Skip to content

The jurors’ explanations of verdict at the AEG trial. NOTHING ADDS UP

October 14, 2013

Nothing adds up in the arguments of the jurors who first answered NO to a question “Was Dr. Murray unfit or incompetent for the work he was hired?” and now give interviews or come to the MJJC forum to explain their decision.

To try and make out what the thought process of the jurors was that brought them to so bizarre a decision, I looked into the statements made by Greg Barden, the jury’s foreman and by “juror #27” who recently spoke on the MJJC.

"Juror #27" has presented his credentials to MJJC

The person speaking on MJJC presented his credentials as “Juror #27”

The jury. Kevin White : "He was pretty used to getting his way"

Juror Kevin White is vehement : “He was pretty used to getting his way”. The black juror is carrying a magazine with Michael Jackson on its cover. While listening to Kevin White the foreman Greg Barden looks especially sad

This juror could be a retired civil engineer who was the second person to speak at the jurors’ press-conference. His name was reported by CNN as Kevin White and by BBC as Kevin Smith – however juror #27 denies that it is him.

Or he could be an alternate juror but then he couldn’t take part in the deliberations without a special order of the judge – and there was no such order as far as we know.

Or he could be a third party who is simply using the papers of some juror.

Well, who he is and what his real name does not really matter as long as this person was indeed on the jury, but this is exactly what remains unclear as there are some major inconsistencies between what the foreman and juror #27 say though they were supposed to be working together.

HOW DID THEY VOTE?

In fact they don’t even agree on how they voted while discussing question No.2.

Greg Barden says that the very first vote brought a unanimous reply from all jurors who voted 12:0. And juror #27 says things that make you realize that the initial vote couldn’t be unanimous.

Here is the video and text of the interview of foreman Greg Barden the best I could transcribe it:

Journalist: Question No.2 – tell me of the thought process.

Foreman: We took an initial vote right away and it was twelve to zero, and then we started looking at the question and realized that not everybody was on the same page as to what was the question there. We started discussing it, and when we discussed it people said – “Oh, I got to change my vote on that”. So they changed the vote and then we started discussing it further and we got down to eight to four type of thing and of course eight to four would be […] so we continued discussing it. We took a day off, we came home and then we were back this morning. Some of the jurors asked questions and some of the jurors were able to interject things that made us all understand it and we were all on the same page.

And what we really felt was that he was fit and competent to do the job for which he was hired which was a general practitioner for Michael Jackson. He was not hired to administer propofol.  If he had been hired to administer propofol he would have been unfit and incompetent but he had a license, he was a doctor, and we felt he was fit to be a general practitioner.

Journalist: Let me understand it. So you had a verdict and it would have gone the other way?

Foreman: No, it would have gone the same way … it was 12 to 0 going the same way but then we started discussing it some people went the other way, back and forth I guess, this is what I am saying.

The way I understood the foreman,  from the very start of it the answer to that crucial question was “No”, so the initial vote was a unanious 12 to 0. However then they began discussing it once again (why?) and some people went the other way and at some point voted 8-4 and then they took a day off, and when they resumed deliberations some of the jurors convinced others that the initial unanimous decision was correct, and this is when they returned to it.

The conclusion that the initial vote was the unanimous “No” is based on the fact that Greg Barden claims that the verdict went the same way as before, or otherwise we could be tempted to think that initially their vote was a unanimous “Yes”.

However juror #27 is saying something different about the process of voting and what it boils down to is that the initial vote was not unanimous. Actually the juror names himself as the one who was of a different opinion and now he is “ashamed” of initially answering “Yes”.

If you recall the question (“Was Dr. Murray unfit or incompetent for the work he was hired?”) this Yes answer would mean that juror #27 initially agreed that Murray was unfit and incompetent, but later grew ashamed of it and changed his decision.

This is what he says in his Question and Answer session on MJJC (we have the full summary of it thanks to Truth4MJ ):

  • 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.

But if he said “yes” to a question about Murray’s incompetence, this means that the initial vote could not be 12 to 0 as the foreman said,  and should have been at least 11 to 1.

Let me note once again that in both cases the jurors talk about the initial vote, only one of them says it was unanimous and the other says it wasn’t.

CNN calls the juror Kevin White. The black juror is wearing a T-shirt with "Legendary King of Pop" written on it

CNN calls the second juror who spoke at the press-conference Kevin White ( the black juror is wearing a T-shirt with “Legendary King of Pop” written on it)

Isn’t it an interesting discrepancy? Does it mean that the foreman is untruthful? Or does it mean that the juror now talking on MJJC is an impostor telling a fictitious story of their deliberations?

Or could one of them simply forget how they initially voted? But how could they forget so crucial a vote which took place only recently? And if they forgot so simple a thing aren’t they unfit and incompetent for the job of the jury which requires at least some memory from the people participating in it?

And BBC calls the same juror Kevin Smith. Discrepancies are all around us

And BBC calls the same vehement juror Kevin Smith (discrepancies are all around us)

In addition to this strange inconsistency there is one more discrepancy in what juror #27 says about the process of deliberations , only now his words seem to conradict the results announced in court.

He says that even at the final stage they were unable to reach a unanimous decision on that question, had to stop at 10-2 and reached for the buzzer.

However when the verdict was read I had the impression that all the jurors answered this question in the same way (?)

Here is what juror #27 says about their result:

“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”.

And here is the video of the verdict being announced.

I wonder what will be your impression of the way they voted?

Beginning with 6:00 of the above tape each juror answers individually and since not all of them understood whether they should answer Yes or No to the question asked, the court clerk clarifies that they should say ‘Yes’ if they agreed with a ‘No’ answer in the verdict, after which all of them begin to say Yes, Yes, Yes ….

  • “Was Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work he was hired for? The answer was “No”.  Juror No.1, is this the way how you answered?”

When juror #27 said that they voted 10 to 2, I was consumed with curiosity as to which of the jurors disagreed, and therefore started listening, but to my surprise all of them seemed to say Yes (?)

However the sound is very low so I cannot be sure of it and will appreciate it very much if someone with a better ear for spoken English will check it up too. This is necessary for the sake of the truth in the first place and in order to determine whether this juror #27 is the real McCoy.

I highly doubt that he would be willing to discredit himself in so blatant a way but if there is a discrepancy here it should be sorted out, especially since the contradiction between the foreman and juror #27 about the way they initially voted also give us grounds for wondering what’s going on here.

THE JURY AND MURRAY’S LACK OF ETHICS

However these are not the only points where things don’t add up and one more inconsistency arises from the foreman’s words about Murray’s ethics.

You remember the shock waves Greg Barden’s words about Murray’s ethics sent throughout the concerned humankind.

He said that if the word “ethical” had been included in the question their answer could have been different. This made the public realize that this jury thinks that a medical doctor may be called competent and fit even he is devoid of any ethics. And it is especially interesting since at least four of them are in this or that way connected with the medical profession.

Here is another excerpt from Greg Barden’s interview where he speaks about it:

2:35 The big thing that we did was that Dr. Murray was unethical. Had the word “unethical” been in there it may have went the other way. He was definitely unethical. He did something that he or no other doctor shouldn’t have done. That was the evidence that was presented abundantly during those 5 months. No one administers propofol by himself outside the hospital. So that was incredibly unethical. But again he wasn’t hired to do that. He was hired to be a general practitioner. Because he had a license, he graduated from an accredited university, because he had no complaints against him, he had no malpractice lawsuits. He was fit at that time to be a general practitioner.

And in this CNN video of the jury’s press-conference the foreman speaks about it again which gives us reason to believe that it is a well-thought out position of the jury and not a mere whim on Greg Barden’s part. In the same video the second juror Kevin White speaks strongly in favor fo AEG accusing Michael Jackson in his every sentence:

CNN: Juror on Murray: He’s competent, but I wouldn’t call it ethical

Jurors Greg Barden and Kevin White speak at a press conference

Greg Barden:

Court gave us a series of questions to answer. And in each question it didn’t just stop at whether Conrad Murray was just competent. It asked “Was Conrad Murray competent for the job he was hired to do?” Okay? Conrad was hired to be a general practitioner. 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. Now that doesn’t mean that we felt he was ethical. And maybe had the word ethical been in the question it could have been a different outcome, but because it was for the job he was hired to do that was all we had to focus on.

Now where is the discrepancy here besides the absurd statement that ethics can be snatched away from the concept of a fit and competent doctor? You don’t notice it? Well, I didn’t notice either until my compatriot Natalia, who isn’t sure of her English and prefers to send emails, drew my attention to it.

The essence of it is about what AEG could or could not know about Murray at the time when they were hiring him. If they didn’t know that he was unfit and incompetent, they couldn’t know about him being unethical either. But if the jurors think that Murray was fit and competent but nevertheless regard him unethical, then things don’t add up, because it is either this or that.

Please remember that we are talking of the jury’s thought process and the way they came to their conclusion, so if there any illogical points in their reasoning they should be revealed and noted.

So when we look into the jurors’ line of reasoning we understand that they were thinking of the whole period when Murray was retained by AEG and not just a moment when Murray started working. And that the jrurors realize perfectly well that during the time of providing his services Murray was a totally unethical doctor.

And then things don’t add up again because in respect of competence and fitness they say they looked at Murray only at the moment of hiring him, but in respect of his ethics they considered the whole period of his employment by AEG.

By this discrepancy the jurors betray to us that all this talk about the “time of hiring” as the basis for their verdict is a mere pretext.

IT WASN’T ONLY PROPOFOL

When it comes to Murray’s poor ethics everyone talks only of propofol. However the testimonies at the trial provide ample evidence that Murray broke his medical ethics in everything he did during performing his services for AEG.

He gave a sick leave to Michael but quickly withdrew it when Randy Phillips started calling him and Paul Gongaware sent emails reminding who was paying him money, as a result of which Michael had to appear at rehearsals the next Monday though still being in a very bad state.

He totally disregarded Michael turning skeletal, though the evidence at the trial said that it was seen at least to Michael Bush, the clothes designer, who told others about it, and even to MJ’s fans. On June 20th they saw Michael changing his clothes and were horrified by the sight of a skeleton they saw and sent an email to Karen Faye who passed it over to Frank Dileo according to her chain of command.

However all this time Michael had his personal doctor and it means that Dr. Murray was observing this picture every day but didn’t give a damn?

Since this fact has got somewhat forgotten here is a quote from Karen Faye’s testimony where the fans’ letter named exhibit 12850 was discussed:

Q. Okay. Can you read to us what the fan that sent you this email that you forwarded on told you about Michael’s physical condition on June 20th?

A. “He took his jacket off and I saw something horrible. A skeleton. I watched his back. It was only bones. I am still in shock; and my best friend, too. He was so — we knew he was skinny, but we were always seeing him with a jacket on or a large top. But as he was dressed this day, it was as if he was naked and we saw how awful it was.”

Q. This is what the fans were telling you, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Is this consistent with what you were concerned about?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Read the next paragraph.

A. “We don’t know if he is anorexic and stopped eating, as he has told us, or if it’s something more complicated than that, a disease or something else.”

Q. Do you know whether these fans were medical doctors?

A. I don’t know, sir; but I don’t think they were.

Q. Was this something that, in addition to everything you saw, concerned you severely about Michael’s physical condition within a week of his death?

A. Yes, sir. That’s why I sent it on.

No, these fans were absolutely no medical doctors but even they were abhorred by what they saw – though Dr. Murray (and his boss Randy Phillips) assured everyone that there were no reasons to worry. Is this what competence and good medical ethics are called these days?

Or look at another exhibit also discussed at Karen Faye’s testimony – it is one of her emails:

Mr. Panish:  exhibit number 12748. Okay. Here we go. It says “Michael is painfully thin. His bones are protruding. I’m the one person that has physical contact with him every day. Michael is OCD, he’s getting worse.” … “He repeats his actions and rambling words constantly, rarely coherent with the present conversation. I see Travis struggling and winded just going through the motions at rehearsal doing MJ’s part.”

Q. Is that what you were seeing?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Does that accurately show the concerns that you had, some of them?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. It says We are having Michael on a cherry picker over the audience, climbing very high, steep steps; and so far, he can’t even walk down the ramp without assistance. Kenny has asked the female dancers to assist him leaving the stage.” Is that problems that you saw Mr. Jackson having?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are you a medical doctor?

A. No, sir.

Q. These concerns that you had, did you try to do everything you could to ring the alarm, the red flags, on the problems that existed?

A. Correct.

So Karen Faye, not a medical doctor was seeing it, and a licensed doctor Conrad Murray was not?

And what about Michael Bearden’s email of June 16th to Travis Payne saying that Michael is not healthy and strong enough and needs his stamina back? Wasn’t Dr. Murray  supposed to see what was obvious to the musical director 10 days before Michael’s death?

  • “MJ is not in shape enough to sing the live stuff and dance at the same time.”…”He can use the ballads to sing live and get his stamina back once he’s healthy enough and has more strength. [June 16th, Michael Bearden]

Or look at Bugzy’s (John Hougdahl) email of June 20th which Karen Faye confirms as completely consistent with her own observations:

Q. Now, I want you to assume that on June 20th, Bugzee Hougdahl wrote “My layman’s degree tells me he,” meaning Michael Jackson, “needs a shrink to get him mentally prepared to get onstage, and then a trainer to get him in physical shape.” And that’s five days before he died. Is that consistent with what you were observing?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I want you to further assume that Bugzee said “I have watched Michael Jackson deteriorate in front of my eyes over the last eight weeks.” Okay? Were you observing the same thing?

A. Yes, sir.

And this not to mention Alif Sankey who almost screamed to Kenny Ortega on June 19th that Michael was dying and needed urgent help.

But if all of the above was seen to laypeople with a naked eye the same should have been absolutely obvious to Dr. Conrad Murray as a general practitioner and it could be only due to his total lack of medical ethics that he still assured everyone of Michael’s good health.

By the way if all the above was obvious to the whole company, the same should have been obvious to Paul Gongaware too as he attended each of the rehearsals – at least those at which Karen Faye was also present:

Q. You told us that Mr. Gongaware was constantly at concert rehearsals, is that right?

A. Every time I was there he was there.

In fact AEG knew that Michael was skeletal and we have proof of it  from no other by Randy Phillips who sent an email to Paul Gongaware asking him to avoid episodes where Michael looked that way. So “skeletal” is actually  Randy Phillips’ word!

And when the paramedics saw Michael they also thought that he was a hospice patient at an end-stage of a fatal disease:

  • “Make sure we take out the shots of MJ in that red leather jacket at the sound stage where the mini-movies were being filmed,” AEG Live president and co-chief executive Randy Phillips wrote. “He looks way too thin and skeletal.”
  • The paramedic who came to Jackson’s Holmby Hills home after the 911 call on June 25, 2009, testified that the singer was so emaciated that he thought Jackson was an end-stage cancer patient who had come home to die.

           http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-aeg-skeletal-jackson-20130530,0,4702553.story

In short numerous instances revealed Michael’s declining condition for the last 8 weeks of his life, and all these signs were ignored by Dr. Murray and his bosses, and reducing the matter to propofol only  “of which no one knew” is a grave stretching of the truth. Of propofol AEG probably didn’t know, but the fact that Michael’s health was deteriorating was obvious to everyone.

You will agree that when someone looks ill, but you don’t know why, your worry and concern will only double, and if you really care for this person you won’t find any rest until you find out what’s wrong. And general care for Michael was by the way Murray’s job, as this was actually what he was hired for.

So incompetence and poor ethics were a regular pattern with Dr. Murray, and if the jury noticed his poor ethics they should have noticed his incompetence too as one is inseparable from the other, and all the rest is pure demagogy or a pretext to absolve AEG of its guilt.

JUROR #27 Q&A SESSION

What’s interesting is that in his Q&A session juror #27 is correcting the foreman’s mistake about Murray’s ethics.

It remains unclear why this juror could not explain his point during their deliberations so that their foreman shouldn’t make such a fool of himself in the follow-up interviews,  but the fact is –  in contrast to their foreman juror #27 says that Dr. Murray’s unethical behavior would not change their answer to question number 2:

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.

This statement from Juror #27 looks like a belated correction of the version they discussed during deliberations and the arguments they used for delivering their verdict.  Its idea is probably to hush up the fact that the jury based their verdict on the whole period of Murray’s employment for AEG during which he showed his ethics and competence in their full glory.

But the current version presented by Juror #27 is that AEG hired Dr. Murray absolutely not knowing what a criminal he was and judging by what he says, then all of them must have flown away to Mars and returned back only when the criminal doctor had done his dirty job, which took the employer completely unawares. They thought they had hired for him one of the top ten doctors (as Kenny Ortega said to Karen Faye) and see what he did when they were away!

Here is an excerpt from Karen Faye’s testimony:

Q. Did Kenny Ortega tell you about the intentions or the plans of the producers to help Michael Jackson?

A. He told me Randy Phillips hired the top ten doctors in the country

Q. Did you ever hear anything about Dr. Conrad Murray?

A. No

The reason why all of them are focusing solely at the beginning of Murray’s employment is because only a mission to Mars for the whole company can explain why not a single person of them noticed that the health of the patient in care of their doctor was deteriorating with every new day.

This is why juror #27 is stressing that Murray was hired sometime at the beginning only when no one could yet know that he would turn out incompetent, unfit and unethical. In other words he adds a sort of a tail to Question No.2 which must sound in his interpretation as something like  “Was Dr. Murray unfit or incompetent to do the job for which he was hired at the time when he was hired for it?”

THE TIME OF HIRING WAS NOWHERE IN THE JURY’S INSTRUCTIONS

This tail about the time of hiring Murray may be added to the question, but what’s funny is that it is nowhere to be found in the jury instructions. I specifically studied the instructions and found that it is absolutely not there.  So the time of hiring Murray is shifted to the forefront of the discussion only now – after the verdict, and from the little the jury discussed that point during deliberations I am more than sure the jurors did not go as far and deep into the problem as it is being presented now.

However the moment when Murray was hired is indeed very important. Juror #27 returns to this point again and again explaining it by means of easy examples:

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.

And what if we think of it in a different way? For example, that the doctor was working  on probate for two months at this hospital and was indeed caught stealing meds, but even after that the hospital decided to hire him? Then they would clearly know that they are hiring an unethical and criminal doctor and they guilt would be enormous, wouldn’t it?

So you see how important the timeline and date of employment is? It is actually crucial to the whole matter! And this is why juror #27 is going out of his way to explain that hiring was done at the beginning only and not at the end:

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.

From other forum members we learn that the issue of the date of hiring was actually introduced by the Senior Staff of the MJJCommunity forum, who was the first to call it a “hindsight” argument meaning that it is only now that we know all these things about Murray, but at that time we (and AEG) absolutely could not:

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.

This “hindsight” argument is indeed an interesting point, and therefore it is crucial to find out when exactly Murray was hired.

WHEN DID THEY HIRE MURRAY?

As regards hiring Murray there can be no better expert than Kathie Jorrie who drafted Murray’s contract and was acting as an agent for AEG. An agent means that AEG was fully responsible for her conduct as the judge specifically pointed it out in the instructions to the jury.

On the issue of hiring Murray we have a number of splendid quotes from Kathie Jorrie’s testimony, from which we first of all learn that AEG was in absolutely no hurry to hire Conrad Murray (even though they included Murray’s salary into their budget).  In fact they even stalled Murray after reaching the initial agreement with him.

Kathie Jorrie was told about the need to make a contract with Murray only in late May and started working on it two weeks later, sometime “in the first two weeks of June”. As regards AEG’s intentions to stall Murray Mr. Panish had a respective email from Mr. Woolley to prove this point to court:

Q. Do you recall when you first became aware of Dr. Murray?

A. To my best recollection, I received a call from Timm Woolley asking me — telling me that he was hoping I could assist in preparing the agreement. It would have been in mid to late may of 2009.

Q. And how long after your conversation with Mr. Woolley did you begin actually drafting a proposed agreement with Dr. Murray?

A. Beginning of June sometime. June — first two weeks of June, 2009.

Q.  When you were first contacted by Mr. Woolley, did he tell you anything about how he had been trying to stall Dr. Murray?

A. No, he didn’t.

Kathie Jorrie talked with Dr. Murray for the first time only on June 18th after which she checked him up for 10 total minutes on the Internet during which she didn’t notice that his licence in internal medicine had lapsed, and this is when and how the formal hiring process actually started:

Q. Now, when you were speaking to Dr. Murray — was it the 18th where you decided to go Google him?

A. Yes.

Q. What’s your best estimate, Ms. Jorrie?

A. Ten minutes.

Q. Ten total minutes?

A. Yes.

Q. That’s your best estimate, ten minutes, right?

A. Well, yes.

Q. Well, you just told us that Dr. Murray was licensed in internal medicine, didn’t you?

A. I told you what I saw, sir.

Q. Well, did you see on the website that his license and board in internal medicine had lapsed in 2008?

A. I wasn’t — no, I don’t remember seeing that.

After June 18th a lot still had to be corrected, altered and be agreed on, including the equipment AEG was responsible for. At some point  the date of the contract was backdated on May 1st on Murray’s insistence though Kathie Jorrie initially wanted to start the contract from the date of its signing:

Q. Okay. So now — the first time you say you talked to Dr. Murray was on the 18th, correct?

A. That’s right.

Q. And Mr. Woolley told you that you needed this — that he needed the CPR Machine, correct?

A. He didn’t say it that way, but it was on the list.

Q. So the producer had to approve the medical equipment that Dr. Murray was going to use pursuant to this contract that you drafted, right?

A. No, not exactly. They had to approve what they were going to pay for.

Q. Well, it says “producer shall provide Dr. Murray for his use during the term with medical equipment requested by Murray to assist him in performing the services as approved by producer,” and it says “equipment” in parentheses. Did I read that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And all of these drafts, you sent those to Mr. Trell for his review, comment and input, correct?

A. I did.

Q. Did you include in that first draft a date for the starting date that had passed six weeks earlier?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So May 1st, and the date that you sent that to Mr. Woolley to forward to Dr. Murray was what date?

A. The date I sent it was June 15.

The agreement on hiring naturally had to include the termination clause. These terms were discussed between AEG and Dr. Murray back and forth and said that AEG could perfectly well terminate Dr. Murray of their own free will without any consent from Michael Jackson. Kathie Jorrie had to admit it:

Q. There were terms where the producer had several ways to terminate Dr. Murray’s agreement that did not require Mr. Jackson’s consent, correct?

A. Consent wasn’t written into this document; so yes, I think that’s correct.

In comparison with Murray’s contract and what its author Kathie Jorrie says about it, the views of juror #27 on this point are simply monstrous:

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.

Kathie Jorrie never changed Producer into Artist in the termination clause and Producer was and remained the only party that could directly fire Dr. Murray, while the Artist had to take a bypass route and first request the producer to dismiss the doctor in case he didn’t want him.

As to the point where Kathie Jorrie changed Producer into Artist Juror#27 got it absolutely wrong again, as the corrected final variant of the contract said that Dr. Murray was to perform the services requested of him by the Artist from time to time only thus making Producer the main beneficiary of Dr. Murray’s services,. And this was reiterated in another paragraph specifying work for the Producer as Murray’s main responsibility.

Juror #27 either pretends he hears of it for the first time (or really doesn’t know it?):

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?

I was extremely happy to see that the commentators who turned out much more knowledgeable than the juror explained to this dinosaur what Murray’s contract was all about.  I wonder if the jury’s ignorance can be a reason for the appeal? If it is we have a huge potential here.

To close the subject of Kathie Jorrie’s contract for Murray let me also say that it was never shown to Michael’s representatives. Kathie Jorrie says that the final variant was to be agreed with Michael, which is highly doubtful as Dr. Murray already signed the final variant and there was no time or opportunity to change anything even if Michael had lived and disputed some of its points. So please don’t believe everything you hear:

Q. Why didn’t you check with Mr. Jackson or his representatives before making this change?

A. Because we were negotiating the contract to a point where when it was to a place where Dr. Murray was happy with the terms, it would be presented to Michael Jackson for review and his representatives for review and comment. And if he had comments, he would be free to provide comments and changes if he wanted to.

In short Dr. Conrad Murray’s contract was putting the doctor fully at AEG’s disposal and therefore the jurors’ verdict that AEG did hire Murray was absolutely correct.

However even if we in absolute agreement over this point, the matter of when he was hired still remains unresolved.

The facts say that the oral agreement was reached at the beginning of May, then the written contract was asked for in late May, and began to be drafted in the first two weeks of June. The final draft was ready and signed by Conrad Murray on June 24th, however it was backdated to May 1st and so  we have a riddle to solve when the actual hiring took place. Most probably in May as the judge’s instructions said that an agreement may be made in oral form too and even in this case it will be as valid as a written one.

So though formally Dr. Murray was hired on June 24th, his factual employment lasted for two months prior to that, and the closest analogy my common sense suggests for this situation is that Dr. Murray was on a kind of probate with AEG for two months, and when they finally noticed that he could be of some help to them they hurried up to sign a formal contract with him.

In my layperson’s opinion AEG even had an option not to make a written contract with Murray without breaching the oral agreement too much – they could have paid him for two months of working on probate and could have refused to sign a further contract motivating it by the fact that during his general medical care for Michael Jackson for two months his health deteriorated so much that it made clear that he was unfit for the job.

But they never did, though for Michael himself Dr. Murray was not the best choice – he even wanted a proper anesthesiologist Dr. Adams to attend to his needs, but Murray didn’t let him in as getting Dr. Adams meant sharing money with him.

The reason for AEG’s actions is obvious – they found Dr. Murray instrumental for their own goals like using him as a leverage tool for making Michael attend rehearsals, not to mention the doctor’s  value in taking care of Michael’s insurance which he actually did on the night when his patient died.

And if the jurors on this panel had not been battling with their common sense they would have agreed that during the whole period of hiring Murray (between its oral and written dates) the AEG people had ample opportunity to see that Dr. Murray was ready for any compromise with his conscience and ethics in order to receive this much coveted job with AEG, and that Michael Jackson’s good health was absolutely not on the list of his priorities.

However Juror #27 goes on with his propaganda job giving us totally ludicrous examples:

JUROR: 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.

The example is horrendous. First of all it reminds us that “checking online” in Murray’s case took place almost two months after the moment of hiring him , and therefore means that the employer could not care less what all this time the criminal “nanny” was doing.

And second, what if you promised the nanny that you would hire her, and keep her on a probate for two months and during this time the child turned skeletal, started rambling and obsessing and became icy cold to touch, and even after that you still thought her work “successful” and hired her???  And you would still be not liable for that? And what if all this time the nanny was poisoning the child?

In my opinion your neighbors would suspect you of criminal negligence and would report you to the police. Especially if they find out that you were keeping the nanny because she rendered special services to you and this is why you liked her so much.

NO, THE JURY LOOKED INTO THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT

But then the arguments of juror #27 take a totally different turn. At some point he begins saying that they didn’t stick to the moment of hiring only but “considered Murray’s competence during the entire period”, only they didn’t find anything alarming in what he did.

He thinks that June 19th was a kind of an episode and on June 20th for example, Michael was already “rested and healthy looking”. Where did he take it from I wonder?

This question to the juror is hitting the nail on the head and this is why juror#27 has to twist and turn and accept the truth:

Question: The jury instructions did not put a timeframe on the second question it if I’m 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 consider this at all or did you all base your answer from the time he was hired (may 1)? 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.

First of all, on June 20th Michael wasn’t “rested and healthy looking”. He seemed a little better but was far from well. What’s noteworthy is that Michael’s health was not even a matter of discussion that day though only the previous night he was almost on a death-bed.

Kenny Ortega said about it:

Q. Did he offer any explanation as to what was wrong with Mr. Jackson the night before?

A. I don’t believe so, no.

Instead the meeting had an accusatory character where the ‘competent, fit and ethical’ doctor practically shouted at Ortega for having the audacity to send the ill Michael Jackson home the previous night:

Q. That day was June 20th; correct? And you said that in that meeting Dr. Conrad Murray appeared angry, started to like accuse you of things; right?

A. Yes.

Q. He told you, you shouldn’t be an amateur doctor; right?

A. Yes.

Q. You shouldn’t be an amateur psychologist?

A. Yes.

Q. Told you to stay out of it and leave Mr. Jackson’s health to him?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were — I think you said “accused.” you said it was like an accusatory meeting? Is that the term you used? I think you did, right?

A. Yeah….He thought I was meddling, you know, and I just didn’t — couldn’t believe that he would think I was meddling rather than acting out of concern.

Let me remind you that at the time Dr. Murray was still “on probate” and was probably behaving that way to win the approval from his soon-to-be employers. By the way Randy Phillips indeed assessed his behavior as ‘fantastic”.

It was also around that time that Conrad Murray agreed to take care of Michael’s attendance of rehearsals sharing the job with his boss Randy Phillips, and this in spite of seeing Michael unfit for the performance (remember the female dancers assisting Michael to leave the stage?):

Q. And you understood after concerns that you had raised that Randy Phillips and Dr. Murray were both going to be responsible for MJ’s rehearsal and attendance schedule? Is that what you understand?

A. Yes.

Mr. Panish: All right. Let’s put this up. Okay. This is Mr. Hougdahl, that email that I asked you about, “I have watched him deteriorate in front of my eyes over the last eight weeks.”

Q. Do you remember that email?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You had also watched Michael deteriorate, correct?

A. Yes.

So Ortega, same as Karen Faye, Alif Sankey, Michael Bush and Bugzy Hougdahl did notice that Michael’s was on a steady decline and Conrad Murray and AEG did not. Juror #27 grasps at straws and says that on June 23 and 24 Michael was fine:

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.

No, it does make much sense. Between June 19th and June 23rd at least full three days passed and things could have turned out totally differently, and the fact that Michael didn’t die in those three days and looked much better on June 23 does not give grounds to think that there no reasons for worry.

In fact it is the same “hindsight” argument which the Senior Staff of MJJC and Juror #27 mentioned earlier and for this case it will be someting like, “See that he didn’t die in those three days? So everything was okay with him and there was no need to worry”.

And what if he had died?

The point is that at that time no one could know what would happen and whether Michael’s health would improve. In fact people were expecting only the worst and this is why the great rehearsal he had on June 23 took everyone by so much surprise. And if people expected only the worst, it was time to seek urgent medical help and not wait for full three days  and do nothing.

Well, at least Randy Phillips did something – he sent everyone soothing emails that things were under control, rejected help from the outside and reminded everyone that it was critical not to play “amateur physicians”…. and he also asked the insurance company for a policy covering Michael’s death which AEG had previously not sought.

The fact that on June 23 and 24 Michael looked healthy is disputable too – Michael was still cold and we can even see it ourselves from This is it documentary, where he is wearing numerous shirts while dancing. All dancers are sweating around him and he is wearing layers of clothing and is still cold.

Karen Faye testified:

Q. Did you think some of those symptoms you were worried about on the 19th were gone?

A He was still cold; but his spirit was better, sir.

Q. You indicated that Mr. Jackson’s — there was a levity and spirit, there was more of a lightness to him than there had been.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And he was laughing again?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember making fun of the headphones that you talked about before?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And he was referring to you by your nickname again?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So all these were things that gave you hope?

A. Yes, sir. He still kept repeating, though, which I found really odd, “I have no control. Why don’t I have any control? “he said that a few times. There was still like this little — a little anger there, you know. But yes, we did laugh..

Q. And did you think that as a result of those two rehearsals, that you thought that he could be ready in time for London?

A. Oh, no.

Q. — you didn’t think that he could be ready now?

A. No. That was like in two weeks. Michael — he didn’t gain like any weight, you know, in those few days. He was still extremely thin. I didn’t think physically he could actually do a show unless they made some major alterations to the – how strenuous it was or if they could delay it, you know, even longer.

Q. So you didn’t think he could be ready after seeing those two rehearsals?

A. No. 

By the way it is noteworthy that of all testimonies at this trial Juror #27 is distrustful of Karen Faye’s testimony most – for all others, even those of Randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware with all their numerous “I don’t remember”, he has much more respect….

Meanwhile his own arguments are turning more and more demagogical:

JUROR:  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.

I may have landed “in the realm of speculation and revisionist history” but I consider it pure demagogy to say that even the best doctor in the world cannot prevent a patient from becoming ill.

In my opinion the best doctors cannot help only in case of lethal diseases while in all other cases the steady decline of an otherwise healthy patient is simply proving that they are not the best doctors and that their treatment is wholly improper.

In fact I don’t even understand what we are discussing here – if a healthy 50 year old man is dying in front of everyone’s eyes his doctor is the first to go to and ask him questions, and the condition of his patient is the first reason to doubt his competence! So I cannot even comprehend what this juror #27 is talking about:

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.

And who else is responsible for the patient’s worsening condition if not his physician who was specially hired for the purpose? And the company in whose employment this physician was?

And isn’t all the rest of all this talk simply a lesson in non-stop demagogy?

Our reader Simba summed up the strange impression produced by juror #27 perfectly well:

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.

Great comment, Simba, thank you very much.

THERE IS NO CLOUD WITHOUT A SILVER LINING

A shill for AEG or not, but the appreciative words said by this juror and their foreman about Michael are the perfect answer to those who still harbor ideas that the trial was a “waste of time”.

No, it absolutely wasn’t! Listen to what these jurors say now about Michael and no matter how sincere or hypocritical their words are, they are still sending a message to the general public that after hearing all the evidence about MJ they came to highly appreciate him as a human being.

So what juror#27 and their foreman definitely did manage to do is shut up those voices who were whining throughout the trial about their fears that the trial would “tarnish Michael’s legacy and image”.

Well, AEG did try to drag Michael through the mud but his personality kept shining through it all and according to these two jurors even turned them into Michael Jacskson’s fans. Though I am a little doubtful of at least Juror #27’s sincerity, I suggest we take these statements at their face value and use them for silencing those who still have the cheek to say that the trial was in vain.

Actually in a recent interview Brian Panish and his hosts spoke exactly about the same thing. Brian Panish said that all jurors without exception came to highly appreciate Michael as a human being and the host of the interview agreed:

I am a huge Michael Jackson fan and one of my concerns was what it would mean for the legacy of Michael Jackson, and I agree with you – I was pleasantly surprised to see that if anything, it bolstered the humanness and the normalcy of a celebrity that as you said struggled with those issues.

BRIAN PANISH’S INTERVIEW, OCTOBER 11, 2013

As you already understand the Jacksons’ attorney Brian Panish gave an interview about the jury’s vertict. It took place on October 11th, 2013 and the interviewers were Black Hollywood Live hosts Eboni K. Williams and Mari Fagel.  Here is a link to the video of it sent to us by Susan62509:

I’ve partially transcribed the first part of it:

Question: What was your reaction when the verdict was read?

Brian Panish: Obviously we were disappointed in the verdict. When talking to the jurors it appears they were confused about the wording of one of the questions on the verdict form, but we respect the jury system and respect all the work that they put into the case, and we’re going to look at the options and proceed from here. 

Question: …Can you tell us what that instruction was?

Mr. Panish: Sure. The claim was negligent hiring, retention and supervision. All three separate parts of the claim. First the jurors had to decide, “Did AEG hire Dr. Murray?” Either by themselves or in conjunction with Michael Jackson. They found 12 to 0 that that was the case.

The next question they had to decide was “Was Dr. Murray fit and competent for the position he was hired?” That does not mean just at the time of hiring, it means throughout the time of hiring. And they thought that they only had to determine whether he was fit and competent at the time he was hired. Which he was a physician being hired to be a general physician which he was qualified and licensed doctor… Our claim really thrust upon the deterioration of Michael’s condition within 60 days and the lack of anything been done and the warnings AEG had and ignored.

Question: What went on in terms of choosing those questions? Did you fight for a different wording of that second question?

Mr. Panish: Yes, we did. We wanted to say it “at any time” and the judge made a ruling and the one that she gave was “at the time of hiring” and that really was a dispute and unfortunately it appears, based on the investigation and discussion with the jurors that they answered the question “Yes, he was fit and competent when he was hired” but they never answered the question “Was he fit and competent as he was retained throughout the time that he worked and when they were supervising him?”

Question: We know that it is a very, very important aspect of the trial – jury instruction and the wording of that. Is that something you are going to challenge if there is going to be an appeal?

Mr. Panish: We’re looking at it right now and we are interviewing all the jurors and talk to appellate lawyers, so we are certainly not dismissing that. Obviously there’s a lot put into the case, we think that the case went well, we think that we proved what we had to prove and we will investigate what we should do from there on.

Question: Will another grounds for the appeal be whether the original causes of action…, whether they were wrongfully dismissed?

Mr. Panish: Obviously we had other claims such as that Dr. Murray was working as a course-and-scope employee of AEG Live that was dismissed by the court on the AEG negligence claim, so those can also be appealed and will be up to the appellate lawyers to decide how to proceed in that regard.

Question: After this disappointing by your own statement verdict, how did you as the personal attorney deal with the personal aspect of this?

Mr. Panish: … Katherine is a fantastic client and a fantastic person. She was very appreciative for the job that we did for her, she was there nearly every day and saw, and she was grateful that the jury had to see what a great person Michael was off the stage, what a great father and son he was. And she is also grateful that we did prove that AEG hired the doctor that killed her son, and those answers to those questions she got. And the public really got to see more about Michael and what kind of person he really was.

Question: Now some commentators, Nancy Grace among them, felt that this case was a money grab by the Jackson family. What is your response to those people?

Mr. Panish: I’d say Nancy Grace doesn’t know anything about the case, number 1. But really, the case was a search for the truth and to find some answers – What really did AEG know and what did they do? And by uncovering their internal emails and their actions we were able to expose what really happened. And what really happened to Michael and what his condition was like, and what AEG failed to do to help Michael.

And it came down to AEG was that they were to get the show on the road at any cost and they over roaded Michael and unfortunately Michael was desperate and took measures that a normal person wouldn’t take had he been in such a desperate situation and been pressured.

Question: The verdict was a big surprising for me and many in the legal community because there were two seemingly contradictory conclusions that the jury came to. Finding that AEG was indeed responsible for hiring this doctor but then not seeing his overall behavior and scope problematic on negligent. And when you look that he is right now serving a sentence on a manslaughter conviction that does not seem to flush for a lot of us. Can you talk about some of these contradictions?

Mr. Panish: You know, I think there is a difference between reality and the law, and the law requires certain things to be proved, and in this case there is no question that Dr. Murray is unfit and incompetent for what he did to Michael and I think the jurors all agreed with it, and it was the way the question was phrased “Was he fit and competent when hired to be a general practitioner doctor?” and it was a licensed physician and then he followed his Hippocratic oath and he wouldn’t be incompetent at that time, but it is deeper than that and as  AEG continued on to rehearse and get ready for the This is it show, and Dr. Murray’s incompetence began to show more and more and it was really an ethical dilemma he was placed in, and he was placed in a conflict of interest and a three-party relationship where one party has a contract with somebody else’s doctor and keeps control and that really was the crux of what drove Dr. Murray to do what he did.

Question: The jurors didn’t ask any questions during deliberations to clear up their confusion?

Mr. Panish: You know, they said that they didn’t want to ask questions but they didn’t.

Question: Speaking of the jury, myself and others say that jury selection is probably one of the most important aspects of the trial process. Can you give us a little insight of what you were thinking…. about the jury selected?

Mr. Panish: I think the jury was fairly selected by both sides. I believe it was a very diverse group both in age, race, gender. Six male, six female, all from different background. We had a pretty diverse jury and I liked the jury. What we were looking for was people who didn’t have preconceived notions about Michael and about AEG, it turns out may one or two may have already decided the case before the evidence was put on, but that’s the risk we always take. But I really think that the jury system is the best thing that we have and this is a way that we resolve disputes in this country and that’s a fair and just way to do it.

Question: Were there any concerns on your part watching the jury during this case…. Kenny Ortega was on stand and jurors were clapping for him at one point, did that concern you?

Mr. Panish: No, I think Kenny was a great witness for us. Kenny was honest, he told it the way it was, he was raising red flags about Michael’s condition and they were right back to him, “Kenny don’t burn down the building, we’re handling this, don’t worry about it’. I think what the jurors said in the end is that Kenny was one of the first witnesses that was totally honest in the case and I think he was good for both sides and he told the truth.

Question: Kenny Ortega was also featured in the film This is it. Do you think that was helpful for your case when jurors got to see that ? Michael seemingly to be in pretty good shape?

Mr. Panish: Actually they told he wasn’t in pretty good shape. You’ve got to remember that Kenny had testified that This is it, when it was edited it was edited to make Michael look in the best light that it could. So it was really the best light of Michael. And it was also not intended to be a documentary as to how Michael looked, it was more of the process. So I think they did watch the This is it video, I don’t think it was very critical in their decision, but they did watch it.

Question: Your strategy in terms of quantifying fault…Why was comparative fault not presented to the jurors? 

Mr. Panish: It was presented to the jurors. In cases like this when they are making a claim, it is all about responsibility and accountability, I believe it was a case of shared responsibility. Michael had paid the price with his life, Dr. Murray had paid the price by going to jail and AEG had walked away, made money on This is it and merchandise for Michael and they continue to move forward and I don’t think this is a case where it is one side or the other. I think it is the shared responsibility, numerous things coming together, creating the synergy for what happened.

(after half a minute speaking of another case they got back to discussing the trial again, only I haven’t transcribed it yet. Please join me kin doing this job if you can)

MORE QUESTIONS TO SORT OUT

The Jacksons’ attorney Brian Panish did an overall marvelous job in this case, but as you have probably guessed I do not whole-heartedly agree with some of his statements (about Ortega, for example) because I still remember that  it was on Ortega’s insistence that AEG forced Michael to attend those rehearsals.

Mr. Panish also didn’t specify where we can find the notorious point about the time of hiring Murray which seems to have been introduced  somewhere (where?) by the judge.

Similarly Mr. Panish’s phrase “…what drove Dr. Murray to do what he did” attracted my attention. Considering all those “hindsight” arguments mentioned by the AEG advocates and in a situation when AEG could indeed not know of propofol given to Michael by Dr. Murray, I suggest that it is much more important to focus not on what Dr. Murray did, but on what he did NOT do.

This is a case of negligence by a doctor who was hired for providing general care to his patient, so any claims against him and those who employed him should in my opinion center on this doctor’s failure to pay attention to the obvious signs of his patient’s ill health, which was before anyone learned of the reason for it  – propofol or lack of biological sleep (depending on which scientific theory you adhere to).

Neither Dr. Murray nor AEG paid attention to Michael’s deterioration of health, and the fact that AEG didn’t know of the final diagnosis should not absolve them of their guilt as even chronologically the diagnosis comes after noticing the signs of trouble and not before it.

You first pay attention to the fact that someone is ill, and only then learn the reason why it is happening. So first you are supposed to take action upon seeing the person’s ill health, and only then you learn that it could be the result of propofol (or lack of biological sleep).

But if you neglect to do what is expected of you at the first stage, the second stage of the tragedy will not be averted and will now become imminent.

This is why I think that focusing on propofol is simply not an issue here. The real issue of this AEG negligence case is that neither Dr. Murray nor his employer paid attention to Michael’s deterioration of health during the whole period of Murray’s employment by AEG.

And in an effort to sort out these and other matters let me ask my five questions too:

  1. Was the time of hiring Dr. Murray included in the instructions to the present jury?
  1. The jury instructions published on the internet suggest that it was not, so how could the jury get the impression that they were supposed to discuss the time of hiring Murray? Were there any oral instructions given by the judge in this respect? Isn’t it necessary to determine in which way the jurors were misinformed?
  1. Michael Jackson showed obvious signs of general health deterioration – his body turned skeletal, he was losing his dance moves by the end of the rehearsals, he was occasionally “rambling and obsessing” and his body temperature dropped to icy cold (which was already a sign of an emergency situation). Aren’t all these signs within the scope of general care obligations for which Dr. Murray was hired in the capacity of a general practitioner?
  1. When someone gets ill his body displays signs of deterioration and it is a doctor’s first duty to notice these signals and then make a diagnosis. And if the doctor neglects his duty of paying attention to his patient’s ill health it is called negligence on his part, correct?
  1. So it is totally unnecessary to know the reason of the patient’s health deterioration to accuse the doctor of negligence in performing his duties, right? And propofol shouldn’t be the primary subject in this negligence case, correct? Instead it is Dr. Murray’s and his employer’s total indifference to Michael Jackson’s ill health that should be in the center of the case, shouldn’t it?

Susanne is adding her own top important questions :

  1. Why should a doctor first give a sick leave to a patient and just a week later reprimand someone else (KO) for sending this patient home from work, especially when this patient had the worst days of all on this day?
  2. Why was the doctor not available on this day for his patient?
  3. Why was the patient deteriorating during this time although he had a personal doctor?

90 Comments leave one →
  1. January 12, 2014 7:02 am

    Why pay 150.000/month for a GP for Micharel in UK? Had he needed a GP there are plenty in London who would have come privately when needed and who would be licensed and competent.

    Like

  2. Nan permalink
    November 5, 2013 9:47 pm

    I was looking at the forum with the jury 27 stuff, and now that some time has passed, and we see that the jurors have no one to fear..the cartoonish mj fan , that people like to portray..I think I might send the link to Piers Morgan show and ask if this person would be willing to interview on television.
    Maybe he could contact them.
    I dont question , the sincerity of the people who run the forum,…I think they are very smart and well informed.. I think it may be Ivy and she is on twitter and I think interviewed Tom Mesereau, I like those people alot , even if not everybody agrees..
    I dont post on there , just because I am not familiar with the set up and I am horrible with computers so I dont join in with this juror..
    But that is more time invested in talking to strangers , than people you were on the jury with ..
    I just wonder why , someone who has so much insight into this case, is very decisive, enjoys taking questions , very articulate, didnt want to be the foreman , and isnt willing to get in front of a camera.
    He does sound like someone with a legal background to me.
    Even the guy who seemed to dislike mj spoke on camera , the foreman did too.
    So while this person has the paper, couldn’t anyone offer a juror a thousand bucks for the paper, and therefor put it on line..
    i had my paperwork , for my job if i wanted ot pass it in..
    you sitting on that jury for 5 months making terrible money..you would make more if someone offered you a couple grand , for the paper rather than passing it into work,,after the verdict..that is legal.
    This person sounds too educated and too full of themselves to me..
    Is NEVER stumped , imo by any question ,,.they always have a rebuttal.
    It is almost like a professor /student type thing, and I am not criticizing the forum, I am just playing devils advocate..because I just dont think , given that group of people ,on the jury, this person , who , yeah I didnt think the the thing about being one of titos kids age..doesnt add up to me.
    I would think somebody like this would love a camera in their face
    They enjoy the back and forth……even the foreman who wanted to move on , took the time to get on camera..
    I think i will send it to piers and ask them to inquire..Hopefully the person will get on tv and we will have our answer.or maybe the juror wont know what he is talking about.
    either way , maybe peoples questions, as to the idenity will be resolved.
    This person might even be flattered and accept
    I would love that

    Like

  3. Marsha permalink
    October 26, 2013 9:33 pm

    Smba, he does think we are stupid, he more or less said so on one .unfortunately I cannot recall what site it was. I believe he is a doctor.

    Like

  4. October 25, 2013 10:23 am

    Great post Marsha. I dón´t think any doctor will support murray.Doctors like him are not liked by colleagues,he will drag the whole profession in the mud. Scum of the earth are T.Mesereaus words.It is diffent with some malpractice suits, a doctor has sincerely done his best and still something can go wrong. Malpracice insurance will usually cover those. It is ofcourse not good TO HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT ON YOUR CV,.

    Like

  5. October 24, 2013 3:55 pm

    Great comment MARSHA re GP.s on Oct.22 at 6.11pm 2013

    Maybe to be sure that he did not run out of it in UK he had a secret storage. We will never know who those 2 women were and who the driver of the van was.Shady business.It may not have been possible to ger propofol that easily in UK, had he ever made it there.

    Where had Murray parked on 6/24 or 25 am.In the street?As he claimed the ambulance could not make it through the gates.

    Like

  6. October 24, 2013 1:39 pm

    “Helena,you put forward the hypothesis that Michael only got propofol once. Unfortunately there are facts that contradict this assumption” – rkatarina

    Let us make ourselves clear. It wasn’t me who made this assumption but totally different authors and I just gave a link to their blog. They assumed that propofol was given on June 23 and 24 and before that only occasionally.

    I don’t know whether to agree or disagree with their assumption because it requires a good deal of research on my own and at the moment I am not ready to do it.

    There are two many factors unknown to us to be able to handle this problem accurately. For example, we know how much propofol was ordered by Murray (15,5 liters or 4,09 gallons) and it would be easy to calculate how much was used up if we knew the balance.

    But we don’t know the balance as we don’t know how much propofol remained at Murray’s special storehouse. And from that storehouse his employees took away lots of medical supplies by a van the day Michael died.

    There was a video about it on Youtube and I even gave a link to it somewhere in the comments but cannot find it at the moment. The owner of the warehouse described how Murray’s employees arrived that morning and with no hurry loaded everything into a van and vanished.

    Like

  7. October 24, 2013 12:38 pm

    Helena,you put forward the hypothesis that Michael only got propofol once. Unfortunately there are facts that contradict this assumption.Why did Michaels room look messy with tubes. like the trashroom of an anestesiology department. Also acc. to Susan Joyce he got the Propofol from Allied Pharmacy in Las Vegas, a different source than the one you cited I have heard.though not personally, that once people know they will die and people who have made the decision to commit suicide are overcome by a serene and happy mood. There are things we will not know and the suicide is out as he was in deep coma from a hefty dose of propofol.Also there are different points of view of the 23and 24 performances.Naturally we all hope that he did expirience some happiness at the end for what ever reason. Was there not a W/E and fathers day which may have given him 3 days off and an opportunity to
    share bedroom with his children as he did in LasVegas.The children may have given him new hope.

    Like

  8. October 24, 2013 4:01 am

    “So to say he was competent when he was hired and for him not to do these simple things shows that he was indeed incompetent, even at the point at which he was hired.” – Marsha

    The same idea was worded by one of youtube users in his “AEG trial verdict reaction” video: “WHY WAS MURRAY INCOMPETENT 3 YEARS AGO AND NOW HE’S SUDDENLY COMPETENT?! It’s called THINKING, haters, TRY it for once!”

    This discrepancy is indeed a glaring one and there is no other word for it than sheer absurdity.

    But the AEG advocates have thought of a trick – they say that at the time of hiring Murray AEG could not know that he would be incompetent.

    And since they themselves know that the “time of hiring” Murray was actually a rather long period of time they resort to another trick here – they consider that the time of hiring was May 2009 only (and for the rest of the period AEG were blind and deaf). If they don’t make this last reservation their whole mental construction will collapse.

    But then another factor comes into play. The AEG advocates apply the “hindsight” argument only to the situation of Murray’s hiring. As regards everything else they refuse to use the same hindsight argument. For example, they say that Michael could not be skeletal because after his death and all manipulations with his body the coroner said his weight was 136 lbs.

    But “skeletal” is the word used by people who saw Michael at that time. They saw him and this was their immediate impression of him. And these people did not know what the coroner would say of MJ’s weight later. When they looked at Michael they could go only by their own impression of him and not by the coroner’s words which at that time they could naturally never know.

    This way the AEG advocates use the hindsight argument in the case that suits their agenda, but totally disregard it where it doesn’t.

    Like

  9. Marsha permalink
    October 23, 2013 6:11 pm

    Dr Conrad Murray was not competent, even as a GP, GPs know how to give CPR and him being a Cardiologist should have had an even better knowledge of it. Even a GP knows how to record notes about the care they r giving. Murray did not even do this . And GPs know how to assess vital sigтs and height and weight,which Murray obviously did not do. So to say he was competent when he was hired and for him not to do these simple things shows that he was indeed incompetent, even at the point at which he was hired. And it shows that the jury is not being honest in their assessment of his competency. If their own personal Dr. behaved this way they would fire him. Also for them to say that AEG could not know that he was incompetent and that therefor they r not responsible does not wash either. No hosp. can know that any Dr. will mess up in the future. but that does not stop them from being sued because of the Dr. actions. or if a police officer messes up that does not make the city not liable, so why would not AEG be liable if they hired Murray and he messed up. I think there was indeed a Dr. on the jury, and as usual he stood behind the so called Dr. Murray.

    Like

  10. October 23, 2013 4:55 pm

    I’ve found today a fantastic interview by Jamie King. He speaks about the “Michael Jackson One” Cirque Du Soleil show, Michael’s standards he tried to keep up with and the way he also tried to “push the limits” in order to make the show worthy of his teacher (sometimes it meant pushing the budget).

    The spirit of this show is the one in which “This is it” should have been made, but never was. There was no inspiration and no freedom as every cent spent on it was thrown in Michael’s face and remembered to him as his worst guilt.

    An Inside Look at the “Michael Jackson One” Cirque Du Soleil Show

    Like

  11. October 23, 2013 4:24 pm

    “Regularly, I read that Michael always got what he wanted….It is all about perception. I think that if I am honest with myself, and look at a different way at Michael, I have to say that I much more got what I want than he ever did!” – gboete

    Gboete, let’s call a spade a spade. It is not even about perception – it is about twisting the truth to suit someone’s agenda. All people who spoke about Michael “getting what he wanted” meant it in a different sense – that Michael was pushing the limits of the impossible in creativity and as regards his personal requirements he was very humble. He wasn’t demanding anything for himself, but when it came to his music he would ask for utmost perfection. So “getting what he wanted” had a very limited meaning.

    I’ve recently read in Michael Bush’s book: “Michael was a man of many paradoxes, most of which we were able to represent in the clothes we designed: rigid military cuts that were also elastic and movable; rebellious regalia fit for army commanders worn over a heart of a gentle man; bedazzled embellishments adorning a man blessed with a quiet humility; one-of-a-kind, hand-crafted clothes worn with aged, scuffed Florsheim shoes”.

    All doctors who testified at the trial said that he didn’t ask for propofol or any specifil painkiller – it was always left to the doctors who decided on it depending on the manipulation they did. So applying the demands Michael had for his creative process to the medications doctors gave him is a downright fraud and a terrible lie.

    Like

  12. October 23, 2013 1:58 pm

    Regularly, I read that Michael always got what he wanted. Is that so ? I think the did everything possible to have at least some things he wanted, that for him to materialize were almost impossible. He had to take great measures to obtain what others could get easily. Of course he got many things (if you have some power and a lot of money, you can have some things your way- and that ‘s exactly what most people think about : material things) People forget that what we all take for granted was for him almost impossible. Go to a park with his children (without a mask), going to drink a beer in a bar, to have a wife and children of their own, without “third” parties involved, maybe he was not even allowed to call his father the last week of June, maybe he was kept “hostage”, he could not even stay in Neverland, his “Invincible” album was not promoted like he wanted it,
    He wanted so many things he never got to DO. The word “DO”is important, rather than “HAVE”. He did not always get what he wanted, and if he got to DO something, the world was misinterpreting it (showing his son Blanket from the balcony to his fans, visiting and loving children and let them spend time with him… he even had to apologize, can you imagine ?)
    Did Michael get what he wanted ? He wanted to sleep, but he got knocked out and killed. He wanted to have no pain, but the pain was there and he had to use prescription pain killers. His goal was not to have painkillers, his goal was that the pain would go away.
    It is all about perception. I think that if I am honest with myself, and look at a different way at Michael, I have to say that I much more got what I want than he ever did !

    Like

  13. October 22, 2013 2:14 pm

    “I would love to think that, at least for those two days, he was not scared and frightened. If that was true he was happy and felt better those two days, he might get support and backup from someone may be JB as you said. who knows?” Again thank you Helena for taking time to explain this to me” – Mariam

    Mariam, and I thank you for bringing it up. It set me thinking about a few things – and one of them was that the change in Michael’s mood and spirits on June 23 and 24 was indeed so huge that there must have been a very big reason for it.

    One of the possible reasons could be a physical one – he had some sleep at last (natural sleep after repeated comas from propofol, or vice versa, sleep under propofol after too many sleepless nights).

    The latter possibility is discussed in the article I’ve mentioned today http://nonlocaluniverse.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/the-55-minutes-thinking/. One of the authors’ arguments there is How could Michael call Travis and Ortega at 3 or 4 am if he was under propofol for 60 days as Murray said?

    The article doubts that Murray was telling the truth as regards propofol, and I agree that there is no proof that it was given for 60 days. In the opinion of the authors the opposite thing could have happened – Michael felt refreshed because on those two nights he was given propofol, but before that he wasn’t or was given only occasionally. This hypothesis needs to be looked into if we want to know the truth, and I hope there will be a chance to do it.

    However the opposite is possible too – by June 23 and 24 the huge stress of the previous days fell off Michael’s shoulders and he managed to have some natural sleep, with Lorazepam or whatever.

    This supposition is based on the fact that on those two days Michael was a different man in terms of “taking the reigns”. He started to “speak up”, he spoke of the show as “his show” and in general behaved with a regained confidence which surprised the dancers. Up till then he had looked frightened, intimidated, and even scared to death according to Karen Faye or as the very least, “being taken advantage of” as one of the dancers said.

    And suddenly a different Michael, a confident and even a laughing one. What happened? What could lift off the stress?

    No matter how I think there is only one factor which comes to my mind and was new at that particular point in time (because everything else was the same). And this was a new person who was hired by Michael and right at the time when his stress reached the very top of it – on June 18th.

    This person heard of Michael’s disastrous day on June 19th, the very next day after he himself was hired. He didn’t know what was going on but immediately replied Randy Phillips with an offer of a doctor he knew. Randy Phillips told him that there was no need to involve anyone else and everything was under control – “Ortega’s hysteria will be checked”.

    But I don’t think that these words were able to calm down this person’s worry and I have every reason to suppose that he called Michael himself. And if Michael spoke to him of the stress, the schedule, the 50 concerts, the contract with all its crazy terms, his financial situation and everything else, this person could reassure him that eventually they would sort it out. Let Michael focus on his show and leave the rest to his friend.

    These could be the words that would work miracles on Michael. This is what he expected of him and this is what he had hired this person for in the first place and this is what he hoped to hear.

    As you understand I cannot prove this theory but if someone names to me another reason that could change Michael’s demeanor so dramatically in the next two days I will very much welcome it.

    Like

  14. Mariam permalink
    October 21, 2013 10:01 pm

    “Something changed very much in those days, and the only explanation I find for it is that someone reassured him that the problems with AEG would be sorted out and he should free his mind of all that and focus on his show instead. And there could be only one person who could reassure him that much.” Helena

    I would love to think that, at least for those two days, he was not scared and frightened. If that was true he was happy and felt better those two days, he might get support and backup from someone may be JB as you said. who knows?

    You know, JB was 20+ years friend, I do not doubt that if MJ felt more confidence because JB was beside him, he was his best man (friend) for long time, additional that he is an outstanding lawyer. I think something was changed around MJ those two days as you said.

    Helena, it broke my heart when I heard that MJ wants to talk to his father because he was scared. I heard from his father JJ himself on PMorgon show or on Larry king also Prince said that.

    I felt just better knowing that he was not frightened and scared at list those last two days of his life. It is very important to know that for his family and friends and fans who loved him so much, otherwise it hurts. I thought that was AEG’s propaganda “said” to convince the jurors that MJ was healthy and fine on those rehearsals.

    “Michael probably even had a little natural sleep before those two final rehearsals.” Helena

    Thank God for that, I was also thought that he had a little natural sleep those days.

    Again thank you Helena for taking time to explain this to me

    Like

  15. October 21, 2013 5:01 pm

    “AEG obviously took advantage of MJ’s vulnerability in many ways and they did use those cold guys in order to control his life and his everything” – Mariam

    Mariam, this reminded me of the words said by one of the dancers in This is it which I first read in someone’s comment:

    “Kriyss Grant, who like most of the young dancers chosen to work with Michael on TII, was very excited to be near his mentor and hero and looked forward to a successful dancing career with this TII performance on his resume. But, because I’ve heard from others who were there during these rehearsals, there are a couple of comments that Kriyss made that immediately caught my eye. They caught my eye because they corroborate with accounts others had of Michael’s apparent physical and mental condition during those rehearsals.

    …He was 50, and he hadn’t danced like that in a long time. He had to familiarize his body with all those moves he used to do. I think he was scared; he couldn’t take the stage and appear fragile to us.

    The last rehearsal: He was his old self. He was interacting with us, giving us suggestions, making changes. In the beginning, he let everyone else run things. Then, he was like, ‘This is my show. We’re going to do it how I want to do it.’ I loved it. That’s something I always wanted to see. I thought he was being taken advantage of in the beginning because he was older. … And you could tell he had something to say, but he wouldn’t say it. But that last day, he took over. He knew what he wanted. The dancers were like, ‘Good, he’s speaking up.’ The dancers had Michael’s back.

    When the same Kriyss Grant spoke to Charles Thomson he checked himself a bit, but still…:

    Jackson was being ‘taken advantage of’

    Although Jackson was present and involved, Grant raised eyebrows when he stated in a recent interview that he felt early on that Jackson was being ‘taken advantage of’.

    “I just felt like sometimes they questioned Michael about stuff and I didn’t understand that because Michael is the artist,” he explains. “I felt like anything Michael says about entertainment, we should all just listen and follow his feelings. If he doesn’t feel right about something or if something’s not right, I felt like it should just go. He should just have that right to do that.

    “For me it was just questionable… I’m trying to find the right way to say it… If they really were pushing him to do this or if he knew what was supposed to be done. I just felt like at the bottom line, as an artist, you should have your say. If you don’t feel right about anything you shouldn’t do it. But I guess people are people, you know, and sometimes you run into little situations. But at the end it was pretty much solved. Michael got his way and things were sorted out. I didn’t mean anything else by it.”

    Final Two Rehearsals
    During the final two rehearsals Jackson really kicked into gear, says Grant. “I guess he really felt it coming together. We all really felt it coming together in those last two rehearsals. It was just a different feeling those last two nights. Michael was very into it, very open-minded about things. He was just living on the stage. His whole vibe was just different. It was like he was really connecting with us and the music. It just felt done. It was like, ‘OK, I can sleep tonight’. He gave you a warm feeling those last two days. We all left with a smile on our face.”

    http://www.sawfnews.com/Entertainment/63069.aspxehearsals

    You may think whatever you like about my wild guess, but my gut feeling is that Michael grew much more sure of his future and this is because a few days prior to that he hired John Branca.

    This change in his whole demeanor cannot be explained by simply feeling a “little better”. Karen said that he was still very cold and very thin, but he turned into a different person. He began laughing and the dancers noticed that “he took over”, he started to “speak up”, he said to them that it was “his show” and he became his old self again.

    Something changed very much in those days, and the only explanation I find for it is that someone reassured him that the problems with AEG would be sorted out and he should free his mind of all that and focus on his show instead. And there could be only one person who could reassure him that much.

    And with so big a burden falling off his shoulders Michael probably even had a little natural sleep before those two final rehearsals.

    Like

  16. October 21, 2013 4:25 pm

    “I have some things I would like to discuss with you offline. Is there a way to contact you directly?” – Mary

    Mary, yes of course. If you press “contacts” on the menu it will take you directly to my email.

    By the way I have taken down some subjects from the menu leaving the absolute minimum there. When (if) I have time I will try to put some order into the subjects highlighted there.

    Like

  17. October 20, 2013 2:04 pm

    Ofcourse they took advantage of Michaels difficult situation.That was behind the success of Thomas Barracks business,And Thome was his friend and associate. T.B. had just turned his interest to celebrities in distress who still had some goods he coluld manipulate and take over.It has to start with the twisted contract.-And it is things like that that lie behind the american poverty. What a shame. Totaltarian capitlism.Not that I would have liked to live in the Sovjet Union either.Mo nts ago there was much religikon on this blog.PÖersonally I am not interested in any extreme movements But without the 3 non-historical values,:love,justce and thruth no ism will ever have mujch to offer, exept the few and they do not appear to have very happy lives.

    Like

  18. Mary permalink
    October 20, 2013 12:47 am

    “I have been suspect of AEG having control over this entire case from the beginning. I felt there was jury tampering during the selection process, and I believe that the corruption regarding Michael’s murder goes wide and deep.” – Mary

    YES!

    “It also does not surprise me that the buck stopped with Delio. Karen’s words should have been heard and HEEDED. There is no reasonable explanation as to why they were not. I was hoping something would be found on Dileo’s laptop but am sure that the evidence was buried with him. I hope this case is far from over and that it becomes a flashpoint for clearing Michael’s name once and for all.”

    The trial left us with great many loose ends. Some of them you named. As to me I absolutely cannot over the point that even the General counsel of AEG could not properly name the date when the contract with Michael was signed…..

    Helena, thank you for your comments and all you do. I too cannot understand why more was not done by the plaintiffs regarding the rediculous terms and circumstances of Michael’s contract. I have some things I would like to discuss with you offline. Is there a way to contact you directly?

    Like

  19. Mariam permalink
    October 19, 2013 8:21 pm

    “The contract was still in the making and was unfinished, so God only knows how those MJ’s signatures appeared on it.” Helena

    Yes, who knows what Tome Tome , CM and Franck Delio did to MJ, because MJ was not ok emotionally, physically and he did not have proper sleep, he was scared, stressed and probably impaired obviously MJ had no control over his life and he might not even read all the papers he signed for them.

    AEG obviously took advantage of MJ’s vulnerability in many ways and they did use those cold guys in order to control his life and his everything (as you know even his kid’s nannies and cook was hired or fired by AEG) by giving a lot of money. If they did/could slapped him, who knows what more they did to him. God only knows.

    This trial was planned and set up to free AEG from the start, because the whole trial was calculated and carefully guided, instructed for a favor of AEG. And I was also suspicious as Mary from the beginning and later I lost my faith on the judge totally, however somehow I had trust on the jurors based on the evidence they saw and they heard. I still could not believe AEG walked free after all this evidence, for sure if AEG was not the defendant, the outcome would be different.

    If America’s courts system is corrupted this bad, I do not blame any countries courts system at all, perhaps they are doing their beast. If there is no fairness and justice in America, should never surprised or expect from other none-democratic, none-civilized and not modern countries any more, actually, they are not too bad when I see it now. Sorry, I am very disappointed with California court system, very much.

    Michael Jackson trial and life watched and attracted to all over the world not only by American’s, so the message and the impression we have about Californian court sys is no good this time. MJ was and is internationally known, fames, loved and he is the idol for millions all over the world. The court let down millions of people in the world not only KJ and his kids.

    MJ was torched to death and he died with pain and with a question “Why?” How can we compensate all his pain and suffering after all? Where is AEG’s & Dr. Murry’s apology to MJ? Where is justice for Michael Jackson?

    Like

  20. October 19, 2013 3:35 pm

    The Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court reviews the appeals of the trial court decisions. The 3 judges on the panel review what happened in the hearing or trial to see if there was a legal mistake made that was serious enough to have changed the outcome of the case. The Appellate Division does NOT RETRY the case but makes its decision based on the record before the court.

    After review, the panel issues a written decision on each case.
    The appellate panel does NOT:
    1. Consider new evidence
    2. Decide if witnesses told the truth
    3. Hold a new trial
    4. Rehear the case
    5. Review questions of fact

    Like

  21. October 19, 2013 3:34 pm

    Final Ordered Jury Instruction Instructions
    Sept. 23, 2013
    No. 426 (Modified)

    Reference Page 45 to 68

    JURY INSTRUCTION – For Negligent Hiring, Supervision or Retention

    Plaintiffs claim that they were harmed by Dr. Conrad Murray and that AEG Live is responsible for the harm because AEG Live negligently hired, supervised or retained Dr. Conrad Murray. To establish this claim, plaintiff’s must prove all the following:

    1. That AEG Live hired Dr. Conrad Murray;

    2. That Dr. Conrad Murray was unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired;

    3. That AEG Live knew or should have known that Dr. Conrad Murray was unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk to others;

    4. That Dr. Conrad Murray’s unfitness or incompetence harmed the plaintiffs; and

    5. That AEG Live’s negligence in hiring, supervising or retaining Dr. Conrad Murray was a
    substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’ harm.

    Like

  22. simba permalink
    October 19, 2013 3:01 pm

    Juror 27 is back, proffering detailed ‘explanations on MJJC. In my opinion, there’s something deeper going on here than misdirecting the fan base. I don’t want to say too much – I suspect 27 is checking to see what kind of reaction he’s getting from fans and tailoring his answers to fit – but there’s more to this case than a bumbling doctor. Please check out his newest posts. He’s deliberately trying to craft a false image of himself, starting with his age.

    Interesting that he maintains that AEG would have been concerned if Dr. Adams were presented to them, because he’s an anesthesiologist, which would indicate that something serious was going down in MJ’s treatment. But a CARDIOLOGIST didn’t raise a red flag?

    Like

  23. jolie permalink
    October 19, 2013 12:10 pm

    per Helena: “…If there is ever any new trial against AEG it should start with the contract and not Murray.”

    I sincerely agree with you – 100%.

    Like

  24. October 19, 2013 4:01 am

    “So glad the comments are back up..” – Nan

    When the comments were gone from the front page I realized that this was our only chance of a ‘forum’ or a get together. This was indeed an awful situation and for some reason it affected only several blogs. I had the impression that it took wordpress engineers unawares, they needed several days to find the reason for the malfunction.

    “He was not fit to do the job because he was not a recognized doctor in England. They could have taken that into consideration. And the answer would have been no, imo.”

    Good point. And you mean that then the jurors would have said “Yes, Murray was unfit for the job he was hired for”. You remember that the jurors were supposed to answer “yes” to the first five questions, but they said “no” to question no.2.

    “They dont understand dependency and the level of fame that MJ had, which made it very difficult for him to go to rehab without reporters/tabloids hounding him either.”

    But the problem is that Michael did not need to go to any “rehab”. Propofol does not bring about addiction problems and Dr. Shafer and others spoke about it – there are no withdrawal symptoms and no need for any special measures in a rehab. What Dr. Early, the recovering heroin addict said in that paper done under AEG’s supervision is not science – it is trash, and we will surely look into it.

    I tend to believe Dr. Shafer who is the top specialist on propofol and during his many years of handling this medication he never saw any signs of addiction forming.

    He said: “Withdrawal from propofol has not been described”, “Even in retrospect the link between any symptoms in the days prior to June 25th and propofol is quite tenuous.”

    All Michael needed was going to an ordinary hospital to cope with the emergency situation and then restoring his natural sleep under the guidance of an expert like Dr. Czeisler. This would have taken time but he would be alive, and in the end AEG would have had their concerts, only at a later time.

    Like

  25. October 19, 2013 3:24 am

    “I have been suspect of AEG having control over this entire case from the beginning. I felt there was jury tampering during the selection process, and I believe that the corruption regarding Michael’s murder goes wide and deep.” – Mary

    YES!

    “It also does not surprise me that the buck stopped with Delio. Karen’s words should have been heard and HEEDED. There is no reasonable explanation as to why they were not. I was hoping something would be found on Dileo’s laptop but am sure that the evidence was buried with him. I hope this case is far from over and that it becomes a flashpoint for clearing Michael’s name once and for all.”

    The trial left us with great many loose ends. Some of them you named. As to me I absolutely cannot over the point that even the General counsel of AEG could not properly name the date when the contract with Michael was signed. Under one version it was January 26 and under another version it was January 28, and this ‘vagueness’ over the time of signing me prompts me to think that there was no signing of the contract at all.

    The contract was still in the making and was unfinished, so God only knows how those MJ’s signatures appeared on it.

    If there is ever any new trial against AEG it should start with the contract and not Murray.

    Like

  26. Nan permalink
    October 18, 2013 10:59 pm

    Hi everyone..
    I have had a hard time accessing lately…So glad the comments are back up..
    I understand the jury saying that because Murray was licensed and went to an accredited school, that , I suppose he was fit and competent to do the job.., at first glance,,
    Even though, actually he wasnt , because he was not licensed to do the job in ENGLAND, and that is what he was hired for…
    So even if you ignore him asking for millions, dumping his cardiac patients in a matter of days and closing up shop.
    He was not fit to do the job because he was not a recognized doctor in England.
    They could have taken that into consideration.
    And the answer would have been no, imo.

    Maybe the question should have been regarding what was proven as to what AEG knew about MJ before they hired this doctor..
    They knew MJ had drug issues, they knew MJ wanted this doctor , who wanted a boatload of money and wasnt even licensed in England.
    they knew he was willing to dump his patients .
    They knew he was unavailable for his one patient , when MJ was so sick at rehearsals, they knew under Murrays care , he was getting weaker , not stronger.
    This stuff with Klien….the doctor everybody blames , but nobody brings into court…
    MJ wasnt asking him to go to England for tons of money , he wanted Murray.
    And he wasnt necessarily hiding his treatments from people , because he openly asked people to find him someone..
    He wasnt the one discussing his treatments with AEG, Murray was the go between, the one hiding the treatment plan until he got his contract signed, by his employer,,
    Murray had to keep MJ on that stuff or he wouldnt have had a job, so it was a conflict of interest,
    Maybe AEG had no idea what the treatment was, but his care was killing his patient.
    Would it matter if he overdosed him on aspirin ?
    He still had a method of treatment , the doctor decided on , and killed his patient
    The thing is…I think some people just want to blame MJ .
    They dont understand dependency and the level of fame that MJ had, which made it very difficult for him to go to rehab without reporters/tabloids hounding him either.
    He is rich and famous, people fall all over him and he can get what ever he wants ..just like that juror said..
    Makes me wonder about the juror, because obviously , he doesnt seem concerned when someone leaves their ethics at the door and takes the cash…
    .They dont understand assigning partial responsibility They figure it was MJ and Murray and all the pressure in the world shouldnt have made Murray do what he did,
    I am with Tom Mesereau , that AEG dodged a bullet..incredible how simple minded these people were, when looking at that question..no deep discussions , nothing.??
    I also thought Pannish should have been concerned when Kenny Ortega was applauded because Ortega basically said that he loved MJ , he was his friend, but that he was responsible for his own treatment.
    In some ways , I think the plaintiffs were almost caught up , in the fact that they expected AEG to smear MJ character with the accusations and baby on the balcony and all the tabloid junk, that they were happy Ortega described MJ in such glowing words, that he missed the end when he threw him under the bus and they applauded..Im no lawyer, but that wasnt a good sign to me.

    .

    Like

  27. Mary permalink
    October 18, 2013 9:08 pm

    I have been suspect of AEG having control over this entire case from the beginning. I felt there was jury tampering during the selection process, and I believe that the corruption regarding Michael’s murder goes wide and deep. What surprises me is the very very sloppy job that has been done in dealing with covering things up. It also does not surprise me that the buck stopped with Delio. Karen’s words should have been heard and HEEDED. There is no reasonable explanation as to why they were not. I was hoping something would be found on Dileo’s laptop but am sure that the evidence was buried with him. I hope this case is far from over and that it becomes a flashpoint for clearing Michael’s name once and for all.

    Like

  28. October 18, 2013 4:24 pm

    “Juror 27 statements simply tell me that jurors saw the evidence in their own way that we can’t understand. It’s like when you and I come to consider what the executors of the Estate did and still do and to me it’s all irrefutable evidence that they’ve not been working for Michael’s interest since the very 1st moment and just the opposite appears to you.” – Laura Messina

    Laura, first of all I am very grateful to you for alerting us to the juror 27’s activity and providing us with the summary of his Q&A session.

    As regards the Estate I think it is impossible to put on a par those who are paying MJ’s debts and are generating new income for his children (Branca) with those who wanted to strip Michael of his last (AEG).

    And as to juror #27 I don’t believe that this person is genuine. My opinion is that it is someone else speaking on his behalf, correcting the jury and trying to present the verdict in a more favorable light. It is the usual after-the-trial propaganda work to assure everyone that everything is fine.

    I think Simba is right as to the office where this person is sitting.

    Like

  29. October 18, 2013 4:01 pm

    “why didn’t they ask him at least for the currant medical records of his care of MJ to see what was ailing him. Given that MJ was by all accounts in terrrible physical shape, why didn’t they ask?” – Heather

    I presume that AEG would reply to you that due to a patient/doctor confidentiality they were not privy to asking these questions. But if they were concerned about MJ’s health they should not have limited Michael’s contacts with the outside world but should have brought in another doctor from MJ’s surrounding – Dr. Metzger, for example, of whom everyone, even the children knew very well.

    If Dr. Metzger had seen Michael in the condition he was in he would have taken urgent measures. He was shocked to see Michael’s skeletal condition when he was shown his photo in a T-shirt at the trial – he had never seen him like that. And if Randy Phillips could not ask for the records Dr. Metzger perfectly could!

    So for me, if AEG hired Murray then AEG are also responsible for negligently retaining and supervising Murray.

    Of course.

    I do NOT hold Michael responsible for his own death. Murray is 100% to blame – Michael 0%. Murray failed him on every level of care and trust and then abandoned him…i cannot bear that.

    I don’t hold Michael responsible at all. He desperately needed sleep and some doctors assured him that propofol was okay. Not usual, not customary and always done in a hospital setting, but when properly monitored still okay. Yes, nurse Lee said that he could die, but she herself said that she didn’t know the first thing about propofol and asked someone else, and what are nurse’s words in comparison with the assurances from doctors who give Hippocratic oath?

    And actually even now doctors repeat it in unison that propofol is safe when properly monitored, or otherwise it wouldn’t be used in every hospital of the world. It is only now that groundbreaking studies by Dr. Czeisler have been made that show the difference in “sleep” under propofol and real biological sleep. At that time no one really could explain the difference between the two, especially since sleep under propofol produces the same refreshing effect as the usual sleep.

    If there was some Michael’s recklessness, it is even less than that of cigarette-smokers. Every pack says that “Smoking kills” and they still smoke it never minding the notice. And as regards smoking you can’t even say that “it is safe when properly monitored” because it is never safe.

    As to Murray’s guilt it should be shared with AEG (and not Michael). Firstly, because it was them who drove MJ into a horrendous stress which deprived him of his sleep (due to the schedule of his shows), secondly because they denied him medical help despite his obvious signs of ill health, and thirdly, because Murray was running on AEG’s errands when he left Michael alone that night with propofol streaming into his veins.

    Like

  30. October 18, 2013 3:21 pm

    Oh, Meap – I fully agree with every word you said, even with the fact that the case was not presented in the best way possible, so let me just repeat it:

    I believe that the Michael Jackson Wrongful Death case was poorly argued and presented. There was no way that the case should have been lost in this way. MJ is dead and the doctor was found guilty of the crime. AEG hired Murray to be Michael’s personal physician. It is irrelevant whether AEG knew of the type of treatment Murray was administering to Michael; a doctor was hired to provide for the needs of the patient. The patient could have any kind of need and a doctor was to attend to it. Yes, when Murray was hired everybody assumed he was competent, even Michael. Remember that; we must remember that.

    Although AEG had been repeatedly warned by so many, even by their own people, that something was not alright with Michael, they did not investigate properly. If there’s a doctor and yet the patient is falling ill, wont people be concerned? In this case, MJ was the sole star property. Their whole enterprise depended on his good health and fitness. They had invested so heavily in the tour. That they would look after the investment is just plain logic. Paradoxically, AEG didn’t do it. Instead, they resorted to email verbiage and corporate threats.

    There was no need to prove that the doctor was incompetent. He is already in jail for that and more. So, there was no place for that question at all, in my opinion. Why were the jurors even asked that question? The Manslaughter trial had already proved beyond all doubt that Murray was incompetent, egregious, and criminal in his conduct. So where was the compulsion to prove competence?

    The worst of all: If the questions were only (1) Did AEG hire Murray? (2) Was Murray incompetent?, there was no need to drag in all the medical history and various doctors making a mess of things. If anything, it only showed Murray up in a worse light. All the other doctors kept Michael safe and attended to his needs, even those who over medicated him.

    AEG would have us believe that they were helpless, wringing their hands in despair, poor little things. It is clear from all that I’ve read and heard in this case that AEG was ruled by its overwhelming greed and calculation. They are now hiding behind corporate jargon to escape responsibility. Should they be allowed to?

    If you ask me – NO, THEY SHOULD NOT, so no force on this planet will make me accept this absurd verdict. I don’t accept the “made-to-order” verdict for the girls who sang an anti-government song in our church and got two years of prison for it, I don’t accept the false verdict for the honest guy who is fighting corruption here, and I don’t see reason why I should accept a similarly unjust verdict in the AEG case.

    The country is different, the method is not that blatant but the outcome is the same – it is a gross injustice that has been done.

    Like

  31. October 18, 2013 2:30 pm

    “The mystery 27 knew for sure more than he should have for being a juror.Don´t know exactly why he is doing this, maybe for fun.”- kaarin

    Some people have put so much time and effort in educating MJ’s fans in favor of AEG that I am not sure it is just for the fun of it. This is an extremely serious game.

    By the way did anyone pay attention to juror 27 voting not in the way the foreman said they did?

    And has anyone listened to the final scene of the jury’s polling when each said how he voted? Can anyone tell me how they voted? Was it 12 to 0 to question No.2 – or 10 to 2 as juror 27 says? I am just curious about it. Can anyone listen and help?

    Like

  32. October 18, 2013 2:22 pm

    “I totally agree with you that in the end the trial was worth all the hassle because it has brought us so much truth about Michael and his medical conditions etc etc., and hopefully put to bed once and for all all those horrid tabloid stories, though I suspect there are some that will still try it on!! and as that jurer said, it has shown the world the real Michael – the real Michael we have always appreciated of course!!” – Caro Attwell

    Caro, unfortunately the trial has not put to rest all those horrid stories as the example of Stacy Brown shows it, BUT we do feel the difference in the way these stories sound now. After listening to what Michael was really like they look ludicrous and artificial, false and extremely far-fetched – in short they are dead even before they are born (at least I hope so).

    Probably someone does continue to believe all those things but they risk showing themselves to be the fanatics juror Kevin White (Kevin Smith) looked like after that trial, just spitting his hate-filled stereotypes about Jackson and showing himself a dinosaur he is.

    Like

  33. October 18, 2013 2:12 pm

    If the instructions didn’t say competent AT THE TIME OF HIRING, then I would like to know who added those last words that drastically changed the implications of the question. And if that was not part of the instruction, then hindsight is an invention to make right what was wrong.” – Sina

    I’ve done some work to convert those jury instructions into a format which would allow them to be posted here and discussed, and will try to make a post about them. Everyone should read those instructions and see for themselves whether there was any reason for the jury to make a decision they made. I think there was none.

    As to the jury not being the best system, of course it has its huge flaws because it depends on the people and what they are like at a particular period of time. In our today’s culture when people no longer look into anything deep enough and make their judgments by scanning the headlines only, it is impossible to expect them to sit and study complex things – they are simply intrinsically incapable of doing it.

    All those soap operas on TV and shallow talk shows about scandals have done their dirty job – people simply lost the ability to think on their own. Instead they want to be constantly “entertained”. You can compare the letters people wrote to each other in the 19th and even 20th century with messages exchanged now on FB, and you will see the degradation with your own eyes.

    But what is better than the jury system? For civil cases when money is at stake professional judges would probably be the best – like in arbitration court. But their reputation should be impeccable and there should be a 100% guarantee that they are unbiased and free from any pressure from the outside. But who can guarantee that?

    Like

  34. October 18, 2013 1:29 pm

    “Stacy Brown must be in need of more pocket-money.” – Kris

    Kris, I am posting several pieces of Stacy Brown’s BS in the comments so that people don’t have to do the honor to this ‘newspaper’ by following the links.

    I wonder how the New York Post is rated by the public? Is it a third-rate tabloid or is it considered to be a ‘respectible’ paper? To me it looks like opening a door to a toilet which wasn’t cleaned for months:

    Did Michael Jackson sabotage his family?
    By Stacy BrownOctober 14, 2013 | 12:43pm
    Modal Trigger
    Did Michael Jackson sabotage his family?

    After a chance meeting as a young fan, Stacy Brown became friends with the bizarre family of Michael Jackson. For 25 years, he hung out at their Hayvenhurst estate in Encino, Calif., and even ghostwrote their memoirs. He previously wrote about Katherine Jackson’s letters to her son and Jermaine’s jealousy of Michael. In the final entry from his three-part series about life with the Jacksons, he talks about how Michael loomed over — and sabotaged — so much of his family’s plans.
    Just before Michael Jackson’s 2001 concerts at Madison Square Garden to celebrate 30 years in show business, Jacko and Jermaine engaged in one of their bitter battles.
    Jermaine criticized Michael for high ticket prices and for excluding certain acts. Jacko told Jermaine to beat it — he was off the show.
    Jermaine and Michael’s parents, Katherine and Joseph, drove the two-and-a-half hours from Encino to Neverland to resolve the dispute. They were stopped at the gate.
    “Mother is tired, she needs water and she has to use the bathroom and Michael has ordered security not to let us in,” Jermaine said over the phone. He had called hoping someone could appeal to Michael’s people.
    The standoff went on for two hours.

    Finally, Jacko sent word — his mother could use the bathroom in the first guest house, but that was it. They had to be on their way.
    “He won’t see us. His own mother,” Joseph protested. “He probably is on those drugs. Or something.”

    Life at Neverland
    What drugs, what something, no one knew — Michael Jackson was a mystery even to his family.
    They had attempted no less than a half-dozen interventions, with no luck. Three months after the 2001 concerts, at a hotel in New York, Janet, Randy, and others attempted to rid him of dependence.
    “Leave me alone, mind your business, I’ll be dead in one year anyway,” Jacko told them.
    Michael had cut them off, one by one. He preferred to stay locked inside his rooms, watching the world through cameras.
    My family and I were invited to stay at Neverland once, in 1997, and over four days we never saw Michael. But I’m sure he saw us.
    Michael made all guests at Neverland, including his family, sign waivers every time they visited. The waivers allowed Michael to eavesdrop on telephone calls, videotape comings and goings and simply spy on those on the grounds.
    Jackson siblings warned me to cover my bedroom and bathroom walls with sheets because you likely were being filmed, even if you were naked.

    For some, Neverland was the ultimate paradise. It’s a ranch with several buildings, including a main house, Indian Tee-Pees, an amusement park, a state-of-the-art movie theater that houses a collection of films to make any public or private theater owner jealous, and a library with a collection of more than 10,000 books.
    To others, though, Neverland is an enormously expensive lure for unsuspecting child victims, the ultimate candy from a stranger.
    There was a specialized alarm system that sounded anytime anyone went near Jacko’s bedroom. We’d sometimes test it and, sure enough, a security guard would come inside to make sure that no one was near the quarters.

    The zoo on the property rivaled those in the Bronx, Baltimore and other places. “Pet the lion, its OK, Stacy,” Jacko said to me on another visit. I refused.
    From time to time, snakes would slither across the grass, frightening horse drawn carriages. A ride on a golf cart and passed the zoo had to be met with caution, particularly when passing cages that contained Patrick the orangutan, who replaced the famous Bubbles the chimp, and whose displeasure for strangers was evident in his spitting about 40 yards at those who would come into his view.
    Sabotaging the Family
    Despite his isolation, Michael maintained his control over the family.

    At one point he demanded that sister Janet, who had become almost as famous as him, stop using their surname. He wanted to be the only superstar named Jackson.
    Other family members protested that Michael derailed their careers.
    “That’s the problem I have with him,” Jermaine said. “OK, so he doesn’t want to do anything with us, but he doesn’t’ want us to make our own money, either. He wants us to depend upon him to provide and we’re adults.”
    Rebbie, whom Michael had gifted her only hit, the 1985 single “Centipede,” also was stifled by her little brother. When she recorded her most recent album, 1997’s “Yours Faithfully,” she admitted to making a big mistake. “I did it for Michael’s label,” she told me.
    Rebbie had done a lot press in support of the CD, which included the duet, “Fly Away,” with Jacko. She appeared on Regis and Kathy Lee, BET and other shows. After the first single was released, the CD disappeared from stores.
    She alleged that Michael campaigned to kill the careers of his family members, even paying off A&R and radio executives to not play his brother’s and sister’s music.

    “Michael did it again, he dangles the carrot and we’re supposed to jump,” Rebbie said.
    It wasn’t that Michael couldn’t be generous. When Rebbie and her husband Nathaniel wanted to buy a house in Las Vegas, Jackson ponied up $100,000 towards the $300,000-plus price tag.
    But even that seemed to have an ulterior motive.
    Michael had become aware that Grace Rwarmba, the children’s nanny had been visiting Rebbie in Vegas and she had expressed concerns over Jacko’s drug dependency. Jacko’s divorce from Lisa Marie Presley was also, in part, because Presley had sought advice from Rebbie about Jacko, something Jacko detested.
    “Don’t go to my family for anything, stay away from them,” he ordered Presley.
    Remoras on Jacko
    Jackson’s paranoia grew over the years. He thought his siblings were plotting together. He was convinced his ideas were being stolen, even by Steven Spielberg.
    “Look at the logo for Neverland,” he told me once. “It’s the little boy in the moon with a fishing pole. Now, look at what those Jews have for DreamWorks. A boy inside the moon, fishing!”
    As for his belief that people were out to get him, well authorities were — because of the increasingly compelling accusations of molestation.
    I had ghost-written a book with Bob Jones, Michael’s long-time publicist, called “The Man Behind the Mask,” which detailed Jones disgust at much of what he witnessed.
    Jones, who is gay, told me angrily: “When I’m horny, I call another man. When King Michael gets horny, he’s on the phone with some little boy.”
    During the 2005 trial, I was called as a witness for the prosecution, to back up some of the things Jones said.
    Michael approached me before I testified and handed me a Bible. “Stacy, is this yours?” he said, pretending I had somehow dropped it on the ground. I just wished him well.
    Most of the family didn’t care if Michael was guilty or innocent. They just worried about two things: the collapsing Jackson legacy and the money Michael would lose if he went to prison.
    They defended him to the end, even those who suspected, because the Jacksons were dependent on him — a situation he encouraged. He owned the Encino estate; he funded, or more often refused to fund, their tours.
    Over the years, I have written about the Jacksons, but many continued to talk to me — because they so often did not talk to each other.
    In December 2005, several family members called me, worried about rumors that Michael had died of a drug overdose in Bahrain. Four years later, they called me again. “Is it really true this time?” Rebbie asked. Yes, I said. She put her husband on the phone.
    “He probably had a needle in his arm,” Nathaniel said. “That selfish jerk.”
    http://nypost.com/2013/10/14/michael-jackson-sabotaged-family-plans/

    Stacy Brown’s articles have a strange effect on me. They are so boring in their viciousness that it is even impossible to read them to the end:

    Jackson family’s sick rivalries and stolen love
    By Stacy Brown
    October 14, 2013 | 6:00am

    After a chance meeting as a young fan, Stacy Brown became friends with the bizarre family of Michael Jackson. For 25 years, he hung out at their Hayvenhurst estate in Encino, Calif., and even ghostwrote their memoirs. He previously wrote about Katherine Jackson’s letters to her son, in which she called Michael a homophobic slur. Here, in Part Two of his memories of life among the Jacksons, he talks about the family member he knows best — Jermaine, the jealous older brother of Michael.
    “That was supposed to be me,” Jermaine Jackson said, for the 100th time, talking about the superstardom his younger brother enjoyed.
    “That’s why I stayed at Motown. We had plans. But once Michael beat me to it, he made sure it would only be him.”
    Of all the Jacksons, none was more tortured by the cult of Michael than Jermaine. He’d spend an entire day ranting against him. The next, he’d go on a talk show and defend him.
    All the while was the subtext — it should have been me.
    “I still say his timing was what made him the King of Pop,” Jermaine once said. Then he asked to borrow $500 to change the tires on his Mercedes.

    Thy Brother’s ‘Wife’
    If there’s one best example of how dysfunctional the Jackson family is, know this — Jermaine stole away, then married, the mother of his younger brother Randy’s children.
    Randy met Alejandra Oaziaza in 1986, when she was about 17 and he was 24. Randy, seven years younger than Jermaine and three years younger than Michael, missed out on the heyday of the Jacksons’ Motown fame. Too young to appear in the Jackson 5, he nonetheless was enlisted in the family business and would tour with his brothers as he got older (as Michael went solo).
    Randy and Alejandra dated for a long time, but never married, having two children — Genevieve and Randy Jr. But Randy proved a bit too immature for Alejandra, and while he was away from home, Jermaine moved in.
    “Randy didn’t treat me like I was the one,” Alejandra told me. “I just thought that Jermaine was different, that he was more family oriented.”
    In 1995, Jermaine and Alejandra secretly married, later having children of their own — Jaafar, Donte and Jermajesty.

    Randy, of course, was devastated.
    “Joe Blow down the street, but my brother? In the same house?” Randy seethed about the betrayal. “She’s a pig and my brother is a fool.”
    Katherine, their mother, was not amused either and treated Alejandra like the help. Randy, meanwhile, withheld child-support payments, which Jermaine said he just couldn’t understand.
    “He’s an a-hole,” Jermaine said of Randy. “He shouldn’t let his feelings for me or Alejandra come between taking care of his kids.”
    Jermaine didn’t understand Randy’s anger in general.
    “He needs to get over it and leave all the petty stuff behind and act like a man,” Jermaine said to me. This conversation lasted more than four hours and I had to reason with him that, “You not only took his woman, but you had children with her and you married her. There’s nothing petty about that.”
    Jermaine just shrugged.
    Things broke down so badly between the brothers that they refused to speak to one another. In 1997, I was in the kitchen with Jackie, Tito and Jermaine, who was feeling tortured over the thought of having to fly with and go on stage alongside Randy to accept their introduction as The Jackson 5 into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
    “I just don’t want to do anything with Randy,” Jermaine said.
    After about 15 minutes discussing how Jermaine should handle Randy at the awards presentation, I just had to speak up. “Dudes, this isn’t as much of a problem that you all are making it out to be,” I said. “Randy isn’t a member of The Jackson 5; he joined the group when you were called The Jacksons. The J-5 is being inducted.”
    They stared incredulously and then whooped with joy.
    Still, Randy didn’t let it go. He would always say to me, “Stacy, watch your women around my brother, you’re around him an awful lot, look what he did to me.”
    Indeed, Jermaine’s mind had one track. On one visit to New York, where he was crashing with a friend, Jermaine was interviewed by the Fox News anchor Rita Cosby — then spent the rest of the weekend talking about how it was his mission to “do” her in a hotel bedroom.

    Broke Casanova
    Naturally, Cosby would have to pay for the room if it were to happen. Jermaine had absolutely no cash, as usual.
    Later on, he told me he was hungry for some Burger King. Fine, I thought, we could do that. He said he’d pay this time. Of course, I doubted that but was certainly prepared to take him up on his offer. I ordered a Whopper meal while Jermaine simply ordered an apple pie.
    “You got a coupon for that?” he asked me with a laugh. I told him to order what he wanted, that I’d pay. So he returned to the counter and asked for large fries and an iced tea to go with the pie.
    The next time we spoke of Cosby, Jermaine shocked me by adding that he wanted to “bang Nancy Grace,” who is viewed as a family nemesis.
    “Just one time with that heifer,” he said. “I bet she won’t say anything bad about Michael anymore. She’ll just be thinking about her one night with the man! Jermaine.”
    That didn’t happen (as far as I know). But Jermaine did have many a conquest. In New York in 2001, for Michael’s 30th Anniversary Special concerts, Jermaine’s cellphone rang. Someone on the line told him Whitney Houston, a former lover of his, needed help.
    He hung up and turned to me. “She’s like Michael. She’s messed up on those drugs,” he said. “You know I used to wear her a– out. I know she’d take me back and get rid of that (expletive) Bobby Brown. Plus, I should just get with her before she loses all that money she’s made.”

    Whitney appeared sickly and rail thin at the concert and Jermaine said he was concerned. He said that after the second show, which was on Sept. 10, 2001, he’d get with her and seriously discuss moving to New Jersey or Atlanta to be with her.
    “I feel it’s my duty with Whitney, man,” Jermaine said. “She told me she never stopped loving me. I can get with her and I should. I just don’t know how she’d act to have me in that bed instead of Bobby. I might be too much for her. But I’d get her off the drugs. She’d be high, but only on Jermaine.”
    After the first show, which took place on Friday, Sept. 7, the family and invited guests gathered at Tavern on the Green in Central Park, where Michael, looking dazed, sat in an area that was roped off from his family. Macaulay Culkin sat with Michael.
    “He just told me he wasn’t doing the second show,” Jermaine told me. “He’s high as a kite, but I’m going to slap him around and get him straight.”
    Secret Muslim Wedding
    One extracurricular relationship was somewhat more serious than the others. Jermaine was introduced to Lawanda, a friend of one his nieces, in the mid-1990s.
    By then, Jermaine had converted to Islam. In 1999, while still married to Alejandra, he and Lawanda had a “wedding” at a local mosque. Jermaine would tell me later that he did it just to make her happy. While it wasn’t legal in the eyes of the government, Lawanda felt sure — she was now Jermaine’s wife.
    At Michael’s anniversary concerts, Lawanda had had enough of being Jermaine’s No. 2. She came to me, crying. “Do you know who else’s anniversary it is?” she said. “Mine and Jermaine’s and he hasn’t said a word to me.” Then, in front of Jermaine, Randy and Alejandra’s young children, Lawanda tried to attack his lawful wife.
    “That’s Jermaine for you,” brother Jackie would later say.
    Even with two “wives,” Jermaine couldn’t help himself. One summer night in 2003, he and I were cruising Ventura Boulevard in Katherine’s late-model Mercedes. We stopped at Starbucks in Sherman Oaks where he introduced me to a neighbor named Sandy, who was waiting for him.
    We got back into the car and Sandy followed in her jeep close behind. Jermaine called Alejandra and told her that Minister Louis Farrakhan was in town and that we were going by his hotel to speak with him.
    We headed up into the pitch-black darkness of the Sepulveda Pass where we parked and Sandy parked right behind us. “Here, take the car and drive, come back in like an hour or so,” Jermaine said.
    He hopped out and into Sandy’s car — and before I could make a U-turn, they were like two teens, ripping their clothes off and getting it on right there.
    When I picked Jermaine up, he insisted we try and see Farrakhan so that his alibi would work. An aide to Farrakhan said he wasn’t available, so we returned to Hayvenhurst. Alejandra never asked about the meeting.
    Jermaine divorced Alejandra in 2004, leaving the divorce papers behind in the house as he went on tour. In 2005, he married Halima Rashid, who comes from a wealthy Mideast family. Lawanda still complains to Jackie and Tito that she has to play second fiddle.

    Green with Envy
    Jermaine knew plenty about playing second fiddle, though. He would go through periods of anger about his brother, then periods of remorse when he realized he would probably be broke without him.
    In 1991, Jermaine released the song “Word to the Badd” that accused Michael of “changing his shade.” Michael wouldn’t speak to him for years. Jermaine then became his brother’s most vocal defender, dismissing every rumor about him on any show that would have him. Jermaine also would warn Michael of the family’s planned interventions and trips to therapy.
    Still, Michael didn’t really pay Jermaine back — and kept putting off any talk of reunion concerts.
    Finally, at the end of 2001, Jermaine decided to write a be-all, end-all book to pay his bills. And once his girlfriend, Lawanda, got hold of it, she was determined that Jermaine earn a $1 million advance.
    The pitch was about Michael’s drug use and his penchant for keeping company with underage boys.
    Michael’s assistant was frantic. “We want a retraction! We want a retraction! Call every publisher in America and tell them you made it all up and it’s not true,” she said desperately.
    The Jacksons went into one of their famous family meetings and, oddly enough, several of them came away believing that Michael himself had made up the manuscript as a way to get attention.
    But Jermaine said Michael obtained a copy of the manuscript. And Michael, who paid for the house at Hayvenhurst, would use it as an excuse to throw Jermaine out.
    Jermaine backed off the book. He spent the next few years trying to make amends.
    And I remember him sitting in an airport giddy during Michael Jackson’s trial on molestation charges in 2005.
    “Michael said after the trial is over, we’re going on tour,” Jermaine said.
    I told him, you’re thinking about concerts — your brother could be going to jail for life.
    Jermaine just shook his head. Wasn’t going to happen, he said.
    Then he started talking about the tour, what he would wear, what it would look like.
    “Woo hoo, I love it.”
    http://nypost.com/2013/10/14/jackson-familys-sick-rivalries-and-stolen-love/

    Articles like that are called in my country “made-to-order” ones. It is even boring to enumerate all his lies. All I’ll say is that the recent lawsuit was not for $40 bln as Stacy Brown and AEG say. Mrs. Jackson never signed the papers stating that much money.

    Katherine Jackson called son Michael a homophobic slur
    By Stacy BrownOctober 13, 2013 | 4:56am

    After a chance meeting as a young fan, Stacy Brown became friends with Jermaine Jackson — and later the rest of the Jackson family, including Michael. He helped write some of their memoirs, traveled on their tours, and even gave them loans (never to be repaid). Here, for the first time, Stacy explain what it’s like to be friends with the strangest family in America.
    Randy Jackson, the second-youngest of the storied musical dynasty, likes to call his family “the black Kennedys.”
    Maybe. But they certainly weren’t as smart with their ­finances as the Kennedys.

    Even before this month, when the family lost a $40 billion lawsuit against AEG over the death of Michael Jackson, they’ve struggled with debts. Especially when the family’s richest members, Michael and Janet, decided to cut off their seven other siblings and parents out of whim or spite.
    A particularly low point came in 2003. No money was coming in, few of them had actual jobs and ­Janet gave but one gift to her siblings: free meal cards to Baja Fresh, a fast-food chain with which she had an endorsement deal.
    I visited Rebbie, the oldest of the Jackson kids, in Vegas, to work on a book. It was Baja Fresh for breakfast, lunch and dinner. From there I drove to Hayvenhurst, the family’s estate in Encino, Calif., to meet Katherine, the matriarch, and Jermaine.
    And for 2¹/₂ weeks it was . . . Baja Fresh.
    Finally, for the sake of my stomach, I offered to take Katherine to Trader Joe’s. She loaded the cart with groceries, and I ended up with the bill — $700.
    There was no “thank you.” The money was never repaid. Whatever courtesies are shown to them are met with the air of “You did what you ought to. We are the Jacksons!”

    ‘Why No Black Boys?’
    As a friend, ghostwriter and confidant of the Jackson family for nearly 25 years, people ask how I could put up with such behavior.
    It wasn’t easy — but there’s something seductive about the ­craziness.

    I first met patriarch Joseph and his sons Jermaine, Jackie and Tito in 1984. The brothers had just played the Victory Tour at Giants Stadium. I was 16 and went to the show with my girlfriend, Ameena, who was in love with Michael.
    After the show, we traveled to the Helmsley Palace Hotel, and amazingly we got to speak to the Jacksons in the lobby. Ameena gushed and handed them a letter for her idol.
    A couple of years later, I was visiting a friend in a hospital in Canoga Park, Calif. Randomly, I ran into Jermaine. “I know you,” he said. To my shock, he remembered that night in New York in detail.
    We spoke for a long time and ­exchanged numbers. Two weeks later, he called me and invited me to Hayvenhurst, the seven-bedroom mansion Michael paid for. It’s full of family memorabilia, and a guesthouse is filled with dolls and stuffed animals.
    I later became a journalist and, because of the friendship, I was enlisted as writer on two books — “Rebbie Jackson: The First Jackson” and “Legacy: Surviving the Best and the Worse,” the latter with Jermaine.
    But for every little kindness, like Jermaine remembering me as a fan in the crowd, there was plenty of selfishness and bizarre behavior.
    The Jacksons have been described as dysfunctional, but that’s an understatement. They loathe each other, particularly Michael — for whom they felt varying degrees of jealousy and disgust. The King of Pop rarely wanted anything to do with them, which only ­increased the psychosis.
    They’re not the Kennedys, Katherine’s longtime assistant, Janice Smith, said to me once. “They are more like the Corleone family. And Michael is Michael Corleone.”

    To his parents, Joseph and Katherine, however, Michael could do no wrong.
    One day, after the brothers were complaining about Michael not including them in his plans, Joseph exploded: “Y’all are lazy. He did all the work, and he figured out that if he were going to do all the work, why bother with your lazy asses?”
    Katherine would defend Michael constantly — to a point.
    Watching a news report that showed Michael boarding an airplane with a young boy, Katherine murmured: “Why is it that he’s always got to have those little white boys around? Why doesn’t he ever have little black boys with him?”
    I said, “Well, there was a time that he had little Emmanuel Lewis, who played Webster.”
    “That was just for show, for the cameras,” Katherine said. “Those boys he flies around with ain’t nothing but little Jews.”
    The question I desperately wanted to ask but did not was, “Well, would you rather him ­molest little black boys?”

    Secret Therapy
    The dysfunction culminated in 2002. Michael had played a 30th-anniversary celebration the year before. He paid Marlon Brando $1  million to appear. He paid his brothers $1,100 each. Then he canceled a promised tour with the ­entire Jackson family.
    Randy figured the family needed therapy. Janet paid for it, and once a week the whole clan would pile into SUVs for secret trips to Malibu.

    Rebbie began by talking about the abuse she allegedly suffered as a child in Gary, Ind., at the hands of Joseph, and which her mother witnessed. “Mother would simply say, ‘Joe, leave her alone tonight,’ ” Rebbie said.
    Jackie, the second oldest, yelled at her for “bringing up things in the past that just pull us apart.”
    “We’re in therapy!” Rebbie cried.
    They all complained about Michael until finally the therapist said it was best if they didn’t even think about him.
    “Michael is not your family, in his mind,” the therapist told them during those clandestine sessions. “Elizabeth Taylor is his mom, and you guys should move on.”
    That sent Katherine over the edge. She already hated Taylor — on visits to Neverland Ranch, Katherine would decide where she’d have her lunch or dinner depending upon whether or not Liz had ever used the spot.
    “I’m not sitting where she sat,” Katherine would say. “She’s ­stolen my son away.”

    Joseph felt the same way about Motown boss Berry Gordy, who signed the singing children to the label in the 1960s.
    “Michael better realize, it’s my blood running through his veins,” the family patriarch said. “Mine and nobody else’s. I’m his father, Katie is his mother.”
    The therapy sessions ended. No one really felt better.
    During this period, Jermaine was trying desperately to get on Michael’s good side. The brothers tried to trick Michael into attending therapy by saying there was going to be a “family day.” Jermaine tipped him off that it was a ruse.

    Every single time a scandal ­involving Jacko broke, there we were, Jermaine and I, hotfooting it to “The View” or some other talk show.
    When Michael dangled his newly acquired 9-month-old son, Blanket, off a hotel-room balcony in November 2002, Jermaine and I went to “old reliable,” Larry King, to defend Michael’s actions.
    “Nobody complains about [crocodile hunter] Steve Irwin, who has his small kids around those dangerous animals,” Jermaine said.
    Following that appearance, Michael’s assistant called.
    Michael wanted to speak with Jermaine. “Don’t do any more television, Jermaine. Tell the family no more. I have this huge, huge television special coming out in February that is going to shock the world and change ­everything,” Michael said.
    Ironically, the “huge television special” turned out to be the horrifying Martin Bashir documentary “Living with Michael Jackson,” which ultimately led to the molestation charges.
    I remember watching it with great anticipation with Jermaine, Joseph and Katherine, and the looks on their faces were priceless.
    When Michael pointed out that he’d rather climb a tree than have sex, Joseph let out a very disapproving groan. When the young accuser leaned against Michael, the warm feelings in the room quickly turned to ice. They knew what was coming.

    Katherine’s Letters
    And they certainly weren’t surprised by it.
    Way back in 1993, when the first public allegations of child molestation surfaced against Michael, sister La Toya accused the rest of her family of being “silent collaborators.”
    She said Katherine had written letters to Michael in which she called him a “damn f – – – – t” and knew about payoffs, for as much as $1 million, made out to the parents of one of Michael’s victims.
    Katherine and several of her children held a press conference outside Hayvenhurst to denounce La Toya. “She’s trying to sell her brother down the river,” Kath­erine said.
    A decade later, Jermaine and I were hanging out at Hayvenhurst in the courtyard near the swimming pool. Katherine emerged from inside the house.
    “Jermaine, they got all of our things,” she said. The family had lost a civil judgment over a failed concert tour, and creditors took a storage locker full of memorabilia, including gold records.
    “They got the letters, too, and those canceled checks,” Kath­erine said.
    Normally I didn’t ask questions, but I had to ask what she was talking about. “The letters,” she said, as if I were supposed to know.
    Jermaine completed the sentence for her, “Those letters in which mother called Michael a ­f – – – – t.”
    I was stunned. Ten years later, I realized that La Toya really did tell the truth.
    “You tell a lie long enough, people will believe it’s true,” Michael once said.
    It could be the Jackson motto.
    http://nypost.com/2013/10/13/inside-look-at-the-broke-jealous-jacksons/


    This author calls himself a journalist. And I know a better word for what he is doing. It is a prostitute.

    Like

  35. October 18, 2013 12:47 pm

    “I don’t know if Dr. Murray was a criminal before AEG hired him, but AEG made him act like one. That is the main point that seems to get lost here…. How can anybody ever make AEG responsible if CM is always portrayed as thé criminal ? He was or became a criminal due to AEG. Of course CM is guilty as hell, but so is AEG.”- gboete

    Gboete, you’ve hit the nail on the head. He was or became a criminal due to AEG. I feel like the whole trial should be rerun.

    “Here, in the MJ case, they both are responsible and it is written all over the course of the entire trial. Only, it was totally ignored by the judge, jury, plaintiffs lawyers. The questioning was wrong and one wonders if it was plain stupidity or on purpose….. It makes me sick and wonder what this is all about, what this whole trial was all about, what was it’s purpose, goal”

    I see the good of it in two factors – a little bit of truth was told about Michael’s last days and much more people learned what enormous challenges he had to cope with in his life.

    If it had not been for the trial the public would have never learned about the terrible consequences of his burn and why he had to be given painkillers. I hope that sensible people realized that his pain was so acute and so prolonged due to all those balloons under his skin that painkillers were a necessity.

    And in general Michael was painted the real human being he was and not the caricature everyone saw in him before. This alone is a very good result.

    However only a fraction of truth was told about AEG and what they did to MJ, and this is exasperating.

    Like

  36. October 17, 2013 6:00 pm

    “I always took it for granted that a private physician has to keep medical records.A patient can have an acute unforeseen illness or an accident. Then it is vitally important to know of pre existing illnesses and medications. Maybe AEG could not ask for them, but the insurer did and most likely AMA would have been interested.” – Kaarin

    Yes, it is very strange that Murray did not keep records and no one ever asked him if he did.

    AND THE INSURANCE! How could we forget? I suddenly recalled that AEG was ready to pay Tohme $100,000 a month for providing the insurance. Later they included his salary into production costs and shifted it to Michael, but this is not the point at the moment. At the moment it is important that securing the insurance was Tohme’s main assignment.

    But why so big money? Did AEG anticipate it to be a difficult job? They claimed that Michael was absolutely healthy and fit, didn’t they? And what exactly was Tohme supposed to do to get that insurance? Remember that an agreement with Tohme was signed in January 2009 (supposedly together with MJ’s contract), well before the rehearsals.

    It seems that all that time AEG thought that MJ was taking drugs and Tohme’s job was to “cut the supply” and “keep him clean”. It never occurred to them that he wasn’t taking any narcotics. They thought too bad of him and though they perfectly saw all those signs of his ill health they habitually explained it by “drugs”.

    No wonder that on June 16 or 17 they arranged what they called an “intervention” and “brought Murray into the fold”. Murray was to sit like a guardian dog by MJ’s side (probably even at night, so they could possibly even know of Murray’s night shifts) because in the daytime Randy Phillips placed his own partner into Michael’s room to keep an eye on “what he was doing”. He said that this man was there to give MJ a cup of hot tea though Michael looked at him with suspicion and asked Michael Bush if he knew who he was and what he was doing in his room.

    So instead of giving Michael medical help they cut his ties with the outside world and never allowed any doctor to come closer to Michael, evidently for fear of some unwelcome news leaking into the press. Murray’s assignment from AEG was evidently “sobering him up” before the new medical examination, so it was essential for AEG that no one should know anything.

    In short AEG did exactly the opposite of what was needed for Michael – he needed help, and they wanted to hush up his problems, and all of it due to that damned insurance.

    Like

  37. Sina permalink
    October 17, 2013 5:20 pm

    Linda, I think that the jury system is the best and all of it depends on is the “quality” of human beings who take part in it – Helena

    I am not a supporter of the jury system. Jurys are too unpredictable and imo justice and law should be consistent and not a lottery . Every case is different, but people should rely on the system to be fair.
    There is too much at stake to have it depend on opinions of people who are kept in semi islotation for 5 months – which is a farce – and on the moment supreme are so bored that all they want is get it over with.
    Look at the juror who, minutes after the verdict said that Michael got whatever he wanted. That is a very inappropriate statement, if only out of respect for the deceased. or for the impression that a moral verdict was made instead of one based on the law.
    .Or juror 27 who couldnt wait to get his 15 minutes of fame and within days had found the fansite that perfectly matched his point of view.
    Many cases are also very complicated even for lawyers. Imagine making a decision after watching a movie. Is this how they decide on capital punishment cases?
    I think the judge choose the same strategy as in the criminal case, to prevent a hung jury and be sure of a verdict. Also they follow the public opinion that no tax money should be spent on civil cases and they might have felt that since the ‘punishment’ for liability would be money, and they already have enough it doesnt matter if they win or loose.
    It makes so little sense to me that sometimes I suspect racist motives as they made it into ‘just another’ black on black crime.
    CM got a ridiculous jailtime, Michael the victim was convicted by the public and the jury on duty for causing his own death and poor big AEG who only wanted to help Michael out was completely absolved.

    Like

  38. October 17, 2013 5:13 pm

    “I have a hard time accepting that Michael would have accepted propofol night after night without any real monitoring equipment to hand, it just doesn’t seem to be the kind of chance that an educated person would take and we all know how much Michael liked to read medical journals.” – Helen-Marie

    Michael would not risk his life because of his children. Even during the 2005 trial his only real concern and everyday nightmare was what would happen to them if he went to jail. And this means that he would never have agreed if Conrad Murray hand’t assured him that in his hands Michael was absolutely safe.

    Who knows what he told him? He could have told him that he was sitting beside him the whole night holding his hand. And propofol is indeed absolutely safe except one factor – a stop in breathing in case the dosage is too big. But then again, this is a very common occurrence and all Murray had to do was lifting MJ’s chin if it was due to his tongue closing the air passage, or using an ambu bag in case it happened due to propofol proper. If he assured Michael that he was constantly monitoring him MJ could have easily believed him.

    “His personal history with the drug would have told him that he was taking a chance, but to continue to dice with death night after night? Sadly I’m not sure Michael really knew just what he was being given, it is a grey area in the whole nightmare.

    His personal history with propofol was only two nights when it was given for “sleep” (and it went perfectly well) and all the other times it was for medical procedures. Let us remember that propofol was and still is the most common anesthetic given during medical manipulations.

    “I agree with Heathers comments, especially when she asks why didn’t anyone question why Michael was deteriorating in front of their eyes under the care of a Doctor. It seemed to me like everybody could see it but nobody had the courage to make a stand and it is a sad fact that not one person prevented the inevitable.”

    Well, several people did. Initially it was only Karen Faye, but after June 19th the SOS signals came in a torrent. John Hougadhl (Bugzy) sent several emails to Randy Phillips saying that he was “no drama queen” but MJ’s had been deteriorating for 8 weeks and it was “time to circle the wagons” , then Alif Sankey said to Kenny Ortega that Michael was dying and Ortega himself wrote a panicky email that night.

    So there were enough signals and on June 20th it was still possible to save Michael’s life – however you remember what a “mind-your-own-business” performance Murray and Randy Phillips played that day. Before the meeting Phillips emailed to his boss that “this guy is beginning to concern me” (meaning Ortega and not Michael Jackson!) and after the meeting he sent another email saying that “Ortega’s hysteria will be checked”.

    “If someone you love is not acting as they should, looks skeletal, is emotional, not sleeping or eating, shivering and rambling, I would do everything in my power to make it right, because that’s what you do for someone you care about, no matter what their status in life is. Sadly it looks like no-one in Michael’s inner circle really did care and that’s something I find hard to accept.”

    Michael’s inner circle was very small. Randy Phillips said that he was restricting Michael’s ties with the surrounding world (so that he should think only of rehearsals), so the only people really accessible to him were Karen Faye and Frank Dileo. Karen was worried and constantly talked to Dileo, and you remember what Dileo’s reaction was – “Give him a bucket of chicken”.

    Like

  39. October 17, 2013 4:32 pm

    “Why should a doctor first give a sick leave to a patient and just a week later reprimand someone else (KO) for sending this patient home from work, especially when this patient had the worst days of all on this day?
    Why was the doctor not available on this day for his patient?
    Why was the patient deteriorating during this time although he had a personal doctor?” – Susanne

    Great questions, Susanne. Actually I never realized that there was only one week between Murray’s sick leave for Michael and his U-turn on June 20 when he told Ortega to mind his own business. You are right – only one week, and so big a change in his behavior.

    And what is interesting is that it coincided with the time when AEG recalled of Murray’s existence, “brought him into the fold” and Kathy Jorrie started drafting his contract.

    I’ve added your questions to the post and think that the list of questions can on on and on – we have more questions than answers here.

    Like

  40. October 17, 2013 4:26 pm

    WP is suddenly rejecting my correct e-mail & passw.They have accepted it for some time,my son helped me with a new computer.Now they are asking for new passw. and do not give any indication if they have accepted it or by now them. so I am in total dark. They pu up all kind of pics. I don´t like to get too much unnecessary mail.Hugs ranja.Maybe I will e-mail my post although by now I feel tired .

    Like

  41. October 17, 2013 4:19 pm

    “I am furious at these comment being rejected.Do you know if there are some general problems wit WP or is it justbme. My current e-mail and passw are perfectly in order.I get tired trying over and over.” – kaarin
    “The only problem we still have is that the comments on the sidebar only show up without avatars.”- Susanne

    Kaarin, I am sorry that you are having all these problems. I have no explanation why this is happening and am afraid that you might be not the only one who is experiencing it. Previously we even heard that there were notices popping up that this site is “infected” though it is an ordinary wordpress site, and it if is unsafe then all other wordpress blogs are unsafe too.

    As regards the comments disappearing from the sidebar it is also a rather strange occurrence as it affected only several sites. There are plenty of wordpress sites functioning as before and only this one and a couple of others had their comments gone. WordPress wrote on the forum that they know of the problem and are looking into it, but since then the subject was closed without being resolved. http://en.forums.wordpress.com/topic/missing-comments-in-recent-comments-widget?replies=1

    We are still waiting though on this blog this function has been partially restored.

    Like

  42. October 17, 2013 2:58 pm

    So no, I have no problem. The only problem we still have is that the comments on the sidebar only show up without avatars.

    Like

  43. October 17, 2013 2:53 pm

    kaarin333: I’m trying to comment now to see if there is a problem for me, too.

    Regarding Ortega: Listen to his answers before he knew there would be a trial:

    Q: “Any indication that he wasn’t well?”
    A: “No” (quick like a shot)

    “Michael never presented as troubled.”

    Like

  44. October 17, 2013 2:39 pm

    I am furious at these comment being rejected.Do you know if there are some general problems wit WP or is it justbme. My current e-mai and passw are perfectly in order.I get tired trying over and over. Hugs ranja

    Like

  45. October 17, 2013 2:36 pm

    WP has rejected 2 consecutive poasts by me though I have signed in properly 2-3 times- Why are they boycotting me? Not so pro AEG?I did make some cutting rmarks but nothing indecent or such.They just claim my present email is not corrct although they have accepted it many x befrwe

    Like

  46. October 17, 2013 2:06 pm

    M;y comment mysteriously disappeared. Very annoying.Or am I getting paranoid

    Like

  47. October 17, 2013 1:01 pm

    “The jury instructions given by the JUDGE (if I understand it correctly) were something of a trap….Then followed question nr.2. Was the judge allergic to the word ethical?” – Kaarin

    Kaarin, the jurors made it absolutely clear that they thought Murray unethical. But this means that they were considering the whole period of Murray’s services for MJ during which Murray showed himself an unethical doctor (as at the moment of hiring his poor ethics were supposedly not known).

    So all their talk that “they looked at Murray only at the time of hiring” is a pretext only.

    No, they did not look at the time of hiring only. They also looked into the time when AEG was supervising Murray for two months as they were supposed to in accordance with the instructions. But something prevented them from making an assessment of AEG negligent actions during those two months. They simply stopped at the “time of hiring” and didn’t go further, and thought that it was a plausible explanation.

    As I’ve said, the only question is WHY they did it?

    Like

  48. October 17, 2013 12:48 pm

    “In this case of questioning, the only matter was : did AEG know they were hiring an unfit doctor at the moment he got involved…”- gboete

    Gboete, not quite. There was no mention of the time frame in the jury instructions, that is why we don’t know why some of them are talking only of the “time Murray was hired”.

    The question was: Was Dr. Murray fit and competent for the job he was hired?

    And another jury instruction required the jurors to answer whether AEG was negligent during the time of supervising Murray (if they found that Murray was hired by AEG). And they did find that he was.

    And even if they thought that Murray was fit and competent “at the moment of hiring”, there were two more months to look into in terms of supervision. But the jury never did. So the only question that remains is WHY.

    Like

  49. October 17, 2013 11:42 am

    Susann

    “And like Helena said it’s not important how the doctor acted at the time of hiring, but how he acted during the time of his employment until he signed the contract”

    Of course that is the most important thing, but THE QUESTION NR. 2 let no room for that !!

    In this case of questioning, the only matter was : did AEG know they were hiring an unfit doctor at the moment he got involved… NO, probably not according to the findings of the jurors. If you have no criminal records and you have studied and credentials for general practitioner, you are automatically a “fit” doctor for gen. pract.
    Even IF AEG did know he was unfit, it was not shown enough in court to make the jury decide that. So the jurors gave a logical answer, that immediately set AEG free.
    Although :
    The fact that CM could not provide proper CPR, did not call 911, and keeping no proper medical records was already enough imo to say he was not fit even as general practitioner, but again, that is something that we all saw after AEG agreed to hire CM, and after June 25. It is always easy when you see the outcome to get the picture, but before that happened … not so easy.
    And having debt, or asking a lot of money is not a crime. Most people have debts and try to earn as much money as possible, even Michael had and did.

    To me it is almost like a set up, really. The questioning was wrong, but despite that, if I would have been in the jury, I am convinced I would have persuaded some other jurors (if not all) to change the answers. One can break down all the arguments one by one.

    I still did not have the time to read everything Helena, and have to watch some more vids. I hope I can do that during the weekend. But thanks a lot for everything you post here !!!

    Like

  50. October 17, 2013 11:33 am

    “The big question throughout this trial was, “Did AEG hire CM?” I think that was proven.” – Linda

    Yes, even these jurors gave a unanimous 12 to 0 answer that AEG hired Murray. Actually this is all we needed to know.

    Then we come up with this competent ethical crap. A play on words?”

    Crap is the best word for it. Either someone terribly confused the jurors and they didn’t know what they were doing, or they are just pretending that were confused. It is also a convenient position by the way – to say that “we didn’t understand” and that’s it. But if they were confused why didn’t they ask to clarify?

    This jury didn’t take the job seriously enough – they watched This is it (most probably for entertainment), they had lunch, they took a day off, and since Thursday to Wednesday they deliberated for 13 hours only!

    I’m very disappointed with the whole american justice system right now.

    Linda, I think that the jury system is the best and all of it depends on is the “quality” of human beings who take part in it. In theory 12 reasonable people can very well stand up to all the loopholes prepared for them by the attorneys from both sides and even by a dishonest judge. But all of it depends on how seriously the jurors do their work. If all they think is lunch or going home, the system will never work.

    I’ve found a fantastic blog on jury deliberations which is run by lawyers (“A Publication of the American Society of Trial Consultants”). It seems that the more indifferent and superficial the jurors grow the more exasperated the lawyers are, because now justice can depend even on a simple thing like good or bad lunch provided to the jury (a bad one will urge them to get over with it as soon as possible and seek lunch elsewhere).

    And as regards Internet no lawyers now believe that the jurors do not read it while deliberating. They even joke that if all Facebook writers are excluded there will be no one to choose from:

    Jurors and the Internet

    February 11, 2007
    THE WASTELAND

    On any given day, a blogger out there is likely to be telling us what jury duty is like, and their stories are remarkably similar. It’s boring. It’s a”quiet and dull day”, says a typical post, enlivened only by an ambulance arriving to help someone who had passed out. There is plenty of time to be thoughtful:

    Surrounding are people of all walks of life: old, young, employed, unemployed, etc. Newspapers ruffle from a variety of directions. A cough here and there, a sniffle turn into a small chorus echoing the original sound.

    Plenty of time to wish for escape: “It appears that the first list [of names read by the clerk] let people leave. Damn, damn.” Mounting resentment:

    The rest of the afternoon was spent sitting there listening to interview after interview. It was horrible. I fell asleep so many times it’s not even funny; and it was so uncomfortable I couldn’t even concentrate on the book I had brought.

    It’s about lunch

    What lawyers don’t understand is how much jury service is about lunch. The descriptions of lunch in these entries are far more detailed than the descriptions of the lawyers, whether lunch was bad (“the blandest tasting grilled cheese sandwich ever”) or good (“I opted for [Salumi’s] porchetta (roast pork stuffed with sausage meat and spices), which was sensational– especially with the crusty bread slathered in garlicky olive oil.”) And when another juror’s blog already centers on her weight-loss journey, it’s not surprising that her description of jury duty mentions no lawyers at all, but only what she ate.

    Other savvy jurors plan ahead, and post questions about local restaurants, the answers to which (at least a dozen) make you want to head straight for the lunch spots surrounding the Los Angeles Criminal Courts Building.

    If you want to be dull, don’t explain

    One thing we know from mock trials is that jurors take their role seriously and want to perform it well. So why all this boredom and resentment?

    I have to think in part it is connected to another pattern you see in news stories about jury service: people don’t understand why we’re asking the questions we do. A news story today about the Avery jury selection started by explaining why the lawyers might possibly want to ask jurors whether they do puzzles. The Asbury Park Press in New Jersey argued in an op-ed piece yesterday that asking civil jurors to answer 24 “biographical questions” such as “prospective jurors’ favorite television shows and whether they have any bumper stickers on their vehicles — and, if so, what they say” is “inappropriate” and “a waste of everyone’s time.”

    There’s room at the top

    If jury service is, as we’re being told here, an hours-long stretch of unexplained and inexplicable boredom, surely there’s an opportunity here. If the day suddenly changed when you stood up – if you were the lawyer who made the experience make sense, and made jurors see their own role as important, you would have done something powerful – for them, as well as for your case.

    There are jurors in the box waiting for you to be interesting. If you doubt it, read these two recent posts. Peter, the guy who had porchetta at Salumi, tells us “This was the only part of the trial where jurors got to actively engage with the attorneys. What a blast!” (I bet the lawyer he was engaging with was good.) And there is David, a 21-year-old man who journals his life with cerebral palsy:

    Because of my low stamina, need for help going to the bathroom, pain with prolonged sitting, inability to handwrite, and need for help with eating, I had valid reasons to get out of serving. What’s more, it’s always such a hassle to have to prove myself and advocate for myself in a new setting. It was very tempting [to] excuse myself. However, I decided to give it a try because I had heard that jury duty was a good learning experience, and I thought it would be a way for me to contribute.

    If David can show up for jury duty, I can darn well try to make it matter.
    All this leads to a voir dire question you may not have considered: “Do you blog? Tell me about your blog.”

    http://jurylaw.typepad.com/deliberations/2007/02/the_wasteland.html

    Here is one more article from the same website:

    IF WE STRIKE ALL THE FACEBOOK JURORS, WHO’S LEFT?

    It’s one thing to understand that jurors might be on Facebook. The next step is to decide what to do when you find out they are.

    “Sitting in hell”

    If you’re on Facebook yourself, you know that Facebook starts your “status update” for you. Mine starts “Anne Reed is . . . ” and then I’m supposed to finish the sentence. Anne Reed is happy; Anne Reed is home because school is closed; and so on. (In a fairly recent improvement, you can backspace over the “is” and use another verb if you like. Anne Reed should exercise more, something like that.)

    Last week in Cincinnati, says the Cincinnati Enquirer, potential juror Barry Price accessed Facebook from the courthouse. “Barry Price is . . . ,” the update began. “[S]itting in hell . . . aka jury duty,” Price typed, and hit “Update.”

    Well-known Cincinnati plaintiff’s lawyer Stan Chesley (at least one newsstory calls him “torts king”) had a computer in the courthouse too, and he found the update. The next thing Barry Price knew, he was finished with jury duty in Chesley’s personal injury trial; the trial judge granted Chesley’s motion to excuse him. The Enquirer story suggests, but doesn’t clearly say, that it was Price’s negative view of jury service, or at least his willingness to share it on the Internet, that sent him home.

    “Jury duty freaking sucks!”

    If that’s the rule, we’re in big trouble. If we strike everybody with an I-hate-jury-duty status update somewhere on the Internet, we’re going to run out of jurors really fast.

    As I write this, Twitter – a social networking site that’s much like Facebook except it’s nothing but status updates and it’s much less private – contains 108 updates including the phrase “jury duty” in the last eight hours alone. (That’s as far back as my Tweetdeck search goes.) They are, as anyone would guess, overwhelmingly negative. Some of the tamer samples:

    • Yay no jury duty!
    • ugh…I might have to miss class tomorrow, for jury duty😦
    • well I managed to get off jury duty. all I had to do was wear a man-baby outfit.
    • Jury duty freaking sucks! I am so bored…
    • I have jury duty tommorow [sic]- time to turn on the Texan, “I love god, guns, and the e-lectric chair. And I hate liberals. Amen.”
    • DAMMIT! I got a jury duty summons. Any suggestions to come off like a raving lunatic are appreciated.
    (I’m not linking these because these folks weren’t counting on being blogged, but if you use a Twitter search engine, they’re there.) Another large fraction of these juror updates isn’t exactly negative, but hardly shows the respect for the process the founding fathers envisioned:
    • Jury duty tomorrow = lunch in Chinatown. And it’s for federal court so it’s 3 days or one trial. Meaning 3 days of Chinatown lunch. Nice.
    • Jury Duty just got better — free WiFi
    • well, i misplaced the mags! i know i used the jury duty badge as a bookmrk in 1 of them, if i could find those mags. ill look tonite
    Yes, there was one who said, “Jury duty is quite an interesting and amazing process. For those who think you’d hate it you might be surprised at how much you learn.” But you’d have to go through an awful lot of Tweets to find her – unless more jurors made it easy, like this juror who collected her jury-duty status updates in a single blog posttoday.

    What’s your strategy?

    Don’t get me wrong. I suspect Mr. Price’s dismissal was an overreaction, but I doubt Stan Chesley – that’s the plaintiff’s lawyer – overreacted. Mr. Price is described in the Enquirer story as “a systems analyst for Procter & Gamble.” Both the technical job and the Fortune 50 employer would be red flags for most plaintiff’s lawyers in voir dire.

    http://jurylaw.typepad.com/deliberations/2009/02/if-we-strike-all-the-facebook-jurors-whos-left.html

    Like

  51. October 17, 2013 2:35 am

    A doctor,ethical one ,real I mean would never have started the treatments murray did.Never.

    Like

  52. Linda permalink
    October 17, 2013 12:02 am

    The big question throughout this trial was, “Did AEG hire CM?” I think that was proven. Then we come up with this competent ethical crap. A play on words? And that threw the jury for a loop? My gosh, the whole CM trial already showed how incompetent and unethical he was. He didn’t become that way overnight.

    Didn’t AEG receive bills for all this equipment and for propofol..? I was under the impression there was proof they knew all along what was going on. This trial was a farce, like everything else concerning MJ. The only semi-justice he ever got was CM going to jail (not even prison) for not even 4 years, and so far, AEG goes free, when they were behind it all. I’m very disappointed with the whole american justice system right now.

    Like

  53. October 16, 2013 6:14 pm

    The jury instructions given by the JUDGE (if I undrstand it correctly) were something of a trap.
    It could not after 5 months and plenty evidence be denied that Murray was hired by AEG. Then followed question nr.2.Was the judge allergic to the word ethical? And it was known that Murray had lost his priviledges at 2 hospitals,lost his cardiology certification and medical licenses in beg. og 2008?Ethics lies at the core of a doctor patient relationship.A medical student would have done better,at least known to ask for help as soon as something is beyond his/her competence.Question nr.2 lacked the essential part and the others were there to confuse the jurors. I have a bit of a feeling that the foreman,being a phys.ed. teacher was used to take control.Not usually a poor quality ,but maybe in this situation he had too much of it.And the speed for a 5 month trial.

    Like

  54. October 16, 2013 3:36 pm

    Guys, I’ve managed to restore the comments on the sidebar thanks to the advice received from another wordpress user, but now the avatars are not showing. This is the most I can do, but at least people can once again exchange their thoughts and see from whom and for which topic new comments are arriving.

    Unfortunately wordpress does not notify you if your particular comment has been answered – you’ll have to look through all of them to see the one intended for you. On the other hand this is a general discussion, and all comments are intended for everyone. Please forgive me if I don’t answer every comment – sometimes it is simply impossible, especially now.

    Today almost all my time has been taken by these technical issues, sorry for that. Hope to be with you tomorrow.

    In the meantime here is an interview of Thomas Mesereau of October 3, 2013 about the outcome of this trial, in case you haven’t seen it. Not only we were baffled by this verdict by Thomas Mesereau too as well as the journalists:

    Truth4Mjcom who posted the video is writing about it:

    After 5 months of testimony and thousands of documents, the jury deliberated a mere 13 hours finding AEG not liable in Michael Jackson’s death because Conrad Murray was fit and competent for the job he was hired for.
    Tom Mesereau gives his perspective about this verdict that surprised him since he thinks the evidence was overwhelming that Murray was incompetent and AEG was involved in one of the biggest confict of interest ever seen.

    Like

  55. October 16, 2013 1:41 pm

    “Helena, for the life of me, I do not understand why Kenny Ortega is thought of as a ‘good guy’ in this sad scenario. I have no doubt that he collapsed and shed real tears on hearing that MJ had died, because in my opinion, he knew that he bore great responsibility for the death. But he totally threw MJ under the bus with his testimony during the AEG trial.” – Simba

    Simba, you are right. Kenny Ortega knows that he is also responsible for Michael’s death, same as AEG, and his role still needs to be seriously looked into. My impression is that Mr. Panish decided not to focus on Ortega not to distract the jury from AEG, but the end result proved that this compromise was not worth it. Not only Ortega became one of the heroes of this trial (though he absolutely shouldn’t), but AEG also slipped away.

    If I have a chance I will try to read all the testimonies again and restore as much truth as possible even irrespective of the appeal – whether it takes place or it doesn’t.

    But currently my biggest problem is that wordpress is malfunctioning again (at least for this blog). All comments on the sidebar have disappeared. This sidebar was our only chance to create a sort of a forum. Otherwise even if a new comment arrives no one knows about it because it goes straight into one of the posts.

    I will try to contact wordpress about it.

    By the way, Simba, can you see the comments on the sidebar? I’ve just had an idea that it may be malfunctioning for me only.

    Like

  56. October 16, 2013 1:04 pm

    gboete:
    “I don’t know if Dr. Murray was a criminal before AEG hired him, but AEG made him act like one.”

    That’s very well said, I agree with you, though I also think that Murray already brought the conditions for a criminal conduct with him: His character, his debts, his behavior (recording Michael with his i-phone) etc. That made him very useful for AEG, and they knew it, if you see it the other way round: If Murray had been a decent, respectable doctor he would have rejected the demands of AEG to work with them on the rehearsal schedule, to get MJ to rehearsals, to talk to RP on the phone for half an hour, to pressure Michael, let alone the millions he first wanted. He would have put his patient first. And that’s why AEG knew exactly that Murray was not the ethical doctor he should be and why they regarded him useful to them. They put him in the position to become criminal, that’s true, but he also was the suitable person for that.

    And like Helena said it’s not important how the doctor acted at the time of hiring, but how he acted during the time of his employment until he signed the contract. In this period of time enough things happened that must have shown AEG that something was wrong – before Murray signed the contract. Up to this point they had every possibility to stop his employment.
    Why should a doctor first give a sick leave to a patient and just a week later reprimand someone else (KO) for sending this patient home from work, especially when this patient had the worst days of all on this day?
    Why was the doctor not available on this day for his patient?
    Why was the patient deteriorating during this time although he had a personal doctor?

    Like

  57. simba permalink
    October 16, 2013 12:48 pm

    Helena, for the life of me, I do not understand why Kenny Ortega is thought of as a ‘good guy’ in this sad scenario. I have no doubt that he collapsed and shed real tears on hearing that MJ had died, because in my opinion, he knew that he bore great responsibility for the death. Then he went on Oprah and ET and lied about the circumstances surrounding This Is It, in order to sell the film.

    But he totally threw MJ under the bus with his testimony during the AEG trial. No wonder the jury applauded him – he reinforced their negative ideas about MJ. Juror 27’s fulsome praise of Ortega is also suspect – yet another instance of our mystery man trying to persuade us that red is blue, and down is up.

    Like

  58. October 16, 2013 12:14 pm

    Guys, I’m very worried that all comments have disappeared from the home page and there is a notice: “There are no public comments available to display”.

    Will try to ask wordpress what’s going on.

    Like

  59. Helen-Marie permalink
    October 16, 2013 11:18 am

    Hi Helena, first of all I wanted to say a heartfelt thank you for continuing to sort through the mass of information that we continue to be fed on a daily basis. I don’t know how you do it, especially with the on going problems with your arms/hands, you are a blessing to many of Michael’s loyal fans and I hope that you will continue to improve and heal.

    So many of your conclusions mirror my own and I agree with you on many of the points that you have written. It is a sad fact that we have to question peoples motives like ‘juror 27’s’ but like you point out why would a non fan go to so much trouble.

    The way question 2 was worded was clearly wrong and could have been interpreted very differently had they just asked for more clarification. I myself did jury service many years ago and remember that when it came to deliberations if we needed clarification we just needed to ask. The consensus in the room was always ‘we need to get this absolutely right’.

    I really hoped that I would find some closure after this trial but like other fans I still have a lot of unanswered questions and continue to feel in limbo. I just hope that Katherine herself feels closer to the truth.

    The trouble is that we may never know what happened between Michael and Dr Murray behind closed doors, I personally don’t feel we know anything near the truth and have a hard time accepting that Michael would have accepted propofol night after night without any real monitoring equipment to hand, it just doesn’t seem to be the kind of chance that an educated person would take and we all know how much Michael liked to read medical journals.

    His personal history with the drug would have told him that he was taking a chance, but to continue to dice with death night after night? Sadly I’m not sure Michael really knew just what he was being given, it is a grey area in the whole nightmare.

    I agree with Heathers comments, especially when she asks why didn’t anyone question why Michael was deteriorating in front of their eyes under the care of a Doctor. It seemed to me like everybody could see it but nobody had the courage to make a stand and it is a sad fact that not one person prevented the inevitable.

    In my book if someone you love is not acting as they should, looks skeletal, is emotional, not sleeping or eating, shivering and rambling, I would do everything in my power to make it right, because that’s what you do for someone you care about, no matter what their status in life is. Sadly it looks like no-one in Michael’s inner circle really did care and that’s something I find hard to accept.

    Like

  60. October 16, 2013 10:23 am

    I can´t swear on it but always took it for granted that a private physician has to keep medical records.A patient can have an acute unforeseen illness or an accident. Then it is vitally important to know of pre existing illnesses and medications. Maybe AEG could not ask for them, but the insurer did and most likely AMA would have been interested.

    Like

  61. October 16, 2013 9:51 am

    “But the current version presented by Juror #27 is that AEG hired Dr. Murray absolutely not knowing what a criminal he was and judging by what he says, then all of them must have flown away to Mars and returned back only when the criminal doctor had done his dirty job, which took the employer completely unawares. They thought they had hired for him one of the top ten doctors (as Kenny Ortega said to Karen Faye) and see what he did when they were away!”

    I don’t know if Dr. Murray was a criminal before AEG hired him, but AEG made him act like one. That is the main point that seems to get lost here…. How can anybody ever make AEG responsible if CM is always portrayed as thé criminal ? He was or became a criminal due to AEG. Of course CM is guilty as hell, but so is AEG.

    In a “murder case” in my country, if you have a person/group that put a second person under pressure (threatening) to force him to kill a third person, both are held responsible.
    Here, in the MJ case, they both are responsible and it is written all over the course of the entire trial. Only, it was totally ignored by the judge, jury, plaintiffs lawyers. The questioning was wrong and one wonders if it was plain stupidity or on purpose…..
    It makes me sick and wonder what this is all about, what this whole trial was all about, what was it’s purpose, goal…..

    They could have reduced it to one question, the second one, and for that there should not have been a trial, because all that was needed were the credentials that CR was a fit, regular general doctor. What a comedy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! COMEDY !!!!!!!! (if it was not so sad)

    Like

  62. October 16, 2013 9:46 am

    Reviewing this material again it is my opinion that the trial should have ended after question nr.1. AEG hired Murray. Question 2 was sent by AEG as a lifeline to themselves as was the extensive scrutiny of Michaels medical history, from long past, that had nothing to do with the question of who hired Murray. I believe the 5 month trial, the dementia of AEG officials,and the unnecessarily prolonged and complicated trial was to confuse the jury and tire them.Sina & Helena already mentioned this.An ethical medical student is preferable to a doctor like Murray..You learn very early to call for help when a situation is difficult and beyond your capacities.There was no justice for Michael. At what point did the judge intoduce question nr. 2 ? I have not been able to follow VMJ consistently of late,please excuse my ignorance re certain matters..-The doctor who alledgedly was on the jyry was maybe involved with research rather than direct patient care. There are many differences between these.It wouldbe intesting to know her specialty.

    Like

  63. October 16, 2013 9:18 am

    “The essence of it is about what AEG could or could not know about Murray at the time when they were hiring him. If they didn’t know that he was unfit and incompetent, they couldn’t know about him being unethical either. But if the jurors think that Murray was fit and competent but nevertheless regard him unethical, then things don’t add up, because it is either this or that.”

    Helena, Of course everybody finds Dr. Murray unethical, easy now, after we know the facts. But at the time DM was introduced, who would have found him unethical, or unfit ? NOBODY. We have to admit that.
    What I find disturbing in all this, is, that the questioning (Q nr 2) is such that it released AEG immediately of any responsibility. The crucial 3rd. question should and could have been : did AEG have any influence in the fact that it made “a fit for the job” DM act “unethical”.

    And there should have been the answer “YES”. AEG had power over DM ($150.000) month), and this is proven in emails.

    So, it is like all things stop at the point of DM coming in. At that specific moment, AEG, is hiring a competent doctor. All what comes later is completely ignored here. You could go so far that even if AEG after hiring the doctor would “force” DM to mistreat MJ, it would not matter, and indeed, it did not matter. What if their purpose would have been (or maybe was) to make MJ’s health so bad that they (gladly) had to pull the plug and have access to the catalog ? It would not have mattered, and it did not matter, because that is what happened and they got away with it.

    I don’t understand how Panish & co could agree with the most stupid (and in favor of AEG) way of questioning. Have no words for it.

    Like

  64. October 16, 2013 5:08 am

    “I think it is I who am guilty of throwing in those words :”at the time of hiring”.Sorry, it was the impression I got having scanned the material after some absence.” – Kaarin

    No, Kaarin, it wasn’t just your impression. This is what the so-called juror #27 is constantly talking about and what even Brian Panish mentioned in the interview as being introduced by the judge. Only we can’t find where this point is reflected in the jury instructions, because it is simply not there.

    It also contradicts the instruction to jurors to decide whether AEG is responsible for the harm to Plaintiffs by hiring and supervising or retaining Murray.

    That “supervision” part alone implies that the jurors were to look into the rather prolonged period when this supervision took place, however they got stuck on the time of hiring only for a reason no one can really explain to us.

    Here are the jury instructions containing those questions:

    Like

  65. October 16, 2013 4:42 am

    Since I mentioned Karen Faye’s message repeating Ortega’s words on June 18th let me remind you of her testimony where she spoke of that message and some other things.

    The judge could have possibly qualified all her statements as “hearsay evidence”, but according to Wiki “hearsay” is: “Sally told me Tom was in town,” as opposed to “I saw Tom in town,” which is direct evidence.

    Over here we see Karen’s statements of what she directly heard from Ortega or from Randy Phillips. No one told her that, she heard it herself:

    Mr. Putnam: Did you ever personally observe Randy Phillips telling anyone that Michael Jackson had to get onstage and rehearse?
    A. He told me he wanted to build a wall around Michael, so that’s what Michael — so Michael was left with only time –” I want to put a wall –” he said, ” I want to put a wall around Michael so he doesn’t have to do anything but get to rehearsals.” He was concerned about that, and he was concerned with him not being at rehearsals.
    Mr. Putnam: I move to strike as nonresponsive, your honor.
    Mr. Panish: I don’t think so.
    Judge: Okay. Motion granted, the answer is stricken.

    Mr. Panish: Сounsel asked you about March 23rd, [2009] exhibit 1301, dash, 2, — he showed you this calendar here. Do you remember that?
    A. I remember him showing me that.
    Q. But that wasn’t what you looked at, right?
    A. No, sir, it wasn’t.
    Q. Were you aware that Mr. Gongaware was trying to prepare the calendar for Michael Jackson, within two days of your email, stating that he wanted to make the calendar look like Michael wasn’t working as much as he was? — did you think Michael could do the schedule as it was set forth?
    A. The schedule that I saw online?
    Q. Yes.
    A. No.
    Q. Did you raise concerns with anyone about that?
    A. Yes, I did.
    Q. Okay. And who did you raise concerns with it about?
    A. Kenny Ortega.

    Q. And do you know whether or not AEG, subsequent to that, tried to change the schedule?
    A. I didn’t know, sir.
    Q. Do you know whether Mr. Gongaware tried to make it look like it wasn’t as much work as it was?
    A. No, I didn’t know that.
    Q. Okay. And then you went back and, as you told him today, you found your old phone and you found text message regarding certain events, correct?
    A. Correct.

    Q. Okay. And you told us earlier about the circumstances in which the text messages were prepared. Don’t tell me what’s in them. And were those text messages contemporaneous of the events that you heard from Mr. Ortega? But don’t tell me what he said.
    A. Correct.
    Ms. Stebbins: Objection; vague as to “contemporaneous.” Your honor, I think we’re going to need that sidebar.
    Mr. Panish: I’m not getting into what was said yet. I’m just laying my foundation.
    Judge: Overruled.
    Mr. Panish: Can I do that? Is that okay?
    Q. And when Mr. Ortega — you told me that day, the 18th, was upset, what was your reaction — strike that. Don’t tell me what Mr. Ortega said; but did he make some statements in your presence that day, without telling me what he said?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. And how did you feel when you heard the statements that he made? Don’t tell us what he said.
    A. No. I’m just trying to go back to that time when I heard it to try to be accurate of my feelings. I was pretty — I was pretty upset about it because it wasn’t —
    Q. Okay. Was it upsetting to you?
    A. Yes, sir, it was upsetting to me.

    Q. And you got home at what time that night?
    A. 2:30, sir.

    Q. And the minute you woke up, did you write a text reflecting exactly what Mr. Ortega had said?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. At that time, did you have any idea whether or not Mr. Jackson would be dead six days later?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. Were you still upset when you wrote the text?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. At the time that you sent the text, did you have any idea that there was going to be this lawsuit?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. How was Michael’s demeanor and psychological psyche on June 19th?
    Ms. Stebbins: Objection as to psychological psyche, your honor. This is a lay witness.
    Judge: Sustained.
    Q. How would you describe Michael’s emotional state on June 19?
    A. June 19 or June 18?
    Q. Let’s go to June — let’s take June 18.
    A. Because the 18th was the day he came back to the — at 9:30.
    Q. 9:30 at night?
    A. At night.
    Q. And how was he doing there?
    A. He was pretty much — I reported — I think I said that before, that he was almost kind of catatonic. He was like so stoic, I think is the word that I used. Usually he’s kind of happy and stuff, but he appeared to be scared to death.
    Q. And that’s at 9:30 at night?
    A. When he came in.

    Mr. Putnam: Okay. And then you go on to say “if he doesn’t do the show, he has nowhere else to go”?
    A Correct.
    Q What did you mean by that?
    A. That was regarding a — things that Kenny Ortega told me on the 18th.
    Q. And I don’t want to know those. All right? So that’s — so you’re referring to something else, this is — you’re expressing it to Mr. Dileo, correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. All right. You sent this off to him on the 20th, correct?
    A. Correct.

    Mr. Panish: Do you know what happened on June 18?
    Ms. Stebbins: Objection to the extent this calls for hearsay, your honor. I’m concerned the witness is going to volunteer hearsay based on the lengthy debate we had on this issue last time.
    Mr. Panish: Just say yes or no.
    Judge: Overruled. Do you remember what happened on June 18?
    The witness: Yes. Do I remember?
    Mr. Panish: Yes, specifically everything that happened on that day involving Kenny Ortega and Michael Jackson and Randy Phillips.
    The witness: Do I remember? Yes.

    Mr. Panish: Okay. Who is Barry?
    A. Barry is my boyfriend, sir.
    Q. Okay. Did something happen, don’t tell me what it is, on June 18 that caused you serious concern?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Okay. And what time at night did you get home when you were concerned about this event? Don’t tell me what it is.
    A. You’re asking me what time, but don’t tell you?
    Q. No, no. What time did you get home? Sorry. Do you remember what time you got home?
    A. Yes.
    Q. What time?
    A. 2:30 in the morning.
    Q. Okay. Were you very upset?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Okay. The next morning when you awoke, did you immediately do something? Don’t tell me what it was, just whether or not you did something.
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Did you send a text — don’t tell me what was in it — to anyone at that time immediately upon awakening?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And do you know did Michael come to rehearsal on June 18th?
    A. Yes, sir; but late.
    Q. What time did he come?
    A. He came in at 9:30, sir.
    Q. How was Mr. — Mr. Ortega’s demeanor on that date?
    A. Earlier, he was very angry, sir.
    Q. What did you observe — don’t tell me what he said — in his demeanor?
    A. He was very angry that Michael hadn’t been to rehearsal yet.
    Q. Do you know whether — don’t tell me — just yes or no, whether a meeting occurred with Michael Jackson and anyone else that day?
    A. Yes, sir.

    Ms. Stebbins: Objection; lacks foundation. Her only foundation, your honor, for this is hearsay. We’ve had lengthy sidebars on this before.

    Q. In the last two weeks of Michael’s life, don’t tell me what he said, did you observe whether he was scared?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Did you observe whether he was paranoid?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Did you observe whether he — in your — looked to be pressured?
    A. Yes.

    Mr. Panish: Now, you told me you’re not a doctor.
    Q. Is there any question in your mind that Michael Jackson was deteriorating when you saw him at the end of — from June on?
    A. No. I was quite sure he was deteriorating, sir.
    Q. And you didn’t know what was wrong, correct?
    A. Correct, I had no idea what was wrong.
    Q. But you felt — did you feel something was wrong or it was okay?
    A. It was very, very wrong.

    http://ru.scribd.com/doc/151205314/Jackson-V-AEG-Live-Transcripts-June-28th-Karen-Faye-MJ-Make-up-Hair

    Like

  66. October 16, 2013 4:03 am

    “From before the trial began, we were told that it would be about who actually hired Murray, AEG or MJ. After answering the first question “Yes”, in my opinion the only thing left for the jury to determine was the amount of the damages.” – Simba

    I absolutely agree.

    “MJ’s medical history should never have been allowed into evidence.”

    This is one of our questions to the judge. Another question is why she didn’t allow into evidence Karen Faye’s message to her boy friend where she was retelling Kenny Ortega’s words said on June 18th. It was after those words that Michael nearly fell into a coma the next day, June 19th. It was crucial to know what Ortega said to Michael.

    The pretext for not allowing that evidence was obviously expiration of the discovery period, but Karen found her old telephone with that message during the trial only. I’m sure that for crucial evidence like this exceptions can be made, however the judge never allowed it.

    But when it came to Randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware she released them from any personal responsibility just a day or two before the jury started deliberating. This is also an exception to the rule, and if it ever happens it happens before the trial and not when it ends. And these people were released of personal responsibility though they were impeached 40 times each (i.e. found lying under oath).

    Sina said that AEG’s responsibility still remained but one thing does not rule out the other – AEG could be responsible for its employees and they could bear responsibility at least for their lies. However this trial said to us that none of them are responsible, even despite all the perjury…

    “That jury of laymen was not equipped to decide whether or not Conrad Murray was “competent”. Nor was there any need for them to answer that question. It simply was not relevant.”

    Of course the jury of laymen is not equipped to decide matters like these. And this question was perfectly well answered by professional doctors during Murray’s trial, so there was no need to invent a bicycle here.

    However the Senior Staff of MJJCommunity recently made a very big thing out of discovering that the question about competence was on the final version of Mr. Panish’s verdict form. Ivy and Shelly went with that information even to other forums to make it clear that it was Panish’s initiative.

    I am not sure that it was his initiative though. To me it looks more like he agreed (possibly with the judge?) to include it on the verdict form not seeing any harm in it as Murray’s trial already explicitly answered that question. He did not know that they would start a game with the time of hiring Murray.

    By the way, from Mr. Panish’s interview we know that it was the judge who introduced the matter of the time – only we can’t find it in the jury instructions, so it is unclear how the jurors learned about that guideline.

    In short Question No.2 on the verdict form is a detective story of its own.

    Like

  67. October 16, 2013 2:38 am

    “of course Randy Phillips self-extralimited in a role which was beyond his competence.” – Lourdes

    Of course.

    “But at the time there was not even cancellation insurance. A total dramatic situation, not easily to solve successfully.”

    Right, there was no cancellation insurance. But why didn’t they have it? Most probably because they were greedy enough to increase the number of shows to 50. In March, before they announced 50 shows Randy Phillips was bragging in every paper that they had an insurance for 10 shows in their pocket. For TEN shows, not for fifty. These are his words, not mine.

    If it hadn’t been for their all-consuming greed a totally different scenario was possible. MJ does 10 shows and after that AEG extends the tour and adds more shows, possibly at higher priced tickets. But AEG wanted everything and NOW.

    They set a wholly unrealistic schedule of show/day-off/show/day-off for MJ, and sold close to a million tickets, officially selling the best tickets via Viagogo (a so-called platform for exchanging tickets between fans) and grabbing a lot of money, because it was AEG itself that was selling tickets there at hugely inflated prices. The sum for which they sold tickets that way is not even clearly known yet.

    But why did they set the shows with only one day rest between them? This trial revealed that Gongaware was perfectly aware of Michael’s problems with sleep even during the History tour, so he knew that MJ needed several days between the shows, so how could they set this tight schedule for the 50-year old Michael?

    I’ve done my calculations and found that out of 50 shows at least 34 had only one day of rest between the shows, and some had 2 days, and the break of three months between the two legs didn’t matter. What matters is that Michael was supposed to run 2 maraphons.

    This is when and how MJ’s confrontation with AEG started. Michael, Karen Faye and Katherine Jackson – they all wanted the schedule to be changed, but there was no reaction from AEG (or from Kenny Ortega with whom Karen Faye shared her concerns).

    Katherine testified that she had called about the schedule some of AEG bosses, but to no avail. For Randy Phillips this was “just business”. But in the long run they showed themselves the worst possible businessmen because they didn’t give a damn how and whether their main star would ever be able to do the shows.

    Even machines are allowed rest and require time for their maintenance, but over here Michael was ruthlessly run like a machine without any care at all. Michael even said to Murray on the night he died: “They think I am a machine”.

    “I just try to express my hurt feelings with the WHOLE situation, starting from day 1, not an easy way out by mid June.”

    The situation was not easy, I agree, but it was the situation of AEG’s own making. They created it with their own hands and should be responsible for it.

    Like

  68. October 16, 2013 1:53 am

    “In what caused the death, Murray was the only one criminally on trial, his actions and his non-actions were not medically supervised by anybody.” – Lourdes

    Lourdes, the immediate cause of death was propofol, and not just propofol, but propofol administered in a highly negligent manner. That night Murray was taking care of the insurance requested of him by AEG and left MJ for an hour or so. If Murray hadn’t been running on AEG errands that night there is a chance that MJ would not have died.

    But even this is not the main point. The immediate cause of death and the real reason for death are slightly different things. A person may fall down the stairs and die, and this will be the immediate cause of his death, but if you look why he fell you’ll find that he was terribly overworked by his employer, had no chance for rest and was so weak that couldn’t even climb the stairs. Yes, he did fall by himself, but shouldn’t those who drove him to this condition bear responsibility too?

    After all if an employer bullies and harasses someone at work this person will be liable for the damage done to his victim, won’t he? So what’s the difference in MJ’s case?

    I’ll tell you what the difference is. Michael Jackson was not even AEG’s employee, and in the first place AEG did not have the right to even demand anything of him – no rehearsals, no nothing. By contract his only obligation was to give a first-class show, and not rehearsal, and the fact that AEG was not coping with producing the show on time was not that much related with MJ, but with AEG’s poor production skills – they were doing it only for the second time after Prince and Prince wasn’t happy with their “services” either.

    The insiders of This is it say that it was obvious that nothing was ready and AEG producers were panicking. MJ also saw that nothing was ready and this was another reason why he was nervous. He realized that at the first opportunity AEG would shift the blame to him, and this is what they did after his death, and this makes their guilt even graver.

    As regards rehearsals Michael used to say according to Kenny Ortega – “you build the house and I come and paint the front door”. But instead AEG forced him to build the house with his own hands 6 days a week for two months running. Even here they overstepped every limit.

    Like

  69. Kris permalink
    October 15, 2013 9:24 pm

    Stacy Brown must be in need of more pocket-money. http://nypost.com/2013/10/14/michael-jackson-sabotaged-family-plans/

    Like

  70. Sina permalink
    October 15, 2013 6:27 pm

    This was a situation where three parties were involved. Murray got a slap on the wrist and will walk free in a few weeks .AEG walks away making a profit on Michaels back.
    And Michael ? bad luck.
    In what universe is that fair?

    Like

  71. Lourdes permalink
    October 15, 2013 5:38 pm

    “But Conrad Murray was not independent in what he was doing. He wanted to give a sick leave to his patient, but AEG didn’t allow him to. He wanted to let Michael train at home but AEG wanted him to make a schedule of rehearsals and force Michael to attend them, and again Murray obliged.
    This way AEG imposed their will on the doctor and supervised his actions.”- Helena.

    In what caused the death, Murray was the only one criminally on trial, his actions and his non-actions were not medically supervised by anybody, Of course he was not independent, he was dependant on the existence of the tour, and of course Randy Phillips self-extralimited in a role which was beyond his competence. But at the time there was not even cancellation insurance. A total dramatic situation, not easily to solve successfully. No rehearsal, and breach of contract… I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, sorry, I just try to express my hurt feelings with the WHOLE situation, starting from day 1, not an easy way out by mid June.

    Like

  72. simba permalink
    October 15, 2013 5:37 pm

    After answering the first question “Yes”, in my opinion the only thing left for the jury to determine was the amount of the damages. That jury of laymen was not equipped to decide whether or not Conrad Murray was “competent”. Nor was there any need for them to answer that question. It simply was not relevant.

    From before the trial began, we were told that it would be about who actually hired Murray, AEG or MJ. MJ’s medical history should never have been allowed into evidence.

    Like

  73. Sina permalink
    October 15, 2013 5:29 pm

    “And about the “supervising”, I would like to know Panish answer to Putnam’s closing arguments when the latter said that Murray as an independent contractor doctor was to be supervised, according to Californian law, only by the Medical Board, and not by a musical producer”- Lourdes

    “But Conrad Murray was not independent in what he was doing. He wanted to give a sick leave to his patient, but AEG didn’t allow him to. He wanted to let Michael train at home but AEG wanted him to make a schedule of rehearsals and force Michael to attend them, and again Murray obliged.” – Helena

    I was just going to answer exactly what you said Helena. In theory it is true that he was a contractor (paying his own taxes etc), but independent he was not. You should look at the actual behavior. E.g. if there was a superior-subordinate relationship. It is proven by emails and testimonies that Murray was given and taking direct orders from AEG (intervention, threats who was paying the bill after Murray had given his patient sick leave etc.)
    He was representing AEG in dealing with the Insurance company. Was he also hired for that and is it a forseeable service for a doctor to do for a production company?

    Like

  74. October 15, 2013 5:24 pm

    “There are many things wrong with how the case was presented to the jury and Imo the court and the judge did not do justice to Michael.” – Sina

    Oh, Sina, I have numerous questions to the judge too.

    “If the instructions didn’t say competent AT THE TIME OF HIRING, then I would like to know who added those last words that drastically changed the implications of the question.”

    Me too.

    “Then the meaning of competence that the judge left up to the jurors to define and was translated as: a doctor with a valid license.”

    We will need to have a look at the instructions once again and see whether they give a definition of ‘competence’ there (I think they didn’t), but any normal person with a little bit of common sense will say that a valid license is no equivalent to competence. It is only a chance to be employed in a certain position.

    “In HRM, competence is the actual performance, which is the sum of knowledge, skills/ experience, professional attitude = behavior. Not something you can google for ten minutes. The best competence test is the handling of emergency situations, in which Murray terribly failed. If what he said is true, that he only left Michael alone for two minutes and he was still alive when he found him. a competent doctor under such conditions would have saved his patient.”

    Exactly. As regards “googling someone for 10 minutes” just out of curiosity I spent much more time googling some of the doctors who testified at the trial, for example the best friend of Paul Gongaware, Dr. Finkelstein.

    This was the doctor who disrupted all the work on wheaning MJ of Demerol Michael, Dr. Metzger and Debbie Rowe were doing prior to the Dangerous tour. And this is what I saw in people’s comments on his competence and ethics:

    | Dissapointment |
    by Monica on Mar 27th, 2013
    Mr Finkelstein is not focused on patient care and rehabilitation. For someone so established I would think he would at the very least address your concerns. He was very quck to tell my family not to resuscitate my father who was admitted in the hospital without any explaination of his condition. My father was never at risk of losing his life but you can imagine our pain when he told me this over the phone after several attempts to contact him. His staff is a hit and miss. Some days they are friendly and other days they are rude and seem to share the same arrogant attitude with Dr. Finkelstein. Do not recommend.
    Currently 1 of 4 stars

    Feb 17th, 2013
    I have been a patient of Dr. Finkelstein for over ten years and my parents before me. He was once a good, caring Physician…….until he devoted his life to Addicts and other assorted low-lifes. My 72 y.o. mother changed PCP’s sice she could no longer get an appointment and his wait time went from 20 minutes to two hours. I followed Dr. Wong to Los Alamitos, I am now receiving excellent care WITHOUT he huge ego.

    | GREAT DOCTOR–CALLS IT AS HE SEES IT, NO B.S. |
    May 14th, 2012
    DR. FINK REALLY IS AN AMAZING PHYSICIAN. HE IS VERY, VERY DIRECT, NO BEATING AROUND THE BUSH, HE TELLS YOU HIS OPINION AND HE WON’T SIMPLY TELL YOU WHAT MAKES YOU FEEL GOOD—KEEP IN MIND, HIS PATIENTS ARE ADDICTS, AND IF YOU WANT TO GET CLEAN, THEN DAMMIT, YOU NEED TO HEAR THE TRUTH FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE, SO SHUT UP AND DO WHAT HE SAYS. TRUST ME, YOU’LL BE GLAD YOU DID, JUST LIKE I AM.

    | Dangerous Doctor? |
    Dec 3rd, 2011
    A good quick indiction of any doctor is how they interact with their staff. I watch Dr. Finkelstein yell at his staff (while they were on the phone with patients) about arrangments for his upcoming ski trip. Beyond that he said “he was going to have fun with me” regarding his plan of treatment, a plan I objected to from the start. Also, much of my appointment was spend listening to Dr. Finkelstein tell me all about how well his speach went over at a conference. And he darted in and out of the appointment room 10 times for unknown reasons. I feel this doctor is actually in need of help, possibly sanction.

    |
    Sep 11th, 2011
    I would highly recommend Dr. Finkelstein to anyone with an addiction or chemical dependency. He offers treatments that work that most doctors don’t even know exist. He and his staff treat patients with dignity and respect which is hard to find when you are an “addict” IMO. The only complaint I might have is that things might be a bit pricey depending on what you are being treated for and if your insurance covers it (if you have insurance).

    • Currently 1 of 4 stars

    Aug 26th, 2011
    Dr. Finkelstein is the rudest, most arrogant doctor I have ever been to. He talks down to his patients like we are animals. I do NOT recommend ever going to him. THUMBS DOWN.

    | Parents at their most vulnerable |
    by Ifitwalkslikeaduck on Jul 16th, 2010
    with addicted child — please get at least a second opinion before letting your loved one be treated by this pill pushing weirdo. You will think it is you that is crazy because you are stressed to the max — but please, go with your gut — he is a nut case. Think twice about saboxone. You must be totally educated before speaking to this guy, PLEASE. Why he isnt in jail is a total mystery.

    Feb 26th, 2010
    Always a long wait. Doctor did not communicate well and would not venture any comments about my condition until after my repeated questioning. Doctor could get verbally abusive for no reason – the only thing I could think of was I had taken more than the alloted time. I am looking for another doctor.

    | unprofessional – pill pusher |
    Dec 10th, 2009
    this doctor was seen by my son for an opiate addiction. first impression was excellent until I saw that he kept telling my son he needed more meds. not less. my son was desperate when i took him to see this dr. and we were very grateful at the time for his help but one year later i started questioning his desire to keep my son on this stuff for who knows how long. then he’s told there will be withdrawal when getting off this new med. if i had known this my son would never have started this drug. now, he’s scared to death to get off of it. Also, this med. is almost $7.50 a pill and he wants my son to take 3 a day. which is over $650.00 a month. we’re going broke! don’t see this dr.

    http://www.vitals.com/doctors/Dr_Stuart_Finkelstein/credentials

    Of course patients may be biased but for Dr. Shafer no one wrote anything of this kind. And both are licensed doctors.

    P.S. Guys, I am sorry but I’ve had a very hard day today and need to go. Hope to be with you tomorrow.

    Like

  75. October 15, 2013 5:22 pm

    Lourdes, when a physician, usually a specialist has to perform a dangerous procedure, that is when it can be lifesaving or otherwise of great importance, the patient has to be fully informed of all potential risks and risk/benefit ratio. This has to be a written document.
    This is commonly done also for less risky procedures. Certainly for Propofol anesthesia even in a hospital setting. I doubt anything of the sort was done by Murray. Parents have to give consent to medicate children (usually). This does not absolve you from malpractice, but would things go wrong this will be taken into account. Would not have helped Murray anyway.

    Like

  76. October 15, 2013 4:57 pm

    “At the time of hiring” was not part of the official question nr2.However by the time .beg. of May 2009 and when the written agreement by Jorrie was sent Murray had been malpractising for a long time..But the jury only looked at 10 min of computer scanning to determine his fitness and competence.The fact is that he was not competent at the time of hiring was not obvious to the jury. Just the fact that he was licensed satisfied them.

    It was thanks to the plaintiffs they answered yes to question nr. 1. There was just too much evidence of hiring. All in all they boxed in the jury by the format of questions.

    -As Sina said the court and judge did not do justice to Michael.-I think it is I who am guilty of throwing in those words :”at the time of hiring”.Sorry, it was the impression I got having scanned the material after some absence.

    Like

  77. Lourdes permalink
    October 15, 2013 4:51 pm

    I forgot to mention that foreseability could also be on the part of what AEG already knew about Michael and his past addiction in the Dangerous tour, as Mesereau has stated that Murray was unfit because he was not an addiction specialist and that Gongaware knew he had that problem in 93. But in my opinion the jurors made a dictinction between the demerol dependency/abuse or addiction in 93 and the propofol, which is rather different.
    I still wonder that if any concerns anyone had in March, it was the artist’s representative the one who should have acted in the interest of MJ. I stitll do not understand how Tohme was not called to testify by any of the two parts.

    Like

  78. October 15, 2013 4:44 pm

    “And about the “supervising”, I would like to know Panish answer to Putnam’s closing arguments when the latter said that Murray as an independent contractor doctor was to be supervised, according to Californian law, only by the Medical Board, and not by a musical producer.” – Lourdes

    Let me answer that instead of Mr. Panish. The way I understand it a real independent contractor’s job is the job done by this contractor totally independently. A pyrotechnic is hired by the producer and knows what and how to do. He is given an assignment by the director of the show and no one meddles with his work or sends him on errands to organize transportation for example, because he is indeed independent.

    But Conrad Murray was not independent in what he was doing. He wanted to give a sick leave to his patient, but AEG didn’t allow him to. He wanted to let Michael train at home but AEG wanted him to make a schedule of rehearsals and force Michael to attend them, and again Murray obliged.

    This way AEG imposed their will on the doctor and supervised his actions.

    OF COURSE this is absolutely unacceptable practice and this is why Californian law says that doctors should be supervised only by the Medical Board, only California law is not familiar with Murray’s contract which explicitly said that he was supposed to perform the services requested of him by the producer.

    Like

  79. Lourdes permalink
    October 15, 2013 4:14 pm

    Sina wrote: “If you take the route of foresee-ability, there would be no malpractice cases.
    Because the majority of those cases are not about quacks with questionable track records, but highly skilled professionals who cause injury to their patient by mistake or through negligence.”-

    I don’t think any foreseability is needed for medical malpractice cases and more specifically for the criminal medical negligence that Murray was convicted. In the case of “negligent hiring”, the wording of the law in CA refers to that “foreseability”. I understand it as a sort of a prerequisite.
    And about the “supervising”, I would like to know Panish answer to Putnam’s closing arguments when the latter said that Murray as an independent contractor doctor was to be supervised, according to Californian law, only by the Medical Board, and not by a musical producer.

    Like

  80. Sina permalink
    October 15, 2013 3:19 pm

    There are many things wrong with how the case was presented to the jury and Imo the court and the judge did not do justice to Michael. I don’t know her reasoning for reducing the case to negligent hiring only, when there was clearly negligence and direct liability on the side of AEG.
    From the fact that the jury only asked for Murrays contract and the highly edited This is it movie, it was clear that they had anticipated they would not get passed question 2. And the This is it Movie I think was just for entertainment as it was not relevant to either question. The way juror 27 said how the verdict was reached/rushed explains it all.
    If the instructions didn’t say competent AT THE TIME OF HIRING, then I would like to know who added those last words that drastically changed the implications of the question.
    And if that was not part of the instruction, then hindsight is an invention to make right what was wrong. Wasn’t the claim against AEG : hiring, supervising or retaining, which refers to the competence at any given time. Even the foreman said that they were boxed in by the wording.
    Btw I found it in very bad taste and revealing about his state of mind that the elderly juror had the nerve right after the verdict to character trash Michael. Imagine that this was on his mind for 5 months of trial and finally he could express his OPINION by voting against the personl, not about what was at stake.

    Then the meaning of competence that the judge left up to the jurors to define and was translated as : a doctor with a valid license.
    IMO competence should be looked at from a HRM pov, and definitely so for a billion dollar company like AEG who was hiring a million dollar a year doctor for one single patient and took 2 months to draft a contract . In HRM, competence is the actual performance, which is the sum of knowledge, skills/ experience, professional attitude = behavior. Not something you can google for ten minutes. The best competence test is the handling of emergency situations, in which Murray terribly failed. If what he said is true, that he only left Michael alone for two minutes and he was still alive when he found him. a competent doctor under such conditions would have saved his patient.
    If you take the route of foresee-ability, there would be no malpractice cases.
    Because the majority of those cases are not about quacks with questionable track records, but highly skilled professionals who cause injury to their patient by mistake or through negligence.

    Like

  81. October 15, 2013 2:50 pm

    I agree the timeline is important and that the time of hiring is not specified and apparently it was up to the jurors to figure that out as to when and if CM was hired by AEG (or AEG and MJ together).

    “Was Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?” This question assumes that a hiring took place (b/c it had to since question #2 was not even going to be looked at unless a YES answer #1 –did AEG hire CM–was reached). So the issue of when did the hiring take place is not determined but assumed in the the question (hired=past tense).

    Since the hiring can be based on conduct or oral or written agreement according to CA law, this issue of when is all over the place. But these are the dates as testified to: MJ had a physical exam for the tour in Feb, and said CM was his doctor. PG testified that in late April MJ told PG that he wanted CM to accompany him on the tour as his dr. May 6, PG sent the email re he had reached an agreement with CM re salary ($150k/mo) and that it was a done deal. When MJ told PG in late April he wanted CM for the tour, and PG began negotiations, that appears to be the date of hiring as far as AEG’s involvement in it according to CA law. (We also know that CM first ordered propofol April 6th.)

    As far as the hindsight issue, it appears that Travis Payne spent the most time with MJ–he was going to his house for private rehearsals 5 days a week (approx), but he did not describe MJ as emaciated–thin, yes–and this is in sync with the autopsy that put MJ’s weight within normal limits. TP also said that he knew something was wrong, but he didn’t know what it was. He said he did not think CM looked like a dr but didn’t connect the ‘what was wrong’ problem to CM. TP was also hopeful that MJ could reach his goals for the tour after the last rehearsals.

    Like

  82. Lourdes permalink
    October 15, 2013 12:08 pm

    For me the whole trial has not clarified the legal duties of the promoter/producer in relation to the Artist they are partnerts with. I see them morally unethical because they didn’t stop the shows, but I realise capitalism is not based on altruism. There was money and legal obligations involved and Michael was ALSO present in the meeting of 20th June and told Ortega he was fine. How to ignore what Michael said? Even Ortega who said that if he had known in March that MJ was not too confident, he wouldn’t have taken part in the project, but after the meeting of 20th June, he also trusted MJ when he said he was OK, and wanted to go on.
    Judge dismissed the cause of action of general neglection in April, stating AEG has no obligation to take care of the health of a grown-up, even though the AEG-MJ contract mentions it. I didn’t read the reasoning behind given by the judge, but following that logic, the responsibility of AEG for the actions done by the doctor, who ordered propofol in April and had it delivered in Los Angeles, and was already in the scene in April (2 or 3 times a week, seen by Kai Chase with smaller oxigen tanks than those in June), made more difficult another verdict.
    Juror 27 made a mistake with the termination clause and thought that it was there that the change of “producer” for “artist” applied, BUT, inmediately REALISED it and apologised; a mere lapsus, nothing to ground any appeal for unfitness of the jurors, as I read above.
    This trial has been very hard, and not all fans have shared the same opinions. But, please, that does not mean that those who share other opinions have to necessarily been PR of AEG. The WHOLE SITUATION WAS A TRAGEDY, from day 1. How and when and who to stop it???? I have missed the testimony of Tohme.
    About Katherine Jackson, I guess the trial must have been very hard for her, not only for the verdict or the nasty exchange of e-mails, but more importantly to a mother, to learn about the suffering and struggling of his son throughout the years. I am a mother and that’s how I would feel.

    Like

  83. Jan permalink
    October 15, 2013 11:18 am

    stacy brown up to no good again: http://nypost.com/2013/10/14/michael-jackson-sabotaged-family-plans/

    Like

  84. Caro Attwell permalink
    October 15, 2013 8:36 am

    Thank you so much Helena for this post. I haven’t had the time, or indeed the inclination, to wade through all this stuff, but I am very glad that you have done it for me ha ha!! and presented it and your very welcome assessment so well – perhaps you should have been the attorney for Katherine!!

    I totally agree with you that in the end the trial was worth all the hassle because it has brought us so much truth about Michael and his medical conditions etc etc., and hopefully put to bed once and for all all those horrid tabloid stories, though I suspect there are some that will still try it on!! and as that jurer said, it has shown the world the real Michael – the real Michael we have always appreciated of course!!

    Thanks again for it all, and I hope that you are mending and progressing well now.

    Like

  85. October 15, 2013 8:32 am

    The mystery 27 knew for sure more than he should have for being a juror.Don´t know exactly why he is doing this, maybe for fun.And why did the foreman throw in the “at the time of hiring him” adding that if ethical would also have been required it would have been a different answer?!He is a physical ed. teacher and certainly used to tell people how and what to do in an apprpriate manner in his usual job -.And sure it was not only the propofol,in the end Michael was so sick and beaten,possibly blaming himself,that he lacked the confidence for self preservation.-A bit on the side: Propofol can be both seen as a poison or not. Some poisons work directly,like poisonous mushrooms.Everybody at the table dies.
    Some poisons,like curare work by inhibiting some vital function for sustaining life.Propofol for usual anestesia or even for a few days for burnvictims(with all security equipment) does no harm.It did Michael physical or anatomical harm being given for a long period of time.How and if he would have recovered only Dr. Czeltric can answer. Anyway Murray of all people did react criminally not getting him help in time.There were non-medical people,quite a few who yelled and sreamed about Michaels poor health, but he was given none.By AEG that is.

    Like

  86. Meap permalink
    October 15, 2013 8:11 am

    I believe that the Michael Jackson Wrongful Death case was poorly argued and presented. There was no way that the case should have been lost in this way. MJ is dead and the doctor was found guilty of the crime. AEG hired Murray to be Michael’s personal physician. It is irrelevant whether AEG knew of the type of treatment Murray was administering to Michael; a doctor was hired to provide for the needs of the patient. The patient could have any kind of need and a doctor was to attend to it. Yes, when Murray was hired everybody assumed he was competent, even Michael. Remember that; we must remember that.
    Although AEG had been repeatedly warned by so many, even by their own people, that something was not alright with Michael, they did not investigate properly. If there’s a doctor and yet the patient is falling ill, wont people be concerned? In this case, MJ was the sole star property. Their whole enterprise depended on his good health and fitness. They had invested so heavily in the tour. That they would look after the investment is just plain logic. Paradoxically, AEG didn’t do it. Instead, they resorted to email verbiage and corporate threats.
    There was no need to prove that the doctor was incompetent. He is already in jail for that and more. So, there was no place for that question at all, in my opinion. Why were the jurors even asked that question? The Manslaughter trial had already proved beyond all doubt that Murray was incompetent, egregious, and criminal in his conduct. So where was the compulsion to prove competence?
    The worst of all: If the questions were only (1) Did AEG hire Murray? (2) Was Murray incompetent?, there was no need to drag in all the medical history and various doctors making a mess of things. If anything, it only showed Murray up in a worse light. All the other doctors kept Michael safe and attended to his needs, even those who over medicated him. AEG would have us believe that they were helpless, wringing their hands in despair, poor little things. It is clear from all that I’ve read and heard in this case that AEG was ruled by its overwhelming greed and calculation. They are now hiding behind corporate jargon to escape responsibility. Should they be allowed to?

    Like

  87. Heather permalink
    October 15, 2013 5:58 am

    I couldn’t agree more with your observations. They agreed Murray was hired by AEG but then disagreed that AEG were negligent with regard to retaining and supervision. I don’t follow that reasoning. They asked for and failed to get from murray MJ’s medical records so why didn’t they ask him at least for the currant medical records of his care of MJ to see what was ailing him. Given that MJ was by all accounts in terrrible physical shape, why didn’t they ask? they would have noticed immediately Murrays incompetance as he never kept medical records of what he did to MJ.
    They all lied about not knowing MJ had had issues in the past and had been in rehab before… were they all on the moon when that happened? I am not saying that AEG should have automatically assumed that Murray was prescribing things that were damaging MJ’s health – but rehab was a part of MJ’s health records that everyone over the age of 12 who had a TV or read a newspaper was privy to. given the nature of the deterioation of MJ’s health, weight loss, emaciated, confused,paranoid cold & shivering…I don’t think it would have been anything other than common sense for AEG to have asked Murray for his records of MJ’s care.Why didn’t they, err on the side of caution.That would have been correct supervision.
    If someone I knew, who was under the care of a doctor, was deteriorating before my eyes in this way, I would want a complete run down of what was being done and on the basis of that I would then probably get a second opinion, it’s normal common sense. Drs are not infallable and a few are downright criminal ,ask LMP. Even so asking or wondering if the Dr is unethical or not doesn’t really come into it at that point, it’s a question of, is this Dr competent or not, but they didn’t ask that question, they didn’t care why he was ill,or even ask whats wrong, show us the records of what you are doing about this… they just said get him on stage no matter what or else. For all they knew, Murray may have seemed like a regular Dr when they hired him but AEG In my humble opinion must be held responsible for negligent supervision.
    So for me, if AEG hired Murray then AEG are also responsible for negligently retaining and supervising Murray.
    With regard to the pie of responsability. AEG are responsible for the “work” of their employees and that is 100 % their problem, and they should take responsability for their desision to hire him .. they should be sueing Murray for damages.
    Murray on the other hand is totally responsible for his criminal behaviour and the pie of responsability juror27 spoke of goes 100% to him right in his arrogant petulant face.Whilst AEG have shown us that they are a bunch of uncaring and sometimes downright abusive unhuman swearwords but, just for me, and this is just how I feel in my guts, nothing compares to Murray, he betrayed every single obligation of care and humanity he had towards Michael. Reading through your post the other day which reminded us of Dr Shafer and the 17 egregious violations of standard of care it leaves me with a knot in my stomach when I think of how easily his death could have been prevented, just a lift of the chin, calling 911 immediately etc. he is the most despicable of Drs. I do NOT hold Michael responsible for his own death. Murray is 100% to blame – Michael 0%.Murray failed him on every level of care and trust and then abandoned him…i cannot bear that. I am not a Dr or nurse I am just a Mum but I am certain that I would have taken better care of Michael, we all would have. one thing is that throughout the trial I have seen all my thoughts about murray confirmed and even re-inforced.
    I don’t really have an opinion on juror 27 as authentic or not, he seems very reasonable in many ways but for sure strange things are happening recently…Yesterday i unfortunately stumbled upon an article in the new york post,it was a slanderous attack the like of which I hadn’t seen in a while written by already heard of – stacy brown..as usual claims to be a family friend…jeez these friends of the family are beyond belief. It was a strange attack on the whole Jackson family but especially on Michael written in that typically tabloid sensationalistic way with no real story or proof or reason really, very odd.i refrained from commenting. It does makes you wonder whats behind it.
    Thankyou for all your articles Helena, keeping us well informed of the goings on with the trial.It was not covered where I live so your input was very precious to me.Thankyou for all your hard work and research.

    Like

  88. October 15, 2013 3:21 am

    We basically observed the same inconsistencies Helena. Another thing that really shocked me was the admission by Juror 27 that jury did their 1st vote about the 1st crucial question WITHOUT reading jury instructions. Quick poll or not, they should have read the instructions before any vote! Then juror 27 explains that the written agreement was not a proof of Murray’s hiring by AEG for ALL the jurors, anyway they relied on it to stress that Murray was hired as a general practitioner. Juror 27 statements simply tell me that jurors saw the evidence in their own way that we can’t understand. It’s like when you and I come to consider what the executors of the Estate did and still do and to me it’s all irrefutable evidence that they’ve not been working for Michael’s interest since the very 1st moment and just the opposite appears to you. I feel that this jury just thought Michael Jackson is responsible for everything happened in the relationship with Conrad Murray, Kevin Smith’s words are very clear about that. Remember that during the jury selection, Smith said he felt Michael did not do anything good with his life and unfortunately Panish failed to dismiss him. Juror 27 did a clue to reveal his identity: he wrote that he was 7 yo when Thriller album was released. That means he is approximately 38 yr now.

    Like

  89. October 15, 2013 1:43 am

    NO! Nothing adds up Y you have to pay attention to dr. Murrsays behaviour period… AEG hired Murray with out first checking his credentials .. and they wanted Murray to get Mjs medical records .. BS! Y inorder for all this to happen mj would’ve had to sign a patient release form followed by AEG sending a letter to Mjs present Dr. Introducing him and that mj hired him.. and that mj signed a patient release form along with AEGS informal letter introducing murray as Mjs new dr. and he’d be using him ,.. they would’ve all 3 signed those letters.. Murray couldn’t get Mjs medical record … Furthermore Murray knew mj didn’t need propofol … besides have y’all ever thought that what if Mj.himself told Murray that he wasn’t going to use propofol anymore … … where would that leave murray!

    Like

  90. simba permalink
    October 15, 2013 1:03 am

    I have a very strong suspicion as to the identity of Juror 27, based on items in his posts, but I’m not even sure it matters at this point. The bigger question is why would anyone go to the trouble of composing these elaborate posts for a fan website? Is it because they get off on jerking Michael’s fans around? I do believe there is an element of mockery at play – Juror 27 thinks we’re stupid.

    More likely, Juror 27 wants to discourage fan support for an appeal, because 27 is definitely on the job. MJJC is a very large fan organization, and many of its members already hate Katherine and the other Jacksons (who weren’t parties to this lawsuit, but that detail doesn’t seem to register), so he chose the path of least resistance. Now he’s gone, like a thief in the night, just when the questions were starting to get tough.

    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: