The jurors’ explanations of verdict at the AEG trial. NOTHING ADDS UP
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.
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.
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?
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
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?
Q. Is this consistent with what you were concerned about?
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?
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.
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?
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?
Q. What’s your best estimate, Ms. Jorrie?
A. Ten minutes.
Q. Ten total minutes?
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?
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?
Q. He told you, you shouldn’t be an amateur doctor; right?
Q. You shouldn’t be an amateur psychologist?
Q. Told you to stay out of it and leave Mr. Jackson’s health to him?
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?
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?
Q. Okay. You had also watched Michael deteriorate, correct?
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?
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:
- Was the time of hiring Dr. Murray included in the instructions to the present jury?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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 :
- 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?