out then refer to you to a specialist.

Acute Insomnia does not fall under general care in my opinion. a GP is simply not qualified to provide that sort of treatment.

 

[Big Apple2]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

How likely is it we will get a verdict today?

No haps, in my opinion.

They didn't request those Post-Its and legal pads for nothing. LOL!

 

[ivy]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Acute Insomnia does not fall under general care in my opinion. a GP is simply not qualified to provide that sort of treatment.

I agree , acute insomnia doesn't fall under general care. what I was trying to say was if you go to your family doctor and said I can't sleep, they would give you a prescription assuming it's a temporary problem. But if it doesn't go away or gets worse they would send you to a specialist.

 

[LastTear]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Going by your logic your GP can treat cancer, heart diseases, and even psychological disorders. he must be one kind of a GP.

Insomnia requires specialized skills, therefore the treatment does not fall under general medical care.

Did I say all of that? Insomnia requires specialist skills if other treatments don't work.

ETA Murray wasn't hired to treat Michaels insomnia as such, just general medical needs. So general insomnia if needed and he should have sought specialist help for anything that doesn't fall into that category. Murray far outstretched what a GP would do - which is what he was hired for.