Skip to content

Jacksons vs. AEG trial. THE VERDICT IS IN. OVERVIEW OF THE BATTLEFIELD

October 7, 2013

At first we thought that the verdict was simply a bad joke. But now we realize that the jurors were serious when they called Murray ‘fit and competent’ though it was this doctor who actually killed Michael Jackson and was sent to jail for this crime.

THE VERDICT  

The civil jury’s verdict admitted that AEG hired Murray, but stated that Murray was competent for the work he was hired for, so in the opinion of the present jury there was no negligence on anyone’s part – Murray was asked for propofol by his patient and this resulted in an accident as poor Murray simply didn’t know “how to” because he wasn’t hired for this job.

So the latest version of Michael’s death is that no one is to blame for it, especially AEG as ‘there was no way they could know about it’, and even Murray is not to blame now as Michael asked for propofol himself and in all other aspects except propofol Murray was ‘competent and fit’. The AEG lawyers describe it as ‘simply a tragedy’ and by this interpretation make a generous gesture in Michael’s direction kindly releasing him of any guilt too. No one is to blame, it just happened, you know.

After we got over the first shock of the jury’s explanations the second impression was that for the gullible public this verson could even pass for the truth, if it were not for the two absurdities. 

The first absurdity is that this jury finds Murray competent though the previous jury found him criminally negligent and these two concepts look a little contradictory even to the most dumb.

And the second absurdity is that the present jurors, while slightly wincing at Murray’s poor ethics, explain that the ethical aspect was not even considered because “no one asked them a question about it” and since it was not on the list of the jury’s instructions everything was to be done “in strict accordance with the letter of the law”.

This is said in full seriousness and with a straight face and implies that if  the judge had added the word “ethical” to the question “Was Dr. Conrad Murray fit and competent for the job he was hired for?” the jury’s answer would have been different. And without this word the jury found themselves facing a terrible dilemma and were helpless and lost like a flock of sheep without their guardian dog.

After several hours of racking their brains and several lunches consumed they finally said “No” to a question of Murray’s incompetence thus asserting his competence, ending the trial and setting new standards for the medical community. Since time immemorial doctors have been guided by the Hippocratic oath and now they have a new interesting concept from the AEG jury which says that even if a doctor killed his patient through gross negligence he is still good, fit and competent, and ethics are an outside matter which have nothing to do with the problem. This way the jurors actually set a precedent which some criminal doctors will surely appreciate.

To test yourself whether ethics can be snatched away from the concept of a medical doctor per se, all you need to do is imagine a notice on the door of a doctor’s office – “Dr. X is competent and fit but has no respect for medical ethics” and you will immediately understand that no one will ever entrust him with their health as an unethical doctor will not hesitate to ruin it or is probably even a sadist who will do deliberate harm using his competence and skills.

Doctors of this kind do exist, and the whole world regards them as criminals, and it is only for the jury in the AEG case that this type of doctor is okay.

Evidently feeling a little uneasy about what they did the jurors dealt with this minor discrepancy by clarifying that Murray was competent in doing the job he was hired for (which was general care to his patient), and for propofol he wasn’t hired, so it was okay that there he was incompetent and killed his patient. Of course he should have never agreed to administer it, but this is an ethical problem and ethics is not part of a doctor’s job as this jury has already explained to us.

Following the jury’s lead the excited media took the matter further and though the verdict didn’t say it declared the deceased Michael Jackson guilty of his own death – “he was an adult and had personal responsibility” and should have never asked for propofol.

If you listen to these poeple you will get the impression that Michael was the only adult in this company while Murray was a little kid who simply fell under the spell of a villain, and AEG was also a naïve little thing who never guessed to check up what this kid in their employement was actually up to.

To help the jury and everyone realize prior to the start of jury deliberations that AEG executives aren’t responsible for anything at all – even for the extreme pressure they exercised on their doctor employee by emails like “We want to remind him that it is AEG, not MJ, who is paying his salary. We want to remind him what is expected of him” – at the very last minute of the trial the judge Yvette Palazuelos released Paul Gongaware and Randy Phillips of any personal responsibility whatsoever thus sending the jurors a clear signal on the outline of their future verdict.  Judging by the result this signal was not lost on these perceptive people.

And in addition to all that it has also become a tradition now that some Michael Jackson’s fans are the first to rush and advocate for AEG and explain how perfectly correct the jury was in exonerating them even of a little thing like negligence in hiring Murray which was all Katherine Jackson’s lawsuit was all about. Michael Jackson died while in the general care of this AEG employee, but it is perfectly okay as “everything was in accordance with the rules”.

Here is a typical quote from a fan forum:

Some of you either didn’t follow the trial or you didn’t even bother reading the jury instructions.

As per the contract between Murray, AEG, and Michael, Conrad Murray was hired for GENERAL CARE. He was NOT hired to administer Propofol. Administering Propofol does not fall under general care, therefore, Murray was carrying out actions that went beyond the duties he was actually hired for at the time he was hired.

Somebody explained it perfectly on twitter. It would be like hiring a driver to drive a bus, but if said drive instead flies a plane and crashes, you cannot hold the company who hired him liable. He was not hired to fly a plane, he was hired to drive.

Before becoming Michael’s doctor, Murray had an impeccable record as a doctor and was a highly regarded cardiologist. A credit check cannot determine somebody’s ethics or abilities to behave morally. To say his debt should’ve indicated he would behave in an unethical and criminally negligent manner would mean ANYBODY who is in debt is potentially just a criminal waiting to strike.

The jury foreman made it clear…they do believe Murray was competent and fit to carry out the duty of GENERAL CARE. However, had the question been with regards to ethics, he stressed the verdict could’ve been different because the jury did not believe Murray was ethical.

The foreman said there was no evidence presented in the trial to show or prove that AEG knew or should’ve known Murray would be a risk to others, especially since Katherine’s attorneys failed to prove that AEG knew about Murray administering Propofol.

It all came down to the jury instructions and if you read them, you’ll see that the jury came to the appropriate decision based on LAWS, not emotions as Katherine’s attorneys were hoping. And regardless of conspiracy nuts trying to accuse Judge Palazuelos of setting up the jury instructions to facilitate AEG’s victory, please remember, the jury instructions were agreed upon by both Katherine’s attorneys AND AEG’s attorneys.

Since the above fan appeals to laws and scorns at “conspiracy nuts” like us, our conclusions should also be based on the jury instructions and other documents which is actually our usual routine as this is what we always do. And the first thing we need to determine is whether the jury was right in claiming that Dr. Murray was competent in doing the job he was hired for – which was the general care of his patient.

GENERAL CARE IN MURRAY’S INTERPRETATION

The infamous paragraph of AEG’s contract for Murray which says that he was to provide services reasonably requested by the Artist from time to time only (!) also says that the scope of his services was “to provide general medical care to the Artist to be administered professionally and with the greatest degree of care to be expected from similarly situated member in the medical field”.

It also added that  “such services shall include tending to the Artist’s general medical needs and assisting and treating the Artist in the case of a medical emergency”.

murrays-contract-scope-of-his-servicesGeneral care is a very broad term but usually it is the scope of services rendered by general practitioners or internists. Whatever the name for this medical specialty is sources define it as “promoting, maintaining or restoring human health through the study, diagnosis, and  treatment  of disease, injury, and other physical and mental impairments.”

Besides being a cardiologist Murray probably considered himself an internist or general practitioner. This point though does not look like an impediment as cardiologists are a step higher and are actually internists specializing in cardiology. The only exception to it would be if Murray were a heart surgeon which would be a counter indication to rendering general care as internists are taught to people conservatively:

  • Internal medicine or general medicine is the medical specialty dealing with the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of adult diseases. Physicians specializing in internal medicine are called internists, or physicians. Internists are especially skilled in the management of patients who have undifferentiated or multi-system disease processes. Internists care for hospitalized and ambulatory patients and may play a major role in teaching and research.
  • General practitioners assess and treat general medical conditions and issues. They diagnose conditions, but normally are able to refer patients with specific conditions to specialists to deal with their conditions.

So the very general idea of Murray’s job was to diagnose and treat a broad range of illnesses and refer his patient to a specialist if he was unable to cope with the problem himself, and Michael Jackson’s medical needs like insomnia, loss of weight, dehydration after rehearsals and fatigue were well within this scope and were to become the matter of everyday care and concern of Dr. Murray.

However judging by Michael’s steady deterioration of health and the fatal result Dr. Murray dealt with those medical problems absolutely inadequately.

EPISODE 1. Nutrition

skeletalMurray did not pay proper attention even to a grave sign like Michael’s quick loss of weight. Since he had an everyday opportunity to check up Michael’s condition before his sleep, there was absolutely no chance for him to overlook the fact that Michael was turning skeletal – so skeletal that when Michael Bush saw Michael undressing  on June 19th he noticed the heartbeat under his skin!

Bush saw it just once and was utterly shattered by the sight, but where was Dr. Murray all this time? What steps did Murray take to halt the process of Michael’s speedy loss of weight? None at all. At one point he did promise to make some special protein shakes but he never did and never even asked what kind of food his chef Kai Chase was cooking for him.

This fact surprised her so much that she made a note of it in her testimony at the trial:

Q. Now, let me ask you, in June, did you ever have conversations with Dr. Murray at any time in which you discussed  any instructions from him regarding the nutrition or Mr. Jackson?
A. No, and I thought that was quite strange.
Q. Why?
A. Well, for a doctor to have a patient there, and you don’t consult with their chef of eating habits or, you know, nutrition? It was quite strange to me.
Q. Did you ever ask him if there was anything you should be doing?
A. I’d asked him a couple of times, but his answer to me would always be, “You can fix him
anything.”
Q. Okay. And in the time period that you were there, was there ever nutritionist at the house?
A. No.
Q. And in the time period that you were there, did Dr. Murray ever make a protein shake?
A. No.
Ms. Stebbins: Objection, lacks foundation as to whether Dr. Murray ever made a protein shake. She can say whether she saw one.
Q. I said in the time period that you were there, did you ever see Dr. Murray make a protein shake in your presence?
A. No, I never.
Q. Did Dr. Murray ever request that you make any special type of protein shake?
A. No.

So did Murray act as a fit and competent doctor in dealing with Michael’s dramatic loss of weight? Absolutely not!

Then why are the jurors of so high regard of Murray if he neglected the most basic needs of his patient and when the medical problem was obvious even to those not in the medical profession?

EPISODE 2. Sick leave

From the little this trial revealed of Conrad Murray’s general care for MJ we nevertheless learned that in the first decade of June he was concerned about Michael’s health bad enough to give him a sick leave, however the sick leave was quickly withdrawn as soon as Paul Gongaware reminded Murray of who was paying his salary and “what was expected of him” (the wording makes it obvious that Michael Jackson’s health wasn’t one of their expectations and was not on the AEG priority list).

We know that Murray gave in to the AEG pressure and withdrew the sick leave given to Michael on Saturday 13th as the very next Monday June 15th Michael had to attend rehearsals despite his obviously ill condition. Karen Faye was aghast but described Michael’s demeanor as stoic and this stoicism went on until June 18th when he came to a rehearsal very late, visibly shaken from another of those riot meetings arranged for him by AEG and their doctor employee.

Does the story with the sick leave impress you as Conrad Murray duly fulfilling his obligations of general care for Michael Jackson and professionally “tending to his general medical needs”? Why am I sure that it doesn’t?

Was his decision competent? No. Was it ethical? Absolutely not! So now you see that the two concepts are inseparable and one cannot go without the other?

EPISODE 3. Emergency

When Michael’s health deteriorated so badly that he could no longer make a spin on stage for fear of injuring or embarrassing himself (according to Bugzy’s email) and he started “rambling and obsessing” and his body temperature became icy cold as was noted by almost everyone on June 19th, Michael’s medical condition could already be qualified as a medical emergency. This condition demanded Dr. Murray’s immediate attention as one of his responsibilities under the AEG agreement was to “assist and treat the Artist in case of a medical emergency”.

On June 19th Michael was indeed so bad that even Ortega who had been previously pressing him for rehearsals fell into a panic, and began to cry out for help and a good therapeutist. He also wondered why there was no one (for example, Murray) around Michael to offer him at least a cup of hot tea. The SOS emails from several people started bombarding Randy Phillips as they actually saw with their own eyes that Michael was dying.

Any of us would regard the above situation as a grave medical emergency requiring hospitalization or at least urgent qualified help, but Conrad Murray did nothing of the kind and remained unperturbed. Instead he reprimanded Ortega for playing an amateur physician and arrogantly demanded that Michael’s treatment should be left solely to him as a result of which only five days later Michael Jackson was dead.

Randy Phillips: "The doctor was fantastic"

Randy Phillips: “The doctor was fantastic”

Conrad Murray’s public lashing of Ortega took place in the presence of Randy Phillips who was so impressed by the doctor’s performance that he called it “fantastic”.

Though fantastic in the eyes of his employer the question is whether the above was compatible with the standards of general care or whether Murray’s conduct was in line at least with his own contract with AEG requiring him to administer “general medical care to the Artist professionally and with the greatest degree of care to be expected from similarly situated member in the medical field”?

Would any other doctor behave the way Murray did in a similar situation? No, never! Then why did the jury award Murray the title of being “fit and competent” even after seeing the evidence of all those atrocities at the trial? How could the jurors overlook so flagrant a manifestation of Murray’s incompetence and criminal negligence as his behavior on June 20th?

Or look at it from another angle – what grounds do the jurors have for calling Murray ‘competent and fit’? Only the fact that he had a license and had no claims from his patients?

But Murray wasn’t even board certified as a cardiologist as Dr. Alon Steinberg said at Murray’s trial and his license had been suspended in two states (I hear it was Nevada and Texas, but this requires a further check-up).

As to the absence of the patients’ complaints I clearly remember a patient testifying against Murray and threatening him with a lawsuit. He said that Conrad Murray operated on his heart and then abandoned him as he took up a job with Michael Jackson and never even referred him to anyone else leaving him with no follow-up medical help.  Dr. Murray reappeared on his horizon only when the patient threatened to sue him and this was one of the long calls Murray made right at the time when Michael was dying.

Even the above three episodes show that Murray was totally unfit as a general practitioner for Michael Jackson – he was largerly indifferent to his patient and too fearful of his employees, arrogant to those who questioned his skills and what’s even more important, totally unqualified to treat the only serious illness Michael had – his insomnia.

And Michael was not just an ‘ordinary’ patient. He had a complex history of auto-immune diseases and after-effects from previous treatments and therefore required only the best and most competent of doctors.

Murray surely wasn’t one of them, but why do the jurors in this trial still insist that he was competent for this job? They have absolutely no grounds for it, especially since the sentence at the criminal trial was quite eloquent about it!

WHAT THE LAW SAYS ABOUT MURRAY

If these episodes are not convincing enough to you let us look at what the law says about Murray as a doctor. Here is a well-informed opinion of Judge Michael Pastor from his closing statement at Murray’s trial:

Dr. Murray abandoned his patient who was trusting him. His patient was vulnerable under certain circumstances having been administered potentially dangerous drugs by his medical provider. Dr. Murray repeatedly lied engaged in deceitful misconduct and endeavored to cover up his transgressions. He violated the trust of the medical community, of his colleagues, and of his patient and he has absolutely no sense of remorse, absolutely no sense of fault, and is and remains dangerous…. He is a shame to the medical community.

When answering questions after Murray’s trial Dr. Steven Shafer, the leading US anesthesiologist who proved Murray’s guilt, characterized Murray as follows:

Murray was grossly reckless. For medical error to be manslaughter requires that the physician be reckless in giving care. Thus, as I understand the law, the finding of manslaughter by the jury is a finding of recklessness. That was my conclusion after reviewing the records. The complete lack of monitoring, backup, and training were egregious violations of care. The lies to the paramedics and the physicians at UCLA were unconscionable, as was failure to obtain informed consent and keep records. Conrad Murray’s behavior was reckless, cavalier, and self-serving. Judge Pastor summed it up well in his final comments at Murray’s sentencing.

In his testimony Dr. Shafer named 17 egregious deviations from standard medical care out of which at least half were general deviations in no way connected with propofol. This is important as it points to Murray’s gross incompetence and negligence even in the area of general care where the present jury found Murray perfectly okay.

Here is a reminder of some of those deviations from my then post about Dr. Shafer with a few of his very valuable comments:

Lack of a blood pressure cuff is another egregious violation.

Considering that Michael Jackson was dehydrated from strenuous exercise (lacking enough liquid in his system) his blood pressure had a tendency to be low. Dr. Shafer explained the phenomenon which takes place when the blood pressure drops – the body “closes” legs and hands and that is why they feel cold, and preferentially sends the blood to vital organs only – like the heart, for example.

Failure to make records is an egregious and unconscionable violation.

Dr. Shafer stressed it again and again that keeping the records was not optional. It is part of the general care of the patient. The records were indispensable as in case another doctor were to treat the patient he should have the full medical history (his lab results, his reaction to this or that medication, duration of certain drugs administered, the effect they had, etc.). Medical records are indispensable for making a referral to another doctor.  After all, the state which licenses doctors is responsible for the care the doctor provides to patients and has the right to demand their records too.

And if he saw that Michael was dehydrated as he was sweating a lot during exercise – why didn’t he measure his blood pressure and pulse? And he didn’t do as little as a simple recording of the vital signs!  Any physician does that, while Murray did not. Lack of a regular physical assessment is another serious departure from the standard of care and coupled with the failure to keep records is so profound a violation that Dr. Shafer could hardly find a word to describe it. He said it had no excuse.  

Failure to have a proper doctor-patient relationship is an egregious violation

This relationship is built on the foundation that the doctor will always put the patient’s interests first. It doesn’t mean doing what he asks of – it means doing what is right for the patient and acting in his best interests. If the patient requests something foolish or dangerous, it is a doctor’s obligation to use medical judgment and say ”no”.

Dr. Shafer says that if Murray had acted as a doctor he would have referred Michael Jackson to sleep disorder specialists for evaluation and therapy.

In fact even Kenny Ortega saw the need for Michael to be evaluated by a qualified therapist – only no one paid attention to his words, including Conrad Murray.

And it is noteworthy that Kenny Ortega did not approach Murray with this request – no, he approached Randy Phillips with it! This alone shows who the real master of the situation was. However a true doctor will never bend to anyone’s orders and will be guided by nothing else but medical judgment and the oath of Hippocrates he takes to observe the code of medical ethics.

Dr. Shafer says that Murray’s unwillingness to say “no” and his failure to refer Michael to a proper specialist directly resulted in Michael Jackson’s death. And I would add to that package Murray’s full willingness to say “yes” to those in whose real employment he was.

When Walgren asked,  “And will being on the phone even in the general vicinity of the patient be an independent egregious violation?”  Dr. Shafer said that it was a setup of disaster.

“The patient is receiving IV drugs and the doctor is not focused on the patient – instead he is talking on the cell phone, sending text messages, answering emails. You cannot multitask like this, even if you are a couple of feet away, particularly with no monitors in place and no alarms.

The failure to call 911 was another of those outrageous, egregious violations.

Dr. Shafer said that there is nothing that has a higher priority than calling 911.

Conrad Murray was expected to immediately assess the situation and then call 911. The assessment would include checking the pulse and looking for signs of responsiveness (you literally shake the patient) – so it takes a matter of seconds to make an assessment. David Walgren assumed that Murray became aware of Michael Jackson’s condition at around noon and the delay in calling 911 was something like 20 minutes. How would Dr. Shafer assess that Dr. Murray called Michael Amir Williams at 12.12, left a voicemail message to him and then had the bodyguard Alvarez make a 911 call at 12.20?

Dr. Shafer said: “That is so egregious that I actually find it difficult to comprehend. You have a patient who had a respiratory arrest and you call and leave a voice message? It is just inconceivable. A physician would not do that…. I almost don’t know what to say. It is completely and utterly inexcusable”.

Walgren asked, “And how effective is a one-handed compression on the bed?”

Dr. Shafer said, “Not at all”. When you do chest compressions on the bed the patient just sinks into the cushions. You have to push the force against the spine and squeeze the heart. It should go directly down and with one hand it is difficult to do it in the right direction. So it is always two hands, pushing straight down and a patient being on a hard surface.

However based on Murray’s own words that when he returned Michael had a thread pulse, the issue here was not that Michael’s heart had stopped – the issue was that he stopped breathing and because of that oxygen was running out of his lungs. His heart only stopped because it was starved of oxygen. In the presence of a pulse the heart doesn’t need to be compressed – what you need to do is get oxygen into the lungs.

So doing PCR in those circumstances was even harmful, however Dr. Murray did that.

A mouth-to-mouth resuscitation done by Murray to resuscitate his patient was a serious violation too.

Dr. Shafer says that if nothing else is available a mouth-to-mouth resuscitation is the only alternative. But for a health-care provider the need to resort to it means the admission of a failure to have the necessary resuscitation equipment available. The mask would have been much more efficient – because when you breathe into a patient it is your expired air. The usual level of oxygen there is no more than 20%. And if he had ventilated Michael’s lungs with oxygen he would be alive now.

In his interview with the police Murray described raising Michael’s legs. This was a minor violation as Dr. Shafer said it was just a waste of time. You raise a person’s legs if you believe you need more blood going into the heart, but since Michael’s heart was beating anyway Dr. Shafer said he didn’t know why Murray had done it – he needed oxygen and not raising his legs!

It shows that Dr. Murray was clueless as to what to do.

Walgren asked  – what is polypharmacy? Dr. Shafer said that it is administering many drugs at once.

Walgren enumerated the drugs Conrad Murray administered that night – Lorazepam, Diazepam (Valium), Midazolam as well as Propofol. “Is it polypharmacy?” “Absolutely”, said Dr. Shafer.  He shook his head and said that it didn’t make any sense. Lorazepam and Midazolam are very similar drugs and from the perspective of the brain they are nearly identical. The molecules do exactly the same thing in the brain. The only difference is how long they hang around for.

Dr. Shafer does not see any rationale for switching between Lorazepam and Midazolam in a patient who is having trouble falling asleep. So the therapy that was used does not suggest any understanding of these drugs…. Dr. Shafer said,  “We don’t go willy-nilly – let’s give him more Lorazepam, let’s give him more Midazolam”. The care of the polypharmacy in this case suggests that it was done without any real understanding of the drugs being used, how they worked and how they interacted. And this of itself was a serious violation of the standard of care.

The fact that Murray did not admit to the paramedics and the UCLA emergency room doctors that he had given propofol is another egregious deviation from the standard of care.

When a person’s life hangs in the balance as it did to withhold information is inexcusable. In addition to that he mischaracterized it as a witnessed arrest which is very different from what it was. A witnessed arrest is usually not the arrest for lack of breathing – it is something like a heart attack. You see the person and suddenly he is down and you realize that something catastrophic has happened.

When a patient goes into an arrest you have only seconds to go one way or the other. The paramedics were not given the information to choose a treatment path that was appropriate for what had happened.

In a scenario when the patient is transferred from one physician to another one it is a professional, ethical and moral obligation to tell the truth. The doctor is obliged to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Anything less than the truth is inexcusable. And this is another egregious and unconscionable violation of the standard of care.

Dr. Shafer stressed again that the doctor-patient relationship is built on trust and the patient’s interest always going ahead of the doctor’s interests. By withholding such information you violate this trust. “When it is withheld from the people who are trying to save the life of your patient you violated that trust in ways that are so foreign to me that I truly have trouble of conceiving it”. The patient has a right to expect the doctor to be honest.

Dr. Shafer looked very sad when he was saying all that because it clearly means to him that Conrad Murray is ignorant, incompetent and totally unprofessional.

All in all Dr. Shafer described 17 egregious violations of the standard of care out of which 4 were also unethical and unconscionable.

Dr. Shafer stressed that each of those violations individually was likely or should have been expected to result in death. And all those risks were completely foreseeable too.

Answering Walgren’s question the doctor focused once again on the fundamental principles of a doctor-patient relationship. He said that this relationship goes back down to the dawn of civilization.  Doctors are permitted to know the most private details of a person’s body and of a person’s life. Doctors are permitted to give very powerful drugs that might harm or kill a patient, and are permitted to cut into a patient’s body to remove a cancer or repair an organ or replace a knee.

Doctors are allowed to do these things because they give a Hippocratic oath which dates back to 500 BC.  It says: “In every house in which I come I will enter only for the good of my patients”, because at the core of a doctor-patient relationship is the principle that you put the patient first.  This is the cornerstone of this relationship. It is because you put the patient first that you are entrusted with surgery, drugs and intimate knowledge of the patient, said Dr. Shafer.  

The Geneva Declaration says: “The health and life of my patient will be my first consideration”. Columbia University says: “We put patients first”.

And when Dr. Murray agreed to treat Michael Jackson with propofol and disregarded his patient’s interests in so many ways Dr. Shafer said that Dr. Murray put himself  first – not Michael Jackson. 

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/conrad-murray-trial-week-4/

I hope that Dr. Shafer’s words will be a good reminder for the jurors in the AEG case what the law already said on the subject of Conrad Murray’s competence and ethics, so there was no need for them to introduce any novelties here. And the burden of proof in a criminal trial is much higher than the one in civil cases so if Murray was found guilty at a criminal trial it is not in the power of the civil jurors to negate their verdict and pronounce Murray competent in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the opposite.

These jurors simply closed their eyes to all the evidence in the case and are trying to create the impression that Murray was competent, because the admission of his incompetence would mean that AEG hired an incompetent doctor and would have to bear responsibility for it. However this scenario was for some reason unacceptable to the jurors, so Murray had to be found competent and this is why they are now getting out of their way to prove the impossible.

VERDICT: AEG HIRED MURRAY 

However despite all their demagogy over Murray’s competence the main question at the AEG trial was “Who hired Murray?” and it was given a Yes answer even by this highly suspect jury.

From the very start of it “Who hired Murray?” was the main intrigue of this trial. In their Overview of the Case the jury instructions did not limit the answer to hiring Murray only, but included there “retaining” and “supervision” too, so a Yes answer to “hiring” may mean that AEG was also found responsible for retaining and supervising Murray:

  • Plaintiffs claims that the defendants are liable for the death of Michael Jackson because they negligently hired, retained or supervised Dr. Contrad Murray… The defendants deny they hired, retained or supervised Dr. Conrad Murray. The defendants also deny that they were negligent.
The judge's instructions to the jury started with her overview of the trial. The main question was who hired Murray. The jury said that it was AEG.

The judge’s instructions to the jury started with an overview of the trial. The main question was who hired Murray. The jury said it was AEG.

But if the jury found that it was AEG who hired Murray, this means that Murray was the same type of an employee as the tour pyrotechnics, for example, for whose negligence (burning someone) AEG would be obliged to bear full responsibility in case of an accident.

Similarly they should bear responsibility for Murray’s negligence in handling Michael Jackson’s health as Murray was in their direct employment and not only at the moment of Michael’s death but during the whole time of his general care for MJ under his contract – and that was more than 8 weeks while Michael’s health was slowly declining.

Sceptics will say that Michael died of propofol over which no one could have any control. However even though the immediate cause of death was indeed propofol his steady health deterioration wasn’t due to propofol, but was due to his insomnia and lack of sleep which were well within the scope of Murray’s general care and responsibility.

Now I am sure of it even more than ever, because when looking through Dr. Shafer’s notes I found his observation that the ice-cold temperature of Michael’s body could not be in any way connected with propofol:

  • Question: On June 19 and 20 when Michael was sick at the rehearsals, he called Cherilyn Lee. He asked her why half of his body was cold and the other half was warm.
  • Dr. Shafer: That wouldn’t be a side effect of propofol. I don’t know what makes half your body warm, and half cold, but propofol doesn’t do that. It could be that he simply had a virus. There are some symptoms of withdrawal from sedatives. Withdrawal from propofol has not been described.

In addition to the above information the AEG trial also introduced us to the studies made by the leading sleep expert Dr. Czeisler whose research shows that the loss of the body temperature is actually a grave consequence of sleep deprivation.

His findings are fully confirmed by the study made on rats as early as 2002 which states that sleep deprivation results in excessive heat loss which is a precursor of death:

Later in [sleep] deprivation all rats …showed a precipitous decline in body and brain temperature from which they did not recover, even when the test chamber was rewarmed.

… The rats given antibiotic cocktails near the end of deprivation continued their temperature decline and died “on schedule” even though no trace of systemic infection was found.

The 2002 study also says that all sleep deprived rats lost weight even despite increased food take, had to spend much more energy and developed severe skin lesions of the unknown nature (so in application to Michael Jackson lack of sleep was very likely to exacerbate his poor skin condition).

The overall conclusion of the 2002 study is that the function of sleep is a tough nut to crack:

“The rats lost weight in spite of increased food intake. The large rise in energy expenditure calculated from the caloric values of food intake and weight loss was confirmed. The development of scrawny, debilitated appearance was confirmed. The severe ulcerative and hyperkeratotic skin lesions localized to the paws and tails of the rats were confirmed.

The cause of death, the deterioration of appearance, the skin lesions, and how brain activity is changed have resisted explication. As unlikely as it might seem, perhaps the problem is that the mediation might be related to functionally significant physiological processes that have not yet been clearly identified—and that may be why the function of sleep has itself been such a tough nut to crack.” http://www.journalsleep.org/Articles/250104.pdf

Now the AEG and Murray’s advocates will say that as the sleep function is so difficult a nut to crack Dr. Murray as a general care physician could not solve Michael’s insomnia on his own, but we remember that one of the responsibilities of a general practitioner is to spot the problem and refer the matter to a respective expect specializing on it. However even when offered at least some help from John Branca Murray’s boss Randy Phillips and evidently Murray himself refused it….

The eyes say it all. He had not slept in 60 days...

The eyes and blisters on his lips say it all. He had not slept in 60 days…

If Murray and AEG had approached Dr. Czeisler for example, Michael would be surely alive now.

Dr. Czeisler said that Conrad Murray was totally incompetent to help Michael but if MJ had been properly diagnozed and given qualified help, he would have been able to complete the tour and could perform for many years to come! Here is a excerpt from his testimony:

Q. Do you have an opinion, to a reasonable medical probability, if Michael Jackson had been appropriately diagnosed and treated for his sleep disorder, whether his sleep problems would have prevented him from continuing with the tour?

A. I believe that if Michael Jackson were appropriately diagnosed and treated for his sleep disorder, then his sleep disorder would no longer have interfered with his ability to perform and to tour.

Q. Do you have an opinion, based on a reasonable medical probability, in the long term, if the sleep disorder was treatable?

A. Yes. I believe that if his sleep disorder had been appropriately diagnosed and treated, that he would have been able to complete not only this tour, but perform for many years to come.

Q. Last question I have. Do you believe Dr. Conrad Murray was fit and competent to treat him?

A. Dr. Conrad Murray was clearly not fit or competent to diagnose or treat Mr. Jackson’s sleep disorder.

… A. I indicated that the key issue in this case is that his insomnia, his sleep disorder, was greatly exacerbated when he was on tour or preparing for tours. And I think that that is the most important take-home message from this … from my evaluation of the record, is that whatever sleep disorder or disorders that he had, were not disabling in between. And that’s why I called them today rather mild when he was not in the tour mode or tour-preparation mode. It was disabling to him when he was either on tour or preparing to go on tour.

Q. I want to talk a little bit now about your opinion that Mr. Jackson, if appropriately diagnosed and treated, could have recovered from his sleep problems and performed and toured for quite a long time.

A. That’s correct.

Q. Ok.  And that his sleep disorder was treatable?

A. Yes.

Q. And for that opinion, you’re assuming, aren’t you, that Mr. Jackson would have been willing to enter into an appropriate sleep diagnosis and then treatment program, correct?

A. Yes that is … That is correct.

If Mr. Jackson had come to you and said, help me with my sleep problem, and you had gotten a licensed physician to partner up with you to diagnose and treat him, you would have taken a … Well, you would have used a whole team of sleep specialists to diagnose Mr. Jackson, right?

A. Yes, I … If I were asked to help the most successful performer who ever lived, I certainly would have assembled a team to try to help him with being able to continue his success.

Michael Jackson’s death was entirely preventable and this is the saddest part of this sad story.

If Dr. Murray had indeed been a competent doctor providing the best possible general care for Michael Jackson, all he had to do was referring him to a proper specialist like Dr. Czeisler. And it was AEG’s responsibilty not to hinder him in doing his job.

However none of them did what was expected of them and this is actually why Michael Jackson died. And now we are being told that no one  is responsible for it?

A DIFFERENT SCENARIO WAS POSSIBLE

It turns out that Dr. Czeisler is actually very easy to find. He does not work solely for agencies like NASA and the military – no, he is quite accessible to the general public and is a frequent spokesman at various forums where he calls on corporations to change their policies and urges the public to stop the trend to glorify sleeplessness as a means to success.

He calls the sleep deficit a performance killer, and started alerting people to the problem as early as 2003 (this is the earliest of his papers I found).  In the video below you can see Dr. Czeisler in person talking of the beneficial effect longer hours of sleep have on the employees and their productivity. Indeed, despite working less hours their productivity raises by 20%:

Sleep Deprivation And Productivity: Harvard Professor Explains Need For Shift Schedule Change

Posted: 03/12/2012 9:14 am EDT

And in his October 2006 presentation Dr. Czeisler called on corporations to change their performance killer policies and stop the tendency to glorify sleeplessness. The words he said in 2006 sound as if they were written about AEG and the way the corporation treated Michael Jackson:

Sleep Deficit: The Performance Killer

 
(excerpt)

Sleep deprivation, in your opinion, is a far more serious issue than most executives think it is.

Yes, indeed. Putting yourself or others at risk while driving or working at an impaired level is bad enough; expecting your employees to do the same is just irresponsible.

It amazes me that contemporary work and social culture glorifies sleeplessness in the way we once glorified people who could hold their liquor.

We now know that 24 hours without sleep or a week of sleeping four or five hours a night induces an impairment equivalent to a blood alcohol level of .1%. We would never say, “This person is a great worker! He’s drunk all the time!” yet we continue to celebrate people who sacrifice sleep. The analogy to drunkenness is real because, like a drunk, a person who is sleep deprived has no idea how functionally impaired he or she truly is. Moreover, their efficiency at work will suffer substantially, contributing to the phenomenon of “presenteeism,” which, as HBR has noted, exacts a large economic toll on business.

Sleep deprivation is not just an individual health hazard; it’s a public one. Consider the risk of occupational injury and driver fatigue. In a study our research team conducted of hospital interns who had been scheduled to work for at least 24 consecutive hours, we found that their odds of stabbing themselves with a needle or scalpel increased 61%, their risk of crashing a motor vehicle increased 168%, and their risk of a near miss increased 460%. In the U.S., drowsy drivers are responsible for a fifth of all motor vehicle accidents and some 8,000 deaths annually. It is estimated that 80,000 drivers fall asleep at the wheel every day, 10% of them run off the road, and every two minutes, one of them crashes. Countless innocent people are hurt.

There’s a man in Florida who’s serving a 15-year prison term for vehicular homicide—he’d been awake for 30-some hours when he crashed his company’s truck into a group of cars waiting for a light to change, killing three people. I would not want to be the CEO of the company bearing responsibility for those preventable deaths.

What should companies be doing to address the sleep problem?

People in executive positions should set behavioral expectations and develop corporate sleep policies, just as they already have concerning behaviors like smoking or sexual harassment.

It’s important to have a policy limiting scheduled work—ideally to no more than 12 hours a day, and exceptionally to no more than 16 consecutive hours. At least 11 consecutive hours of rest should be provided every 24 hours. Furthermore, employees should not be scheduled to work more than 60 hours a week and not be permitted to work more than 80 hours a week. When working at night or on extended shifts, employees should not be scheduled to work more than four or five consecutive days, and certainly no more than six consecutive days. People need at least one day off a week, and ideally two in a row, in order to avoid building up a sleep deficit.

Now, managers will often rationalize overscheduling employees. I hear them say that if their employees aren’t working, they will be out partying and not sleeping anyway. That may be true for some irresponsible individuals, but it doesn’t justify scheduling employees to work a hundred hours a week so that they can’t possibly get an adequate amount of sleep.

Finally, I would recommend that supervisors undergo training in sleep and fatigue management and that they promote good sleep behavior. People should learn to treat sleep as a serious matter. Both the company and the employees bear a shared responsibility to ensure that everyone comes to work well rested.

http://hbr.org/2006/10/sleep-deficit-the-performance-killer

“Both the company and the employees bear a shared responsibility to ensure that everyone comes to work well rested.”

Wow. If Dr. Czeisler’s approach had been the basis for cooperation between AEG and Michael Jackson (though he wasn’t even their employee), Michael would be alive now.

Now it is becoming clear that since AEG couldn’t demand anything of him directly the whole idea of their hiring Murray was to exert pressure on Michael via their employee doctor, who was rendering services to his patient but was actually reporting to AEG as his employer.

And this once again brings us to the problem of AEG bearing responsibility for the death of Michael Jackson.

AEG IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MICHAEL’S DEATH

Firstly, AEG is responsible for Michael’s death directly as they treated him as another of their employees –  though he was absolutely not and was actually a co-director of the show.

They simply overworked him by scheduling him for a working day of 12 or more hours 6 days a week.  Judging by Dr. Czeisler’s findings this schedule alone was a recipe for disaster, not to mention a ‘minor’ thing that they had no right to coerce him into this or any other working schedules made at their whim. I will never tire to repeat that the AEG own general counsel Shawn Trell said that the Artist has no obligation to attend the rehearsals and it is even an insult to demand it of him.

So it is no wonder that Michael was constanly asking “Why can’t I choose?” and cried almost each time he spoke to Randy Phillips on the phone. He said to his son that they were killing him and this is what they were really doing by overworking him to his death.

Secondly, AEG bears responsibility for Michael’s death indirectly as they hired Dr. Murray for the job of taking care of Michael’s health and it was during the time of his general care for Michael that the patient’s health gravely deteriorated and ended in his death.

Judge Greg Mathis explains this matter further in this video :

And here is an excerpt from his statement:

In a case where Michael Jackson’s mother Katherine sued AEG promoters for hiring Dr. Murray, a jury concluded that Dr. Conrad Murray was competent when AEG promoters hired him to provide medical care for Michael. Dr. Murray is currently in prison on a manslaughter conviction for his negligence that caused Michael’s death.

Do you think Dr. Murray was competent when he was hired by AEG?

Under the legal doctrine of Respondeat Superior* an employer is legally responsible for the actions of his employees when they are acting within the course and scope of employment unless the employee deviates from his assigned duties.

.. In this case Dr. Murray was performing the duty AEG hired him to perform which was to medically care for Michael Jackson. And that it is in direct resort of his care that Michael Jackson died.

Therefore AEG should have been held liable for his wrongful death because AEG hired Dr. Murray. Send me your comments and see if you can make sense of this jury’s decision.

Note: “Respondeat superior” is Latin for “Let the superior answer”, or the employer’s legal responsibility for the employee’s actions.

By now the judge’s statement has collected more than 4000 likes on Facebook. I hope it takes us to an appeal in this case and a really fair retrial of it.

And we could stop at that if it were not for one more phenomenon which is also attracting attention.

THE JURY AND FANS ARE IN A DEEP EMBRACE

The overview of the post-verdict battlefield would be incomplete if we did not mention the friendship the Michael Jackson’s fans suddenly struck with the jurors who just declared “competent’ the doctor who had killed Michael Jackson through his gross negligence and who found the AEG company ‘not guilty’ though it directly contributed to his death.

All these jurors had to do to drive the fans into a frenzy of a big new love was paying lip service to Michael and saying that as a result of the trial the two of them became his fans.

The juror who called himself #27 approached the MJJC fan forum with a letter praising the fans for their attitude to their verdict and since then we’ve been observing there the scenes of mutual glorification,  appreciation for each other and the exchange of gratitude for the great work done.

The kindred spirits have met and fallen into each other arms.

Another interesting phenomenon is that even in comparison with the ordinary public the MJJC fan forum has an abnormally big proportion of AEG supporters among their ranks.

Just prior to the verdict the HLN CNN branch site, which is actually a place attended by a huge number of Michael’s detractors, conducted a public opinion poll on whether AEG was responsible for Michael’s death, and as many as 74% of its readers said that it was.

Today, almost two weeks after the not guilty verdict for AEG  the same poll is showing that 71% of the readers are still of the opinion that AEG is responsible for Michael Jackson’s death: http://www.hlntv.com/poll/2013/09/24/aeg-responsible-michael-jacksons-death

Since the date of verdict the number of people thinking AEG responsible for Michael Jackson death has fallen from 74% to 71% but is still the overwhelming majority on the HLN site

Since the date of the verdict the number of people thinking AEG responsible for Michael Jackson death has fallen from 74% to 71% but it still makes the overwhelming majority of the HLN site readers. Only 29% support AEG  [Oct.7, 2013]

.~

However if you look at a similar poll conducted at the MJJCommuinity forum among its registered and eligible to vote fans, you will be immensely surprised to see that over there more than a half of the forum members consider AEG not liable for Michael’s death.

What a heart-breaking result for a forum claiming to represent the fan community and actually guiding them in their views on the trial and all other matters concerning Michael!

Here is the poll at the MJJCommunity forum:

On the MJJCommunity forum less more than a half support AEG

And on the MJJCommunity forum more than a half of voters support AEG and consider them not liable for Michael’s death. Thus the number of AEG supporters there is 22% more than on the HLN website reflecting the opinion of the general public

~

The difference in the poll results is telling the whole story and does not require much comment.

It clearly shows that the MJJC fan community has more supporters for AEG than even a HLN site which is reflecting the opinion of the general public including many of MJ’s open critics and even haters.

Does it mean that even MJ’s detractors are able to see what the so-called fans cannot – that AEG is responsible for Michael’s death?

Or can the MJJC love for AEG be simply a case of “Tell me who your friend is and I will tell you who you are”?

Whatever it is the results of the poll say that despite the fact that the jury delivered a not guilty verdict for AEG, the overwhelming majority of the general public (71%) still thinks AEG to be responsible for Michael’s death – which is a result I applaud with both of my wounded hands.

And on the MJJCommunity forum the number of  fans who think the same is only 48,9%, so the share of Katherine Jackson’s supporters on the MJ fan site is almost 22% lower than among the general public.

Similarly if we compare the number of supporters for AEG on both sites their share on the Michael Jackson forum will be again higher by 22% than on a HLN site which reflects the opinion of non-fans and ordinary public.

So will it surprise anyone now that the juror from the AEG trial went directly to MJJC and was welcomed there as a dear guest? The MJJC love affair with AEG has had a long history of its own, so the recent embraces with the jurors acquitting both AEG and Murray are just a new but logical step in all that flirting.

Considering the above statistics I suggest renaming MJJC into a forum of AEG fans.  This way it will be at least much more honest and true to the actual data.

OUR BICYCLES AGAINST THEIR MACHINERY

When this post was already made from the comments arriving I realised the degree of desperation prevailing among those of us who supported Katherine Jackson (and ultimately the truth) in her lawsuit against AEG.

The miscarriage of justice is indeed so gross that it is difficult to remain alive after so big a blow and delivered under the belt too.

Now we really know how Michael felt during the many years of grave injustice and vicious harassment.

However the same Absolute power that helped Michael to survive through it all sent me a sign of encouragement right at the moment when I was writing a reply to one of those desperate comments. It was a video blasting from my music TV and carrying exactly the feeling I now have which is almost impossible to put into words.

It is something like – Yes, we were killed, but it’s time to get up and ride our bicycles again.

The video of ’30 Seconds to Mars’ that helped me realize the feeling will say it better than words.

A darkness comes at dawn
These lessons that we’ve learned here
Have only just begun…

120 Comments leave one →
  1. December 4, 2013 5:21 pm

    “The media are not accurate . KJ is not the legal representative of her sons estate so she can not file a suit on behalf of the entity The Michael Jackson Estate.”- Sina

    The media of course can be absolutely inaccurate – actually by now we expect of them nothing else but inaccuracy and innuendo. But I am surprised by the wording – “on behalf of the Estate”. They never used it before, so why use now?

    I think we need to clarify this point at the first opportunity.

    As to Putnam’s hypocrisy it is simply loathsome. It seems that all of us had the same reaction to it – I also nearly threw up.

    It is our duty to stand by Katherine and support her in the best way we can. I will personally strangle everyone who will dare to say that she is “greedy”.

    Like

  2. Sina permalink
    December 4, 2013 5:05 pm

    Helena, my post was in reaction to an article that KJ was appealing on behalf of the MJEstate.
    The media are not accurate . KJ is not the legal representative of her sons estate so she can not file a suit on behalf of the entity The Michael Jackson Estate.
    The case has always been the beneficiaries KJ, and P.P.B-J, represented by K Jackson against AEG .
    The only thing I heard that they were appealing so far is the dismissal pf RP and PG from the case ,( after which out of the blue RP was sacked). The notice can be found on radar online of November 13th .I did not copy the link here, because that may be why my previous post didn’t show up.
    Maybe we can find out if there is further appeal from court documents through TMJ.

    “Putnam said in a statement to the Daily News. “As the world knows, Michael Jackson provided handsomely for his children and his mother in his will. Clearly this lawsuit was not originally brought-nor is it now being done-to meet their needs. It is time to let these children move on from this tragedy so they can properly recover from the loss of their father.”

    I almost threw up at this statement full of false sentiment and innuendo. Who the hell is this clown to even suggest what a mother should or shouldn’t do whose son was killed. Did it ever occur to him that they cannot recover untill all the culprits of their fathers murder, the ones he defends, acknowledge their responsibility?

    And a reminder for those who say ‘the estate’ pays for Kjs lawyers.
    The beneficiaries of a trust are the persons with equitable ownership of the will.
    The estate and the Katherine Jackson Trust was(to be) set up for KJ by her son to provide for her needs and for the Children (The childrens Trust ) as they are the ones who were meant to benefit from Michaels will and Family Trust.
    Her needs include legal representation that she needs no justification or permission for, from anyone.

    I wish her courage again to fight this uphill battle. Not only for the case itself, but mostly for the dirt that will be thrown at her by the usual suspects who will call her greedy and every name in their vocabulary. But this is a woman who after decades of insults, ridicule and withchunt of her son lost him at the hands of AEG and almost lost her grandchild. Nothing will hurt her more than that. No one stood in her shoes all those years or stand in her shoes now. I would like to encourage her with her sons words, that he probably learned from her.

    “I dont care if the whole world is against you or teasing you or saying you are not gonna make it. Believe in yourself, no matter what” Michael Jackson.

    Like

  3. December 4, 2013 4:18 pm

    “I can confirm that a multibillionaire and his corporations are demanding that the Jackson children pay them $1.2 million dollars. Happy holidays, each and every one,” Kevin Boyle said in a statement to The News Tuesday.” http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/katherine-jackson-notice-intent-new-aeg-trial-article-1.1536930#ixzz2mXRN8VC5

    Susanne, I’ve read that legally they have the right to claim damages from the side that lost to them, but this shows once again what AEG is like.

    A multibillionaire MONSTER. They did everything to humiliate Michael, and now they will stop at nothing to humiliate Katherine and Michael’s children. No ethical barriers, no moral brakes. And they talk about others being greedy?

    They themselves are asking for trouble and for Katherine to go on. There is only one good thing about it – the more they behave like that the more people will realize what an inhuman machine and monster Michael had to deal with.

    In moments like this I pray to God that he gives all of us strength to go on – because it is simply impossible to leave it as it is.

    Katherine Jackson wants another shot at AEG lawsuit; gives ‘notice of intent’ for new trial

    PUBLISHED: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2013, 7:36 AM

    Michael Jackson’s mother wants another crack at concert promoter AEG Live.

    Katherine Jackson filed paperwork on Monday to provide her “notice of intent” to ask for a new trial in the wrongful death case she lost in October.

    Her lawyers cited possible jury misconduct and newly discovered evidence in the short filing.

    “(Asking for a) new trial is the first step before appeal,” Katherine’s lawyer Brian Panish told the Daily News in a text Tuesday.

    The legal maneuvering came as lawyers for AEG Live filed their own papers demanding that Katherine’s side pay $1.2 million in costs since they brought the jury rejected her request for upwards of $1 billion in damages following a costly five month trial.

    “It is tragic that plaintiffs refuse to accept the jury’s verdict and move on from this baseless lawsuit,” AEG Live’s lawyer Marvin Putnam said in a statement to the Daily News. “As the world knows, Michael Jackson provided handsomely for his children and his mother in his will. Clearly this lawsuit was not originally brought-nor is it now being done-to meet their needs. It is time to let these children move on from this tragedy so they can properly recover from the loss of their father.”

    Another of Katherine’s lawyers disputed that statement.

    “I can confirm that a multibillionaire and his corporations are demanding that the Jackson children pay them $1.2 million dollars. Happy holidays, each and every one,” Kevin Boyle said in a statement to The News Tuesday.”

    Full story:http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/katherine-jackson-notice-intent-new-aeg-trial-article-1.1536930#ixzz2mXRN8VC5

    Like

  4. December 4, 2013 4:04 pm

    “I posted a comment but it didnt show up. Are comments held up or slowed down? Never had this before.” – Sina

    Sina, I have no idea. I checked up the spam and it is not there.

    Like

  5. Sina permalink
    December 4, 2013 3:52 pm

    I posted a comment but it didnt show up. Are comments held up or slowed down?
    Never had this before.

    Like

  6. susannerb permalink*
    December 4, 2013 3:28 pm

    Helena, the reason for this could be this information:
    http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/katherine-jackson-notice-intent-new-aeg-trial-article-1.1536930#ixzz2mXRN8VC5

    “The legal maneuvering came as lawyers for AEG Live filed their own papers demanding that Katherine’s side pay $1.2 million in costs since they brought the jury rejected her request for upwards of $1 billion in damages following a costly five month trial.”

    “I can confirm that a multibillionaire and his corporations are demanding that the Jackson children pay them $1.2 million dollars. Happy holidays, each and every one,” Kevin Boyle said in a statement to The News Tuesday.”

    Like

  7. December 4, 2013 1:03 pm

    Just a moment, guys. I’ve just read the following:

    November 13, 2013 10:06 PM

    Katherine Jackson has filed an appeal on behalf of Michael Jackson’s estate in the wrongful death suit against AEG Live.
    http://sports.yahoo.com/news/katherine-jackson-files-an-appeal-in-wrongful-death-suit-030630090.html

    So she has filed an appeal (great!) and ON BEHALF OF MICHAEL JACKSON’S ESTATE?

    More about the appeal here (the article gets the sum wrong, it wasn’t $40bln):

    Updated: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:00:00 GMT | By Bang
    Katherine Jackson files appeal

    Michael Jackson’s mother has filed new court documents appealing the verdict of her $40 billion wrongful death lawsuit against AEG Live.

    Katherine Jackson filed new court documents in Los Angeles this morning (13.11.13) in a bid to have the jury’s decision – which ruled the concert promoter was not responsible for the King of Pop’s death in 2009 and was not wrong for hiring Dr. Conrad Murray to be the late singer’s medical practitioner – overturned, according to gossip website TMZ.com.

    It was previously revealed that the 83-year-old Jackson family matriarch was still hopeful after hearing comments made the jury following the conclusion of the five-month trial last month and her lawyer Brian Panish confirmed they were gathering information for an appeal.

    He said: ”She isn’t throwing in the towel. We can’t give up until we gather all the information. Today is another chapter.”

    The jury decided on October 2 that AEG Live, the promoter of Michael’s ‘This Is It’ comeback concerts, hired Murray, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in November 2011, but were not liable for the disgraced physician’s actions that led to the ‘Thriller’ hitmaker’s death in 2009 because he was neither ”unfit” nor ”incompetent” when they hired him.

    Michael’s niece Tanay Jackson – the daughter of Michael’s brother Tito – recently revealed that his children, Prince, 15, Paris, 15, and 11-year-old Blanket, would never forgive Murray, who was released from jail in October after serving less than two years of a four-year sentence for involuntary manslaughter.

    She said: ”I think a murderer should get a longer sentence than that, I don’t think it’s fair. We really feel like there were more people involved in my uncle’s death. But Conrad Murray is the physical culprit because he physically injected him.”

    She added: ”No, we haven’t forgiven him. We can’t forgive him at all.”
    http://entertainment.malaysia.msn.com/celebrity/katherine-jackson-files-appeal

    GOD BLESS KATHERINE!

    And here is one more article which again says that Katherine files an appeal on behalf of the Estate:

    Katherine Jackson Files Appeal in Case Against AEG Live
    By Jeremy Blacklow | omg! – Wed, Nov 13, 2013 21:35 GMT

    You had to see this one coming.
    As expected, Katherine Jackson filed an appeal on behalf of her son Michael Jackson’s estate in the wrongful death suit against AEG Live. The appeal was filed on Nov. 8 and no further details are available at this time.

    Omg! has reached out to Jackson estate family lawyer Brian Panish for further details but hasn’t heard back yet at this time.

    After a trial that lasted five months this past summer, a jury ruled on Oct. 2 that the giant concert promoter was not responsible for Michael Jackson’s death because they did no wrong in hiring Dr. Conrad Murray, who they deemed fit and competent.

    When the trial was over, jurors said that if ethics were involved, AEG Live may have been found guilty. “The question was over whether or not Dr. Murray was competent. We found that he was,” jury foreman Gregg Barden said at the time. “(He) had a license, he graduated from an accredited college, and we felt that he was competent of doing the job of being a general practitioner.”

    “Now that doesn’t mean we felt he was ethical,” Barden continued. “If ethical was in the question, it could have been a different outcome. In the end, he was very unethical. He did something he shouldn’t have done.”

    Panish gave a hint following the ruling that an appeal might be coming. “We are evaluating everything at this time and will then decide,” Panish said following the verdict. “We are disappointed by the verdict but respect the jury system.”

    Earlier this month, “omg! Insider’s” Kevin Frazier spoke with the Jackson brothers about the trial. “I felt that we were robbed because the whole thing was set up from the very beginning,” Jermaine Jackson said. “This trial [is] not about money, it’s not about any of that. We were looking for answers from this second trial … We’re still mourning — that’s why we’re playing the music — but at the same time, I think the organization that Michael worked for … should be ashamed of themselves. How they treated my brother. How they treated him and his last moments. They should be ashamed.”
    http://uk.omg.yahoo.com/gossip/celeb-news/katherine-jackson-files-appeal-case-against-aeg-live-213531461.html

    How could we miss it? It was on November 13th!

    Like

  8. October 19, 2013 2:42 am

    “As you said: We are in a time of war. It is imperative that we understand who our allies and our enemies are. This is no small matter. OUR success depends on it.” – lopsided man

    I’ll tell you what I think. I think that the Estate is trying hard to stay above the battle. Their business is to generate money and money is generated not in lawsuits but in making new projects and getting the fans and the general public interested in them.

    I think they are trying to be friends with MJJC as the biggest fan community in order to get support for their projects. They do not realize that its Senior staff is flirting with AEG (as a very minimum), is trying hard to mix the Estate with AEG into one pile and create the impression that it is one and the same thing. But they are not and the Estate’s lawsuit against Tohme shows it.

    I also think that the Estate lawyers realize the power of those who were harassing Michael and contributed to his demise, and they knew the outcome of this trial even before it began. In their statement they didn’t support AEG, but they did not accuse the family either – they simply tried to stay above the battle.

    Why they paid those $36 mln to AEG out of the profits they had from TII film? For the same reason – not to get involved in a scandalous lawsuit with AEG which would rid them of the last funds in MJ’s estate at a moment when it was at its most vulnerable.

    Why they went into This is it project with them? For the same reason – they need to generate money for Michael’s children so that they don’t go begging in the street. This goal is much more important than mounting on a high horse and saying to AEG “we don’t want to have anything to do with the footage you have”.

    You know, I am even surprised that I have to talk about it. Don’t people realize it themselves?

    If there had been no debt and there had been billions on Michael’s accounts the situation would have been totally different, and the behavior of the Estate lawyers would have been different too.

    As to Eric Briggs – when MJ was alive his financial company was the main evaluator of Michael’s catalog for every entity that approached them with this assignment, the Estate included (who approached them after MJ’s death), and each time he gave a sum lower than the one from the IRS now, so the Estate was using the figures everyone was using.

    And the fact that AEG lawyers invited the same Eric Briggs is AEG’s trick and not the Estate’s. Now we know that the Estate did not allow Briggs to talk about MJ’s catalog – it turned out that Briggs simply did not ask them for a permission. He finally said so in his testimony.

    But initially Briggs lied, and wanted to create the impression that the Estate was behind him, and this is one of those small things which betrayed where the devil was hiding.

    Like

  9. Lopsided Man permalink
    October 18, 2013 6:59 pm

    “Lopsided man, I must be so tolerant to people that I simply don’t see any guilt where others see it. And I don’t always believe the statements people make. I always look into the interests of various groups of people and into what they do and not say.
    If I believed everyone who says that they are the best friends of Michael Jackson AEG would be on the top of his best friends list, but at least with me this trick will not work.
    However I am really sick and tired of having to constantly defend the Estate. If you think that they are guilty like hell of whatever you think they are it is up to you and everyone else who thinks that way. My only request is that people should leave them alone long enough to let them pay all the debts and the money required of them by the IRS, if those millions really have to be paid (which I doubt).” – Vindicatemj (Helena)

    Helena, as I just showed in my previous post, it’s their ACTIONS (hiring an AEG attorney who was double dealing in AEG’s favor against Michael in that atrocious contract which you RIGHTLY condemn, the executors actions within days of Michael’s death; the counterfeit Cascio songs,etc) and their words that reveal their true interests.

    Whether you and I “believe” their statement of support for AEG doesn’t matter. What does matter is that they made it, and undermined the lawsuit brought by Michael’s mother and children.

    The executors are lawyers with power, money and connections. If they had sided with the Michael’s family, or had taken the initiative to sue AEG by themselves, it would have been a much more fair fight. They chose to side with AEG.

    I also don’t think you should feel forced to defend them because you think it will prevent them from earning money for the Estate. The fight for Justice matters far more.

    As you said: We are in a time of war. It is imperative that we understand who our allies and our enemies are. This is no small matter. OUR success depends on it.

    Like

  10. October 18, 2013 1:47 pm

    “Here’s proof that the executors support AEG (aside from the fact that they hired AEG attorney Joel Katz to serve as co-counsel within days of Michael’s death). “The suggestion that John Branca or Howard Weitzman have a conflict of interest when it comes to AEG, and for that reason, did not join Katherine Jackson in suing AEG, is not only false but reckless and noticeably unsupported by any facts. The Estate chose not to join in the lawsuit because it saw no evidence that AEG was culpable in Michael’s tragic passing.” – Estate statement (September 2012). During the trial, we also discovered that the executors were already negotiating deals (This Is It movie, etc.) with AEG before even presenting the will to Michael’s family.” – Lopsided man

    Lopsided man, I must be so tolerant to people that I simply don’t see any guilt where others see it. And I don’t always believe the statements people make. I always look into the interests of various groups of people and into what they do and not say.

    If I believed everyone who says that they are the best friends of Michael Jackson AEG would be on the top of his best friends list, but at least with me this trick will not work.

    However I am really sick and tired of having to constantly defend the Estate. If you think that they are guilty like hell of whatever you think they are it is up to you and everyone else who thinks that way. My only request is that people should leave them alone long enough to let them pay all the debts and the money required of them by the IRS, if those millions really have to be paid (which I doubt).

    All the rest is none of my business. Time will show who is who, and who was a friend to Michael and who was his enemy.

    Like

  11. October 17, 2013 4:00 pm

    Not one sane adult questioned this.Having lstened to those who did not remember and then to those called hysterical for 5 months it was time for a change.Treaeted to the movie TII and a relaxing lunch, a siesta would have been needed too.Why disturb the pleasant ambiance with difficult intellectual continous exercises. Michael was so nice,some became fans. He deserved that. Why this belated symphathy for MJJ. Maybe unconscious guilt.

    Worldpress is not posting my comments on the regular blog.Why? They have been accepting my new e-mail and password but are creating all kin of difficulties now.

    Like

  12. October 17, 2013 3:56 pm

    Strange with that”forbidden word”. Even the judge did not utter it.This was a trial that ended before it really started even after 5 months.

    wORLPRESS HAS REFUSED ALL MY POSTS TODAY. wILL SEE IF THIS WORKS.

    Like

  13. Lopsided man permalink
    October 15, 2013 4:43 pm

    Here’s proof that the executors support AEG (aside from the fact that they hired AEG attorney Joel Katz to serve as co-counsel within days of Michael’s death).

    “The suggestion that John Branca or Howard Weitzman have a conflict of interest when it comes to AEG, and for that reason, did not join Katherine Jackson in suing AEG, is not only false but reckless and noticeably unsupported by any facts. The Estate chose not to join in the lawsuit because it saw no evidence that AEG was culpable in Michael’s tragic passing.” – Estate statement (September 2012).

    During the trial, we also discovered that the executors were already negotiating deals (This Is It movie, etc.) with AEG before even presenting the will to Michael’s family.

    Like

  14. October 14, 2013 5:08 pm

    Also your comment.,Helena, re this trial it, would be most suitable for a play by Moliere. But where can we find a Moliere in these times or the actors. Such thinking and imagination is all
    too rare.

    Like

  15. October 14, 2013 2:03 pm

    I still hope KJ would have won big and that a considerable amount of this money would go towards Michaels last wish:The ChIldrens Hospital.That was in fact a main deal of his legacy.
    Now it sits with a corporation.

    Like

  16. October 14, 2013 1:55 pm

    Helena I was especially amused by the remark of your compatriot, now living in US, who stated you are demolishing the US Justice system. As far as I am concerned, yes I am when
    ethicths takes fligt so easyly for the love of money.What will that mean for the future.?

    Like

  17. simba permalink
    October 13, 2013 8:30 pm

    “JUROR: Yes, it is interesting and kind of sad for me to read now about the factions fighting within MJ’s fanbase. As I said earlier, I was completely clueless before this trial. Obviously I knew he had millions of fans all over the world, but the in-fighting and schisms and drama was all completely unknown to me. I’m happy to see that even in the midst of all this there are so many MJ fans who continue to remain positive and use his caring, loving nature to guide them along their path.”

    Hard to read that without gagging. What a load of tosh! Juror 27 has zero regard for Michael Jackson as a human being, but he expects us to swallow this “caring, loving” bilge? This is a deliberate insult, to the fans and to Michael.

    Karen Faye testified that Frank Dileo worked for AEG. If the makeup artist knew that, why didn’t AEG’s lawyers know that Dileo, and the long-fired Tohme Tohme, had no standing to sign off on a document that billed MJ’s estate for $34,000,000? If the Estate executors are taking a hard line against Tohme, why didn’t Branca demand proof that the bill was justified, instead of just paying it?

    Katherine Jackson should sue AEG for fraud.

    Like

  18. Mariam permalink
    October 13, 2013 7:24 pm

    “He didn’t yet know much of the circumstances of MJ’s cooperation with AEG as he was a new person to the deal, and the only one who looked responsible for Michael’s death at that time was Conrad Murray, so I see no reason why he should not be praising the movie and Michael in it” Helena

    Yes, he might not know if AEG reliable for MJ’s death and what they did to MJ so he had no reason not to support their promotion that time, I also knew that Dr. Murray was the only suspect at that time, but the family was saying repeatedly on TV there were more people responsible for his death.

    “I think they even by the law the Estate is required to repay the debts first before they start giving away money to charity” Helena

    I though his debt $300 or 500 is paid by now. Isn’t it? And the number is growing time to time. First it was $300, and then in court said $400 and recently I read on twitter going up to $500, if that is true. How much was his debt exactly?

    Totally agree with you, your debt has/must be paid before you start giving, you cannot give what you don’t have.

    Like

  19. Mariam permalink
    October 13, 2013 6:14 pm

    “It is easy. When you love someone and this someone has enormous respect, gratitude and love for his mother, you will think twice before you start lashing out at her.” Helena

    Helena, said it all and I don’t know what to add, but I will just write how MJ express the gratitude of love and respect he had for his mother.

    He said this on that tape “ I don’t know anybody like her, she’s like a mother Teresa. There are very few people like that.” So if he loved her and respect her that much, why not us, his friends, fans? What is our reason to dislike her? The only people who will/could hate or dislike her are AEG & AEG fans, otherwise, I don’t know or never heard from anybody against her other than AEG and AEG’s fans before. AEG has right to dislike/hate her because she sued them.

    Sometimes, I feel bad for her position now, because she is cursed, attacked the same fashion way like her son. It seems like they turned to her now because he is dead and doing the same thing like they did to her son because she is Michael Jackson mother. They are attacking and bulling his kids, his mom and it seems like they are the target now, because they know they will never get MJ again

    Stephenson, to be honest with you , there is no one in the universe closest to you and loving you genuinely, unconditionally like your parent, not even your brother or sister, except God almighty, b/c He is a creator of our soul from the start. That is what I believe and seen in realty, you may not agree with that, which is ok. To me a love between a mother and child is natural and biological so, no one could love him like his mother.
    I don’t think MJ did/will appreciate if he knew that we don’t like his mom.

    Like

  20. Mariam permalink
    October 13, 2013 4:59 pm

    “I have no doubt whatsoever that he had Michael’s best interests at heart, and if anyone could save Michael out of that terrible contract with AEG it was only Branca. Only him.” Helena

    Thank you Helena for taking time to help me understand, especially about Estate (JB) situation and I kind of got hope and a little more faith on the Estate now. Yes, I want to believe badly that JB or both executors has MJ’s best interest at heart, because I want someone to be trustworthy and faithful to MJ and take care of his staff and his legacy as per MJ’s will at list now b/c he was robed all his life. The man like him deserve better.

    In fact, having 20 something years friendship should worth faithfulness and trust between them. B/c that makes sense very much to me. I wish if JB came back at the beginning before he signed the contract with AEG or a little bit earlier before he died, AEG wouldn’t do what they did to him if he had someone like JB in his side; it is unfortunate he has no one at that time.

    Michael needed best lawyer who has MJ’s best interests and a wife who loved him care about him before and after he died.

    One time when I was watching LMP & her mom interview for “Elvis 35 anniversary” and I saw Graceland (his house and his staff, even LMP’s toys had when she was child) made me to think and wished, if MJ has a wife who took care of him when he was in life and also take care of his welfare, his legacy, Neverland after he died.

    I admired Elvis wife for that, after 35 years, she is still continue working to keep his legacy and his name live. I am not sure if MJ had someone trusted person there, immediately when he died to collect his staff from his house, his unfinished works, his books & notes, in general his privacy was not protected. I saw some of his notes, privet pictures and his unfinished music on the internet.

    I have one question for you Helena, what do you think the Esteat doing so far in terms of keeping MJ’s legacy and his will? I know they are doing well with making profit, I must say they are doing great job with revenue, but how about his will, his charities, his dream of building children hospital, etc, do you have some information in that aspect?

    About FD, we cannot change anything now and also as you said, because he is not here to explain to us how and why. Also he cannot defend himself now so we cannot believe all what everybody said about him. But I didn’t like the fact that he ignored and did not help MJ when he was told he is ill.

    Like

  21. October 13, 2013 3:40 pm

    “To me it’s so obvious this Q&A is orchestrated. The juror’s statements look precast or rewritten by some expert, it’s conspicious that there is no misspelling, no typos, all written in a perfect style, giving the impression he has an answer to everything. His statements fit perfectly in AEG’s agenda.” – Susanne

    Susanne, to me it is also obvious. It is great that different people came to the same conclusion absolutely independent of each other – without any pressure, argument or persuasion from the outside. Usually it means that their impression is true.

    Like

  22. October 13, 2013 3:33 pm

    “So if we love one of 2 different people, why does it follow we have to feel the same way about the other person? Makes no sense to me. Say if I love one person in a family, do I have to love another person in the family as well?” – stephenson

    Stephenson, it is easy. When you love someone and this someone has enormous respect, gratitude and love for his mother, you will think twice before you start lashing out at her.

    First of all you will restrain yourself out of sheer respect for the man you love, even if he is deceased (he respected her, so you respect his choice), and secondly, the mere thought that he adored her will make you look at the traits of her character, values and beliefs with much more attention and trust. After all this is a woman who raised her son the way we came to love and appreciate him.

    Like

  23. October 13, 2013 3:16 pm

    “Juror 27 is no Capote, but he strikes me as a person who does a great deal of writing at a professional level, like a PR person, most of whom are former journalists.” – Simba

    Oh Simba, exactly! The style is so polished that it makes you wonder. I am absolutely intrigued which of the male jurors could be speaking and writing that way. I also wonder why they did not select him as their foreman if he is so eloquent in explaining things. The stream of his words is simply mesmerizing:

    – What we were looking for was disciplinary action against Murray in the form of malpractice suits or complaints, something that would give a reasonable person cause to find Murray unfit or incompetent at the time they hired him.
    – I ask only in a playful, rhetorical sense, because had we decided to award damages the ethics of the plaintiffs were completely irrelevant and would not have factored in at all.
    etc.

    The mutual curtsies between the fans and the juror are so frequent that it is almost unbearable, so all of it leaves you with a totally unreal feeling – it is indeed too good to be true:

    FORUM MEMBER: As you might have noticed, the MJ ‘fan community’ has a number of heated, on-going debates within it, and it is sometimes a struggle to deal with these in a way that reflects MJ’s message of love and tolerance. People strive to present their opinions in a way that respects the other party’s views, but let’s face it, we are not perfect–we are human–we make mistakes and we get caught up in our likes and dislikes, our deeply felt convictions, so please bear with us.

    JUROR: Yes, it is interesting and kind of sad for me to read now about the factions fighting within MJ’s fanbase. As I said earlier, I was completely clueless before this trial. Obviously I knew he had millions of fans all over the world, but the in-fighting and schisms and drama was all completely unknown to me. I’m happy to see that even in the midst of all this there are so many MJ fans who continue to remain positive and use his caring, loving nature to guide them along their path.

    Like

  24. October 13, 2013 2:32 pm

    “Then after MJ died I heard his interview about MJ final week and asked what he think about This is it move, I was quite surprised when he lied about MJ’s situation and tried to support AEG’s promotion on This is it movie.” – Mariam

    I haven’t seen the interview and don’t know what he said but assume that he praised the film. In his circumstances I would have done the same – he had a big debt to repay and needed to generate money, and the footage they received from AEG was indeed impressive (AEG took $5mln for putting the film together) and he didn’t yet know much of the circumstances of MJ’s cooperation with AEG as he was a new person to the deal, and the only one who looked responsible for Michael’s death at that time was Conrad Murray, so I see no reason why he should not be praising the movie and Michael in it.

    All of us were thrilled to see the last footage of Michael Jackson, including Branca and Sony – all of us wanted to see him. Randy Phillips boasted about that footage: “I shopped it around to studios and [there was] a bidding war between four studios, Universal, Sony, Paramount and Fox.” http://www.examiner.com/article/examiner-exclusive-aeg-s-randy-phillips-talks-this-is-it-michael-jackson-and-more-part-ii

    Sony offered the highest price ($60mln as far as I remember) and Randy Phillips was amazed that when they were showing them the trailer the room was packed with Sony people so that it looked like the whole company stopped working. By the way AEG not only sold the footage and got extra $5mln for editing it, but they also obtained for themselves 10% of profit from running the movie.

    If there is a company whose name should be GREED it is AEG.

    “I also have bad impression when he was interviewed about the catalogs that he did a deal behalf of MJ but he took a lot of credit as if he bought it, now he getting 5% commotion from it. If you notice on the AEG trial, one witness said about the deal between Sony and MJ had regarding loan, the witnesses said MJ was trapped and said he was amazed how Sony fold MJ’s hand. So I felt JB was helping Sony more than MJ.”

    Frankly I didn’t understand what you are talking of. From what I know Branca was the person who obtained the Beatles catalog for Michael, and when Michael had to pay huge damages for cancelling the Dangerous tour and didn’t have ready money, advisors suggested that he should sell part of his Beatles catalog. Branca advised him against it and instead arranged a merge deal with Sony who brought in their music catalog and Michael brought in his. The difference in the value was defined as some $70 mln or more, and this money was paid to Michael out of which he repaid the damages for the Dangerous tour.

    If I remember it right during the merge Branca asked for himself either a commission or a share for himself (don’t remember it now). But with time he sold his share as Michael was growing displeased with it, and now he has none. So the Sony/ATV catalog is divided now 50-50% between MJ’s Estate and Sony.

    At a later point when Michael could lose his share due to the debts Sony came to Michael’s help and refinanced his debts leaving for themselves the right to be the first to buy half of his share (25%) but what’s noteworthy is that they never used this right. When I learned that they had this possibility but never used it my attitude towards Sony greatly improved.

    “Another thing it concerned me most now is, how Estate is running MJ’s everything, they are more focused on making money than keeping his legacy as original it is and as MJ wants it. Making money and bring profit is one thing but the most important thing should be keeping his legacy first than the profit. Focus on what MJ wants plans and dreamed about. For example, his charity was important to him, building children’s hospital was his dream, and helping orphanage all over the world was his dream and takes care of the planet and so on.”

    I think they even by the law the Estate is required to repay the debts first before they start giving away money to charity. People can make for themselves a good name by giving away to charity while all this time their creditors will be waiting for money owed to them? It is simply not fair.

    Like

  25. October 13, 2013 1:43 pm

    “The fact that FD called him to come back not MJ (we all know how FD treated MJ and I questioned his came back itself to MJ’s life too. MJ had 3 managers and to designers when he died but who hired who and who brought who is still vague to me).” – Mariam

    Now it is more or less clear that Frank Dileo was a compromise figure suggested by AEG instead of Tohme fired by Michael. And though we heard a lot about Dileo during this trial including him signing papers for Michael Jackson possibly for a bribe promised to him by AEG, even in this case I would refrain from the final judgment. Frank died under strange circumstances (was accidentally given a double doze of anesthesia) and cannot answer for himself now, so only God knows what lies may be told about him now without him being able to defend himself.

    As regards Dileo’s statement after MJ’s death we know that he signed off all the expenses which MJ was allegedly to cover. It said:

    “…throughout the process of producing the show, Michael Jackson had many requests of AEG Live, and he acknowledged that he would be responsible for the costs associated with such requests.” For instance, Michael Jackson asked AEG Live, as the producer of the show, to retain the services of Dr. Conrad Murray, who Michael said was his personal physician.
    Q. And can you go down to the bottom of that page…did Mr. Dileo sign this document?
    A. Mr. Dileo, under a paragraph that reads, I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and if required to do so, I would and could testify competently to the same. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California, the United States of America, and any other applicable laws, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 13th day of July, 2009, in Los Angeles, California, Frank Dileo.

    Q. Were you aware that after Michael Jackson died, AEG Live paid Frank Dileo $5 million?
    A. No, I’m not aware.
    Q. Let’s look at this string of emails…..And then it says, approved 5 million bucket, right?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And then it says, above that, someone needs to generate a check request with a full explanation of what this payment is for. Randy and Shawn can sign off, and it can be charged to additional motion picture expenses.
    A. Yes
    Q. Did you sign off and approve any expenses for Mr. Dileo to be paid after Mr. Jackson died, yes or no?
    A. This looks like a $50,000 payment was made to Frank Dileo in connection with the motion picture…. The $50,000 payment to Frank would have had to do with something, it’s not clear to me, related to the motion picture. And the reference to the $5 million bucket is an agreement as between AEG and the estate regarding additional motion picture expense … Like a contingency. You know, we had a bucket to deal with additional expenses incurred as the film was produced, so that’s … When it says $5 million bucket, it means it’s to be accounted for in that bucket. It does not mean Frank was paid $5 million.

    (from Shawn Trell’s testimony)

    But if you want to know what the Estate lawyers thought about it you will have to read another article where Frank Dileo expressed his extreme anger with the Estate lawyers for not paying him the money he thought was due to him. As far as I remember it was his share for the This is it film. And this trial revealed that the ‘bribe’ was written off by AEG exactly as payment to Dileo for This is it movie, though he had nothing to do with it.

    In short it looks like Dileo indeed signed some papers for Michael claiming that he had agreed to pay all production costs, and as a result of that the Estate had to pay $36mln to AEG, but when it came to paying money to Dileo out of the profits for This is it the Estate refused to do so.

    This is only a supposition on my part as I am just trying to connect the dots, but it seems to me that there is a connection between the two episodes:

    Frank Dileo, Michael Jackson’s former manager, fed up with pop star’s estate before death: source
    BY GATECRASHER
    DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
    Thursday, August 25, 2011

    Frank Dileo rests in peace – though we hear he was pretty agitated about Michael Jackson’s estate before he died.
    As the music world mourned the loss of Jackson’s old-school cigar-chomping manager, who died on Wednesday, friends of Dileo tell us that his last healthy days were darkened by a growing disenchantment with the late pop star’s co-executors.
    One source says that early this year, Dileo even fired off an angry email to one of those executors, entertainment attorney John Branca, to complain about co-executor John McClain.
    “He told Branca that he was very disappointed,” says the friend who adds: “They were cutting Frank’s power” and money he received as a consultant to Jackson’s estate.
    “He felt he wasn’t getting his fair share financially and that McClain was undermining him,” says the source.

    http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-08-25/gossip/29943119_1_executors-mcclain-and-branca-late-pop

    Like

  26. October 13, 2013 1:07 pm

    “The circumstance of MJ last two weeks of his life and the appearance of JB one week before MJ death even though MJ was so disappointed on him is suspicious.”- Mariam

    It depends on how you look at it. First of all even from Frank Cascio books we know that there were times when Michael was disappointed with him too, and they broke apart though were the best of friends, and then they made it up, and no one was to blame but only those who were around Michael and who played their own games around them.

    As far as I know John Branca left Michael’s employment himself and exactly for the reason that there were too many “well-wishers” around Michael who pulled him into various directions and Branca could no longer cope with that situation.

    However judging by what he did for Michael before (the Beatles Catalog, Neverland, etc.) I have no doubt whatsoever that he had Michael’s best interests at heart, and if anyone could save Michael out of that terrible contract with AEG it was only Branca. Only him.

    So the fact that Michael rehired Branca two weeks before his death to me means that Michael was fighting AEG and with Branca by his side knew that eventually he would find a way to sort out all those horrible terms in the contract referring to its inconsistencies, wrong dates or the illegal and overwhelming presence of Tohme in that contract.

    And what do we see now? Branca is indeed fighting Tohme, and I wish him all the success he will need in this fight.

    So to me rehiring Branca is absolutely not suspicious – instead it is a sign that despite his terrible condition Michael raised himself to try and challenge his AEG harassers by balancing them with a strong lawyer by his side. Unfortunately both of them had too little time left for this fight.

    Like

  27. October 13, 2013 12:45 pm

    “Helena, I would like to ask forgiveness for my incorrect information in advance because my understanding , observation and my opinion could be wrong and kindly, ask you to correct me and educate me.” – Mariam

    Oh, Mariam, please don’t ask me to “forgive” you (or anyone). Like all other ordinary people I am absolutely not in a position to forgive or punish anyone – I am simply sharing my views with you in the same way you are sharing yours. And like everyone else I also make mistakes and know that others make them too. It is natural of all human beings.

    There is only one thing I really do fight and it is lies told maliciously with the idea to deliberately misguide and misinform. You know, the kind of thing when people know the truth but are selling you lies in order to fool you, force you into taking wrong decisions, divide people between themselves, in short in order ‘to divide and conquer’.

    And my goal is different – it is search for the truth. This process is not easy and I know how many people make mistakes (me included). When it comes to a situation around Michael Jackson you have to dig through a lot of lies, analyze, compare and sort out, and after processing tons of information pick up the small of grains of truth that remain. If you have done all the digging but the truth is still unaccessible I prefer to leave it at that until new information arrives.

    That is why I am not jumping to conclusions as far as the Estate goes. The most arguments against them are too minor a thing to put them on a par with AEG, for example, whose contract alone is the most terrible business document I’ve ever read.

    And many of the things currently said about the Estate may easily be the result of misconceptions, bias or someone’s malicous lies. I will try to answer some of your questions as they come:

    The reason why I put the Estate in to picture is, because the will itself is mystery to me (the date, the place, and the situation between MJ & JB at the time 2002 e.tc.)

    This will may indeed be a mystery but all the wills prior to this one named the same people as executors of the Estate. So if not this will, then the earlier one will apply. The real mystery may concern only a totally new will, made with a totally different attorney and no such will has yet surfaced.

    I’ve heard some stories that a new will could have been made by Peter Lopez and he suddenly committed suicide which is suspicious, but there is no proof that he ever made one and Peter Lopez is a partner in a law company Century City’s Kleinberg Lopez Lange Cuddy & Klein, and a copy of the will should have been kept by the company (if it was ever made). I don’t think that lawyers keep the wills of their clients at home for fear of fire, robbery, etc.

    In short it is pure speculation to think that there was some other, fifth will which was maliciously destroyed. Peter Lopez’s suicide is indeed suspicious, but if I were to suspect someone I would think of totally different people. However naming them would be another speculation so let us leave it at that unless some more information surfaces.

    Like

  28. October 13, 2013 12:05 pm

    “I was one of the people who asked a question of Juror No.27 on the MJJC Forum. I queried about Conrad Murray asking for life saving resuscitation equipment, which he never received, so AEG should have known that he was carrying out a risky procedure, and checked. I never got an answer.” – Nina Hamilton

    Very interesting. So this juror is selective in answering the questions? And are the unanswered questions kept on the list for everyone to see it and wait till he answers? Or are the unanawered questions not displayed? This is important.

    “As early as March 2009 when Randy Phillips was trying to get Michael to the 02 Arena for the Press conference, it seems he already knew that MJ was not in good shape, according to his vivid descriptions of events.Also they could see Michael fading away before their eyes in June and they did nothing much to help, except empty talk. It’s not rocket science to see their negligence and liability. There is more behind this than meets the eye.”

    Absolutely. It is not rocket science to see his negligence.

    I’ve been trying to analyze all the answers of this juror #27 to see some logic in what he is saying but at some point realized that that he will say anything to release AEG of their guilt. At one time it is one statement, at another time it is the opposite statement – so the idea is not the truth but defending AEG as a matter of principle.

    I will try to make a post about this juror but will not cover everything he says. This is not needed as many readers have already done a fantastic job of disproving his false statements.

    Like

  29. simba permalink
    October 13, 2013 12:02 am

    Stephenson wrote, “Simba, the points you make about Juror #27 can be answered as follows. Why are the words so well-written, no typos, or spelling mistakes? MJJC has an edit function where people can correct such things if they want.

    It’s not the lack of typos or spelling mistakes that distinguishes Juror 27’s posts. It’s the style of the writing itself – if Truman Capote misspelled a word or two, the writing would still be recognizably Capote’s. Juror 27 is no Capote, but he strikes me as a person who does a great deal of writing at a professional level, like a PR person, most of whom are former journalists.

    “Re the KJ deposition, someone else brought it up and Juror #27 responded–’IF that is so,’ etc.”

    No, he didn’t. He responded, “Hmm. Seems pretty cut and dry from where I’m sitting.” IMO, he’s sitting in an office at AEG.

    Like

  30. Anonymous permalink
    October 12, 2013 10:36 pm

    MJ Truth Now is, or was formed by Catherine Coy, she lives in my town http://activerain.com/profile/cathcoy

    I used to support her site until i got to know the person, shes confrontational, she does not like it if you have a mind of your own, after constant confrontations with her, i had to block her,

    Like

  31. October 12, 2013 10:13 pm

    Thanks for your comment, Susan62509.

    Mariam, you say we have to either love or hate both MJ and his mother–if we love MJ, we have to love his mother and if we hate his mother, we have to hate him too. I don’t agree with this statement b/c MJ and his mother are 2 different people. So if we love one of 2 different people, why does it follow we have to feel the same way about the other person? Makes no sense to me. Say if I love one person in a family, do I have to love another person in the family as well? why? Say I get married to one person in a family, or I am best friends with one person in a family, so I now have to love another family member just as much? What if I dislike (or ‘hate’) one person in a family, so I have to dislike another person in the family the same way?? doesn’t make sense.

    Simba, the points you make about Juror #27 can be answered as follows. Why are the words so well-written, no typos, or spelling mistakes? MJJC has an edit function where people can correct such things if they want. Re the KJ deposition, someone else brought it up and Juror #27 responded–‘IF that is so,’ etc.

    Like

  32. October 12, 2013 4:18 am

    @simba: I agree with every word. To me it’s so obvious this Q&A is orchestrated. The juror’s statements look precast or rewritten by some expert, it’s conspicious that there is no misspelling, no typos, all written in a perfect style, giving the impression he has an answer to everything. His statements fit perfectly in AEG’s agenda.
    Right, the answers are just too perfect. Too perfect for a juror who had to sit for 5 months in a trial and took no time after these 5 months to review the evidence again. His memory is too good for that, while he even says at one point that he has no access to the evidence now.

    Like

  33. October 12, 2013 3:40 am

    Not only controlled his Doctor but the Children’s Nanny as well. The person who was suppose to attend to the schooling and minding of Michael’s children when he was away or could not? “The services you provide do not meet OUR needs.” ???? This was swift and automatic done on one day effective the next. There was no time to react, protest or question. This says we are your employer not Michael. And so it was no matter who would have footed the bill the employer was AEG. There was money enough for the fired Thome. That AEG would list Thome as a Director for TII. Michael was to end up footing a bill for Thome’s unwanted “services???”, but there wasn’t money enough to insure a small peace of mind when it came to his children?

    Photocopy of letter from Paul Gongware firing Grace:

    P.S. Did Thome receive a percent as a Director of TII? Just wondering if he received money from my several movie ticket purchases of TII and several copies of the DVD for self and family? And if so why?

    Like

  34. Mariam permalink
    October 11, 2013 10:04 pm

    “Over here I don’t understand why you are throwing the Estate into the picture” Helena

    Helena, I would like to ask forgiveness for my incorrect information in advance because my understanding , observation and my opinion could be wrong and kindly, ask you to correct me and educate me.
    The reason why I put the Estate in to picture is, because the will itself is mystery to me (the date, the place, and the situation between MJ & JB at the time 2002 e.tc.)
    The circumstance of MJ last two weeks of his life and the appearance of JB one week before MJ death even though MJ was so disappointed on him is suspicious.
    The fact that FD called him to come back not MJ ( we all know how FD treated MJ and I questioned his came back itself to MJ’s life too. MJ had 3 managers and to designers when he died but who hired who and who brought who is still vague to me). It seems most of the people brought for This is it production is by AEG and also hired by AEG even though they were former employee of MJ. Only I got info about is KF & MB are brought direct by MJ because KF said MJ called her & asked her to join.
    Sudden death of Peter Lopez, JB’s friendship with Sony and TM who cause a lot of pain to MJ, and the communication he had with AEG but not much with MJ,
    Then after MJ died I heard his interview about MJ final week and asked what he think about This is it move, I was quite surprised when he lied about MJ’s situation and tried to support AEG’s promotion on This is it move. I also have bad impression when he was interviewed about the catalogs that he did a deal behalf of MJ but he took a lot of credit as if he bought it, now he getting 5% commotion from it. If you notice on the AEG trial, one witness said about the deal between Sony and MJ had regarding loan, the witnesses said MJ was trapped and said he was amazed how Sony fold MJ’s hand. So I felt JB was helping Sony more than MJ.
    Another thing it concerned me most now is, how Estate is running MJ’s everything, they are more focused on making money than keeping his legacy as original it is and as MJ wants it. Making money and bring profit is one thing but the most important thing should be keeping his legacy first than the profit. Focus on what MJ wants plans and dreamed about. For example, his charity was important to him, building children’s hospital was his dream, and helping orphanage all over the world was his dream and takes care of the planet and so on.

    Again Helena, please educate me and correct me if I am wrong

    Like

  35. simba permalink
    October 11, 2013 4:59 pm

    I’ve read and re-read Juror 27’s posts on MJJC, and I’m convinced that if he’s really one of the jurors, he’s a shill for AEG. He simply has too much detail in his answers. It seems to me to be written to persuade, not explain. And as noted, the literary style is too perfect – it seems like a PR person put this together. I was especially struck by Juror 27’s answers to Tygger, a poster who didn’t drink the MJJC Kool-Aid. (What is up with that ‘fan’ site?).

    Juror 27 overplayed his hand when he talked about a statement Katherine Jackson made in her deposition. Katherine Jackson testified; the deposition was never played in court. The only way Juror 27 would have known about it is if he did his own outside investigation, which is strictly forbidden. Or more likely, the posts were prepared by an AEG operative who got a little sloppy.

    All in all, the fawning flattery back and forth, the incredibly detailed explanations, the effort to make lies about Murray’s contract the truth, the excuse about the “freak” comment not being so bad because it originated in the London office! – just too good to be true.

    Like

  36. susan62509 permalink
    October 11, 2013 4:05 pm

    Hi Helena –
    First and most important, I wasn’t aware you recently had surgery until I read your older topics. I hope you are feeling better everyday and back to 100% soon. Please take care of yourself.

    Second, thank you for replying to my comments. I appreciate your answers and responding in a kind way.

    Third, this is an excellent interview with Brian Panish which lasts 22 minutes. I don’t know if you have seen it before. He talks honestly and open-minded with the trial results. Please enjoy.

    BHL Justice Is Served – Brian Panish – October 11th, 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XumaTcF-kso&feature=youtu.be&a=&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DXumaTcF-kso%26feature%3Dyoutu.be%26a&app=desktop

    Like

  37. October 11, 2013 3:56 pm

    This trial lasted 5 months and jurors came to a conclusion in only 13 hrs. I think they must have been overwhelmed with all the material, the sudden dementia of quite a few AEG offficials on the witness stand,various changes in wording over time as well as timelines.
    Also the fact that in civil trials you can only ask for money.The huge amounts may have overwhelmed some jurors despite judges orders. Much of what was discussed during the trial came out several years later.And it was said that after Michael died everybody lied.
    And who is this juror27. Was she or he weven a juror.?Aeg has acted very badly both re the contract and the rest. As susan62509 says the jurors actually set a new precendent which will make many criminal doctors very happy-Murray just disappeared and the lied to police. At least he knew then he was guilty.Some jailtime may have worked better. In old days they had even harsher methods..Why constantly harp on Katherines “greed”. She had no other means to get at AEGs mismanagement and lack of concern for human life.

    Like

  38. October 11, 2013 3:11 pm

    Oh, and Conrad Murray did have a medical negligence claim against him before he was taken on, I understand.

    Like

  39. October 11, 2013 2:46 pm

    I should have added that AEG should definitely have paid something to Mrs. Jackson and the children; perhaps not $2 billion, but a fair share for their accountability. I feel that someone is pulling AEG’s strings who are then pulling everyone else’s, like the judge, the jury etc. etc. It is difficult to prove their failings and wrongdoings, or stand up to huge global corporate bodies.

    Like

  40. October 11, 2013 2:33 pm

    This is so complicated so I shall try to simplify if I can. I was one of the people who asked a question of Juror No.27 on the MJJC Forum. I queried about Conrad Murray asking for life saving resuscitation equipment, which he never received, so AEG should have known that he was carrying out a risky procedure, and checked. I never got an answer. As early as March 2009 when Randy Phillips was trying to get Michael to the 02 Arena for the Press conference, it seems he already knew that MJ was not in good shape, according to his vivid descriptions of events. Then, again, if they had checked they would have known that Conrad Murray still had practices in Nevada and Texas although his Board certifications had expired in December 2008. They hired the doctor so they should have monitored him and carry the responsibility for his incompetent actions and mistakes. Also they could see Michael fading away before their eyes in June and they did nothing much to help, except empty talk. It’s not rocket science to see their negligence and liability. There is more behind this than meets the eye.

    Like

  41. October 11, 2013 2:00 pm

    Simply, we cannot hate his mother if we truly love MJ. I couldn’t understand why we need explanation for this, for me there is no other way. Either love both or hate both.
    We cannot like/support both AEG and MJ at the same time because AEG is one of the main causes for MJ’s death beside Propofol and Dr. Conrad Murray.
    We cannot give excuse for Dr. Conrad Murray’s behavior because he is the one who killed him.
    ” – Mariam

    You said it all, Mariam and very clearly too. It is indeed very simple and all other arguments are the usual sly tricks of evil.

    “In general, we cannot be a friend or nice to the people like AEG, Estate, Dr. Murry, including jury’s if we are truly MJ’s fan unless we have another reason, really.”

    Over here I don’t understand why you are throwing the Estate into the picture. Up till now we had no proof whatsoever that they have anything to do with Michael’s death.

    The fact that some AEG supporters pretend to be also the supporters of the Estate makes me think that they are using the Estate as a shield for themselves and a way to confuse others into thinking that AEG and the Estate are one and the same thing.

    I am sure that they aren’t, and at least one of the facts proving it is that Tohme was part of the Tom Barrack-Tohme-AEG inseparable trio, while the Estate has been in a long fight with Tohme, and is therefore in indirect confrontation with the group at the very least.

    If they don’t demonstrate it openly, it still does not mean that they are big friends with AEG.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if AEG wanted to drag the Estate into their orbit to confuse the fans, seed division among them and use it for their purposes. So at the moment unless any new information surfaces I don’t see AEG and the Estate to be in one pile.

    The Estate lawyers are probably trying to stay above all these games, and are friendly with all fans who don’t openly fight them, and this gives various groups of people a chance to play their own cards. For example, a group advocating the interests of AEG can easily proclaim themselves to be the supporters of the Estate too, thus making the rest of us think that there is an equal mark between AEG and the Estate lawyers.

    But this will be only the impression which they desire to produce while in reality there is no or little connection between these two entities.

    This is what I think of the situation at the moment unless someone provides me with irrefutable evidence that the Estate lawyers support AEG.

    Like

  42. October 11, 2013 1:41 pm

    “You are in my prayers for your recovery. Take care.” – Jolie

    Thank you, Jolie. I do need your prayers very much and thank you for them.

    “I found the following tweets below on TeamMichael777 timeline. Discussion about whether Juror #27 was an alternate juror. just wanted to alert you of the discussion. and possibility.”

    I’ve been thinking of it myself and if he was an alternate juror he could not take part in deliberations at all unless there were special instructions from the judge. But I looked up the instructions from Judge Palazuelos and there were none. The rule is:

    California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI)
    5015. Instruction to Alternate Jurors

    The alternate jurors shall be seated so as to have equal power and facilities for seeing and hearing the proceedings in the case, and shall take the same oath as the jurors already selected, and shall, unless excused by the court, attend at all times upon the trial of the cause in company with the other jurors, but shall not participate in deliberation unless ordered by the court, and for a failure to do so are liable to be punished for contempt.
    http://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/5000/5015.html

    So juror #27 could not be an alternate. And later I realized that the number this juror gave himself could simply be his pen name on the internet and he could indeed be one of the 12 jurors.

    On the other hand he doesn’t sound like one of them at all. As Nan earlier said for the jury that spent only 13 hours on deliberations there is too much dialogue going on. It is indeed extremely unnatural to first see a person hurry up with the verdict and then spend hours and hours on explaining it. If they were in a hurry to get back to their normal life then they shouldn’t be spending so much time on a fan forum now.

    Ivy of the MJJC should know who this person is as he said he provided his credentials of a juror to her (“I have sent pics of the last two months of service certificates to ivy”). Well, he knew whom to send the credentials to, didn’t he?

    Look at the list of the male jurors – who of these people can it be? He isn’t the foreman, and most probably not the one who is currently employed and has too much work to do after several months of not being at his workplace. So who remains? One of the two retired people – a retired civil engineer or a retired metal worker depending on who is better educated here, as the literary style of the juror is perfect.

    Or it can be any of these 6 people who is simply provided ready answers by an expert on the AEG side.

    – Juror No. 3: A t-shirt print businessman from West Los Angeles
    – Juror No. 6: A white male high school physical education teacher [presiding juror]
    – Juror No. 8: An Asian male who works for Baxter Health Care
    – Juror No. 9: A retired civil engineer
    – Juror No. 10: A black male retired metal worker

    – Juror No. 12: A male DWP employee from East Los Angeles [Department for Work and Pensions]

    http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/entertainment&id=9265378

    To my big shame I haven’t read all the answers of the juror yet. When I do I will share with you my impressions.

    Like

  43. jolie permalink
    October 11, 2013 12:12 pm

    Hi Helena,

    You are in my prayers for your recovery. Take care.

    I found the following tweets below on TeamMichael777 timeline. Discussion about whether Juror #27 was an alternate juror. This is just an fyi. I have not been following in-depth the aftermath of the AEG trial verdict. But just wanted to alert you of the discussion. and possibility. Thank you!

    Brigha O’Neill ‏@BrighaONeill 7 Oct
    @wingheart Wasn’t juror 27 an alternative? If so, why were they discussing testimony at all? It’s not allowed until deliberations.

    13june2005 ‏@13june2005 22h
    @BrighaONeill was J27 an alternative?

    Brigha O’Neill ‏@BrighaONeill 17h
    @13june2005 Foreman was #6. Smith was #9. So, a juror number in double figures must be an alternate, right?

    ♛TeamMichaelJackson♛ ‏@TeamMichael777 17h
    @BrighaONeill @13june2005 Then he would have got another number J 1 to 12, alternates 1 to 6

    4:46 PM – 10 Oct 13 · Details

    ♛TeamMichaelJackson♛ ‏@TeamMichael777 17h
    @BrighaONeill @13june2005 J27 would be the number before he was actually elected to be juror on the case, there were over 100 jurors

    Like

  44. October 11, 2013 5:49 am

    From the wording in the juror’s comment, the jury Foreman wasn’t the only one who was itching to get this ‘thing’ over and done with.

    Answering ‘No’ to Question 2 did release the jurors from answering all the other questions and there were 16 questions in all they had to answer I understand. Perhaps the hardest questions had to do with damages and how to award them, but they never got anywhere near that point.

    On Question 2 alone, Mr Panish spoke for approximately 25 minutes giving the reasons why the jurors should answer ‘yes’ to the question and at the very beginning of presenting these reasons, Mr Panish referred to Murray being unfit and incompetent at ANYTIME, not just at the day of hiring – Panish spelt that out for the jurors. However, the jurors disregarded the ‘ANYTIME’ in favor of the moment of hiring.

    The no-dispute evidence that Murray is sitting in prison because he was found guilty of causing Michael’s death, which undeniably speaks to his unfitness and incompetence, was thrown out the window by the jurors because this happened after the point of hiring.

    However, there was other evidence Mr Panish outlined in his closing rebuttal which spoke to a ‘no’ answer besides Murray’s ‘general medical care’, and these were all plainly evident at the point of hiring.

    Conflict of Interest Red Flag
    The conflict of interest evidence was something AEG created by hiring Murray (the jurors did agree AEG hired Murray) and much evidence was presented during the trial to support the fact that a conflict of interest was indeed created. It put Murray in a position where he had dual obligations – to Michael and to AEG, very risky in itself. But the large financial incentive, which was to be paid by AEG did, in fact, put Murray in the high-risk bracket. Evidence was presented to say that AEG didn’t have to involve themselves with Michael’s personal doctor at all. There was no reason for AEG to have a contract with Murray. It was the first time any witness, including AEG’s witnesses, could remember this being done.

    Monetary Red Flag
    Red flags should have been raised (and actually were) at the sum Murray had requested initially and even the amount he agreed on. Even AEG’s own witness, Mr Hom (a long-time record industry promoter) said the amount was ‘outrageous’. And Gongaware knew it was – his rock-doc, tour doctor friend indicated he would accept $40,000 per week (also outrageous in my opinion, but seems to be the ‘going’ rate).

    Cardiology Red Flag
    Another red flag because Murray was a cardiologist and Michael didn’t have any history of heart problems. Michael’s main problem, which everyone knew about BEFORE the point of hiring (according to the evidence) was insomnia and Murray was not qualified in that area. Also, in the past Michael had a problem with pain and a situation which developed because of the over-prescribing of pain medication. Again, Murray was not a specialist in those areas, and again, this was something the people who had worked with Michael, including most particularly Gongaware, knew about. (Gongaware says he didn’t remember anything about that – he lied.) And many others knew about as well – it was pretty much common knowledge – hadn’t Michael admitted waaaay back in 1993 that pain medication had become a problem.

    But the jurors disregarded all the above evidence – were they asleep?

    I think it would take some special kind of argument to convince jurors firstly, to focus on the point of hiring rather than afterwards and then also to ignore all of the above evidence (present at the point of hiring) to come to the conclusion that Murray was fit and competent. Either they were asleep while specific contractual evidence was being presented or they were in a rush to get home.

    Like

  45. Nan permalink
    October 10, 2013 8:52 pm

    I hadnt read the part about the jury foreman wanting to push through the discussion because he was impatient, until someone put it in the comments , but if people on this site , can discuss it, I am kind of surprised how quickly the jury made up their mind..
    I was not for this case, I had my reservations, ….
    But it is a good question at what point was Murray supposedly hired by AEG, because that could be up for debate.
    Seems to me , they jerked this dr off, until the last minute and them made the contract up , because they really needed mj to make it to England to get the insurance in place..I think they had to know…
    In my mind , AEG involved themselves in mj day to day treatment., and partnered with the doctor without asking what the doctor was doing.
    ‘DR doesnt go to rehearsals ??? WTH, mj gets home at midnight , everybody knows he cant sleep …if he gave him 15 lorazepam and walked away and he died as opposed to propoful , would it make a difference? He abandoned his pt to call is bimbos and Lloyds of London.
    If he didnt abandoned his pt , he would be alive..
    He supposedly had a thready pulse and neglected to call 911..didnt do the cpr as lynande said..
    .

    The man was incompetent, shouldnt matter in what way he died.if Murray accidently ran him over , that is one thing, but this was medical treatment..
    so many variables .
    MJ wasnt doing anything illegal…he had a professional dr to monitor him
    ,
    It is very murky.
    As far and the time of night this stuff took place, I didnt see AEG emails wondering why this doctor wasnt at rehearsal when he would have been exerting himself.This was never discussed , so they knew it was at night mj needed this guy.
    I dont remember seeing anything about the hours he was supposed to work , but i dont know much about the contract either..
    ‘They had to have known it was sleep problems or evening problems becasue nothing was being done at rehersal time ..
    I guess you cant prove it in a court of law, and the jury made their decision , but in my opinion they chose to push Murray and tell him to get him on stage, got some cameras and insurance and crossed their fingers until they could get this dr , who wasnt even licensed in England to the insurance people to cover their ass,
    Kind of surprised that all the dr shopping came into the case about mj , but not why in the middle of the entertainment world , they chose someone East coast, rather then someone in the know in LA>>imo , because everyone already knew about MJ issues in his own backyard
    Like I said , at the very least , I think the jury had more to discuss, but certainly , at least for Mrs KJckson , if she was looking for answers …a whole lot came out and AEG looks horrible imo…

    Like

  46. Mariam permalink
    October 10, 2013 7:47 pm

    We need realty check here.

    Simply, we cannot hate his mother if we truly love MJ. I couldn’t understand why we need explanation for this, for me there is no other way. Either love both or hate both.

    We cannot like/support both AEG and MJ at the same time because AEG is one of the main causes for MJ’s death beside Propofol and Dr. Conrad Murray.

    We cannot give excuse for Dr. Conrad Murray’s behavior because he is the one who killed him.

    In general, we cannot be a friend or nice to the people like AEG, Estate, Dr. Murry, including jury’s if we are truly MJ’s fan unless we have another reason, really.

    I love the idea that is mentioned about unity and respect with each other and being one for the sake of MJ and his legacy. Late as show that for the haters.

    I hope every MJ’s fan agree with me with this. By the way, I have a huge respect and love for every one of MJ’s fan because you love and defend the person I have tremendous respect as a great humanitarian and beautiful human being MICHEAL JACKSON. He is irreplaceable.

    Like

  47. Sina permalink
    October 10, 2013 6:44 pm

    The explanation of Respondeat superior given here is a simplification of the law.
    If the law would be as simple as quoting one line, we wouldn’t need lawyers and cases that take years. Let me put for you in perspective some of the buts and ifs of the doctrine

    RS is a key doctrine in the law of agency, which provides that a principal (employer) is responsible for the actions of his/her/its agent (employee) in the “course of employment.”

    ‘An employee is not necessarily acting outside the scope of employment merely because she does something that she should not do. An employer cannot disclaim liability simply by showing that the employee had been directed not to do what she did. A forbidden act is within the scope of employment for purposes of respondeat superior if it is necessary to accomplish an assigned task or if it might reasonably be expected that an employee would perform it.

    An employer is liable for harm done by the employee within the scope of employment, whether the act was accidental or reckless. The employer is even responsible for intentional wrongs if they are committed, at least in part, on the employer’s behalf. For example, a bill collector who commits Assault and Battery to extract an overdue payment subjects the employer to legal liability.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Respondeat+Superior

    Why do you think RP and PG were absolved for their horrendous behaviour.

    For the last time, I am a Michael Jackson fan and am not interested in AEGs position. So I don’t need to be lectured about what I should or shouldnt do nor being played the emotional card. I am also not a fan of fans or fansites and if they misbehave I will critisize them.

    Like

  48. Carole Tia permalink
    October 10, 2013 5:49 pm

    Stephenson
    U definitly belong to the other Mj “fans”

    Like

  49. October 10, 2013 5:23 pm

    “Our legal system is not based on emotions, sympathy, assumption, opinion, mind-readers or media favoritism. Our legal system is based on evidence only.” – Susan62509

    Very nice, then please explain why the jurors completely disregarded the overwhelming evidence that Dr. Murray and Randy Phillips ignored the obvious signs of illness Michael on June 19th.

    Murray told Ortega to mind his own business, Randy Phillips admired Murray’s behavior and said to everyone that Ortega’s hysteria “was checked”, but at the same time suddenly requested the insurance company for a policy covering the death of the client (which previously they had not sought). An interesting piece of evidence by the way.

    Like

  50. October 10, 2013 5:17 pm

    “Under the legal doctrine of Respondeat Superior* an employer is legally responsible for the actions of his employees when they are acting within the course and scope of employment UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE DEVIATES FROM HIS ASSIGNED DUTIES. Time of of occurrence was approx. 1:00 a.m. to noon the following day. These were NOT scheduled working hours. Place: MJ’s bedroom, Carolwood house. Purpose: Providing benzo’s and propofol to MJ for sleep.” – Susan63509

    Your interpretation of the legal doctrine of Repondeat Superior may be correct – at least this is what I’ve also read about it. But this as regards propofol only, however Dr. Murray’s responsibilities included general care for his patient and taking urgent measures in case of emergency, and in both cases he displayed horrid negligence.

    There was no proper general care and many witnesses saw it with their own eyes, and there was an absolutely inadequate reaction of Dr. Murray (and AEG) to the emergency situation which arose on June 19th.

    So irrespective of any propofol Dr. Murray was not fulfilling his duties properly while in employment of AEG.

    Like

  51. October 10, 2013 5:06 pm

    “Response: Murray’s Patient Rating Scores Chart above: Notice the last rating was Sept. 2013, not prior to 2009. These rating charts are found on Google for anyone to rate a doctor, they have zero reliability and no one in the U.S. follows them.” – Susan62509

    Susan, I wouldn’t pay much attention to those charts either as probably anyone can leave a comment there, but if the people are required to give their full name, address, etc. the chart may be of some value.

    Response: This is an incorrect comparison because the pyrotechnic’s were actually working performing their job requirements/description that day at their place of work. Murray and MJ were in MJ’s bedroom on their OWN time NOT performing the job requirements/description that he was hired to do by AEG.

    Murray was not performing his duties properly not only at night, but at all other time – when Michael was ill during rehearsals and Murray didn’t care, when Michael was all alone and “there was no one to even give him a cup of hot tea” as Ortega said, when Michael was turning skeletal and Murray promised to make him some protein shakes but never did, when Michael’s body was ice-cold, but Murray said to others not to pay attention and leave the matter to him, etc.

    In short he displayed his horrid negligence for Michael in full view of everyone, in the daytime when ordinary people were already noticing that Michael’s health was deteriorating and for 8 weeks too, but neither Murray nor Randy Phillips ever allowed another doctor to come closer to Michael Jackson to mend the situation. If this isn’t negligence than I don’t know what it is.

    – “they finally said “No” to a question of Murray’s incompetence thus asserting his competence, ending the trial and setting new standards for the medical community. This way the jurors actually set a precedent which some criminal doctors will surely appreciate.”
    – Response: Absolutely incorrect 100%. The verdict has not set any precedent for criminal cases or the medical community.

    The response is incorrect. The opinion expressed by the jury, especially in the form of a verdict, usually affects the views of the general public and sets a certain example for the society to follow. If the court says that ethics and competence are not interconnected, ordinary people will tend to think the same.

    And I am not even saying that once the jury set a precedent their decision will go into the legal records and law ruling civil cases. The future litigants will always have a chance to say – in case XXXX ethics and competence of doctors were set apart, so why not take a similar decision?

    However I am more concerned with the effect of the jurors’ explanations on the general ethics in the society. Depriving a medical profession of its ethics will actually kill the profession.

    Like

  52. susan62509 permalink
    October 10, 2013 4:41 pm

    Response: Murray’s Patient Rating Scores Chart above: Notice the last rating was Sept. 2013, not prior to 2009. These rating charts are found on Google for anyone to rate a doctor, they have zero reliability and no one in the U.S. follows them.

    Murray was NOT the same type of an employee as the tour pyrotechnics, for example, for whose negligence (burning someone) AEG would be obliged to bear full responsibility in case of an accident.”

    Response: This is an incorrect comparison because the pyrotechnic’s were actually working performing their job requirements/description that day at their place of work. Murray and MJ were in MJ’s bedroom on their OWN time NOT performing the job requirements/description that he was hired to do by AEG.

    “After several hours of racking their brains and several lunches consumed they finally said “No” to a question of Murray’s incompetence thus asserting his competence, ending the trial and setting new standards for the medical community.”
    “This way the jurors actually set a precedent which some criminal doctors will surely appreciate.”

    Response: Absolutely incorrect 100%. The verdict has not set any precedent for criminal cases or the medical community.

    Like

  53. October 10, 2013 4:37 pm

    “IMHO labeling other forums as no longer being MJ fan forums b/c they have people on those forum who agree with the verdict is going too far.”– Stephenson

    It was only my humble suggestion made on the basis of the actual statistics showing that MJJC has 22% more supporters for AEG than the average public opinion poll conducted by CNN. In these circumstances the suggestion was logical.

    “First, forums are places were people express their views, their opinions, and people do disagree with one another on all these forums. There is no lock-step mindset that is compelled upon anyone–people are free to state their views.”

    Oh, over here you are terribly mistaken – people are not free to speak against AEG, at least on MJJC. For several months before the trial various AEG motions, declarations, etc. were discussed there, and while most people were trashing Katherine Jackson the admins never interfered, but as soon as someone wondered why there was so much support given to AEG not only fans but senior staff and admins immediately intervened and stamped out that opinion with an almost steel hand.

    For example, in this thread one person tried to express his views:

    – “I find it strange that some fans are supporting the unidentified people who make up the AEG corporation without even knowing who they are and without knowing what kind of moral compass they follow.I prefer a balanced approach to this matter. God, I thank you for allowing Michael to continue to watch over his children: Prince Michael, Paris, and Blanket.”

    Sample replies to this person:

    – “I would not qualify YOURS as balanced either. None of us know the full story, we are all speculating from official court documents. Just sayin'”
    – “Stop trying to make Michael out to be some little wuss, controlled by anybody who crossed his path. He certainly didn’t get as far as he did by letting folks walk all over him! And I agree, your fixation with Michael’s children is a bit creepy, in my opinion. No offense, but it is type creepy.”
    -“uhm sorry to say but you don’t have a balanced approach. also you might want to take your own advice and not call people murderers without knowing who they really are and their moral compass. It’s not like you know anyone from AEG as well and in a position to determine whether they are really evil or not. You came to a conclusion based on your personal opinions, so did everyone else.” (Senior Staff)

    A couple of more comments arrived from the ‘dissident’:

    -“I find your support of the corporation AEG to be a lot creepy. Just saying.”
    – “Why are you all bent on making excuses for and being baffled by Murray’s actions? Just accept the obvious Murray’s intent was to harm Michael Jackson, and he did.”

    New replies from others:

    – “I cannot understand your line of thinking, and I’m not mocking you or anything. How did you come to that conclusion or what makes you think that? Few pages earlier you were accusing AEG?”
    – “sorry to say but there’s nothing obvious about Murray’s intent, even the criminal case was involuntary manslaughter which means no intent… Finally I would prefer if you don’t try to push your opinions on other people. You might think that deliberately killed Michael but for some of us it doesn’t add up.” (Senior Staff)

    Another comment from the dissident:

    – “Why so touchy? I don’t claim to have all the answers. We already know Conrad Murray is a liar, and guilty of involuntary manslaughter. I am entitled to my opinion just as you are. I happen to believe Conrad Murray is also a murderer and a “bad actor”.”

    In reply the dissident was accused of insulting others:

    – “You are entitled to your opinion and so is everyone else. So I don’t appreciate the “just accept” order coming from anyone. You can write your opinion without trying it to push it on other people.” (Senior Staff)

    – “Everyone has a right to voice their opinion, but not to insult others for their opinion or trying to force yours view on them. Thats isnt how this works. No one is making excuses they are discussing and stating the facts as they know them. Voice your opinion and reasons for them and dont insult anyone or tell anyone how they must think. If you have some facts to share to back up your views, share them. but please dont jump on members for sharing theirs. We dont have to insult one another to express our views or opinions. Lets get along. Ok (Admin)

    Frankly I did not notice any insults in the comments of the ‘dissident’. However I did notice a lot of insults in what the others were writing about Katherine Jackson, and not a single time did the Senior Staff or Admin say a word of reproach or restraint. For example:

    – “I’m looking forward seeing Katherine on stand and trying to keep up with her web of lies.”

    – “I hope AEG has been keeping tabs on their interviews and use them in trial for exposing their lies and how they twist everything to fit their agenda.”

    – “At this stage, I don’t care how badly K and her deadbeat cubs are exposed during the trial, they deserve every bit of it, and more.”

    – “I can’t wait to see all of the Jacksons explain away how they change their minds to suit. I hope AEG have done their homework. And I am seriously hoping LaToya is called, can’t wait to see her explanation of how she knows her brother was murdered.”

    – “AEG’s strategy should be to go after her and her real motivations for filing this lawsuit.”

    – “By showing her contradictions and lies to the jurors, AEG might be able to reduce the amount of money (in case AEG loses) jurors are willing to award Katherine. If AEG shows the lies, contradictions, Katherine’s own responsibility to MJ, her greediness for money will portray her in bad light, so I think it might help AEG reduce the amount she’ll be awarded if any, at least I hope so.”

    – “A good lawyer can show up her inconsistencies without badgering her. Like, saying in a clam voice, “you said on June 9th XYZ, and now you say QRS, which is the correct answer.” If he does this to her sufficient number of times, they jury will get the picture.”

    – “They make me sick.”

    – “Please someone, i have a question: If by any unknown reasons the Jacksons win the case, can AEG go for an appeal or there’s no appeal on civil cases?”

    As you have guessed exquisite expressions about Katherine Jackson (“her web of lies”, “her deadbeat cubs”, etc.) were never stopped by the admins. Imagine the same said about AEG and you will realize than anyone saying it could be simply stoned to death there.

    After reading 130 pages of the above trashing of Katherine Jackson I finally exclaimed:

    – “I can’t believe what I see here. Michael Jackson’s “fans” are advising AEG on how to form their strategy to win from his mother?”

    – and later: “I was amazed to see so much hate and spite towards Katherine Jackson and her civil suit. The people are already calling it a “farce of a trial” and how “disgusting” Katherine’s “deadbeat cubs” are. The majority are siding with the AEG though the trial has not yet even started and some even wish that AEG wins from Michael’s mother! And what is most surprising is that no one is reminding them of the need to be unbiased.”

    Out of the discussion that followed I am omitting facts concerning AEG contract, etc. and leave only the samples of arguments about my views on AEG and Katherine Jackson:

    Replies to me:

    “Her lawyers are paid to speak for her. How on earth would our support help katherine? Surely all she needs is truth on her side”

    My reply:

    – “How would your support help Katherine? By merely creating for her more or less equal conditions with AEG. Okay, if people here are not ready to support Katherine, why don’t they at least refrain from dragging her through the mud in every post?”

    Sample replies to and about me:

    – “It became obvious why she was posting which is why I stopped communicating. We have had this before where people want to be noticed so come here on pick out phrases, even sometimes out of context and run with them. A regular member is not going to explain on page 130 of a thread the reasons behind a thought or feeling as they would on earlier pages, nobody wants to repeat themselves on a daily basis.”

    – “perhaps you should ease on the never ending conspiracy theories for your own sake? AEG did not limit your access to your blog and I personally stopped reading your blog long long ago when you didn’t even consider the information that I provided to you. You seemed like you needed to be right and cannot even reconsider your position based on new information provided to you” (Senior Staff)

    – “I comment on these posts as any member so please don’t refer to me as a “senior admin”. I’m only a senior admin if and when I moderate your posts. As the only thing I did was to approve your posts, my staff position is totally irrelevant here. Plus I don’t remember at any time I claimed to be perfect or without bias. I just called complaining about people’s stand against jacksons was hypocritical given that you are openly negative towards AEG.” (Senior Staff)

    “To me it’s kinda hypocritical that you have issues with people being openly negative towards Jacksons. Why is it okay for you to be openly negative to AEG and why can’t others be openly against Jacksons? Unless you are coming up with a rule that says people must be for Jacksons? As I have been on this forum for a long time, what I was trying to say to you it doesn’t work like that. There are people that are against AEG, there will be people that are against Jacksons.” (Senior Staff)

    – “There’s no rule that says we need to support Katherine just because she’s his mother.” ( Senior Staff)

    My sample comments:

    – “I refer to you as a senior admin as your own credentials say that you are Senior Staff here. And as long as you moderate my posts, do not admit them or allow them your staff position is absolutely relevant for my opportunity to speak here. I hoped you would appreciate my honesty in stating pointblank that as a result of my study of AEG/MJ papers I am openly negative towards AEG. This is called openness and is not even remotely close to a truly hypocritical position when people profess one thing and do exactly the opposite.”

    – “You yourself are calling on me to be unbiased towards AEG. If you keep to the position of total neutrality why don’t you remind each and everybody here that they should be unbiased towards Katherine too? And I am expressing my opinion of AEG based on extensive studies of the case, so why does almost everyone here reprimand me for my research instead of looking into these facts? Not a single person here has said to me yet that 50 concerts non-agreed with Michael (which are not even in that contract) are an outrage. It really does create the impression that no one cares. But Katherine Jackson DOES care and wants answers to her legitimate questions. And I am not even saying that if Michael heard what is being said about his mother here he would not believe that these are his fans.”

    Sample replies to me:

    – “You knew full well what that forum was way before you started posted here and your first post was to attack everybody else here.”

    – “Personally I see no value to a discussion when members do not take the time to read through the forum, and rather pick out comments in one thread & berate the whole group or make outlandish statements about issues that they do not have a grasp of, rather than taking the time to look at the facts that are in documents in the forum. Next, this current campaign of telling fans how to think has to stop–no fan has their parent in charge of anyone in this forum. Hitler does not work here.

    Closer to the end of it one person didn’t believe me that Michael was to do concerts with only one day of rest between the shows and commented:

    “I do know this quote doesn’t make much sense since there weren’t any two shows in row, and it was indeed as “MJ” said “show-day off”. That’s what I remember when I logged the online ticket purchase, if you have more accurate information please enlighten me. So there was a first leg from 24 concerts, then a break from full 3 months, then a second leg with 26 concerts. 50 concerts in 9 month.”

    My reply was:

    “Well, since you are asking… 50 concerts in 9 months sound like 5-6 concerts a month. And this is probably how AEG and Tohme presented it to Michael, operating in “average” figures. But in reality they planned for him two legs in the first of which Michael Jackson was to perform21 shows every other day and in the second leg he was to perform 17 shows every other day.”

    This was immediately stopped:

    “I think we need to get back to main topic.” (Senior Staff)

    My reply:

    “And what is the main topic for you? I am writing about AEG and the way they set their schedule for Michael. And how Michael was terribly stressed out already in March. And about the way AEG totally disregarded Michael’s opinions and wishes inflicting him even more pain. Is all of it not the main topic for a fan of Michael Jackson? Are all the people here similarly not bothered by what AEG was doing to Michael? Well, his MOTHER is bothered because it was her child who was living under that enormous pressure for the last FOUR months of his life. And she cannot forgive. And Michael’s true fans cannot forgive either and want JUSTICE.”

    After this I was banned without any notice or explanation to anyone. People continued writing on how wrong I was in speaking against AEG. One Russian girl currently working in the US even said: “What you are advocating here is an abuse of U.S. legal system” and asked me for a reply. This was a ritual question only as we had discussed exactly the same text with her in this blog long before that, so the whole idea of repeating it there was to state her views without giving me a chance to reply as I was already banned and my name was crossed out (helena1247).

    And after that everything went into the regular course and the habitual trashing of Katherine Jackson continued. Naturally there was no reaction from the Senior Staff and no one restrained anyone:

    – “Their need for financial gain is simply sickening.”
    – “I hope if AEG doesn’t win they go for an appeal, hope they never settle. The Jacksons really have money to add more attorneys to their pool, hope they all drown.”

    http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/127843-Pretrial-Discussion-Closed-AEG-files-summary-judgment-motion-to-dismiss-Katherine-s-lawsuit/page148

    Stephenson, all of the above was a reply to your statement which you made about this blog:

    “A disagreement need not mean a total alienation from and lack of respect for those with differing views”.

    All I can say in reply to you is repeat your statement in application to the MJJCommunity forum this time:

    “A disagreement need not mean a total alienation from and lack of respect for those with differing views”.

    Like

  54. susan62509 permalink
    October 10, 2013 4:34 pm

    stephenson –
    Excellent comment and so wonderful that you have an open mind understanding both sides to a story. Some fans are running high on emotion during and after the KJ vs AEG Live trial.

    Our legal system is not based on emotions, sympathy, assumption, opinion, mind-readers or media favoritism. Our legal system is based on evidence only. In spring and early summer of 2009, Murray’s fitness/competence woulda, shoulda, coulda been known by AEG Live or anyone at the Staples Center does not fly in the legal system. Fans & some lawyers have been basing their opinions after the fact i.e., AFTER MJ died when we learned from Murray about propofol usage with MJ. There were two separate trials (criminal and wrongful death) with different timelines which were heard in the courts.

    Like

  55. susan62509 permalink
    October 10, 2013 4:30 pm

    Why the jury voted they way they did:

    Under the legal doctrine of Respondeat Superior* an employer is legally responsible for the actions of his employees when they are acting within the course and scope of employment UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE DEVIATES FROM HIS ASSIGNED DUTIES.

    Vicarious liability:
    Employee conduct that bears relationship to the work will be considered within the scope of employment. The question whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the event depends on the particular facts of the case. A court may consider the employee’s job description or assigned duties, the time, place, and purpose of the employee’s act, the extent to which the employee’s actions conformed to what she was hired to do, and whether such an occurrence could reasonably have been expected.

    Time of of occurrence was approx. 1:00 a.m. to noon the following day. These were NOT scheduled working hours. Place: MJ’s bedroom, Carolwood house. Purpose: Providing benzo’s and propofol to MJ for sleep.

    Like

  56. October 10, 2013 4:25 pm

    Thanks to Sina and Tania for your reply.

    I think accusing other MJ fans of being ‘AEG plants” and an MJ fan forum of needing to change its name to “AEG fan forum” shows that it is more than disagreeing with a person’s opinion, it is attacking the person by smearing tham as an “AEG plant” and the fan forum where some might express views you don’t like as an “AEG fan forum.”

    Sina, I think you go too far in condemning those who see Katherine Jackson as a human being with flaws as being in your view the same as Diane Dimond and Tom Sneddon!!! Some people believe that Mrs. Jackson has made some mistakes, even big mistakes, but I do not see them as equivalent to DD and TS. Having an opinion is not the same as having a 12 year vendetta to destroy someone, especially when in DD’s case, she had the power of the media, and in TS’s case, the power of the state, to carry out that vendetta. I don’t see how having an opinion expressed in an online blog or forum puts one in the same category as DD and TS. This to me is an example of how the tension between fans with differing views gets inflamed. We simply have differing views and this does not put us in the same category as DD and TS, people who devoted their lives to destroying MJ.

    I agree that MJ loved his mother–and I know he also loved his fans. How many times did he say to his fans “I love you, I love you more”? What did he say at the TII press conference? “I love you so much, I really mean that, from the bottom of my heart.” He would not want to see his fans attacking each other, as is happening now.

    Like

  57. October 10, 2013 3:53 pm

    Exactly, Susan M-S! I had the very same thought when I read that.
    They chose this jury foreman who apparently wanted to get home, they took time to watch TII, they took time for choosing their lunch from menues, so how much hours from these 13 hours and 44 minutes were really left for looking at the evidence? Zero I guess.

    Like

  58. Susan M-S permalink
    October 10, 2013 2:55 pm

    Quote from Juror No. 27:

    This stood out to me:

    “There was so much to the trial that it was a bit overwhelming to try and make sense of it all at the end. I thought that just kind of generally discussing the whole ordeal would be good for us but we never really did that in depth. Our foreman was one of the jurors who was itching to get it over with so we followed his lead and just got right to the verdict form.”

    That tells a lot. If they were “itching to get it over with” and “followed his lead and just got right to the verdict form” – how much time did they really spend looking at evidence of AEG’s culpability in Michael’s death?

    Like

  59. October 10, 2013 1:07 pm

    I had a discussion on Twitter that the jury got it wrong even if they felt that he was hired only for general medical care. Here is why. Let’s take the Propofol out of the equation for a minute and say that Michael had stopped breathing for some completely natural reason. Yes that can happen. Murray found Michael non responsive and not breathing. The first course of action is to call for help. Call 911. Murray did not. Instead he called an assistant, waited for the assistant to call him back and then ran down the stair and shouted at the chef to call security and waited for security to come upstairs before rescue breaths and chest compressions were even started. Then he started the compressions he did them on the bed. Anyone in health care knows that you place the patient on a backboard to make the compressions effective. He did not even try to put his hand behind him. He lost valuable minutes with his incompetent reaction to a cardio/respiratory emergency. When EMT’s arrived he did not report to that team accurately. That lost valuable minutes in their attempts to restart his heart and breathing..
    Now if appropriately responding to an emergency situation is not general medical care I don’t know what is. – Lynette

    Lynette, exactly! These were the terrible deviations from standard general medical care which were perfectly known to the jurors prior to the AEG trial.

    But the trap set by this juror for MJ’s fans is in another point – he claims that we know it now, but at the time of hiring Murray AEG did not know it. He says, “When they were hiring Murray they did not know he would behave so unprofessionally” and okay, this I can even understand.

    But the big question is – WHEN did AEG hire Murray? In May when they had no idea who he was or in June, when AEG had already witnessed numerous deviations on the part of Murray and actually compelled him to many of them themselves?

    This is a fundamental matter here and I am ready to prove that they hired Murray in June which was the time by which they had made sure that for money Murray would be ready to overstep all professional boundaries.

    By June they had seen so much of Murray’s unethical behavior that if they had had Michael’s best interests at heart they should have sent him away as soon as possible. But instead they brought the doctor “into the fold”. They tested him and he proved himself to be the kind of a doctor who could be molded into anything they wanted.

    This is when they actually hired him – after they had seen him behaving unethically and unprofessionally. It was not necessarily their intent but by doing it they surely behaved in the worst negligent manner possible.

    It was on June 18th as far as I remember that Kathie Jorrie looked up Murray on the Internet for 10 minutes only. And you remember that by June 18th Murray had already given MJ a sick leave and withdrawn it under AEG’s pressure, Ortega raised the question of better nutrition for Michael and Murray did nothing about it, and Michael missed some rehearsals because he was too ill. All this was already reason enough to doubt Murray’s competence.

    And by the time the contract was ready (June 24th) an even worse thing happened – the June 19th disaster and Murray sending everyone away not to be amateur doctors, and even Ortega thinking that Murray was incompetent as he suggested inviting someone else.

    And it was at that time that AEG rejected the idea of approaching another doctor and was nevertheless hiring Murray!

    Like

  60. October 10, 2013 12:43 pm

    “To me, for people who were only discussing this for ten hours or so, seems to have had a lot of dialogue.” – Nan

    A very true observation.

    Now that I am reading the juror’s answer I see another big fallacy that this juror is imposing on the fan community. I won’t name it now as it needs a detailed answer and putting the facts together not to sound as a simple “opinion”. If I have a chance I’ll write about it. Just give me some time please.

    Like

  61. Nan permalink
    October 10, 2013 12:10 pm

    I do have to say, I think it is weird , this juror chose to come to a fan forum, and I dont mean anything against the forum,……this person just seems very comfortable there, so it wouldnt surprise me , if they had been doing their own research.
    That Beth someone from HLN has been at court and so has Alan Duke..I would think they would be just as comfortable with them , and would reach more of an audience with their viewpoint., on tv.
    To me, for people who were only discussing this for ten hours or so, seems to have had a lot of dialogue.
    I wish this person had spent their time watching the Murray trial on YOutube.
    I know alot of people who believe this was the right verdict and it was just too difficult to prove negligence on AEG part.
    But this entire thing just seems so weird , that they are on a fan forum, instead of tv tp me…and only one fan forum..
    I would think there were other places this person would visit also..

    Like

  62. October 10, 2013 11:54 am

    “the juror also mentioned that the phrase “services requested by the producer” was later replaced by AEG lawyer Kathie Jorrie by “services requested by the artist”. But this is also NOT TRUE, as Helena highlighted several times (like in this post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/jacksons-aeg-trial-kathy-jorrie-dr-gary-green-and-ivy-of-mjj-community-all-in-one-pack/ ” – Susanne

    Absolutely Susanne, and thank you very much for drawing attention to it. I was extremely busy and am only starting to read the answers of that juror provided to us by Laura Messina (my huge thanks to her!).

    Thinking that something changed for the better for Michael when Kathie Jorrie replaced Producer by Artist in paragraph 1 is the greatest of the fallacies which could even take place. Things changed only for the worse for Michael.

    You can see it yourself in the final variant of Murray’s contract – please pay attention to the words underlined by blue:

    So Murray was to perform the services requested of him by the Artist from time to time only while his main responsibility was performing the services requested of him by the Producer!

    “From time to time” here is so important that it changes the whole meaning of the phrase. The main boss is AEG, while Michael is someone secondary whose requests can be followed from time to time only.

    However Kathy Jorrie chose to misrepresent the situation at least three times:

    1) First she misguided the court about it at Murray’s trial. She never mentioned that the changes were about the services for the Artist to be done from time to time only. She omitted the crucial point and did her best to create a false impression that Murray was to perform services for the Artist all the time, while in reality it was on occasions only, as a sort of an exception:

    Kathy Jorrie:

    ‘The other thing that we discussed was that in section one of the contract it describes the services that Dr. Murray was going to perform. And there was a place there that said “Services that are reasonably requested b-y t-h-e P-r-o-d-u-c-e-r would be services he would perform. The producer was AEG Live Productions, and he said “That should be the Artist” and I said (smiling) “You’re absolutely right, that should be the Artist, not the Producer, you’re the physician for the Artist” and so I made that change’.

    “b-y t-h-e P-r-o-d-u-c-e-r” was written this way because Kathy Jorrie said is very slowly impressing each word of it on the jury. I tried to reflect it in the written text.

    Here is the video from Kathy Jorrie’s testimony at Murray’s trial. She starts speaking about it at around 10:26.

    2) The same was repeated by Kathie Jorrie in her declaration prior to this trial which was reported by the senior staff of MJJC as it is:

    “Murray also asked her to change the wording that says “provide services requested by producer” to “artist”. She says the “provide services requested by producer” was because of they used a standard vendor form for the draft and she immediately agreed to change it to artist.”
    http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/127843-Pretrial-Discussion-Closed-AEG-files-summary-judgment-motion-to-dismiss-Katherine-s-lawsuit

    3) And then Kathie Jorrie repeated the whole thing in her testimony again, and again this sly misinformation was rubbed in by the MJJC Senior Staff. This is when I could no longer hold myself and wrote that post which Susanne mentioned above, explaining that the whole thing was a huge fallacy. Someone finally had to tell the truth!

    As to the jurors the fact that they actually don’t know Murray’s contract shows that they did not study it well enough and fulfilled their duties in a very perfunctory manner.

    The juror also says that he didn’t notice anyone being untruthful in his testimony. Well, the above is a good example of it. Kathie Jorrie is telling only half the story, which in these circumstances amounts to misguiding the court. And I am not even talking of people like Randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware who were clearly untruthful when they couldn’t recall their own emails.

    And this juror says he didn’t notice any lies?

    Like

  63. October 10, 2013 8:07 am

    I wish to point to an important thing in the Q&A of the juror (which was posted bei Laura below).
    Juror27 was asked by one forum member several times about the termination of Murray’s contract. These were good questions, where the juror first denied that only AEG could terminate Murray’s contract and MJ could not terminate it by himself. Later the juror had to admit that he was wrong, after reading it again.
    In this connection the juror also mentioned that the phrase “services requested by the producer” was later replaced by AEG lawyer Kathie Jorrie by “services requested by the artist”. But this is also NOT TRUE, as Helena highlighted several times (like in this post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/jacksons-aeg-trial-kathy-jorrie-dr-gary-green-and-ivy-of-mjj-community-all-in-one-pack/ )
    The truth is: They replaced “the producer” with “the artist” only in one place where it even benefitted them: In the “Scope of Services” of the agreement – where it has the addition “from time to time”.
    But in the more significant part of the contract, “4. Responsibilities of Dr. Murray”, they did not replace it, under 4.1 they left “Services requested by the Producer” as it was from the beginning.
    Jorrie made excuses that this was an error and that it was forgotten because no one draw her attention to it. You can believe this or not, I don’t!
    Fact is, they changed it only once and only in the Scope of Services where the change even meant an advantage for AEG, as Helena described it.

    The juror should be challenged with that.

    Like

  64. October 10, 2013 5:27 am

    Thanks for you comments, guys.
    Sina, you said it all in your response to stephenson.
    It’s very strange stephenson talked about love because this is exactly what you don’t find on those forums very much. I never saw more mocking and attacking than on exactly those forums so that I long ago chose not to go there anymore. And I know of many fans who left the forums because there is such a negative and disrespectful attitude and people are fond of arguing.

    @Laura Messina: I want to thank you also in the name of Helena, who is quite busy right now, for posting the juror’s Q&A.
    To me it’s highly inappropriate for a juror to become a member of a fansite (and exactly that fansite where he can feel comfortable because the majority agrees with the verdict) just to explain the jury’s decision. Why the need for that? And it’s very suspicious to me that he claims to have found this website in the short time between the verdict day and his first post, while he was surfing through the web to find reactions and to find a suitable place to explain his views. You need much more time to surf around and to be able to classify the many fansites as to which one you like most. IMO there must have been a connection earlier – or he surfed through the web during the trial, which was not allowed for him to do.
    Anyway, this is an interesting read and perhaps will give us some insights.

    BTW: For those who haven’t read it yet, juror27 is not a “she”. He told in his statement that he is one of the 6 male jurors.

    Like

  65. October 10, 2013 4:16 am

    I have a new computer and it changed my e-mail-hope this will work

    Like

  66. Carole Tia permalink
    October 10, 2013 4:11 am

    Hi Sina

    Thank u very much for ur answer to I think Stephenson.
    I could not have said it better
    Thank u!!!
    So Happy to see the real fans in action

    Like

  67. Mariam permalink
    October 10, 2013 12:29 am

    Well, people like me who wants to know who really STAND for MJ, for his legacy and whom MJ love the most is very important. You know how much MJ love his mother and his kid, and he said it on public again and again and if we do not support them and love them the time like this, it is very strange and subspecies to me.
    Remember, we do not have Michael know, what we have is his legacy, his work and his family, in my opinion we should love them, support them as MJ did NO MATTER WHAT. I guaranty you MJ will never accept the person who disrespecting and attacking his mom like this. It is embarrassing.
    Remember, he is her son, just died like that. It is unexpected death, it is not something she was expected. If someone you love died suddenly like that, the pain is not go away instead it actually getting worst. I am going through and dealing with the same pain still, you cannot get over with this feeling very soon, actually, I don’t think I will. It is very hard to get over it. I saw Mrs. Katherine recent interview on you tube, and you can tell that she is so much in pain, I think knowing more about her son final days even though it is important to the family is also hurting her more. I think, as a mother, you cannot have a good sleep or you do not want to die before you found out the truth and see your sons killers punished. It is natural to feel angry and being suspicious and seeking justice for a mother. Who doesn’t? I will go after any one whom I suspect that killed or involved killing my son. She lost a son Michael Jackson. Losing MJ hurts us greatly, that is why we all are here; imagine to his mom and kids.
    I do not believe for a second that 83 years old mother sue AEG for a billion dollars, for what? Mrs. Katherine is not 20 or 30 years old anymore and she wants billions to do this and that? She knows her life expectancy and she knows she doesn’t need that much money, the matter of fact; she is getting more than enough money from the Estate and her daughter Janet.
    Her wish now could be as any 83 years old person, get justice for her son, serving her God faithfully as much as she can, and going to heaven before her children. That could be a wish she will have as any 83 years old person right know, not billion $.
    Why is easy to some fans support the Estate, KO, the jurors, e.t.c. but not his mother and family? We all know how MJ felt about his father, but he wanted to see his father few days before he died. Family is family no matter what. My other question is, how do you think a giant like AEG, be punished if they are guilt? other than money which is their Idol that they can kill anyone for it? Obviously, you cannot put them jail, only way is cost them a lot of money to extent that could hurt them so much, then they might learn.

    Like

  68. October 9, 2013 10:30 pm

    Oh I forgot to add that even though it was the administration of propofol that stopped Michael’s breathing it was because he stopped breathing that is the actual cause of death.

    Like

  69. October 9, 2013 10:27 pm

    I had a discussion on Twitter that the jury got it wrong even if they felt that he was hired only for general medical care.
    Here is why. Let’s take the Propofol out of the equation for a minute and say that Michael had stopped breathing for some completely natural reason. Yes that can happen. Murray found Michael non responsive and not breathing. The first course of action is to call for help. Call 911. Murray did not. Instead he called an assistant, waited for the assistant to call him back and then ran down the stair and shouted at the chef to call security and waited for security to come upstairs before rescue breaths and chest compressions were even started.
    Then he started the compressions he did them on the bed. Anyone in health care knows that you place the patient on a backboard to make the compressions effective. He did not even try to put his hand behind him. He lost valuable minutes with his incompetent reaction to a cardio/respiratory emergency.
    When EMT’s arrived he did not report to that team accurately. That lost valuable minutes in their attempts to restart his heart and breathing..
    Now if appropriately responding to an emergency situation is not general medical care I don’t know what is.

    Like

  70. Nan permalink
    October 9, 2013 10:06 pm

    Thanks for putting the jury question and answer up..Lot of information to take in..It seems like there was no way this jury was going to find for the Jacksons.Quite surprised this person would seek out a forum of fans, .
    Aside from the fact ,that these people were sophisticated businessmen who are in the entertainment business where drug use is pretty prevalent with artists, and especially since MJ had a history of dependency,( Gongaware knew about it )
    They had discussed his MTV performance, with some boy bands in emails., because he was off…
    .I just thought red flags were all over the place when Murray asked for 5 million dollars and was willing to walk away from his CARDIAC patients in a matter of days, and wasnt even licensed in England, AND that MJ was so insistent on this particular doctor

    .The way he was willing to unload all his other patients , in a matter of days is incredible..To me , that made him unethical and in turn incompetent.

    Then Mj is in distress,and Ortega is calling his doctor, and he isnt answering, no beeper, no nothing to get ahold of him in an emergency situation..incompetent again..and I dont ever recall hearing anyone demanding to know why Murray was unavailable for his patient..,.
    I know MJ brought in Murray, but he brought in Ortega as well..If Ortega wasnt doing his job correctly, Im sure someone would have said something..
    MJ insistence on this particular doctor would lead me to believe something else was going on.
    He wasnt asking for Klien to accompany him , he was asking for Murray.
    That should have told them something.
    I just think they looked the other way and hoped for the best.
    Murray is a sociopath and a con artist , so he could very well have come across in a confident .
    manner.
    He sounds confident from his jail cell , even now , that he is somehow the victim..incredible

    Problem is also, once again, MJ isnt here to defend himself..Murray has never said anything under oath and is a habitual liar anyway
    I have always wondered why, if MJ , who was supposedly desperate and had his back against the wall and needed Murray so badly, MJ hadnt signed that contract..
    Dont understand why Murray didnt bring it up with him that night,, and make sure MJ signed it,
    Why leave it in the car , when you are desperate to get your money?
    I am not so sure he intended to bring Murray to England, perhaps he was looking for someone else ..
    At this point no one is going to come forward and give any more information , even if he had another , competent doctor lined up.. .
    That just leaves the people from AEG , with a few emails, no phone calls that might have taken place to learn more info , and the THIS IS IT movie
    While I would have voted differently on the jury, the thing with the This Is It movie,showing how wonderful MJ was the night before he died , doesnt tell anyone much of what that night was like because it is edited to make MJ appear at his best..It is , after all, a movie production.
    Took alot of people to make sure you had a ” feel good moment “at the end of the movie, even as the you know the beloved person , you came to see, died later that night..

    Well , this was the jurors decision ….I think alot came out as to the way AEG does business..
    Perhaps the will be more careful with their future artists
    Breaks my heart that people put a concert production before Michael..

    Like

  71. Sina permalink
    October 9, 2013 9:38 pm

    For a much needed entertainment – interview with juror nr 5 😉

    Like

  72. Sina permalink
    October 9, 2013 9:22 pm

    ‘The lack of respect for people’s opinions and the failure to rationally and logically analyse information is a worrisome fact in this fan community.’Tania

    I respect that you have an opinion, but I don’t have to respect your opinion. Eg
    I respect that people can/are allowed to say that Michael Jackson was guilty of his own death but I don’t respect what they say because I do not share that view.

    ‘the failure to rationally and logically analyse information is a worrisome fact’
    Where have I heard this before ?
    Maybe you should read Helena’s and others bloggers articles for a start.
    I am also very much looking forward to YOUR rational and logical analyses of information, rather than ther judgemental generalisation. What have you contributed so far?.

    ‘in this fan community’
    There is not one community. Our only commonality is that we all admire/love/adore/worship/ advocate for Michael Jackson and even that we do in our own way. We are autonomous people who do not have to share the same views all the time as we do not share the same values. There is nothing wrong with that. Respect that.

    Like

  73. October 9, 2013 7:54 pm

    @ Stephenson
    I just want to thank you for your comment.
    The lack of respect for people’s opinions and the failure to rationally and logically analyse information is a worrisome fact in this fan community.
    Respect, kindness and tolerance are in seemingly ever increasing short supply all over this fan base.
    How disappointed Michael would be in us.

    Like

  74. Sina permalink
    October 9, 2013 7:21 pm

    @stephenson, as you say everyone has a right to his opinion. So have those who comment here. They do not attack people, they attack choices and conduct.

    The verdict is a judicial error. But I will not attack the juror on the verdict itself because It wasn’t as if he/she could freely vent an opinion. thank God. She only had so many choices and just made the wrong choice. That said, I am astonished that in less than a week of posting on that site the juror already has an opinion on Katherine Jackson , due to the ‘education’ she got there. This is someone who was supposed to have a backbone, but is so easily influenced that she happily jumps the Jackson bashing bandwagon. Birds of a feather ?

    Forgive us if we passionately disagree with anyone who tries to sugarcoat how Michael was treated by AEG. I remember there was a time when people who even suggested that Michael wore a wig were banned from that site.

    “: How can we ‘heal the world’ if we are actively mocking and attacking those with differing views among MJ fans? How can we have the energy to carry on MJ’s work if our energy is directed against each other”

    Well if you want to see mocking and attacking take a look at that MJ site. It’s a repetitive hatefest that juror 27 ironically called levelheaded. In your opinion it is not ok to mock and attack fans but it is to do it to other people? Anyone who attacks and mocks Katherine Jackson( or anyone else for that matter) I consider the same as the tabloids , Dimond, Sneddon, Randy Philips, and all those who have mocked, harassed and belittled Michael Jackson to his death. If you do that to a person Michael loved so much, you do not carry on Michaels work but are undermining him. People like that do not get my sympathy.

    I hope it is true that KJ appeals and that the charges Paluezo set are overthrown . AEG should not be charged with negligent hiring only but negligence as well. If the judge in the sheikh Abdullah vs MJ case could tell the Sheikh that he took advantage of a man in a vulnerable position, than what should be said of AEG under whose contract Michael died?

    The verdict IMO is a judicial error. Liability is not only defined by whether or not a deviation was foreseeable, based on the technical skills of a contractor.

    The most skilled and competent workers deviate from standards either by mistake or by negligence. It happens in every field and on every level, but becomes a problem when a deviation has a high risk of injury, eg in medical care or air traffic. That’s why these professions are helt to very high standards. And because the contractee is not skilled enough or in the position to oversee the content of their work, they should have effective ways to supervise and control it and manage the risks.

    First it should be crystal clear what the job is going to be and how it will be performed. There should be no ambiguity on that. Just saying someone will give unlimited general medical care is not enough as attending an artist on tour is not ordinary GP work, in Michaels case was 24/7 care and needed the equipment asked for. What services was he going to render to AEG if he was solely hired as Michaels GP? Risk management also involves assessing the risk and work methods of the contractor AND check his performance while carrying out the work.

    If the patient/client was deteriorating, even if they didn’t suspect it was his doing (they did), he was clearly not capable to make the client/patient better. Is not that the reason why they did an intervention and why Gongaware threatened not to pay him.

    They were maybe not ethically in the position to terminate him, contractually they definately were. And ethics we know is not in their forte.
    The least they could do was put everything on hold while evaluating the situation.

    Gongaware is someone who is very familiar with these kind of situations. If as the juror said they took into account that Michael knew the risks then so did Gongaware.

    Isnt it the strangest thing that a producer should rely on prayers to get the work done. RP : ‘lets pray that Michael engages and will also work out and eat’

    Even when injury is caused by mistake the contractee is liable, and definitely so when the contractor deviated so much from the standards , that he is convicted to 4 years imprisonment

    Like

  75. October 9, 2013 1:06 pm

    IMHO labeling other forums as no longer being MJ fan forums b/c they have people on those forum who agree with the verdict is going too far. First, forums are places were people express their views, their opinions, and people do disagree with one another on all these forums. There is no lock-step mindset that is compelled upon anyone–people are free to state their views. So the fact that some of the posters disagree with the opinions expressed on this blog does not mean the entire forum is no longer an MJ forum.

    Second, as everyone knows, people have different opinions about the verdict and about the Jackson family. Going into extreme attacks against people who genuinely have differing views is not a wise thing IMO and only makes the divisions/animosities worse. A disagreement need not mean a total alienation from and lack of respect for those with differing views, as seems to be the case here. Taking this position only indicates that in the minds of some posting here (maybe all?) there is no conceivable view on the verdict other than that expressed here. If you think you have a lock on reason and truth, maybe you need to re-think that. No one does.

    Third, we all try to figure things out in our own way the best we can, and attacking each other and accusing each other of not being MJ fans is something that IMO MJ would not want. He talked about LOVE, and even when asked by Travis Payne did he hate the journalists who attacked him, he said no, they just need more love. I think posters here need to dial down the anger and attacks on the MJ forums. How can we ‘heal the world’ if we are actively mocking and attacking those with differing views among MJ fans? How can we have the energy to carry on MJ’s work if our energy is directed against each other?

    Like

  76. October 9, 2013 9:26 am

    How did the jury feel about katherine not asking for a penny from murray ? Did you really buy her excuse ? Very good question. I would love to hear what juror 27 thought Katherine’s excuse/explanation for not taking restitution from her son’s killer Conrad Murray? Ignorant FORUM MEMBER

    This is so disrespectful to say the least. It was not about money; Michael’s estate is worth millions and will be worth billions in the near future. Janet has money and married a billionaire, Latoya has various companies and so on, it was clearly about justice and wanting to know what happened to her son as Katherine admitted during the trial. Murray was already found negligent and is in jail – it was time for AEG to be found liable for their negligence.

    Like

  77. October 9, 2013 9:22 am

    So no, I don’t think we would have answered differently if the question asked whether he was ethical because we didn’t see any evidence that showed that AEG knew Murray was going to act unethically. – Juror

    The jurors had to answer the question based on Murray’s history before he killed Michael. Other than not being board certified (which wasn’t brought out in the trial), to our knowledge there is no malpractice or negligence in his background. That’s also the reason Michael allowed him to come in his life, I felt the case should have been more focused on the negligent supervision aspect, and AEG’s inability to perform the duties they were responsible for through the contract, this was the plaintiffs strongest point. Sadly, the jury didn’t even get the chance to consider it.

    Like

  78. October 9, 2013 7:15 am

    I post the link of the event we created on fb for the video statement: https://www.facebook.com/events/1425735984316419/

    Thank you Helena.

    Like

  79. October 9, 2013 6:50 am

    Here you are the last 2 pages:

    FORUM MEMBER: They could remove him because thats what the contract said. kathy jorrie also testified on stand that aeg could remove the doctor without mjs consent. whether that was overstepping or not, thats what the contract said (which imo strengthen that aeg hired murray).
    JUROR: I’m talking about removing him from MJ’s side. Even if AEG banned him from their facilities and severed all contact with him on their end, he would still have been free to visit MJ at night and give him propofol.
    FORUM MEMBER: How did the jury feel about katherine not asking for a penny from murray ? Did you really buy her excuse ?
    Very good question. I would love to hear what juror 27 thought Katherine’s excuse/explanation for not taking restitution from her son’s killer Conrad Murray?
    JUROR: I’m drawing a blank here. Was this something she said in her testimony? All I remember was that she said they brought AEG to trial to search for the truth about what happened to her son. I don’t remember hearing about why she chose not to seek restitution from Murray.
    FORUM MEMBER: I asked you about your definitions a few days ago but didn’t find you answered my question. Why are you implying that your legal defs of incompetent and unfit are the only definitions that matter? Are they in the jury instructions? If not, then the jury is free to use their own definition. Jurors are not lawyers, they are there to bring their own life experience, common sense to the deliberations. You yourself say that there are different defs, legal and colloquial.
    JUROR: Just to clarify this a little bit, we were explicitly told that we could not reference a dictionary for these terms, and that we were to use our common sense to guide us. We heard a lot of testimony regarding fitness and competence, so we absolutely understood the precise meaning of both of those terms.
    FORUM MEMBER: k but as times pass and mjs health is detoriating, was he fit and competent????

    they see mj detoriating and what do they think??? what made kenny to believe it was dr murrays treatment that affected mjs health? kenny alerts aeg but they tell him the doctor is a good guy.

    im sorry but if i have a personal doctor with me who is suppose to help me but im getting weaker and weaker, isnt that an alarm that something is wrong and that its the DOCTOR causing it????
    JUROR: I’m sorry but if that is the case would you wait around for someone else to come around and remove the harmful doctor, or would you act in your own best interest and get rid of him yourself????

    FORUM MEMBER: mj is detoriating for 8 weeks, has a meeting with aeg and murray where they basically tell mj to get it together and are concerned about whats going on. im sure oth mj and murray knew they needed to improve or they would cancel the shows which leads to mj being pressured and murray being afraid he will lose his $150,000. so mj comes back in great shape for TWO days only and all is good???
    JUROR: So MJ comes back in great shape for two days, tells AEG he is fine and ready to go, and they should respond by removing his personal doctor????
    FORUM MEMBER: Which emails? can you be more specific???

    I guess you are not talking about the emails where they called michael ‘the freak’…
    JUROR: That ‘freak’ email came from an office in London, not from anyone directly involved with Michael, and Mr. Trell in his response to that email was clearly not in agreement with calling MJ a freak.

    I can’t point you to a specific email since I don’t have access to the evidence, but I absolutely remember a lot of language in various emails where Mr. Phillips and Mr. Gongaware showed genuine care for Michael. I’m not saying they were saints, but I don’t believe that they were malicious or evil either.
    FORUM MEMBER: i’m not asking that, im not asking why didnt aeg remove murray. im asking how can you claim murray was fit and competent when ppl are alarmed for 8 weeks but two days are good and thats all that matters for you??? those two last days were the dealbraker????

    unreal
    JUROR: Like someone said earlier, it is not like Michael was on death’s door every day for those 8 weeks. The way you are painting it is that MJ came to rehearsals every day looking like a dead person. I don’t think that is accurate.

    You have to go on what you see at the time. MJ’s health is in decline, people are getting concerned, they go to see him and he is fine. He comes to rehearsals and looks great. He says he is fine to continue.

    Is it not a fact that sometimes people are sick and then they get better? Is it not the case that people go in funks and depressive episodes sometimes and then pull themselves out?

    FORUM MEMBER: oh really??????

    Trell responded to the email with: “Apparently. Not sure how I feel about that. Interesting for sure, but kind of creepy.”
    JUROR: Yes, and I don’t take that as Trell calling MJ a freak. The counsel from London called him that. Creepy is such a vague and overused term that it just doesn’t register for me as a major offense, I’m sorry.
    FORUM MEMBER: u should know better. trell agrees that he is not comfortable to meet with MJ ”the freak”. he calls the meeting creepy (he is gonna meet the freak and its creepy). this is not an offense to you?????? ohh i forgot im talking with a person that understood why randy phillips screamed and slapped michael. its never acceptable to scream and slap a partner inspite how stressed out the situation is.

    im sorry for your sake that you cant see that trell saying he is gonna meet a future client is creepy is offensive. a FREAK and a CREEP they are gonna make millions off.

    why are you defending their behaviour????? can you please explain?
    JUROR: I’m not defending calling MJ a freak. I find that comment disgusting and reprehensible. I’m saying that Trell’s response is not on the same level as the initial email. I had a coworker who was prone to calling large women ‘whales’. He’d say stuff like “Hey did that whale pick up her order yet?”, and I would answer yes or no or whatever, but the fact that I didn’t correct him doesn’t mean that I agree with what he called them.

    Furthermore, this has nothing at all to do with whether CM was negligently hired/retained/supervised by AEG, so is this just an appeal to emotion?

    FORUM MEMBER: Testimony from Jorrie showed no one at AEG vetted the doctor. The defense was wise enough to not suggest Jorrie’s Google search was a vetting process so it interesting that it is being suggested the jury would see it as such. Panish would destroy that suggestion if the defense attempted it simply because the search did not discover the doctor’s two faux offices that he fabricated.
    JUROR: And why exactly should AEG be expected to conduct this extensive vetting process for a doctor that was being brought to them by their star performer, especially since they were in essence doing nothing more than giving MJ a loan to pay him?

    “Hey guys I want to bring my doctor aboard the team. He’s been my family physician for years and I insist on him.”

    “Yeah well we don’t trust you or your doctor MJ so we are going to perform a thorough background check of this doctor including his financial status”

    Yeah I can’t swallow that response as reasonable.

    FORUM MEMBER: Jurors were not to decide if AEG knew about propofol or any treatment the doctor administered to Michael. AEG was the ONLY party in the three- party contract that could terminate the doctor so the “boundaries of the promoter” were already crossed thus, the conflicted interest of the doctor.
    JUROR: Where are you getting that AEG was the only party who could terminate CM? The contract clearly spelled out that if at any time and for any reason MJ did not want CM’s services, he could fire him. Maybe you are thinking of an earlier draft before “producer” was changed to “artist” in the clauses?

    FORUM MEMBER: The jurors were to decide if AEG hired the doctor and the jurors did. Jurors were then asked if the doctor was unfit or incompetent for the job he was hired for which speaks to his conflicted interest during his two months of employment.

    It is interesting that it is being suggested the doctor was hired in “the weakest sense possible” yet; it was that contract, where only AEG could terminate the doctor that the jurors relied on to answer no to question two. The doctor was considered fit and competent by the jurors to provide general care to Michael as per the contract and to his children who were not included in the contract.
    JUROR: You are all over the place here. We did not buy the conflict of interest argument. Sorry. AEG was not the only one who could terminate Murray. The kids were going to go to London, and if they were to get sick while over there it would be Murray who would treat them. That they were not named in the contract does not mean that Murray would not have attended to them while in London.

    FORUM MEMBER: It is also interesting that there was no response regarding the doctor’s attempt to fleece Michael of $5M being seen as a precursor to unethical or conflicting behavior.
    JUROR: Because the mere act of asking for a large amount of money does not make a person unethical in my opinion, nor does it indicate a precursor for unethical behavior. I think that line of thinking is irresponsible and dangerous and I reject it wholeheartedly.
    FORUM MEMBER: Juror27, again, your responses are extremely familiar. AEG drafted an employment contract and that is what the jurors found AEG did in question one.

    The jurors depended on the contract for their verdict to question two and that contract had eight terminations clauses. Michael could only terminate the doctor THROUGH AEG as per clause 7.3. Michael was NOT allowed to terminate the doctor directly as per that contract. The contract that was relied upon by the jurors explicitly stated Michael was to receive the doctor’s care, NOT Michael’s children or anyone else.
    JUROR: I’m sorry but you are flat out wrong. The original boilerplate contract that Ms. Jorrie used had “producer” listed in the termination clauses. When she sent the draft contract to Murray, he reviewed it and told her to change “producer” to “artist”. She agreed with that and changed it in subsequent drafts.

    I don’t know what else to tell you.
    FORUM MEMBER: Anyone who asked for outrageous amounts of monies only because it was Michael Jackson attempted to fleece Michael Jackson. When that same logic is applied to the doctor who jurors found to be fit and competent as opposed to be negligent which would cause AEG to be held liable for negligent hiring, here is the reply:
    JUROR: You will never convince me that the act of asking for large sums of money means that a person is unethical or likely to be unethical. I will also not accept that a person in debt or foreclosure means that they are unethical or likely to be unethical. I find that view extremely troublesome.
    FORUM MEMBER: you told the world the man that killed mj is competent and fit inspite mj detoriating for 8 weeks. that is on your conscience.
    JUROR: My conscience is as clean as a whistle, bro. You can hold that.
    If I’ve offended anyone here with anything I’ve said I apologize sincerely as that was not my intention at all.

    I really did not intend to cause any problems here, and I do hope to stick around for a while. I was apprehensive about posting at first but I did so with no other intention than to give some insight as to what we saw on the jury and to let you all know that we came away from the trial with so much admiration for Michael the person.

    I always prefer direct information over speculation if it is available to me, and that is all I wanted to provide here. I understand there will be disagreements about the verdict and I don’t mind that or take that personally, but calling my character or conscience into question is completely uncalled for and I refuse to engage in that kind of discussion.
    FORUM MEMBER: I understand how you and the jury don’t feel what aeg did or didn’t do in may/june 09, doesn’t rise to the level of liability in this lawsuit. It was a tough lawsuit for the plaintiffs to win and it was aeg’s to lose, seeing the cause of mj’s death was such an unusual occurrence – an o/d with a doctor present making foreseeability really difficult to prove.

    I can’t say i agree that aeg showed care and concern, when tii reached a crisis point on 19th june, it seemed phillip’s main concern was to keep ortega onside to make sure the shows went ahead, rather than any concern as to what the matter with mj was. I agree with you that ortega seemed to be one of the few genuine ones around mj. It was telling that when asked about mj’s petrified state at the press conf in london ortega replied that if he had known about it he wdn’t have taken on the tour as he wd have recognised mj wasn’t emotionally/psychologically ready, whereas randy’s reaction was to slap and scream and increase the number of shows mj had to perform from 31 to 50.
    JUROR. I agree with this. Like I said, I don’t think Phillips is a saint. But I also don’t think it’s fair to hold everyone to the Kenny Ortega standard either. He is a pretty special guy.

    FORUM MEMBER: Maybe by looking in detail at how mj died on 25 june? I’m just assuming here that you didn’t closely follow the murray trial a couple of years back. This trial didn’t dwell on murray’s negligence, there seemed to me to be an emphasis on the asking of prop by mj being the key to his death rather than how it was administered. Aeg actually made that claim explicit which ticked me off in that it was mj’s negligence that led to his own death, not the hiring/supervision of murray, the admin of prop being like russian roulette – at a certain point death was inevitable.

    The facts at the murray trial actually showed the quite spectacular breaches in the standard of care that murray had for mj in order for him to die on 25 june – 17 egregious breaches of care. Such negligence that there was discussion in the da’s office to prosecute the case as murder 2. It wasnt a series of unfortunate little incidents which added up to a horrible consequence – it was really quite massive violations which would be quite unexpected and inexplicable in a fit and competent general practioner doctor, never mind an anaesthesiologist – it made me wonder why aeg didn’t fight the case on foreseeability alone rather than blaming mj. The absence of any written record of what drugs mj had been given and when, the leaving of mj’s bedroom for up to an hour whilst mj under a prop drip so murray cd make non urgent social phonecalls , no monitoring equipment whatsoever, long delay in phoning 999, lying to paramedics and hosp staff about what had been given to mj. Mj had the right like we all have to expect basic standard of care and competence from his doc, what went wrong on 25 june was not a complicated set of circs only an anaesthesiologist cd overcome, mj cd prob have been saved by a pair of eyes seeing he needed a chin lift to unblock his airway. I honestly think you would reconsider your 50/50 split between mj/murray if you knew the details.
    JUROR: You are correct that I didn’t follow the Murray trial and those details about how Michael died were unknown to me.

    I don’t believe that MJ taking propofol to sleep was something he did under the impression that it was safe. He was warned repeatedly about and knew full well the dangers of using propofol in an inappropriate manner. So MJ is at least 1% responsible for his death. That seems absurdly low to me considering that he knew he was requesting something that was illegal, unethical, and highly dangerous.

    Taking your points into consideration about what CM actually did that morning I do agree that he should hold the majority of responsibility for MJ’s death. Whether that amount should be 60 or 75% or whatever seems impossible for me to resolve on my own.

    I will say that I had no idea CM was sentenced to only 4 years until I heard it towards the end of the trial, and I damn near fell out of my chair. Even if I were to assign CM 50% of the blame, I would still have given him life in prison. That sentence and the fact that he is getting out in a few weeks is unbelievable to me.
    FORUM MEMBER: The below is the contract the doctor signed. This is what was admitted into evidence and what the jurors based their verdict on. NOWHERE in that contract does it state the artist could terminate the doctor WITHOUT going through the producer. It also does not mention the doctor caring for anyone else besides Michael.

    http://www.psblaw.com/wp-content/upl…388-127393.pdf
    JUROR: You are correct. My apologies for saying you were wrong. I was mistaken with other clauses which had their language changed.

    It seems clear to me that the reason he would be terminated by producer is because the agreement is between the producer and CM. How would Michael have any legal authority to void a contract between Murray and AEG? That’s why they have that provision in there in the first place, because he is only being hired at the request of the artist.

    Are you saying that if MJ said he wanted Murray gone, that AEG would have held this contract up to him and forced CM to keep treating him?
    FORUM MEMBER: To Juror 27: I have sort of a two part question for you
    1. Do you think the jury could have reached the same verdict given the facts
    determined in the contract between AEG/Murray without the many weeks spent by
    both sides exposing Michael’s private medical records? Was his struggles with pain
    issues related to his burn, skin condition…etc. necessary information for you to
    hear in order to reach the verdict you did?
    JUROR: On one hand, no I don’t think it was necessary for us to hear that to reach the verdict we did. That stuff gave a backstory, but it wasn’t relevant to the questions we were asked to answer.

    On the other hand that evidence was some of the strongest as far as garnering sympathy for MJ’s struggles. I was completely unaware of the procedures they performed on Michael to heal the burn scars. Good lord that balloon implant stuff sounded so painful. I didn’t know that he had that fall where he hurt his back in (Munich?).

    I never believed MJ was a junkie like so many people say, and that evidence made it clear to us that he was indeed not one and was trying to deal with unimaginable pain.

    FORUM MEMBER: And 2. Was it noticed by the jury that there was a large span of time, probably
    2003-2009 that was barely addressed during trial, if at all. Did you wonder why
    testimony focused on 20, 10 years ago but not the immediate years before his death;
    or did it matter?
    JUROR: We definitely noticed that big chunk of time that was not focused on, but from what we heard it seemed Michael left the country in ’05 or so? I’m not too sure on the dates but that is the impression I got, that he was just not around much in that time period. We did get a lot of ’02-’03 testimony from the doctors who were seeing him in Santa Barbara during that time, Dr. Farshchian from Florida, from Randy talking about staging interventions, Mr. LaPerruque who was traveling with Michael during that time and also at Neverland, etc.

    It just seemed to me that after the ’05 trial MJ went away for awhile until around ’07-’08.
    FORUM MEMBER: Wondering what 27 thinks about the family dropping restitution inturn for going for the jackpot against aeg and what that says about the families motives for filing the suit as this is probably the one thing that has caused the biggest anger and outrage amongst the fan community although not the biggest surprise considering the jacksons actions to mj over the years
    JUROR: I was unaware that the family dropped restitution against CM to go after AEG until earlier today when I read it here. On the surface it does seem to imply that they were setting their sights on a target with deeper pockets, but I don’t wish to speculate as to Ms. Jackson or the family’s motives when deciding their legal actions. I am not privy to their discussions and I think for me to question their motives is inappropriate.
    FORUM MEMBER: I beleive he said he doesn’t recall Katherine ‘explanation’ of why she didn’t go after Murray,. I truly hope Katherine is awarded a lifetime Academy Award before her time is up on earth, she truly deserves one as she is the epitome of an actor/actress.
    JUROR: As a complete outsider to the whole Jackson saga, it is killing me to read this kind of stuff about Ms. Jackson all over the place. All I saw was a very sweet lady who reminded me of my grandmother. Obviously that does not mean that she is incapable of questionable decisions or actions. And I know that plaintiffs presented the nicest, sweetest picture of her to us that they possibly could.

    I think on this one I’m going to bury my head in the sand.
    FORUM MEMBER: Katherine saying she didn’t accept restitution because Murray had to feed his kids was ridiculous IMO. I believe she made that answer otherwise she would have to admit she didn’t bother going after him because he has no money and it would have greatly reduced damages from AEG.

    Now he’ll be out there profiting freely from killing her son.
    JUROR: That is a questionable reason to drop restitution for sure. I have a hard time swallowing that explanation.

    FORUM MEMBER: Juror#27, you are making way too much sense with your explanations. It’s clear to me that the jurors discussed and considered all points and didn’t rush the verdict. I find their reasoning logical.

    MJ deteriorating didn’t make Murray unfit for what he was hired. He was still hired for general care. No one knew MJ was like that because of him and you had Karen sending emails to Dileo telling him MJ was self-sabotaging as this was how he was operating according to her, so why would anyone suspect Murray?
    JUROR: Agreed.

    FORUM MEMBER: Panish actually admitted outright that Katherine sued AEG and didn’t sue Murray for financial reasons:

    http://news.yahoo.com/judge-sets-rul…144028519.html

    So there is nothing to question here, they basically admitted that they dropped complaints againgst Murray in order to be able to go after AEG because AEG had money and Murray didn’t.
    JUROR: Hmm. Seems pretty cut and dry from where I’m sitting.

    FORUM MEMBER: Oh and I forgot to add about Juror”27’s point that AEG tried to help – it’s true. In the emails they offered to get the best therapist for MJ as they had access due to dealing with sports teams.

    And they also got a food person taking ccare of MJ’s eating when they were told he wasn’t eating much. So it ain’t like they completely turned a blind eye. The problem was they were in the dark as to what the real issue was.
    JUROR: Yes. I think Mr. Phillips and Mr. Gongaware could have shown more compassion towards MJ, but that is a matter of my personal morality and what I think I would have done in their situation. At the same time they did make efforts to help him and they certainly wanted him healthy and ready to do the shows. So while I might wag my finger in disapproval at them for not being as caring as I like to think I would have been, I do not agree with holding them liable for MJ’s death or forcing them to pay billions of dollars to anyone.

    FORUM MEMBER: Juror27, there is nothing illegal, unethical, or highly dangerous about the use of propofol.
    JUROR: If you are ordering propofol under false pretenses and administering to someone in a non-medical setting without the proper skills or monitoring equipment, I think that qualifies as being illegal, unethical, and highly dangerous. How can you possibly dispute this?!?

    JUROR: There is nothing illegal or unethical about the administration of propofol even in a home setting. The administration of propofol is highly dangerous and was ultimately fatal when done by a negligent, conflicted, cardiologist. Michael passed from the negligent administration of propofol by the doctor not from simply the substance itself.
    JUROR: You seem to be implying that Michael’s choice for curing his insomnia was not dangerous had it been done by a qualified anesthetist. This is counter to what the experts testified at trial, where they showed that being in an induced coma is not restful sleep, and that to continue to use propofol to treat insomnia was an extreme deviation of standard medical care. There was not one expert who testified that it is OK to use propofol to sleep, regardless of whether it was in a home setting, hospital room, or administered by an anesthetist or a layperson. The use of the drug to ‘sleep’ is highly dangerous FULL STOP.

    FORUM MEMBER: It was unnecessary for the jurors to know when the doctor would be released from prison. Senneff testified to the state that Michael was found in on the day he passed. The “trustworthy” Detective Martinez and Detective Smith determined the doctor was suspicious in the death of his patient because they believed he was conflicted enough to put his patient second to the $150K fee.
    JUROR: I agree it was not crucial for us to know when CM was getting out of prison. Like I said, it was revealed in an offhand comment towards the very end of the trial. No time was spent discussing it in testimony.

    Yes, it is detectives’ jobs to be suspicious about things. They were investigating a death. Their post facto suspicion does nothing to convince me that AEG should have been expected to run a check on CM’s finances prior to hiring him.

    FORUM MEMBER: It was also unnecessary that the jurors knew that a plaintiff previously rejected restitution because jurors are not to rely on or express biases to any party. Certain Jackson family members can sue the doctor civilly as AEG could have also sued the doctor civilly. One may feel a plaintiff was “targeting a deeper pocket” however, AEG was made whole by the estate and profited from TII as testified to in court.
    JUROR: I agree, I understand why that information was kept from us.

    FORUM MEMBER: It did not seem clear to another juror who spoke to the media and stated the children would be cared for by the doctor when they were not listed in the contract. Another juror did not characterize Michael as a junkie however, the juror did characterize Michael as addict who no one would say no to.
    JUROR: You are reading far too much into that comment by the juror. There is no question that MJ was dependent on Demerol and an addict for a period of his life. He checked himself into rehab in case you forgot. And yeah, there was ample testimony that showed that MJ had no shortage of doctors throwing whatever drugs he wanted at him. And there was plenty of testimony that when MJ was challenged or stood up to by someone, he would often cut that person out of his life.

    This is evidence we were shown in court. If you want to take that juror’s comments as slanderous or malicious in spirit you are free to do so, but Mr. Smith was just as fond of Michael as the rest of us. I know for a fact that he was not intending to disparage MJ.

    FORUM MEMBER: Jurors are instructed to ask any questions they may have during deliberations. Any concerns about AEG possibly forcing a doctor to continue to care for Michael were to be addressed at that time.
    JUROR: Interesting. So rather than follow your implications to their logical end, you would rather deflect with a meaningless statement. We had no reason to discuss the termination clause because it was a red herring. I was asking YOU to explain your assertion, and your answer speaks volumes.
    FORUM MEMBER: It was also testified to that Michael trusted doctors by the “trustworthy” Rowe. As Lee testified to in the criminal trial and the civil trial, Michael believed it was safe as long as he was monitored.
    Ms. Lee testified that when Michael asked her if she could get propofol, the first thing she did was check the Physician’s Desk Reference to see what it was used for and what the side effects were.

    She then brought the book back to Michael and explained to him that it was not intended for sleep and that a possible side effect is death.

    Michael also had tried to get propofol from Dr. Quinn back in 1999, and she refused and told him of the very same dangers.

    When Michael was given propofol in the mid ’90s at the order of Dr. Metzger, the 2 anesthesiologists who administered it told him that it was highly dangerous and that they would not administer it to him again.

    So no, I’m sorry but I don’t believe you when you say “Michael believed it was safe”. If he trusted doctors so much, why would he disregard all these warnings?
    FORUM MEMBER: No one is qualified to speak to that juror’s feelings or views except that juror. It was also testified to that Michael was an addict however; he was not a participant in his addiction in 2009. An ethical doctor would say no to Michael and not be concerned about not being able to participate in Michael’s celebrity lifestyle.
    JUROR: Yes, I agree Dr. Murray was highly unethical and negligent in his care of MJ.

    FORUM MEMBER: And your response again is extremely familiar. I previously stated I am neutral on the validity of your identity. I also said I would not pose any questions to you as that discussion will not change the verdict I do not agree with.
    JUROR: What does my identity have to do with anything? I asked you a simple question based on the contract we were talking about and an assertion you made, and the best you can do is deflect and question my identity?

    FORUM MEMBER: There is no proof anything being said about Katherine or any Jackson to you in this thread is fact yet you readily and eagerly believe these negative views. Interesting indeed.
    JUROR: Oh? So that link to quoted trial testimony is fabricated? Have you any evidence of this? Interesting indeed.
    1. I didn’t know about restitution being dropped against CM by Katherine.
    2. On the surface it does seem to appear that the plaintiffs are looking for deep pockets.
    3. I don’t think it is my place to question or speculate as to Ms. Jackson’s motives.

    Under what kind of twisted and tortured logic can you read that and say that I have formed an opinion of Katherine? As I sit here right now I don’t hold an opinion of her other than that I really liked her testimony.
    3. I don’t think it is my place to question or speculate as to Ms. Jackson’s motives.

    We are done. Cheers.
    FORUM MEMBER: In your opinion did Randy Jacksons deposition help the defence or the Plantiffs?
    JUROR: It really didn’t factor in for either side because what he testified about was not directly related to the questions we were asked. He was never brought up in deliberations since we were focusing on the hiring time period rather than the time Randy testified about, which was the early-mid 2000’s mostly.
    FORUM MEMBER: if you had to award damages did or have u ever thought about what sort of figure you would go for and how it would be split amongst kj and the kids or have u never even thought
    JUROR: At a certain point during plaintiffs case they were just drilling us daily with the ‘nasty’ side of AEG (mean emails, Mr. Phillips slapping MJ, etc.). Mr. Panish just went to town on them. I did start to think that I would be OK with awarding some kind of small punitive damages. Something like $10M.

    Later in the trial as other information came out and I got a clearer picture of everything, I stopped thinking that they should owe $10M or any money at all.
    FORUM MEMBER: This is hypothetical question to Juror 27.
    This is about the verdict form and if jury was to find AEG liable, what percentage would have been put on Michael.

    Plaintiffs agreed that Michael was 20% responsible as per their pie chart. If the verdict would have been AEG liable, what percentage would you have put for Michael?
    JUROR: I was never convinced that AEG’s actions in any way caused Murray to give MJ propofol. If AEG had known what Murray was doing they would have shut everything down in a heartbeat.

    So on that pie chart I would have had to unfortunately put MJ at 100% and AEG at 0%. I think the instructions said we could put any percentage on each side as long as it equaled 100%. But since AEG is being held liable in this hypothetical, I guess they have to be at least 1% responsible.

    The real pie chart should be between MJ and Murray, and after reading a lot the last few days about how Michael died and thinking it over more, I think I’d put Murray at around 90%.
    FORUM MEMBER: I was interested in what he said about Briggs’ testimony and it implied he was impressed with Panish as a lawyer. I was wondering if he had any comment about the interactions between Panish and Putnam, and between the 2 legal teams in general.
    JUROR: I was blown away by Mr. Panish. What an awesome, commanding presence in the courtroom. Knows the law inside and out. A quick wit and genuinely funny as well. I might not have been buying all of what he was selling, but the sales pitch was the best I’ve ever seen. Just a master of his craft.

    Mr. Putnam I found equally impressive in every regard. He is just as commanding a presence, just as quick witted and funny, and he also knows the law inside and out. I took careful note of how Mr. Putnam handled sensitive witnesses like Prince and Katherine Jackson. He was ever respectful even while asking hard questions. Just a class act all around.

    The interactions between the two legal teams was by far the most entertaining thing about the trial. I could not believe the amount of snarky comments and mean looks being thrown back and forth. So many childish arguments (“He started it, your honor!”) it sometimes felt like the judge was more of a nanny and she even said something to that effect a few times.

    There was one incident where Mr. Panish had heard during a break that an AEG attorney (Ms. Strong) was staring at him while he was questioning a witness. She was seated to his left about 6 feet away. So when Ms. Strong went to the podium (which was a few feet behind Mr. Panish’s spot at the attorneys’ table) to question the same witness, Mr. Panish turned 180° in his chair and stared directly up at her. That lasted a few minutes before the judge told him to face front. So he faced front, kinda. Then started to slowly turn back around until he was finally staring directly back at her. Ms. Strong says “Your honor…” and motions to Mr. Panish, who is already turning back around. The judge admonishes Mr. Panish a 2nd time, and he says “It’s OK your honor, I have her on video now.” Mr. Panish had set his laptop camera to capture Ms. Strong and he sat there face front, staring down at his laptop video to watch Ms. Strong question the witness. It was so hard to not laugh out loud at this.

    That was something I did not expect, that there would be so much humor in the courtroom. Quips between the attorneys, or an unexpected answer from a witness (Like when Ms. Rowe repeatedly used the phrase “pissing match” to describe 2 doctors who were trying to give MJ more and better drugs — the judge’s reaction to that was priceless), or any other random thing that would happen in there. There were laugh out loud moments almost every day.
    FORUM MEMBER: did the jurors (or this juror) feel the trial went on too long and that it was too drawn out and maybe repetitive? Was the jury burned out after 5 months?
    JUROR: Looking back it’s pretty clear now that a good amount of what we were shown wasn’t relevant to the questions we were asked to answer. I didn’t think it was too repetitive, and the times it was repetitive were mostly towards the very end. The beginning and middle of the trial were riveting. I personally wasn’t burned out by the length and I don’t think anyone else really was either. I think a few just were itching to get back to their normal routine.
    FORUM MEMBER: What did Juror #27 think of the witness Earley, the one who did the study on propofol addiction and who had been an addict himself (heroin) at one point?
    JUROR: I really, really dug Dr. Earley. He had some very emotional testimony and I teared up listening to him describe his struggles. How he hit bottom and managed to get himself clean. It was just so inspirational and my heart went out to him.

    I was surprised to learn about the propofol study funded by AEG, and hearing him explain that whole thing was fascinating. Dr. Earley was one of the rare witnesses who were questioned by Mr. Boyle, and I thought he stood his ground well when Mr. Boyle was grilling him about a few blog posts he made shortly after MJ’s death (I don’t know if you’ve seen them). I do have to say though that I thought those blogs were way too sensationalist and poorly-written. I don’t think they damaged his credibility, but I just didn’t like them.

    Like

  80. October 9, 2013 6:22 am

    Hi Helena, I’m going to post the first 2 pages of the Q&A with juror 27. He joined the forum answering a forum member as you can read below.

    Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable – Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG
    FORUM MEMBER:
    It is increasingly alarming to me how many people seem to be losing the ability to analyze facts critically. It’s scary how any illogical theory or conspiracy theory can be thrown up and people will believe it without paying any attention to the facts. Randy and the Jackson’s have done a good job of messing with the minds of MJ’s fans.
    JUROR:I couldn’t agree more with the bolded. It’s practically an epidemic as far as I’m concerned.

    I was on this jury, and of all the places I’ve seen where this is being talked about, this community seems by far to be the most level-headed and approachable. So many passionate MJ fans rationally discussing the verdict rather than lashing out in anger is very nice to see, and makes me think this is probably the best place for me to make a small statement.

    Initially I planned to avoid and ignore all the comments about the verdict after the trial ended. Because as soon as we answered ‘no’ to question 2 in the jury room, I knew how it would be reported and misunderstood (“DURR STUPID JURY HOW CAN CONRAD MURRAY BE FIT AND COMPETENT WHEN HE IS IN JAIL FOR KILLING MJ??? DURRR”). And sure enough, the very first question asked by the media when we got outside was “How could you find Conrad Murray competent?” And of course a bunch of hardcore MJ supporters outside were yelling, calling us stupid and confused, etc. So I figured rather than getting annoyed at misinformation being spread or seeing us called morons ad nauseam, it’d be better to just ignore it all.

    Well that lasted about a day before my curiosity got the better of me, and I had to peek around to see what people were saying. I had to see if that version of us as idiots was the main narrative going on. Thankfully most people commenting on the verdict are actually looking at what we were instructed to consider, and agree with our decision. We knew from day 1 that no matter the outcome we would have people agreeing and disagreeing with the verdict, and I’m thankful that this jury did not concern itself with what people would say or think about us and decided to follow the instructions and base our verdict on the evidence in the case.

    Just like our jury foreman, I went into this trial about as neutral as one could be towards Michael Jackson. I was 7 when Thriller came out so I grew up with his music and loved it, but I knew very little about his life other than what I’d seen in the media, and I honestly had no strong feelings about him as a person either way. I walk out of this trial completely understanding why he has so many fans who practically deify him. Who are so strongly attracted to his kind spirit, huge heart, gentle nature, love of his children and mother, etc. I totally get it now.

    Every single witness who was questioned about whether they thought MJ was a good father (and almost every one who knew him closely was asked) sang endless praises about his love of his kids. If Prince’s testimony is any indication, MJ was definitely a great father. The kid is bright, intelligent, caring, has great character and a great personality, and I truly believe MJ did a phenomenal job raising him in the few years he was able to. Honestly, every single juror came away feeling very positive about Michael Jackson as a person and father.

    I know there was concern about MJ’s image being hurt because of this trial, and maybe to outside viewers it was because of some of the details that came out. But for us in the jury in that courtroom for all these months, we just grew more and more fond of him during the course of the trial.

    I’d like to say thank you to all the people I’ve seen here supporting us jurors in our decision, it really means a lot. I will be happy to answer anything I can about the trial if you’d like to ask and if I am able.
    I will answer as many questions as I can, as well as post my jury certificate with my screen name here to prove myself as soon as I get home. I understand being skeptical and don’t have any problem showing proof.

    Thx for your patience.
    I have sent pics of the last two months of service certificates to ivy.

    I really wish I had held off posting initially until later. I didn’t mean to drop a post and not be around to respond, but since it had to be approved and I didn’t know how long that might take I posted right before I went to bed. Then had plans for all day today. So I apologize for my delay in responding.

    FORUM MEMBER: I have a question for you if question 2 had included the word ethical would your personal answer still have been no?
    JUROR: The problem I have with what our foreman said and the question you are asking is that it mixes up the timelines. If the word unethical was included in question 2, we would still have to assess whether AEG knew that at the time they hired Conrad Murray.

    The most the plaintiffs could say in that area was that Murray asked for $5million initially and that should have sent up red flags. Asking for that amount would definitely catch my attention and maybe raise an eyebrow, but it still doesn’t qualify in my mind as unethical. Asking for a lot of money doesn’t mean one is unethical in my estimation (and I hope the irony of repeatedly implying that in court was not lost on the plaintiffs ;)). Also that Murray was being foreclosed on and had a lot of owed child support. Again, being in debt or being foreclosed on doesn’t in itself cross an ethical boundary in my mind.

    So no, I don’t think we would have answered differently if the question asked whether he was ethical because we didn’t see any evidence that showed that AEG knew Murray was going to act unethically.
    I can’t stress enough how much we all liked him by the end of the trial. So many witnesses and so much heartfelt testimony. Lots of pure love and affection for Michael poured out over these months and it left an incredible impression on all of us. This hits the nail on the head. Throughout all the testimony and witnesses, that was one of the strongest recurring themes — MJ was a wonderful father and person.
    FORUM MEMBER: Thank you, Juror#27.

    Before the verdict was read, we were going through the questions like you guys had to. Though I personally wouldn’t have answered question 1 with a “yes”, I can understand and thought it was very likely that this question had to be answered by 12 jurors with “yes” because it was realistic that at least 9 jurors would argue that both MJ and AEG Live could have hired Dr. Murray.

    If you go through my postings in this very thread here, I was trying to explain the meaning of the terms “unfit” and “incompetent” in question 2 and their association with “the work for which he was hired”.
    I was also trying to show that even if that question would not lead us to a “no”, there was nothing factual in those 5 months for question 3 that could tell us AEG Live had or should have had knowledge of Murray being unfit or incompetent.
    Like you, we noticed here that many are confused by the fact that Dr. Murray did infact cause involuntary manslaughter of Michael Jackson and why this fact has nothing to do with determining Dr. Murray being “fit” and “competent” for the work he was hired for.
    If you want to take a look at my thoughts on these questions and terms, here are some of my postings:
    • thoughts on question 2, possible guiding questions
    • about the terms “unfit” and “incompetent”
    • Korgnex & Tygger disagreeing about question 3
    • Korgnex & Tygger disagreeing about contract theories, “the work he was hired for” and “general medical care”
    • Korgnex & Tygger disagreeing about contract “termination” (of what?) [Part I], clause 7.3, other clauses
    • Korgnex & Tygger disagreeing about contract “termination” (of what?) [Part II], services of Dr. Murray and fundamental rights
    • Korgnex & Charles Thomson (freelancer journalist) disagreeing about terms “unfit” and “incompetent”

    As you might have read, there was a particular idea that came up here:
    it was whether a conflict of interest due to AEG Live advancing money to Murray (as per draft agreements) would a) be affirmed and b) thus determine Dr. Murray as “incompetent” in question 2.
    However I highly disagree with this point of view for these reasons:
    • There is no precedent that established a cash-stricken person would automatically provide substandard work / putting a patient at risk.
    [The person in question has to be cash-stricken as otherwise, he couldn’t care less about the money and there would be no conflicting interest.]
    • Dr. Murray had ordered propofol before Michael even introduced him to AEG Live.
    [You can’t establish a conflicting interest that way since Dr. Murray was not affected by AEG Live or any other third party at all.]
    • Every doctor that is receiving (advance) payment from a third party would then – after this idea – have to be considered “incompetent” and that’s quite untrue.
    • A doctor’s Hippocratic oath would dwindle in importance since the Hippocratic oath is the fundamental ethic framework for doctors.
    [Dr. Murray breaking his Hippocratic oath was his very own choice, his very own responsibility and noone else can be blamed for being or becoming unethic than the unethical person itself.]

    I would be interested what you think about this idea.
    JUROR: You are right on the money in my opinion.

    The conflict of interest idea was countered by the defense saying that in actuality all 3 interests were aligned. It was clearly in everyone’s best interest for Michael to be healthy and to do the shows and I see no way to dispute this. MJ being healthy and performing was good for everyone involved. And even if one wants to view this as a conflict of interest, I don’t see how the existence of it in and of itself renders Murray unfit or incompetent. We were told over and over that conflicts of interest arise all the time in medicine and are the responsibility of the doctor to mitigate.

    So even if a conflict of interest was in place, it was on Murray’s shoulders to mitigate it since he was the one providing medical care to MJ.

    As for question 1, our first vote had 3 answers.

    Hired him.
    Didn’t hire him.
    Unsure.

    After first vote it was 6 votes unsure, 4 votes no and 2 votes yes. I initially voted no.

    But we then looked at the jury instructions which said that contracts can be written, oral, or partly written and partly oral. It said that oral contracts are just as valid as written contracts, and that implied-in-fact contracts could be valid through the parties’ conduct.

    So we looked at AEG’s behavior in dealing with Conrad Murray, and we felt that between the drawn up contracts, the fact that they backdated his starting date from June 1 to May 1 in one of the drafts, the Gongaware emails about who was paying Murray’s salary, that Randy Phillips and Murray were in charge of getting MJ to rehearsals, it was all enough conduct to say that they “hired” him.
    I honestly don’t see how letting a license lapse means that someone is negligent. Doctors let licenses lapse all the time when they are not going to practice in a particular state any more. What we were looking for was disciplinary action against Murray in the form of malpractice suits or complaints, something that would give a reasonable person cause to find Murray unfit or incompetent at the time they hired him.

    Kathy Jorrie’s “10 minute google search” of Murray was talked about at length at trial, but I am of the opinion that that is a reasonable amount of due diligence for someone who you are bringing onboard as a favor to someone else. If AEG had found out about CM’s financial troubles and told MJ “We can’t hire your doctor for you, because we have seen that he is in financial straits and is therefore likely to be unethical or unfit”, I can’t imagine that going over very well, either with MJ or in the media if the story were to get out.
    FORUM MEMBER: I understand the reasoning behind saying NO to question number 2 because of its wording! But, because the jurors did find that Murray was Hired by AEG, for some anything he did wrong later should fall on their responsibility, regardless! And I can understand that too because they did hire him. I will always be split with this case and the verdict, both sides made good arguments IMO!
    JUROR: Think of it like this. A doctor works at a hospital and is caught stealing meds and performing unauthorized procedures in secret. When the hospital hired the doctor, there was nothing in his record that showed this kind of behavior. The doctor in this example should be held responsible, not the hospital.

    The decision to deviate from the standard of care and to ignore his Hippocratic Oath was CM’s, not AEG’s.
    FORUM MEMBER: Technically that was what the next question was about (3). And there I would agree with you. But q. 2 was about simple fact – was he competent or not to do the job. My logic is: the job required first aid skills, he didn’t have them, hence – not fit.

    It is a skill, because when you are taught first aid, you are taught that call 911 is the first thing you should do, before you start CPR. He didn’t do it, and his excuse later was the he didn’t call because he started doing CPR first. This technically means he didn’t have the proper skill.
    JUROR: But that again is taking what we learned in hindsight and applying it to an earlier time frame. When you go to see your general practitioner, are you absolutely certain they can perform CPR? Don’t you think it is reasonable to assume that a licensed doctor who is practicing medicine would know that? Is it really reasonable to say that AEG should have quizzed CM about how to perform CPR and whether calling 911 immediately in case of an emergency is the best course of action? I have never asked a doctor who is treating me these things and I doubt I ever will.
    You are very welcome. I just thought it was important to let you guys know that we did not come away with any negative feelings toward MJ. Quite the opposite, actually.
    FORUM MEMBER: If I was to ask questions to the jurors, I would be curious about

    – What did they think about the witnesses? Who did they believe to be honest and who did they believe to be not honest?

    – and if they discussed it or considered it, what did they think about the other questions on the verdict form? or in other words of we assume question 2 wasn’t on the form would the verdict change? (it looked like 2 jurors believed AEG didn’t and couldn’t know what was going on in regards to Propofol. I wonder if this was a widely shared belief)
    JUROR: 1. We thought that most people were genuinely trying to be honest, but the way they were boxed in by the attorneys’ questions often led to witnesses trying to clarify, avoid answering, or just answering something that wasn’t asked, and that could sometimes come across as trying to hide something or being less than truthful. I thought Kenny Ortega was the most forthright out of everyone, and his testimony was a refreshing change because there was no dodging of questions or anything like that. His emails expressed sincere care and concern for MJ and his testimony in person just solidified and strengthened that feeling. He very obviously cared for and loved MJ. I didn’t applaud when he left the witness stand because I thought that was inappropriate, but I understand the other jurors doing it. It was spontaneous and the result of the conclusion of a lot of heartfelt, riveting testimony.

    2. I don’t think if question 2 was gone the verdict would have changed. We did not discuss question 3 much once we reached a ‘no’ on question 2, but the impression I got is that there is no way we would have said that AEG knew or should have known that CM was unfit or incompetent and that his unfitness or incompetence would pose a particular risk to others. There was simply no evidence presented which would prove that AEG should have known that.
    In the jury instructions it explicitly said we are free to believe a witness or not, but I would never slander or disparage any of the witnesses I saw. The stress of being on that stand is unbelievable and I can’t fault someone for their answers while in that hot seat unless I thought they were flat out lying, and I very rarely got that impression during this case.
    After hearing about MJ so much for the last 5 months and reading a bit more the last few days, I understand why some fans are so protective and emotional about MJ, so I know not to take their anger at the verdict personally. I promise that I won’t hold the actions of a few against everyone. I’m very relieved to see that so many MJ fans are willing to discuss the case with reason and logic rather than get emotion. I understand being emotional but when dealing with law and facts I think logic and evidence should reign supreme.
    FORUM MEMBER: I have no question for you personally as any discussion we would engage in will not change the verdict rendered that I do not support. I will however, leave you with this comment: jurors are expected to use their common sense, life experiences, and intuition when deciding on the trustworthiness of witnesses and the rendering a resulting verdict. Jurors should not rely on or express personal biases against either party.
    JUROR: And whether you choose to believe me or not, I am telling you that not one juror on this case relied on or expressed personal bias against either party during the entire trial nor during deliberations. I don’t understand where this comment is stemming from?
    FORUM MEMBER: There were four plaintiffs. Testimony and evidence did not dismiss the fact that Michael idolized his mother as well as being an outstanding and loving father to his three children.
    JUROR: Again, I don’t understand this comment? We all believed without exception that MJ idolized his mother and was an outstanding and loving father to his three children. I only mentioned Prince because he was the only one to testify in person and I was very impressed by him.
    We never discussed damages while deliberating. I was simply turning the plaintiffs’ logic against themselves. They told us that someone asking for an outrageous sum of money is a red flag of unethical behavior. Does that logic not also apply to them? I ask only in a playful, rhetorical sense, because had we decided to award damages the ethics of the plaintiffs were completely irrelevant and would not have factored in at all.
    Randy’s deposition was interesting. I liked him a lot. The testimony was mostly about the time period where he was trying to stage interventions for MJ, and I believe he really tried his best to help get his brother clean.

    Katherine’s testimony probably hit me the hardest, emotionally. Late last year I lost my grandmother who raised me, and during her testimony I was reminded of her over and over. Very emotional stuff and I teared up more than a few times. I thought she was a sweetheart.

    Karen Faye’s testimony and demeanor was off-putting to a lot of the jury. I think I’ll leave it at that.
    FORUM MEMBER: I appreciate that you pointed out the word “timeline.” It is so important IMO for this trial. Ivy used the word “hindsight” in pointing out that many things re Dr. Conrad Murray were completely unknown until it was too late and MJ was already gone. To judge a hiring on the eventual outcome of Murray’s treatment would not be fair to the defendants. The question remains, was there evidence to anticipate or to ‘know’ that despite his licenses, education, training, he was going to be one of the most incompetent and unfit doctors ever. I am convinced by the evidence presented that such was not a reasonable conclusion at the time he was hired.

    As you might have noticed, the MJ ‘fan community’ has a number of heated, on-going debates within it, and it is sometimes a struggle to deal with these in a way that reflects MJ’s message of love and tolerance. People strive to present their opinions in a way that respects the other party’s views, but let’s face it, we are not perfect–we are human–we make mistakes and we get caught up in our likes and dislikes, our deeply felt convictions, so please bear with us.

    I would like to ask you this: How well did you think the case was managed? Do you think it should have been dismissed, as some have argued?
    JUROR: Yes, it is interesting and kind of sad for me to read now about the factions fighting within MJ’s fanbase. As I said earlier, I was completely clueless before this trial. Obviously I knew he had millions of fans all over the world, but the in-fighting and schisms and drama was all completely unknown to me. I’m happy to see that even in the midst of all this there are so many MJ fans who continue to remain positive and use his caring, loving nature to guide them along their path.

    Looking back it is easy to say that the case should have never been brought to trial, but after considering all the evidence I’m not sure I agree with that. There was an exceptionally high hurdle to cross for the plaintiffs to win this case, but since the burden of proof is lower in civil trials, and considering the words and conduct of AEG themselves, I’m honestly unsure about whether this case should have been thrown out or not. Obviously what that threshold is is determined by the court and gets into legal matters which I as a layperson am not qualified to discuss.
    Judge Palazuelos was awesome, I really liked her. She easily had the hardest job in overseeing this entire case. There were times where I thought she could have cracked down on witnesses or the attorneys a little harder, but overall I thought she did an outstanding job.

    The attorneys on both sides were incredible. This was my first time serving on a jury, and it was like going to your first live boxing match and getting to see Ali vs. Frasier. I can’t fully articulate how impressed I am with the attorneys.

    I didn’t get the impression that many witnesses were not truthful. The only time I felt that was with a few of the doctors who were treating MJ in the early-mid ’00s. Most truthful I thought were Debbie Rowe and Kenny Ortega. They felt the most neutral and did the least filtering of their answers, Debbie especially.
    FORUM MEMBER: the jury foreman gregg barden said the following to reporters “Conrad Murray had a license, he graduated from an accredited college and we felt he was competent to do the job of being a general practitioner”.

    if you go by that logic, no qualified doctor can ever be unfit or incompetent

    whats your take on that??
    JUROR: You are mixing up what a person should know at one point in time, with what comes to light after the fact.

    If I hire a nanny to watch my kids, and after checking her references and checking online I can find nothing that says she has hurt a child, or done anything illegal or unethical, should I be held liable if she kills my children? Liability can only go so far, and in this example as well as the AEG case, the liability for the unethical behavior falls with the individual who acted unethically. Period.

    Now, if I did a check on the nanny’s references and 2 people told me she hurt their kids and they fired her, or if I looked online and found she had a criminal record for abusing children, and I then hire her anyway, NOW I have been negligent in my hiring. Now I should share responsibility for what she did. So if we apply this logic to the AEG case, Murray passed a cursory check. He was being hired at the request of MJ. The only ‘red flag’ is the fact that he asked for a ton of money at first. In my opinion that is not sufficient evidence to say someone is unethical, unfit, or incompetent to perform a job for which they are qualified.
    FORUM MEMBER: I also want to add my thanks to Juror#27. I’m grateful you chose MJJC to share your thoughts and answer questions–something you don’t have to do–and you are furthering our understanding of what thought processes you and others on the jury went through to arrive at the verdict. Your commentary here is invaluable and helps us connect the dots on all our conversations and speculations through many months. What you’re doing is a gift and I’m among many others here who are very grateful.
    JUROR: Thank you so much for the kind words. That is why I am posting here. I knew there would be so much speculation and wonder after the verdict so I just hoped to provide a little understanding or clarification. It’s also helping me to get my bearings on this whole thing. What a weird experience to sit in silence for 5 months absorbing this incredible story, then deliberate for a few short days and have it all end so abruptly. Talking about it is definitely helping me to sort my mind out and move on.
    FORUM MEMBER: juror 27

    if I may ask two questions

    1.)
    I’m presuming that in the beginning or on the end of the trial the jurors got plaintiffs complaint and statement from AEG.
    If yes, do you got the 2 older plaintiff complaints too?

    2.)
    What was you thinking about Mr. Panish’ argument alteration in relation to his opening plädoyer? (i mean addiction; Michael’s health etc.)
    JUROR: 1. I’m not sure what you are referring to, but I think there was something to that effect in the jury instructions? In a very basic manner it laid out the claim by plaintiffs and AEG’s statement of affirmative defense, but I’m not sure if that is what you are asking about.

    2. I thought Mr. Panish handled everything well and I didn’t notice too much deviation from his opening statement.
    FORUM MEMBER: The decision to deviate from the standard of care and to ignore his Hippocratic Oath was CM’s, not AEG’s.”

    Does “Juror#27” call it “decision”, the being forced by AEG via threatening CM, being financially broken ?

    Let’s remind CM who is paying his salary…we want MJ’s butt on stage, no matter what…
    JUROR: Yes, it was still a decision even if he was being pressured. He could have just as easily decided not to give MJ propofol.

    If there was pressure or a conflict of interest, then it was up to CM to choose, “Do I risk my career and freedom by violating my duty as a Dr., or do I do the right thing and refuse to break my Hippocratic Oath?” He made that decision, and I do not see that AEG’s pressure was ever so great to say that it alone is what caused him to act unethically.
    FORUM MEMBER: Thank for answering this. to go by your example with the nanny. what if i hire the nanny and as time goes, i start to hear things that should worry me, is that nanny still competent or should i take action?? yes, she WAS competent at the beginning but she’s still on my payroll and my employee when i start to hear worrying things. is she competent or not?? she’s still hired by me…

    during trial we did hear testimony from worried THIS IS IT members that were worried about mjs condition and told various people about it. we know that randy philips, paul congaware and even the ppl above them in the aeg hierarchy were alerted of mjs condition week(s) before mj passed. kenny suspected dr conrad murray was not good and told randy philips. we have seen the emails from Houghdal where he said Mj was detoriating for the past 8 weeks and many other emails. this was all going on during the time murray was hired by aeg and aeg execs were informed.

    the jury instructions did not put a timeframe on the second question it if im correct. so during the time murray was hired by aeg, there were OBVIOUS signs that he was not fit and competent to treat mj. did you not concider this at all or did you all base your answer from the time he was hired (may 1)?

    like a poster wrote before ‘did aeg become negligent in allowing Murray to continue to care for MJ when it was clear to them that Michael was detoriating..???’

    remember, jury instructions did not state that you had to base your answer ONLY at the time he was hired (may 1).
    JUROR: You bring up good points, and we did consider Murray’s competence over the entire period and whether what AEG saw was enough to conclude that he was not fit. We felt that based on what they saw and were communicated, there was not enough to say that they should have known CM was breaking his sworn duty to do no harm. The main issue for me personally that cements this is that on the June 20th meeting, everyone saw a rested, healthy looking Michael. He and CM personally reassured Phillips and Ortega that MJ was fine, that he was OK to continue forward. Then on the 23rd and 24th MJ had great rehearsals and everyone had reason to be hopeful that he would be fine from then on.
    FORUM MEMBER: what did the jury think of the fact that Randy Phillips & Paul Gongaware were dropped as defendants a week before the end of testimonies?

    Were you all aware that Kenny Ortega was initially one of the defendants? The Jacksons had also accused him of having a hand in MJ’s death. I find it ironic that the jurors ended up liking him so much.
    JUROR: Phillips and Gongaware being dropped from the suit had zero impact on us. Same with Kenny Ortega. We heard early on that he was a defendant who was also dropped from the suit, but honestly that did not factor in to our decision or deliberations at all.

    I also find that a bit ironic.
    FORUM MEMBER: Why did you ask to see This Is It? And what did you think of the movie itself?
    JUROR: We thought it was only fitting to watch it since we had just sat there for 5 months listening to all the details about this concert series. Plus we had seen mostly the same clips over and over, so we wanted to see the whole thing in its entirety.

    I enjoyed it. I had never seen MJ in concert and even if This Is It had come to L.A. I probably would not have gone to see it, but I was blown away by what they were going to be doing on stage. The concert looked like it was going to be amazing and seeing it partially coming together in the film just made the ending of everything that much more tragic.
    I’m one of the 6 male jurors.
    FORUM MEMBER: In other words everyone thought MJ was getting better and as such felt there was no need for further intervention.

    Also, given that Murray was hired at the request of MJ, I don’t think AEG could impose another doctor to MJ. they tried it and he was not interested.
    JUROR: Exactly. AEG were not Michael’s parents, and as a grown man he has responsibility for his own health care. Let’s not forget that AEG was accommodating Michael’s wishes by hiring CM, they didn’t just go find a random doctor and force him on MJ.

    If after the June 20th meeting AEG had said “You know what, Michael? We know that you are saying you are fine, and we know that your own doctor says you are fine, but we really feel like we know better and so we will be removing your chosen doctor for one that we think is better”, do you honestly think that would have been OK? First of all, it is not their place to choose MJ’s doctor. Then they would be going directly against what MJ himself is telling them. To ask any more of AEG at that point is unreasonable.
    FORUM MEMBER: It has been evident from the beginning and reading jurors statement in the press that this is what you all believed. Blame Michael for his death.
    JUROR: I’m of the opinion that Micheal definitely has some blame for his death. I don’t see how you can believe otherwise? CM was giving him propofol at his request, not against his will. MJ was repeatedly warned about how dangerous it was to use propofol to ‘sleep’. He ignored those warnings. I can’t understand the idea that MJ has zero responsibility for his death, I really can’t.

    If he was injecting himself with propofol every night without CM involved, I would say he is 100% to blame. Since CM was in the picture, I think that 100% is now shared between 2 people. How much blame on each side? Who knows. There isn’t a formula for this type of thing. But seeing as how CM was doing what MJ wanted, and seeing as how CM wasn’t qualified to be doing what he was doing, my gut tells me to just split the blame 50/50. I really don’t know how else to see it.
    FORUM MEMBER: I came to terms and understood the verdict when it was first announced. but now when the juror has said they had the possibility to determine if murray was fit and competent based on the entire period of time murray was hired, im really shocked at how they came up with that conclusion, esp since aeg didnt needed to know about propofol specific.
    JUROR: They didn’t need to know about propofol, but they needed to know that MJ was being put in danger by CM. If they didn’t know that, then how can they be held liable?

    So then you might say, well since AEG saw MJ sick a few times and got some concerned emails, that should have alerted them to remove CM. I disagree. The best doctor in the world can not prevent a patient from becoming ill. If the mere act of a patient becoming ill while under a doctor’s care means that that doctor is unfit or incompetent, then one could say that every doctor is incompetent and go down that crazy road. At that point you lose grip on evidence and reason, and land in the realm of speculation and revisionist history.

    Yes, there were concerns raised to AEG about MJ’s health, but not one of those concerns was “Hey, Michael’s doctor is over here doing dangerous stuff to MJ, please advise”. Because no one besides MJ and CM knew what they were doing every night. Not Kenny, Travis, Karen, nobody knew. And since AEG was even more removed from MJ than all those people, how in the world can you say that they are the ones liable for what he did in private?
    I’d just like to clarify a bit where I said MJ is partly to blame for his own death. I don’t like the word blame there, I used it because it was in the post I was replying to and I should have changed it to reflect what I actually feel. I do think MJ is partly responsible for his own death, but I feel like any blame put upon him is misplaced. He was suffering greatly, only found relief by using an extremely inappropriate and dangerous method, and paid the price for it with his life. It’s like a person who commits suicide. They are responsible for their actions but it does no one any good to then lay blame on that person after the fact.
    FORUM MEMBER: question 2 did not include anything about ‘If AEG knew or should have known’. Question 2 was if Murray was fit and competent for the job he was hired for.
    JUROR: And he was fit and competent for the job he was hired for.

    FORUM MEMBER: I believe MJ detoriating was a process and not ‘sick a few times’ like you have described. It seems judging by trial testimony that as of May things got worse (chef kai Chase being away and returning and seeing MJ in bad shape). houghdal writing and email that he has seen mj detoriating for the past 8 weeks. Cherilyn Lee shocked when she saw that pic of how mJ looked at fitting. michael beardens email that MJ was still not ready.
    JUROR: I am not disagreeing that things got worse, but there is no evidence that ties MJ’s worsening condition to what CM was doing or not doing.

    FORUM MEMBER: I believe the evidence presented in this trial showed that murray was not fit and competent for the job he was hired for. i believe as time transpired and mj not getting better but weaker, it was obvious the doctor was not doing what he was suppose to do.
    JUROR: But he was a lot better on the 23rd and 24th. Everyone who testified said that it was an unbelievable transformation from the 19th and that he looked perfectly healthy. Why would it be reasonable to see MJ look so much better, hear from MJ himself that he was fine, and conclude that they should remove his personal doctor? It doesn’t make any sense unless you are looking at everything after the fact with the things done in private finally found out.
    FORUM MEMBER: I don’t think that Michael was ‘suffering greatly’ he wanted some sleep, that’s all.
    JUROR: I think not being able to sleep for days on end would qualify as suffering greatly. We saw weeks of testimony from sleep experts and I have no doubt that MJ’s inability to get restful sleep caused him immeasurable suffering. I was staggered when I heard about how much trouble he had getting sleep.
    FORUM MEMBER: I know the jury foreman mentioned it a little, but can you give us a little more info about the whole deliberation process? the specific evidence you looked, the voting, what went on in the deliberation room and so on.
    JUROR: Sure. First thing we did was vote on our foreman. Some of us did not want the position, and so we voted on the jurors who were willing to accept. I voted for juror #1, a very intelligent and sweet lady who IMO was the best choice to represent us. We looked at what supplies we might need and we asked for them, plus a copy of the jury instructions and AEG/CM contract. Was much easier for everyone to just have their own copy of those. Someone mentioned T.I.I. and we all agreed we should watch it so we asked for that plus a tv/blu-ray player.

    After that, as our foreman said we wanted to finally blow off steam and vent to each other, and we did do that, but I thought we got down to business just a little too quickly. There were SO many witnesses, SO much evidence, SO much to discuss, I thought we should spend a full day or even two just kind of gossiping and going over the whole trial to kind of get it all settled in our minds. There was so much to the trial that it was a bit overwhelming to try and make sense of it all at the end. I thought that just kind of generally discussing the whole ordeal would be good for us but we never really did that in depth. Our foreman was one of the jurors who was itching to get it over with so we followed his lead and just got right to the verdict form.

    We took a quick poll to see where we all stood on question 1, Did AEG hire Murray? First result was 6 unsure, 4 no, 2 yes. This question was such a grey area for us to deal with. Clearly there wasn’t a fully executed written contract, so we took that off the table. But there was a lot of email communication and actions between AEG and Murray. So we left day 2 with that up in the air, but when we came in on day 3 we talked for a bit about it and took another vote. It was a unanimous 12-0 to answer yes.

    So then we moved to question 2, and again we took a vote. I am ashamed to admit that in our initial vote, I ignored the “for which he was hired” portion of the question and I voted “yes”. As we read the results we realized we didn’t go over the question thoroughly enough and we scrapped the results of the vote. We then discussed the question at length and examined what we thought was relevant to the question. What did they actually hire him to do? Did anything stand out which would alert AEG that CM was not fit to provide basic medical care? We didn’t see anything. Was MJ’s condition during this time evidence that CM was not fit or competent? No, we did not believe so. We watched the majority of This Is It on the afternoon of day 3 and the rest on the morning of day 4.

    Day 4 we finished watching This Is It, talked about the question some more, and went to lunch. We were going to lunch earlier than usual during deliberations because we were partially sequestered and it was easier for the court attendants to get us to and from lunch that way. After lunch we decided to vote on question 2 and the result was 10-2. We talked about it a bit more since we wanted to have a unanimous decision, but when it became clear that the vote would stand we decided to hit the buzzer twice and get on with it.

    The deliberation process was at times chaotic and intense, and at times very productive and enlightening. It was tough to keep everyone on the same page, keep small side discussions from happening, and generally keep ourselves on task. There was a knock on the door every 10 minutes it seemed like. We couldn’t talk at all unless every member was in the room at the same time. Which was tough in itself since so many of the jurors had to use the restroom so often. It was definitely a bit of a pressure cooker situation, especially since on those last days we were so cooped up and guarded.
    FORUM MEMBER: My question for you is how did you/other jurors seem to feel specifically about Randy Phillips stating in an email that he had slapped MJ and screamed so loud at him that the “walls shook” before the announcement of the TII concerts?

    I’m not saying it should have had any impact on the final outcome of the trial, but just in general how did it make you feel (or the other jurors if it was brought up in deliberations)?
    JUROR: We did not discuss that incident in deliberations, but I know that a few other jurors and myself cringed pretty hard when hearing about it. It’s pretty damning testimony and I remember a lot of heads shaking and disapproving looks when we heard it.

    I felt really bad for MJ because it seemed pretty clear that he was in a bad place mentally at that moment and was crippled by fear and doubt about the reception to his announcement. Mr. Phillips screaming at him and slapping him is obviously not cool, but at the same time I have to remember the stress he was under since they were already late and MJ was so out of it. That absolutely does not excuse him for slapping and screaming at MJ, but I think it is important to remember that this was an isolated incident and happened during a moment of incredible stress and pressure for both of them.
    FORUM MEMBER: Allow me to preface this post by stating I am neutral on the validity of Juror27.

    Juror27, jurors are not qualified to speak for other jurors regarding personal biases possibly being relied on against either party. I can only hope biases were not expressed.

    In reviewing your posts however, almost every concept and view that was voiced by those who preferred AEG be found not liable as far past as the pre-trial discussions has been repeated.
    JUROR: And that proves what, exactly?

    FORUM MEMBER: The ethics of a mother who lost her son and three children who lost their father would have been an unknown to the jurors and most others so I agree it would not be relevant or factor into those decisions.

    Although the amount of monies Michael Jackson could command may seem outrageous to some, he simply could command those and similar sums due to his outrageous, extraordinary, and unparalleled talents. An expert’s testimony and supporting documents were used to quantify the amount of monies requested for potential damages had jurors reached that point to agree/disagree with. Those figures were not chosen at random as was the $5M request or the eventually accepted $150K fee.

    Interesting indeed that damages would characterized as “outrageous” and “unethical.”

    Ivy, this has been a busy time howerver, I hope you have had a chance to review the article(s) about the Jacksons being able to sue the doctor civilly in the article thread despite the rejection of restitution.
    JUROR: You can’t trick me here, sir. I never called the damages claim unethical. I said that if I used the logic presented by plaintiffs that asking for large sums of money raises red flags about a person’s ethical character, that would be quite ironic since they themselves were asking for quite a large sum.
    FORUM MEMBER: I updated my post slightly however, the view has not changed. It is NOT ironic. It is an illogical comparison as the damage request was quantified with supporting documents by an expert and were amounts Michael Jackson could command. The defense had their own figures they felt Michael Jackson could generate albeit those figures were lower than the plaintiffs’ figures. Again, the damage request was not not a random request as was the $5M by the doctor so there is no comparison.
    JUROR: The plaintiffs did not once mention the word “random” when referring to CM’s initial request of $5M. Whether Murray arrived at his figure by random chance or through some figures he concocted was not once presented as a reason why we should see it as unethical. They said it was an outrageous sum of money and that the size alone should send up red flags.
    FORUM MEMBER: AEG’s Meglen and Gongaware said it was an excessive amount as well.
    JUROR: Yes they did. Gongaware also said that when it came to MJ, people thought he had more money than God. That it was very common for people to ask for excessive fees all the time in connection with working for MJ. I don’t find that hard to believe, and if they were used to having people ask for excessive amounts of money when it came to MJ, I can’t fault them for not viewing the initial $5M request as a red flag.
    About Randy Jackson – His testimony mostly revolved around the mid 2000’s when he and his family were trying to stage interventions for Michael. The story about Randy flying to Neverland with another sibling by helicopter and Michael refusing to see them was corroborated by another witness who was there, Michael’s security at the time Mr. LaPerruque (I’m sure I spelled that wrong). Now whether Michael refused to see them because he didn’t want to confront his substance problem or because of some personal issues he had with Randy was not for us to consider.
    FORUM MEMBER: I’m confused as to what you looked at, as it seems contradictory to what you said earlier. Was you def of incompetence breaking the hippocratic oath as in the above post. Or was it whether he was qualified to do general medical work as in your other posts.
    JUROR: Thank you for the kind welcome.

    To answer your question, it was not an either/or, we looked at both the time of hiring and the 2 month period of ‘deterioration’, but we felt that the most pertinent part was the time of hire. I’ll explain why.

    Murray was brought to AEG by Michael. They would have had nothing to do with him if not for MJ’s insistence. So when they were entering into an agreement with him they did a check, he checked out fine, and they (in the weakest sense possible, in my opinion) ‘hired’ him. OK, he’s hired.

    So time goes on, and there are some concerns raised to AEG about MJ’s health. We know AEG are aware because of the emails where Mr. Phillips says “is it chemical or physiological”, “getting him (to rehearsal) is not the problem, it is something deeper”, etc. But again, none of these concerns link MJ’s condition to what CM was doing with him. I think the hindsight is what causes the problem in understanding here.

    It is easy to look back with all we know now and lump everything together and say “They should have known ______.” I don’t buy that. I think it is important to put yourselves in the AEG executives shoes at that time and ask if it is reasonable for them to remove MJ’s personal physician because of a few concerns. In my opinion that would completely overstep their boundary as promoter.

    Michael would be the best person to know whether the medical care he was getting was adequate or not, NOT AEG. Why is Michael treated as if he was unable to voice these concerns himself or fire Murray himself? He had that ability. If Michael was a minor under AEG’s guardianship, I think the negligence angle becomes a lot stronger. But Michael wasn’t a child, he was a grown man receiving the specific care that he asked for.

    AEG made a horrible mistake in getting involved with CM, but I don’t think it rises to the level of liability because they checked CM out at the time of hiring, and the concerns raised over the 2 months were not enough to reasonably conclude that MJ’s declining health was due to the actions of his own doctor. For me it takes too large a mental leap to say that AEG should have known that based on what they saw at the time.

    As for why AEG denied hiring CM so vigorously, I think it should be obvious. If they are found to have hired CM, then a huge hurdle has been crossed and the possibility of them being liable for damages opens up. It makes sense to me to try to say that they never hired him in the first place to block that path to damages.
    FORUM MEMBER: I’d love to know this too. there were many ”i dont recall/i dont remember/i dont know” from aeg.

    I have a few more questions if you’d like to answer.

    1) what did you think of aegs witness eric briggs when he testified that mj would not have earned a dime because it was all too ‘speculative’? what did you think when eric said ‘mj would not even had survived the first show’ and what was your overall reaction when you was informed that mjs assets were greater than his debt and he could have easily erased the debt if he sold his share in sony/atv catalogue. your overall impression of eric briggs?

    2) how did you react to when aeg exces tried to downplay mjs success with the ticketsales? you agreed with their opinion or not?

    3) do you believe that THIS IS IT was going to be a worldtour or not.
    JUROR: 1. Mr. Briggs never said that MJ would not earn a dime. He said that any projections of earnings would be speculative. (which drove me up the wall since it was so self-evident. it was like bringing him in to say something as obvious as “we are sitting in a courtroom”). Mr. Briggs was relying on another witness’s testimony when he said MJ’s life expectancy was so short. He didn’t come up with that himself. The size of MJ’s debt and the value of the Sony/ATV catalog were just astonishing to me. It didn’t really factor in to what we looked at, but it was such a crazy amount I definitely did a double take. Mr. Briggs was not a popular witness among the jury because he steadfastly refused to answer Mr. Panish’s questions which were very pointed and direct (which made his testimony drag on forever), and some thought he came across as arrogant. I didn’t really get that vibe, I just got the feeling this is a guy who is out of his depth when trading with the likes of Mr. Panish.

    2. Both sides manipulated ticket sales. Plaintiffs projected way too many, and the defense tried to downplay his success as well.

    3. I really don’t know. I think 50 shows is a huge number, and I have a hard time believing that MJ would do a grueling 50 shows, and then go on to do another 200+ or whatever it was around the world. We heard about how much MJ hated flying and traveling for tours and I am really skeptical that it would have played out anything like what Mr. Erk testified to had MJ lived. The number just seems way, way too excessive.
    FORUM MEMBER: I wonder how he felt over the testimony of Gongaware and Phillips, did they seem truthfull or were they hiding info and not being totally honest with all their “I dont remember”?
    JUROR: When they were direct examined by plaintiffs, they were painted into all kinds of corners with loaded questions and asked about 4 year old emails and conversations. So there was definitely a lot of squirming by those guys but I believe also that it is reasonable to not remember specific emails from 4 years ago. Especially considering the volume of emails these guys were exchanging daily. Hundreds of emails a day.

    If I had to rank the main AEG execs based on how forthcoming and honest they were under direct examination, I would say from most honest to least it was:

    Meglen
    Gongaware
    Phillips
    Leiwicke
    FORUM MEMBER: Did evidence point out that aeg were planning to make a worldtour???? (not asking if you believe mj would actually go on). aeg denied this fiercly but then we heard other testimonies that This IS IT was a 2 year project
    JUROR: There was a little evidence for a world tour being contemplated but it was all very flimsy. It came in the form of very early tour production emails, comments made in T.I.I., hearsay, etc. Nothing definitive whatsoever.
    FORUM MEMBER: hanks for the reply,i guess i wd have thought if mj was declining, his $5k a day doc wd be the guy in the crosshairs. I accept that in the jury’s view the decline in mj didn’t warrant a def of incompetence, and i’m actually glad that this aspect was discussed as it wd have ticked me off if all that happened was if you looked to see if murray was qualified to be a doctor. I do entirely accept your argument about what options were open to aeg at this point. My own personal view wd be to stop/postpone tii, but as you rightly imply this isn’t what aeg are being accused of not doing. It’s not a negligence lawsuit so aeg don’t own a duty of care to mj, it’s only a case on negligent hiring/supervising/retention of murray. Not sure if you’re aware but the jacksons had multiple claims against aeg, and it was only this one claim that was allowed to go through.
    JUROR: I agree with you that the correct course of action given what AEG knew at the time should have been to cancel or postpone the shows. But that is very easy to say for a person who has not invested over $30Million in the project. I would have liked to see some more compassion from the AEG side, but they are in a ruthless business and there is not a lot of room to fit compassion and caring into a for-profit venture. And I should point out that there were a lot of emails that did show care and concern for MJ coming from the AEG folks. They are not the heartless, soulless evil suits that so many want to paint them as. I just don’t think it’s fair to ignore that they did try to help and accommodate MJ and then turn around and say “well you should have done more, and it’s your fault he’s dead”.

    FORUM MEMBER: Yes i remember that aeg expert saying that. I’m not sure how it can be seen that mj’s being healthy and performing was compatible and therefore one would be in conflict with the other. Clearly if mj had to be put in a drug induced coma every night just to manage rehearsals, never mind for the 50 show tour, then this is a danger to his health, this wd be blindingly apparent to murray. Mj was feeling ill and knew his weight loss and insomnia were huge problems for performing yet was financially and career wise ‘locked into’ tii and felt he had no choice, and as far as aeg was concerned, they admitted mj was on a decline in the lead up to tii and saw the state he had got in just for doing the press conf, so not sure how mj’s health, physical or mental, was much of a priority for them as opposed to doing the shows.
    JUROR: MJ’s health was definitely a priority for them because without a healthy Michael there are no shows at all. Now you can say that they should have done more to keep him healthy, and my instincts tell me to agree with that, but how much more? At what point do AEG go from being a business partner to a parent? And why is it their duty to keep Michael healthy and not Michael’s?

    It’s just my feeling that AEG was in a no-win situation. Were they supposed to force MJ into a hospital? For what ailment? They should have forcibly removed CM from MJ? How could they even do that? MJ and CM were a package deal and AEG had no authority or ability to remove CM from MJ’s life.

    FORUM MEMBER: I think it was interesting, and for me relevant, that randy phillips clearly regarded there being a conflict of interest going on with murray. When he was trying to convince kenny ortega on 20 june that mj should go ahead with this is it, he told kenny that murray felt it was best for mj to perform, and seeing that murray was successful and didn’t need the gig, this judgment was unbiassed and ethical. Clearly aeg felt murray’s financial reliance or otherwise on the tour going ahead would affect his judgement as mj’s doctor
    JUROR: To me this was one of the stronger parts of plaintiffs case. What it comes down to, is that AEG was going on the information provided to Kathy Jorrie by Conrad Murray. He said he was bringing in $1M a month from his various practices, he did pass a quick check to show that he actually did have practices, and for them that was enough to bring him into the fold. Mr. Phillips acknowledges that there is a potential conflict of interest, but as far as he was aware, CM was successful so he would not be conflicted by the promise of money. This is why plaintiffs spent so much time saying that AEG should have checked out CM’s finances. Because it would have revealed that he was in financial trouble, and that potential conflict of interest was a lot stronger than Mr. Phillips thought. That makes sense to me, except that I don’t believe that most people do credit checks on their doctors. There was a lot of testimony from two Human Resources ladies, and even the plaintiffs expert had to concede that when companies are hiring personnel, they only perform credit checks something like 3% of the time. And usually credit checks are performed only when the job entails sensitive financial information. This is AEG’s policy as well, we were shown that in court multiple times. And on top of that, the HR ladies said that you are only supposed to do background checks that fit with what the job you are hiring for, otherwise you open yourself up to lawsuits for discrimination.

    So with all that considered, it is my opinion that AEG should not be held liable for failing to perform a credit check on Dr. Murray.

    FORUM MEMBER: The jury instructions i think made clear that AEG didn’t need to be the only cause of what happened. There could be multiple contributory causes to murray’s actions.
    JUROR: Correct, and I should have not used the word “alone”. I meant to say that AEG’s pressure did not appear to me to be the main cause of CM’s unethical actions.

    Like

  81. October 9, 2013 2:29 am

    It’s actually “Judge Mathis” opinion on the AEG verdict

    Like

  82. October 9, 2013 1:51 am

    Check out Judge Matheson’s you tube video clip on the MJ’s verdict
    Very Interesting ……..If AEG hired Murray then there responsible

    Like

  83. Carole Tia permalink
    October 8, 2013 6:50 pm

    Hi Helena how are u? Hope ur feeling better!!!
    I really would like to thank u for this blog this is one of the rare places were i feel like home (Mj family)
    We are the biggest and most loyal fan in the world and this people are doing everything they can to divide us (divide to conquer) they infiltrated some fan club administrator are bought (fake fans,fake poles…) to manipulate

    As for the verdict it makes no freaking sense!!!
    I am so disappointed and sad how can anybody think of CM as competent???

    I do hope Miss KJ has the strength to appeal I feel so sorry for her and the kids
    I want to see the smile wipe out of this……AEG and there layers..faces

    Helena take dear Helena

    Like

  84. October 8, 2013 5:36 pm

    “Let me know if you want to read what he’s writing, I can send you a word doc.”- Laura Messina

    Laura, I think that all our readers will appreciate a summary of what this juror is saying without the need to actually follow him on MJJC. So if you could post his comments here we would be very grateful to you. This will give us a chance to educate ourselves further.

    “About our action, we want to realize a video to upload on yt and spead everywhere where we will express our point of view and our support to the kids and to Michael’s mother. We ask everyone to join in 3 possible ways: you can do your own statement, recording a vlog of max 1 min; you can appear on the video with a picture of you with your own short statement; or you can just send us what are the most important things to say in your opinion and we will include your suggestions in the statement. When a spokesperson reads the statement, your name will scroll on the screen among the names of the other supporters.”

    Great idea. I’m repeating the email address you provided so that people could join you in this effort: info@truth4mj.com

    “Helena, you certainly are one of the most informed people about the trial, so I would greatly appreciate if you can give us your contribution to the statement.”

    Thank you very much for so high an opinion of my studies – in fact there are very many knowledgeable people attending this site, and it is no exaggeration, and this is why I very much appreciate the readers here and hope they will contribute to your project too.

    As regards me I will be honored to make a statement but need some time for it. The next few days will be rather busy for me.

    But the initiative is very good – of course we need to make our voice heard!

    Like

  85. October 8, 2013 5:17 pm

    “those jurors made the wrong decision on this case murray was unfit and incopentent if not why is he in jail for killing Michael Jackson” – Dolores Bryant

    EXACTLY.

    Like

  86. October 8, 2013 5:14 pm

    Here are two articles speaking about Katherine and Prince Jackson’s reaction to the verdict and their further plans to appeal.

    The first article is noteworthy for the word “Jacko” still being used by the media though they think themselves to be decent people, and Prince being mystified by the jury’s answer to question No.2 and Mr. Putnam going out of his way to express concern for the well-being of Michael’s kids. As usual there is no better friend for them than AEG, same as it was for Michael.

    The ending of the article is also impressive – they say that AEG “loved and cared for Michael”. Oh, I am almost ready to cry happy tears at what a sweet darling AEG is…

    Jacko’s mom Katherine Jackson isn’t giving up after lawsuit loss, looking at appeal

    BY NANCY DILLON / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
    SATURDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2013

    Michael Jackson’s mother Katherine Jackson “isn’t throwing in the towel,” says Jackson’s lead trial lawyer Brian Panish.
    Michael Jackson’s mom was heartened by a private conversation with the jury that rejected her billion dollar wrongful death lawsuit and told her lawyer late Thursday that she supports his research into an appeal.

    “She isn’t throwing in the towel,” Katherine Jackson’s lead trial lawyer Brian Panish told the Daily News Friday after his meeting with the matriarch.

    “She feels that the jurors ended the trial really liking Michael,” he said, confirming that Katherine was inside the judge’s locked courtroom when both sides spoke with the six men and six women immediately after their verdict was read.

    “One question asked of the jury was, ‘What was your impression of Michael?’ And they said it was way better after hearing what a great father he was and how much he did for humanity,” Panish said. “They understood he struggled but that he really did his best.”

    The Los Angeles jury that sat through the five-month trial decided Wednesday that defendant AEG Live – the promoter of Michael’s doomed “This Is It” comeback concerts – did in fact hire Dr. Conrad Murray but shouldn’t be held liable for the physician’s actions because he was neither “unfit” nor “incompetent.”

    Jurors said in media interviews that they were aware many wouldn’t understand their decision, but they believed Murray was competent at the time of his hiring – with a valid license and no malpractice claims – and that AEG had no reason to suspect he’d go rogue with surgery-style anesthesiology.
    Panish said Michael’s oldest son Prince, 16, was mystified by that portion of the verdict.

    “Prince is doing okay,” Panish said, recounting a conversation with him Thursday. “He said he felt good about the jury finding that AEG hired Dr. Murray but didn’t understand their answer to the second question – as many of us don’t.”

    Panish said his team is now setting up individual interviews with the jurors and planning to meet with outside appellate lawyers to make a decision on a possible appeal in the next 30 days.

    “We can’t give up until we gather all the information. Today is another chapter,” Panish said Friday.

    AEG’s lead lawyer said Wednesday that the jury’s verdict “completely vindicates” his client.

    “Although Michael Jackson’s death was a terrible tragedy, it was not a tragedy of AEG Live’s making,” lawyer Marvin Putnam said.

    He said outside court that he hoped Katherine would forgo an appeal.

    “Sadly, the children have been through a lot,” he said. “In many measures, I hope for their sake that there isn’t an appeal.”

    He said AEG “loved and cared for” Michael.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/jacko-mom-appeal-lawsuit-loss-article-1.1477148

    And the Daily Mirror article is definite that Katherine Jackson is going to appeal, however we cannot believe a single word of what they say, because they can’t even get their figures right – all of a sudden they claim that Katherine wanted $31 billion in this case! Judging by the comments the readers swallowed it hook, line and sinker:

    Michael Jackson’s family planning to appeal after $31billon lawsuit defeat
    8 Oct 2013 00:00
    Family to continue their legal fight for damages against concert promoter AEG over the hiring of jailed doctor Conrad Murray

    Michael Jackson’s family have refused to accept last week’s jury decision against their £31billion lawsuit and are planning to appeal.

    Gig promoter AEG was cleared of negligence for hiring Conrad Murray, who gave the star a fatal dose of propofol and was jailed for involuntary manslaughter.

    But Jackson’s mother Katherine, 82, and his children Prince, 16, and Paris, 15, have vowed: “We won’t give up fighting for justice.”

    They claim AEG should have known Murray, 60, was unfit to treat Jackson and was therefore responsible in part for his death in 2009.

    The promoter said it was Jackson who hired him and that he was to blame for his own drug-fuelled demise.

    The family’s lawyer Brian Panish is said to have lost about £4.5million in the case in a no win, no fee deal.

    And Tom Mesereau, who successfully defended the star in his 2005 molestation trial, said: “I spoke to them. They are going to appeal.”

    He also hit out at Murray for continuing to claim his innocence.

    He said: “Unless he tries to change his attitude I have contempt for him. I hope he admits responsibility, but I doubt it.”

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/michael-jackson-aeg-lawsuit-family-2348817

    Like

  87. October 8, 2013 4:57 pm

    those jurors made the wrong decision on this case murray was unfit and incopentent if not why is he in jail for killing Michael Jackson,

    Like

  88. October 8, 2013 4:56 pm

    – “his license was suspended in two states and he was not board certified as a cardiologist”
    – “Thank you Helena for making this clear”

    Tatum, as regards Murray’s licences this information still needs to be checked up, but as regards Murray not being board certified the information comes direct from Dr. Steinberg who testified at Murray’s trial. Here are my notes from that period:

    Dr. Steinberg is one the leading cardiologists of the Californian medical board which is a government agency licencing, regulating and disciplining physicians. He himself is board certified in two areas of cardiology.

    To be board certified means completing a cardiology fellowship and passing an extensive two day exam that goes over the basic knowledge and skills in cardiology.

    As of 2009 Dr. Murray was not board certified despite the fact that 90% of the cardiologists who take the exam pass it – not because it is easy (it is not), but due to their good training.

    At the request of the Californian medical board Dr. Steinberg reviewed Murray’s case to check whether the doctor’s actions were within the “standard of care”, which he described in a simple way – it is “what all ordinary doctors should do in the same situation”.

    There are three possible resolutions to be passed on the standard of care by a doctor:

    – No deviation
    – A minor or simple deviation
    – A severe or extreme deviation.

    Dr. Steinberg said that it was the first time he encountered a case of an extreme deviation.

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/conrad-murray-trial-week-3/

    While looking for information I also found Dr. Shafer’s opinion of Murray as a physician and it is damning:

    Dr. Shafer believes, “There is almost nothing in Murray’s care of Michael Jackson that reflected the actions of a trained physician.

    http://www.antimusic.com/news/11/sep/08Witness_To_Claim_Michael_Jackson_Doctor_Committed_Unconscionable_Violations.shtml#.UlR-jtL7qHE

    I wish those jurors had educated themselves a bit on the opinion of Murray’s peers about the way he was performing a physician’s duties.

    So they consider him competent? And Dr. Shafer says that there was almost NOTHING in Murray’s care of Michael Jackson that reflected the actions of a trained physician. Almost nothing!

    Like

  89. October 8, 2013 4:53 pm

    AEG are big liars, they knew that they were wrong. those so call fans of Michael, I hope you feel better now that , that juror found aeg not lieable for Michael’s death, them and Conrad murray, you just gave him a pass to do that to some one else, they are going to let him out, soon,so you say you are Michael’s fans but you have let the people go that took his life,shame on you.california ‘s laws suck and so does their judges, except judge Pastor , the judge that sent murray to jail,

    Like

  90. October 8, 2013 3:28 pm

    his license was suspended in two states and he was not board certified as a cardiologist

    Thank you Helena for making this clear, I hope you are feeling better. I wish they would have touched on this information in the trial for Katherine and the kids.

    Like

  91. October 8, 2013 3:08 pm

    I know when the jurors had to answer question number 2 based on the notion that Murray had no questionable medical history.” – Tatum

    Tatum, the jury instructions gave no guidance in this respect. There were no instructions to the jurors to base their opinion on the notion whether Murray had a questionable or perfect medical history. Simply nothing was said about it. Here is the screenshot of the respective part of the instructions – the jurors were to simply answer that question and that’s it:

    “Did he have something questionable in his medical history?”

    I hear his license was suspended in two states and he was not board certified as a cardiologist. Board certification is made as a result of a two-day examination, and Murray probably simply didn’t want to take it. Otherwise I haven’t heard of anything bad about him except the sentence at the trial for manslaughter of course.

    I hope the jurors at this trial also heard about it and this gave them enough information to answer that question.

    Another source was the evidence they heard at the AEG trial and it also gave enough material to prove that Murray did not place Michael’s interests first, especially after he was “taken into the fold” by AEG. Since that moment he was fully at their service as the future of his contract was at stake. Competent or any sort of care for Michael was no longer an issue for him.

    Like

  92. October 8, 2013 2:26 pm

    Question: I know when the jurors had to answer question number 2 based on the notion that Murray had no questionable medical history. Did he have something questionable in his medical history? Forgive my ignorance if it has already been established.

    Like

  93. Caro Attwell permalink
    October 8, 2013 10:18 am

    Hi Helena no need to apologise for the delay whatsoever. I am only very thankful that you did manage it given your injuries, but I was very keen to hear what you had to say, because I like other people here really value what you have to say. I also was in a state of shock for a while as I couldn’t believe it, but badly wanted to know what other balanced fans, such as yourself, thought and felt.

    It has been interesting to read the piece from the jurer, as I haven’t gone to any other sites and don’t want to get caught up in the foror – don’t think that will help!! but really that verdict does seem totally ridiculous – durrr indeed!! No way can it ever be squared with me, and I think most of Michael’s ‘real’ fans.

    Take care of yourself my friend in Michael.

    Like

  94. October 8, 2013 9:00 am

    Thank you Helena for your support, I’ve been shocked since I heard that NO to question number 2 and I wrote a blog in my mothertongue that’s Italian to point out its nonsense on the basis of what the jury foreman said. In fact, this juror who is enjoying the Q&A on that forum distanced himself from Barden’s statements very quickly. I’m not a member of that forum, never was. But I keep reading what this juror is writing because it’s the only way we have to give him and all AEG supporters an appropriate answer. They are calling people who disagree with the verdict basically “unreasonable” and full of hate and anger. It’s clearly not the case if the juror had to state he has a problem with Barden’s words exaclty about the inconsistency I found in this verdict right away. Let me know if you want to read what he’s writing, I can send you a word doc.

    About our action, we want to realize a video to upload on yt and spead everywhere where we will express our point of view and our support to the kids and to Michael’s mother.

    We ask everyone to join in 3 possible ways: you can do your own statement, recording a vlog of max 1 min; you can appear on the video with a picture of you with your own short statement; or you can just send us what are the most important things to say in your opinion and we will include your suggestions in the statement. When a spokesperson reads the statement, your name will scroll on the screen among the names of the other supporters.

    Helena, you certainly are one of the most informed people about the trial, so I would greatly appreciate if you can give us your contribution to the statement. Thank you.

    Like

  95. October 8, 2013 8:47 am

    Katherine Jackson Remains Optimistic After AEG Victory in Wrongful Death Suit
    October 4, 2013 | Posted by Taylor Gordon

    Katherine Jackson may not have won the legal battle against AEG Live regarding the wrongful death of her son and the late pop star Michael Jackson, but she remains positive, acknowledging that this was a quest for truth all along.

    It has been five months of tearful testimoniesbut at the end of it all the jury found that AEG was not responsible for the King of Pop’s death because Dr. Conrad Murray was not an incompetent doctor.

    While he caved in to pressure to make his celebrity client happy, AEG can’t be held responsible for Dr. Murray’s bad decision, the jury found.
    “He wasn’t unfit, the jury said, or incompetent,” one insider told Fox. “He simply caved to his famous patient’s demands.”

    The Jackson family’s legal loss means they won’t be receiving a single dime from AEG Live, although they were initially asking for billions from the concert promoter.

    “They were counting on at least $2 billion, so there’s no question that those who wanted this suit are devastated,” another source from Fox added.
    Despite the monetary loss, Katherine Jackson kept her head up after the verdict as best as she could.

    The legal guardian of Michael’s children said that she is content that the truth has finally been revealed.

    While AEG denied they even hired Murray, the jury found that the company did indeed hire the doctor for Michael.

    “We have said from the beginning that this case was a search for the truth,” Katherine said. “We found the truth. AEG hired Dr. Conrad Murray, the man who is in jail for killing Michael Jackson.”

    That doesn’t mean much for AEG because it will still not be held responsible for Jackson’s death.

    “The jury’s decision completely vindicates AEG Live, confirming what we have known from the start – that although Michael Jackson’s death was a terrible tragedy, it was not a tragedy of AEG Live’s making,” said Marvin Putnam, a member of AEG Live’s legal team.

    Another member of the legal team, Gregg Barden, said he doesn’t necessarily feel victorious in a case as tragic as this.

    “We don’t walk away thinking it was a victory on one side or the other,” Barden said. “It was a tragic situation.”

    AEG Live might not feel like they walked away with anything, but the Jackson family is walking away with nothing and that has turned into a major concern for the family.

    Sources claimed that Michael’s family needed that money and that the public has no idea what their financial situation will really be like after Katherine passes away.

    “Katherine wanted the money because the Jacksons don’t have what people think they do,” the source said. “She gets money from the estate as does Prince, Paris, and Blanket. But once Katherine dies, she has nothing to leave her children, Jermaine, Jackie… There is now going to be a lot of in-house fighting.”

    Of course, it shouldn’t be up to Katherine to leave behind enough money for the Jackson family to continue living a lavish lifestyle for the rest of their lives. If money is an issue, then the famous family needs to look for their own business ventures that don’t involve capitalizing on their famous brother or his tragic death.

    Besides, not all the Jackson family members are pressed for cash. Janet Jackson is married to 37-year-old billionaire Wissam Al Mana and the couple are rumored to be making plans to adopt children soon.

    http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/10/04/katherine-jackson-remains-optimistic-aegs-victory-wrongful-death-trial/

    Like

  96. October 8, 2013 8:23 am

    “..the juror in the AEG trial keeps making statements on MJJCommunity and I believe that what we have to do is raise our voice rather than close our eyes and ears. When bad forces combine, the good must associate” – Laura Messina

    Laura, you are absolutely right and those of us who are members of their forum should bring to the attention of this juror what mistakes they had made in their verdict. Documented mistakes.

    I cannot go there as they banned me for telling the truth about AEG while the trial was still on, and frankly, have absolutely no desire to talk to the people who are in support of AEG by 22% more in comparison with even the general public or average Michael’s haters.

    “we can’t accept that someone whom we deeply LOVE is sneakily exploited by master contollers who answers with silence if not with approval to the SLAP he got while he was suffering up to the point he couldn’t leave his room for his fear and self-loathing. I urge all the people who agree with me to ride over your shyness, your doubts and your fears and contact us at: info@truth4mj.com and join our action to tell Michael and his children: Yes, WE WILL BE THERE, WE STILL CARE. Thank you.”

    I absolutely support Katherine and the children in their search for the truth of what was done to their dear father and son during the last and saddest months of his life, and of any action meant to convey to them that WE WILL BE THERE FOR THEM. If I could I would embrace Mrs. Jackson and not some hypocritical lover of Michael who has just absolved AEG of any guilt and named “competent” the doctor who killed him through his gross negligence.

    These people surely have the right to have their own point of view on Murray and AEG, but it does not mean I should be friends with them.

    As to love for Michael the fallacy of many “fans” is that they monopolized for themselves their love for Michael and think they know better than his own mother “how to love her son” and “preserve his legacy”, and therefore deny her the right to search for the truth about his last days on earth. It never occurrs to them that they have no right to deny her her rights.

    And this does not concern MJJC only. I’ve been to Positively Michael, and the same thing is going on there. And what’s surprising is that it is done by the same people from MJJC.

    At the moment Ivy of MJJC is making a very big thing on Positively Michael out of the fact that the question “Was Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent for the work he was hired?” was proposed by the plaintiffs’ attorneys: http://www.positivelymichael.com/forums/showthread.php?42329-AEG-Civil-Trial-The-Waiting-and-The-Verdict&p=421683&viewfull=1#post421683

    Judging by the documents of September 10, 2013 yes, it was proposed by Panish and Boyle, at least in the final variant of the verdict form.

    But all it shows is that it never occurred to them (same as to all normal people) that after Murray’s sentencing to jail for his criminal negligence anyone could call him competent. It never occurred to me either. And it never occurred to me that the word “ethical” should have been added there too.

    And one more note. We don’t know how this question found its way into the Plaintiffs’ proposal, because the initial version of the Plaintiffs’ verdict form (published by Ivy back in April) contained nothing of the kind. So it could very well happen that this question was introduced by the other side during further discussions and Panish could easily agree to add it to their verdict form as he saw no harm in it.

    He didn’t see any harm here, while others did and made use of it.

    Like

  97. October 8, 2013 8:03 am

    layne4: What? This is a joke, isn’t it?
    I think you’re mixing up something. Because a lot of Michael’s “advocates” STOPPED to vindicate Michael, and here vindication still is and always will be the main goal.

    Like

  98. October 8, 2013 7:23 am

    “I used to read this blog religiously but it seems to me it is no longer about Vindicating Michael. Disappointed in Helena and in the horrendous comments directed at many of Michael’s advocates who happen to have a different point of view.” – layne4

    The word “religiously” was wrong here as this blog is no religion but is about truth about Michael. As to the rest you are free to have your own opinions and make your own mistakes.

    Like

  99. October 8, 2013 6:27 am

    Thanks for this blog, the juror in the AEG trial keeps making statements on MJJCommunity and I believe that what we have to do is raise our voice rather than close our eyes and ears. When bad forces combine, the good must associate and as good people we respect different opinions but we can’t accept that someone whom we deeply LOVE is sneakily exploited by master contollers who answers with silence if not with approval to the SLAP he got while he was suffering up to the point he couldn’t leave his room for his fear and self-loathing. I urge all the people who agree with me to ride over your shyness, your doubts and your fears and contact us at: info@truth4mj.com and join our action to tell Michael and his children: Yes, WE WILL BE THERE, WE STILL CARE. Thank you.

    Like

  100. October 8, 2013 5:50 am

    I used to read this blog religiously but it seems to me it is no longer about Vindicating Michael. Disappointed in Helena and in the horrendous comments directed at many of Michael’s advocates who happen to have a different point of view.

    Like

  101. October 8, 2013 5:35 am

    “I have been waiting days for your take on this horrendous verdict, and I agree with absolutely every word you have written – this verdict beggers belief and I hope that Katherine will appeal. It isn’t about money – MJs legacy will provide for his kids of course – but justice, which seems to be absolutely lacking with this verdic”- Caro

    Caro, I am really sorry for keeping you and everyone waiting. The post should have been made long ago, but I just couldn’t – at first because my own feelings were in shambles and then due to complications with my left hand. This is why this week I will probably have to be away for some time again.

    The verdict is indeed horrendous – the worst miscarriage of justice we have ever seen, at least in a democratic country. But even this cloud has a silver lining to it – the absurdity and injustice is seen to the public with a naked eye, so the verdict compromises itself all by itself.

    And this makes the advocates of AEG take absolutely drastic measures in guiding public opinion in their favor – like making direct addresses to MJ’s fans and open attempts at flirting with them. These are the measures taken out of desperation, out of necessity and not because of the jurors’ true love for MJ (though I do not rule out that they were indeed taken in by him. Anyone would).

    From my own experience I know that when an obviously unjust decision is made it takes the media machine double or even triple efforts to convince the public that it was okay. The public is confused and feels that something is wrong, and it is at this moment of doubt and indecision that propaganda machine starts running at top gear with soap stories like “it was a difficult decision but…”, fake interviews, fake public opinion polls, fake letters to the editor and fake supporters, trolls all over the internet and a lot of blurring of the truth and replacing the essence of the case with something different and then discussing it in full seriousness (I think it is called a straw man argument in English).

    There are a lot of methods all of which are called propaganda but I must admit that AEG are exceptionally sophisticated in these skills – falling into the embrace of MJ’s fans and crying on their shoulder about their love for Michael and the common tragedy they sustained was indeed a pioneer approach.

    I also have to admit that usually all this noise does work and people often end up totally confused even about something that was clear to them at the beginning. THIS is what the AEG advocates are doing now – just creating a lot of noise to confuse, divert and brainwash.

    Havn’t had time to read the other comments yet, but will do so with interest.

    Sorry that I haven’t been able to read the comments either – will try to, but please give me some time.

    Like

  102. October 8, 2013 5:01 am

    “I still have to read it entirely, but wish to clarify quickly one thing about Conrad Murray’s specialty, as I worked for 15 years in the cardiac surgery department of our university.” – Susanne

    Susanne, thank you very much for the clarification – it was very helpful and I’ve removed the question regarding it from the post now.

    And I never doubted that your background should be nothing less than 15 years of work for the university. Personal knowledge and association with researchers always tell.

    Like

  103. Caro permalink
    October 8, 2013 4:42 am

    Hi Helena

    many thanks for your heroic efforts here – despite ‘both damaged hands’, which I sincerely hope will be much better soon !!

    I have been waiting days for your take on this horrendous verdict, and I agree with absolutely every word you have written – this verdict beggers belief and I hope that Katherine will appeal. It isn’t about money – MJs legacy will provide for his kids of course – but justice, which seems to be absolutely lacking with this verdict. How can a doctor, who has someone’s life in his hands, be competent when he killed his patient?????? How can you possibly be considered ‘unethical’ but ‘competent’?????? so many questions that have so many obvious answers, but obviously not to that jury!!!!

    Havn’t had time to read the other comments yet, but will do so with interest. Just wanted to thank you for your take on this.

    Like

  104. October 8, 2013 3:54 am

    Thank you, Helena, for this post that you managed to write under pain. It’s heroic.

    I still have to read it entirely, but wish to clarify quickly one thing about Conrad Murray’s specialty, as I worked for 15 years in the cardiac surgery department of our university.
    Murray definitely is no heart surgeon, it’s a different specialty. As you yourself said, cardiologists diagnose and treat people regarding heart diseases, coronary diseases etc., but if they diagnose a disease that requires surgery they send them to the cardiac surgeons, like if they need bypasses, a new heart valve, etc. Cardiologists usually do only small procedures like cardiac catheters which is for diagnostics, or small interventions to dilate arteries for example. Today they can do some more procedures than in earlier times to treat calcifications or strictures (stenosis) in a minimally invasive way. It’s still a huge specialty with many possibilities, but they are not surgeons.

    Like

  105. October 8, 2013 2:28 am

    “Hello Helen, First of all let me say i hope you are well and recovery is speedy. Praying not too much pain, We did a poll too, its here in-case you wanted to take a look http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/6134” – Manager

    Hello Manager, thank you for your best wishes – I do have some medical issues at the moment and this is why it took so long to make this post. As regards the poll I did see it and even took part, however its result obviously reflects the opinion of people like us who are utterly resentful of the outcome of the trial and the data there may not be as neutral as I needed for a proper comparison with MJJC.

    Here is the poll started by TeamMJ on a poll site for everyone to take part in: http://poll.pollcode.com/hytka8_result?v

    The result is currently 96%!

    However you will understand that in a way the poll conducted by HLN is more impressive as its voters include some of MJ’s worst haters but even they have to admit that AEG is responsible for his death.

    I am having a very had time dealing with what happened, i don’t care to know WHY it happened, i just know the greatest miscarriage of justice ever took place! I feel winded like the life has been punched out of me, I had hope, faith, trusted, waited four years after the slap in the face re: charges against Murray,

    All of us are having a hard time dealing with it, but I recall reading how the first Christians felt when they faced all that harassment but never gave in and this gives me hope that we will also be able to cope with this gross injustice. If they could withstand it, why can’t we?

    They did it not because they were some crazy fanatics, but because the person who had been by their side showed them the truth and another, beautiful way to live their lives, and they simply went on living that way and could never go back.

    Funny, but while I am writing it my music TV is showing the video which is carrying exactly the same feeling, and since God has sent it to me now I am sending it to you and all of us too.

    We were crushed, but it is time to recover and stand up again

    30 Seconds To Mars – Kings and Queens

    Into the night
    Desperate and broken
    The sound of a fight
    Father has spoken

    We were the kings and queens of promise
    We were the victims of ourselves
    Maybe the children of a lesser God
    Between Heaven and Hell
    Heaven and Hell

    A darkness comes at dawn
    These lessons that we’ve learned here
    Have only just begun.
    ..

    Like

  106. October 8, 2013 1:06 am

    Reblogged this on teammichaeljackson.

    Like

  107. October 8, 2013 12:33 am

    Hello Helen, First of all let me say i hope you are well and recovery is speedy. Praying not too much pain, We did a poll too, its here in-case you wanted to take a look http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/6134

    I am having a very had time dealing with what happened, i don’t care to know WHY it happened, i just know the greatest miscarriage of justice ever took place! I feel winded like the life has been punched out of me, I had hope, faith, trusted, waited four years after the slap in the face re: charges against Murray,

    The juror that has appeared on MJJC obviously went were he felt he could get his ego rubbed, seems everyone wants a part of MJ, everyone wants to be that wanna bee celebrity.

    JURORS: From what i heard from the jurors mouths during interviews they have done, its the same ol BS!! The perception, they didn’t even bother to listen, pay attention to glaring evidence, yet jumped on that same old, same old,, band wagon. There is public opinion, and no matter what you say till you are blue in the face, the public only hear what they want to hear,

    The justice system failed Michael, the jurors failed Michael, i have no idea how any juror can have the nerve to come into any MJ Forum with their innuendos, shows the character of that juror,,,

    MJJC do not care about Michael, lets make that clear, there are enough advocates that know that, those advocates are repeatedly lied about by MJJC. the only ones that dont know are the “Fans” that don’t know too much about the man but only the product.

    Helen i came out to see what, if you posted anything, now im going to go back into hibernation for a while.

    Check the dropbox folder hun i am adding some transcripts, plus some from beginning of the trial.

    PS> Please say a huge thank you to you members for all the donations they sent to help buy the transcripts, It was amazing how they all came together to do a job well done.

    Like

  108. TheresaB permalink
    October 7, 2013 11:22 pm

    I don’t interpret that MJJ Community or MJTN as being pro-AEG. Please tell me exactly where that was said by the admins of MJJC or MJTN? Comments by others in the MJJC may have seemed pro-AEG but I didn’t get that either. Trying to understand why the jurors made their decision through the jury members’ own words says nothing about how either group feels about the trial. Being on a jury is a very complicated situation and is a big responsibility. They were given very specific instructions. Attacking the people who are just reporting information to make sense of it is very irresponsible. We are all agonizing over this trial and how it violated Michael’s privacy that he so dearly sought. This trial in no way lessens the responsibility of Murray for Michael’s death. In fact, I think it highlighted his guilt even more.

    Casting unproven accusations that people are being paid by AEG and/or the Estate is slanderous, as well. The drama and negativity in these comments is hard to read. I have spent the past few years daily reading the negative comments cast at Michael and trying to educate people about him. It pains me when I see it directed at others in the community. AEG executives are reprehensible characters and treated Michael horribly. That came through loud and clear. The question has always been, “Did AEG hire Murray?” That was answered, yes. The judge threw out negligence as a charge against AEG in March. That is not what the trial was about and the jury was not allowed to hear a case involving that. Did Panish prove that AEG knew that Murray was treating Michael in a medically negligent way by giving him propofol and failing to properly monitor him? I think that the jury was saying that Panish did not prove that. It doesn’t mean they didn’t. It just means that Panish didn’t prove it.

    Emotional reaction to a verdict that none of us wanted and turning it onto others in the community is unfair. Do you really think that admins of MJJ Community and MJTN wanted AEG to win? That makes no sense. Attack me if you will. Call me an AEG and Estate “plant” (Isn’t that the latest line?) all you want. A trial took place and a jury gave its verdict based on the testimony presented to us. We don’t like their decision so they are corrupt? Isn’t that the attitude that we combat all the time when discussing Michael’s trial in 2005? They say the jury was corrupt or paid off? We can’t have it both ways. If you want to blame someone, blame the judge for the narrow charges allowed to be tried against AEG. Or, blame the plaintiff’s lawyer, Panish, for not doing a better job proving his case but please don’t blame passionate Michael Jackson defenders.

    I am disappointed that bloggers, like this one, continue to attack others in the community that are just trying to keep people informed. We should be saving our energy to combat the hateful comments on articles about this trial and to make sure that the “journalists” reporting on stories about the trial or Michael are factual. This negative behavior is not advocacy on behalf of the beautiful human being, Michael Jackson.

    Like

  109. Mariam permalink
    October 7, 2013 10:24 pm

    CORRUPTION. Something was not right in that court. I was very suspicious from the beginning, when the judge disregard some witness deposion or not to testify and when she was constantly arguing with Brian Paunsh and when she was doing more favor on every little situation for AEG’s lawyers, finally when she dismissed PG&RP case, then I kind of new it, there is something going on behind this trial. Later, when carefully, seeing the question and the instruction given to juror, 95% of me telling me, that there is something not right about this trial. I hope I am not getting trouble for saying this; it is just my opinion/observation.

    Speaking of MJJ community, I found them very strange. They support, AEG, JB, now they support the juror dissection that vindicate Dr. Murry but they dislike MJ’s family? it is very strange and confusing. I heard many witnesses called themselves a friend of MJ, even CM, RP said they are a friend but they are in fact enemies. who knows? In MJ’s life, it is very hard to find out who is real friend and fan or who is not.

    Thank you again Helena for your info, I was waiting your analyses regarding this verdict. You are helping us very much

    Like

  110. Kris permalink
    October 7, 2013 9:56 pm

    Does anyone know how much this trial cost for the plaintiffs, considering not only attorneys’ fees, but also payments to expert witnesses? And since plaintiffs lost, are they required to pay the defendents’ court costs? If this is so, I don’t see how Katherine Jackson could possible afford an appeal, even if she wanted to.

    Like

  111. Jovana permalink
    October 7, 2013 9:23 pm

    Thank you for your post, I was really looking forward to it because I refuse to read anything else. Why would I want to read the rubbish jury has to say now, it’s all irrelevant with this decision especially,,, as for the fans that all wanted AEG to win saying Katherine is greedy , we’ll I hope they are happy now. One thing I know is that Michael will never ever be able to rest in peace.
    Personally I was shattered by the jury’ s decision because there is just so much evidence against AEG, but who knows maybe the jury was paid to say that AEG is not guilty.
    Murray fit and competent at the time of hiring ?…. Really,,,,, they didn’t even check him out. To serve as a general practitioner I don’t believe it,,, why would general practitioner be requesting such and such medical equipment anyway. He was hired by AEG to do services requested by AEG it didn’t say what,,, but it’s obvious it was do it or die to get Michael to rehearsals which he never needed to attend. The whole question of the trial wasn’t who ordered propofol it was who hired Murray and now we know AEG did it so their whole decision to clear AEG of wrong doing doesn’t make any sense. It is obvious that something stinks here.
    At least now we know who truly are real fans and it makes me sick to be honest.

    Like

  112. October 7, 2013 8:54 pm

    Instead of MJJ community interviewing weak jurors, they should be interviewing fans who actually know about the AEG case, so they can get a clue about what was really going on behind the scenes. Time for a showdown.

    Like

  113. October 7, 2013 7:21 pm

    Christy, Murray was a coward and he loved his money more than Michaels life.He hoped to get away with the lies he told police.

    Like

  114. October 7, 2013 7:12 pm

    A gp may not be competent in all situations.That is understood. He is however at all times ethitcally bound to refer patient to a superior and summon help before the patient dies. Naturally if patient is run over by a car real badly he may die, but still emergency needs to be called.It is natural that competence may vary,but not so ethics.

    Like

  115. Christy permalink
    October 7, 2013 6:34 pm

    I imagine that you’re still hurting right now(both physically and emotionally) but thank you for taking the time to write this, Helena. It totally opened my eyes even more as for a long time I believe Conrad Murray’s version of the story made no sense so although what REALLY happened that day was outrageous it doesn’t surprise me and it also makes me wished I had a way of being a friend to Michael so I could have contacted him and urge him to put his foot down in the way AEG was treating him and tell him his health is much more than any concert so if he suspected they were bad news just cut ties with them..am still having trouble forgiving myself that I couldn’t help somehow (even more directly though from a distance) even though I am sure he would have forgiven me had he survived (with proper emergency care)

    Like

  116. October 7, 2013 6:32 pm

    Lies become thruth, hate becomes love.A bit like in the Animal Farm.

    Like

  117. October 7, 2013 6:07 pm

    The jury so came to like and appriciate Michael that they did not mind him being killed by illogical deeds and arguments.And this kind of facts now spread to the media.” The warm thoughts and explanations about the man we cherish”.Whom the hell is she referring to?

    Like

  118. Sina permalink
    October 7, 2013 5:47 pm

    Helena, its very late here and Im off, but I would like to show you MJJCs hypocrisy. Here is a statement from the admin after some longtime members of the forum went very critical of the juror. which will make you laugh or feel sad.
    Pay attention to the ‘mean spirited hateful posts against the Jacksons” Isnt that the joke of the year.
    The juror only has to turn the page to find out that they are the biggest supporters and promotors of their ‘meanspirited hate against the Jacksons’ policy. I hope the juror soon find out the deception of what she tought was a community of love.

    “You don’t rudely bombard other new members in that manner. So please don’t do it now. Also please watch your tone in how you are replying to others and or insulting others that dont hold your views or opinions. You know that is the number one rule to abide by on this board. Again Tone down the “mean spirited hateful” posts against the Jackson’s. That is also against MJJC Policy. Thank you for your cooperation

    Like

  119. October 7, 2013 5:33 pm

    “Not only MJJ community is doing this. MJTruthNow also sent a newsletter pro-AEG using the “arguments” of one of the jurors to defend their decision… And they have been attacking people who have been truly commited to Michael since the begining sacrificing their time and money to inform the fans and defend him. I found this outrageous and I think that they are betraying Michael completely. Of course I know that you have there people paid by AEG and the Estate, but how can it be that others follow them so blindly?” – Trueblue

    This is indeed outrageous and of course it is a huge betrayal. But unfortunately unless people learn to distinguish the truth from lies this will continue because all these games are veiled as concern for Michael’s legacy. By the way the “fan” letter supporting AEG has been taken by me not from MJJC but from Positively Michael, so they are similarly affected by all that flattery and sweet songs from the AEG people.

    Here is the letter of juror #27 and the typical comments. Both are disgusting.

    Re: Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable – Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG
    Originally Posted by Victory22

    It is increasingly alarming to me how many people seem to be losing the ability to analyze facts critically. It’s scary how any illogical theory or conspiracy theory can be thrown up and people will believe it without paying any attention to the facts. Randy and the Jackson’s have done a good job of messing with the minds of MJ’s fans.

    I couldn’t agree more with the bolded. It’s practically an epidemic as far as I’m concerned.

    I was on this jury, and of all the places I’ve seen where this is being talked about, this community seems by far to be the most level-headed and approachable. So many passionate MJ fans rationally discussing the verdict rather than lashing out in anger is very nice to see, and makes me think this is probably the best place for me to make a small statement.

    Initially I planned to avoid and ignore all the comments about the verdict after the trial ended. Because as soon as we answered ‘no’ to question 2 in the jury room, I knew how it would be reported and misunderstood (“DURR STUPID JURY HOW CAN CONRAD MURRAY BE FIT AND COMPETENT WHEN HE IS IN JAIL FOR KILLING MJ??? DURRR”). And sure enough, the very first question asked by the media when we got outside was “How could you find Conrad Murray competent?” And of course a bunch of hardcore MJ supporters outside were yelling, calling us stupid and confused, etc. So I figured rather than getting annoyed at misinformation being spread or seeing us called morons ad nauseam, it’d be better to just ignore it all.

    Well that lasted about a day before my curiosity got the better of me, and I had to peek around to see what people were saying. I had to see if that version of us as idiots was the main narrative going on. Thankfully most people commenting on the verdict are actually looking at what we were instructed to consider, and agree with our decision. We knew from day 1 that no matter the outcome we would have people agreeing and disagreeing with the verdict, and I’m thankful that this jury did not concern itself with what people would say or think about us and decided to follow the instructions and base our verdict on the evidence in the case.

    Just like our jury foreman, I went into this trial about as neutral as one could be towards Michael Jackson. I was 7 when Thriller came out so I grew up with his music and loved it, but I knew very little about his life other than what I’d seen in the media, and I honestly had no strong feelings about him as a person either way. I walk out of this trial completely understanding why he has so many fans who practically deify him. Who are so strongly attracted to his kind spirit, huge heart, gentle nature, love of his children and mother, etc. I totally get it now.

    Every single witness who was questioned about whether they thought MJ was a good father (and almost every one who knew him closely was asked) sang endless praises about his love of his kids. If Prince’s testimony is any indication, MJ was definitely a great father. The kid is bright, intelligent, caring, has great character and a great personality, and I truly believe MJ did a phenomenal job raising him in the few years he was able to. Honestly, every single juror came away feeling very positive about Michael Jackson as a person and father.

    I know there was concern about MJ’s image being hurt because of this trial, and maybe to outside viewers it was because of some of the details that came out. But for us in the jury in that courtroom for all these months, we just grew more and more fond of him during the course of the trial.

    I’d like to say thank you to all the people I’ve seen here supporting us jurors in our decision, it really means a lot. I will be happy to answer anything I can about the trial if you’d like to ask and if I am able.

    Comments:

    I’m so pleased the juror came here to make their statement, it is very much appreciated. Whilst I personally believe that they brought the right verdict I hope they understand that although others do disagree it is actually only a small percentage who resort to name calling.

    And also thank you for your lovely words about Michael, these are things we know already but they are often ignored by the media and so it’s nice that when someone actually has an opportunity to see, really see Michael that you can come away with such lovely sentiments.

    * * *
    I am so relieved that I was unnecessarily worried about the jurors and their perceptions.
    I was really hoping that they were able to see Michael as a human being, and a wonderful human being at that!

    * * *
    Juror #27 thank you for your lovely comment. At first I was confused by the jury’s answer to question #2 but reading into it further I think I see the logic. Although I had always known Michael Jackson and his music all my life I did not come to be a “super fan” until just after he died when I too began to research and learn more about him as a person and not just the “King of Pop” superstar. I liked what I learned. He was not a perfect person but he was a good person and a good father. I wish my own deadbeat father had been half the father Michael was to his children. Thank you for having an open mind.

    * * *
    Absolutely beautiful. Getting insights directly from the horse mouth is a priceless experience.
    Ivy, how much trouble is it to organize a Q&A session with this particular juror? I’m sure many here would love to ask some questions about the proceedings if not pass on their praise.
    Again Ivy this scoop should seal your reputation as the best asset of this forum/fan club. Simply put, you are a legend.

    * * *
    Thank you Juror #27 for having the courage to post on this forum. I am glad you felt this was a safe place to share your thoughts.
    There are many MJ fans who agree with the verdict you and the rest of the jury reached.
    Thank you.

    * * *
    @ Juror #27 I want to thank you with all my heart for the kind, respectful words you have spoken regarding our beloved Michael. This trial has been extremely hard on a lot of us fans because we feared the damage it would do to his legacy. MJ was an incredibly gifted, kind, creative yet private person and many of us predicted he would be dragged through the mud and the real man he was would never be shown. You have brought great comfort to me and to many others on this fan forum by sharing your warm thoughts and explanations about the man we cherish. Thank you so much & long live the king MJ

    Like

  120. trueblue permalink
    October 7, 2013 5:02 pm

    Not only MJJ community is doing this. MJTruthNow also sent a newsletter pro-AEG using the “arguments” of one of the jurors to defend their decision… And they have been attacking people who have been truly commited to Michael since the begining sacrificing their time and money to inform the fans and defend him. I found this outrageous and I think that they are betraying Michael completely. Of course I know that you have there people paid by AEG and the Estate, but how can it be that others follow them so blindly?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: