THE TIME OF HIRING MURRAY and JURY INSTRUCTIONS
It may be a little late to look into the jury instructions now, but it is never too late to search for the truth.
THE POST-TRIAL EXPLANATIONS
After their verdict at the AEG trial Greg Barden, the foreman of the jurors told us that they thought Dr. Murray to be fit and competent in the sphere of general care only as this is what he was hired for, and we answered to it that as a general practitioner Dr. Murray proved his complete incompetence too.
This doctor didn’t pay attention to Michael turning skeletal and growing so weak that he was unable to do spins he could perfectly do at the beginning of rehearsals. Dr. Murray didn’t mind when his patient began “rambling and obsessing” and when his body temperature dropped to icy cold. On one occasion (June 13th) he did notice that something was wrong with his patient and gave him a sick leave, but the next day he withdrew it as the AEG bosses made a row over it. In short his actions did not convince the general public that we are talking of a highly competent, fit and ethical doctor.
But as soon as all of us agreed on that point a certain juror #27 came to the foreman’s help and started explaining on MJJC that their job was to assess Dr. Murray’s competence at the time of hiring only, and not during the whole period of his retention or supervision by AEG as everyone expected them to.
Surprisingly, this information found confirmation in Mr. Panish’s interview where he said that after the trial he spoke to the jurors and for some reason they thought that they were to evaluate Murray’s competence at the moment of his hiring only.
But what was the time of Conrad Murray’s hiring? Was it May 1st to which the contract was backdated? Or May 8th when the first emails with AEG were exchanged? Or the end of May when Timm Woolley asked Kathie Jorrie to draft Murray’s contract? Or was it the end of the first two weeks of June when she started drafting the contract at last? Or was it June 16th when she sent the first draft to Dr. Murray? Or June 24th when he signed the final variant?
SO WHEN WAS THE TIME OF HIRING MURRAY? And if our general impression of it is right wasn’t it technically the time when AEG already knew of Michael’s health problems?
In fact they were hiring Murray only in the middle of June, when Michael’s health problems were already glaring into everyone’s eyes. This was the time when all of them could and did perfectly realize that Dr. Murray was not the right doctor because under his care Michael’s health was only deteriorating and not improving.
John Hougdahl confirmed it in his June 19th email to Randy Phillips saying that he wasn’t a “drama queen” but they saw Michael’s health deteriorating “in the past 8 weeks” and it was time to “circle the wagons”.
You can argue that since the contract was backdated, the time of hiring Murray was May 1st and at that moment AEG could know nothing about Dr. Murray’s competence and skills. But over here the AEG people themselves insisted throughout the trial that at the beginning they had no idea about Murray, that they never saw him until the beginning of June, and Kathy Jorrie said that until they started making a contract for Dr. Murray in mid-June she thought he had continued working for Michael (and not AEG).
And if the AEG people themselves refer us to the first two weeks of June as the time of hiring Murray let us listen to them and agree that by then a lot of evidence had accumulated showing Dr. Murray’s poor professional skills.
And this means that the story about the time of hiring Murray won’t do either.
Well, whichever way the jurors were thinking their decision at the AEG trial cost a big a price to the truth. Their “No” answer to Question 2 (“Was Dr. Murray unfit and incompetent for the work he was hired?”) is now in heavy contradiction with the fact that in the hands of this “fit and competent” doctor Michael Jackson actually died. The patient’s death was scrutinized at a criminal trial in minute detail and the doctor was found guilty of manslaughter and sent to jail for what he did.
And as a result of this jury’s decision now all of us face an option – either the jury in the AEG trial messed up things or the innocent man was sent to jail for nothing at all.
But there is one more point to the whole mess. The jurors at the AEG trial are explaining their decision by the law. They solemnly distance themselves from us, “emotional fans” and claim that they were acting in accordance with the jury instructions and there was something there which made them base their decision on the “time of hiring” only (the way they understood it of course).
And this makes us, the “emotional fans” go in the same direction and verify their words.
THREE VARIANTS OF THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS
Actually I’ve looked into three variants of the jury instructions to see whether the words about the “time of hiring” Dr. Murray can be found there:
1) the jury instructions proposed by the Plaintiffs on September 10, 2013
http://ru.scribd.com/doc/167786076/Jackson-Proposed-Jury-Instructions
2) the jury instructions proposed by the AEG Defendants on September 11, 2013
http://ru.scribd.com/doc/167786034/AEG-Proposed-Jury-Instructions
3) the Final Jury Instructions modified by the judge and filed on September 23, 2013.
The final instructions will also be embedded into this post for your individual study.
Besides answering the main quesion on the “time of hiring Murray” looking into all the three variants was extremely helpful as it allowed to see some logic in how the instructions evolved.
It turned out, for example, that the final variants proposed by both sides were the variants made on the basis of an earlier variant because now one side agrees with the earlier modifications and the other side crosses something out and offers something new.
Some instructions were proposed jointly, some by one side only, some had already been modified by the time of the final suggestions – and all this means that a lot of discussion had been in progress, so who was the first to suggest what is now difficult to ascertain.
This is important as the Senior Staff of MJJC explained to us that Question No.2 was proposed by the Plaintiffs, but this I am absolutely not sure of as the same question was requested by the Defendants too, only in their version it came in a different order and was put second after the question “Did AEG hire Murray?” which they put on top of the list.
As Mr. Putnam said in his closing argument they wanted the jury to say “No” to Question No.1 and finish with the matter right away, not going any further.
Studying the variants of jury instructions from both sides brought another big surprise to me. It turned out that the instruction to remove Randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware as parties to the lawsuit was another of those “joint” decisions, so who was the first to suggest it – Panish, Putnam or judge Palazuelos – we don’t know, but we do know that both sides agreed to it, and this is where the thrill is.
Another thrill is to observe what party suggested what and how the judge moderated it and what final decision was taken and in whose favor it was.
Let me note that despite my worst suspicions, from the documents I saw I cannot say that the judge always sided with the Defendants as I half-expected her to. No, several extremely biased instructions from the AEG lawyers about how to understand contracts and whether they could foresee Murray to be an unfit doctor were thrown out by the judge and never made it to the final variant.
Some of those rejects will be grouped together at the end of this post, because this is where the whole intrigue actually is.
In the meantime please read the text of the final jury instructions. Each will be preceded with a table marking by an X-sign the party at whose request the instruction was introduced. If the table says “Modified by the judge” in most cases it means that both sides were proposing it and it was approved by the judge in a compromise wording.
One of the main instruction is No. 426 – this is the one asking if Murray was unfit and incompetent for the work he was hired, and since it is so crucial the earlier drafts from both sides will be provided there too.
From the comparison of different versions you will also see that the AEG lawyers never wanted the word “supervision” for Dr. Murray – they reduced it to “hiring or retention” only, but following the Plaintiffs’ suggestion the judge included “supervision” into the final text. All such cases when “hiring or retention” were supplemented with “supervision” will be marked red in the text.
The fact of inclusing “supervision” into the whole story is extremely important. This alone encouraged the jurors to look into the whole period of Murray’s employment with AEG and not only the starting point of it.
And as regards the time of hiring Murray I have surprising news for you – not a single final jury instruction mentioned the time of hiring Murray as a point for the jury to focus on. Not a single one!
Moreover I get the impression that the judge took away most of the instructions that could tempt the jurors to go in that direction.
The preliminary suggestions from the AEG Defendants did hover around the point of time, not naming it directly, but they were not included in the final variant of the instructions, and the jurors could not know of their preliminiary variants, could they?
And if they did know of the preliminary variants suggested by the Defendants how could they go by what was written there?
And while you are thinking over these truly intriguing questions let me offer you the text of the final jury instructions:
THE FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
I MARVIN & PUTNAM (S.B. #212839)
mputnam@omm.com
2 SABRINA H. STRONG (S.B. #200292)
sstrong@omm.com
3 JESSICA STEBBINS ВINA (S.B. #248485)
jstebbinsbina@omra.com
4 KATHRYN CAHAN (S.B. #256110)
kcahan@omm.cora
5 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
6 1999 Avenue of the Stars» 7th Floor
California 90067
Telephone: (310) 553-6700
7 Facsimile: (310)246-6779
8 Attorneys for Defendants FILED
9 PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP Los Angeles Superior Court
BRIAN J. PANISH, State Bar No. 116060 SEP 23 2013
10 panish@pshlaw. com
KEVIN R. BOYLE, State Bar No. 192718
11 boyh@psblmv. com
DEBORAH S. CHANG, State Bar No. 246013
12 chang@psblaw. com
11 111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
13 Los Angeles, California90025
Telephone: 310.477.1700
14 Facsimile: 310.477.1699
15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
17 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
18
KATHERINE JACKSON, individually and as Case No. ВС 445597
19 the Guardian ad Litem of MICHAEL JOSEPH
JACKSON, JR., PARIS-MICHAEL Hon. Yvette M. Palazuelos, Dept 28
20 KATHERINE JACKSON, and PRINCE
MICHAEL JACKSON II, FINAL COURT ORDERED JURY
21 INSTRUCTIONS
Plaintiffs,
22 Trial Date; April 2,2013
23 V.
AEG LIVE LLC; ANSCHUTZ
24 ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC; AEG
LIVE PRODUCTIONS, LLC; BRANDON
25 PHILLIPS (aka RANDY PHILLIPS), an
individual; PAUL GONGAWARE, an
26 individual; TIMOTHY LEIWEKE, an
27 individual; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
Instruction No 100
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | X | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Preliminary Admonitions
You have now been sworn as jurors in this case. I want to impress on you the seriousness and importance of serving on a jury. Trial by jury is a fundamental right in California. The parties have a right to ajury that is selected fairly, that comes to the case without bias, and that will attempt to reach a verdict based on the evidence presented. Before we begin, I need to explain how you must conduct yourselves during the trial.
Do not allow anything that happens outside this courtroom to affect your, decision. During the trial do not talk about this case or the people involved in it with anyone, including family and persons living in your household, friends and co-workers, spiritual leaders, advisors, or therapists.
This prohibition is not limited to face-to-face conversations. It also extends to all forms of electronic communications. Do not use any electronic device or media, such as a cell phone or smart phone, PDA, computer, the Internet, any Internet service, any text or instant-messaging service, any Internet chat room, blog, or Web site, including social networking websites or online diaries, to send or receive any information to or from anyone about this case or your experience as a juror until after you have been discharged from your jury duty.
You may say you are on ajury and how long the trial may take, but that is all. You must not even talk about the case with the other jurors until after I tell you that it is time for you to decide the case.
During the trial you must not listen to anyone else talk about the case or the people involved in the case. You must avoid any contact with the parties, the lawyers, the witnesses, and anyone else who may have a connection to the case. If anyone tries to talk to you about this case, tell that person that you cannot discuss it because you are a juror. If he or she keeps talking to you, simply walk away and report the incident to the court attendant as soon as you can.
After the trial is over and I have released you from jury duty, you may discuss the case with anyone, but you are not required to do so.
During the trial, do not read, listen to, or watch any news reports about this case. This prohibition extends to the use of the Internet in any way, including reading any blog about the case or about anyone involved with it or using Internet maps or mapping programs or any other program or device to search for or to view any place discussed in the testimony.
Do not do any research on your own or as a group. Do not use dictionaries, the Internet, or other reference materials. Do not investigate the case or conduct any experiments. Do not contact anyone to assist you, such as a family accountant, doctor, or lawyer.
If you violate any of these prohibitions on communications and research, including prohibitions on electronic communications and research, you may be held in contempt of court or face other sanctions. That means that you may have to serve time in jail, pay a fine, or face other punishment for that violation.
You must decide this case based only on the evidence presented in this trial and the instructions of law that I will provide. Nothing that you see, hear, or learn outside this courtroom is evidence unless I specifically tell you it is. If you receive any information about this case from any source outside of the courtroom, promptly report it to the court attendant. It is important that all jurors see and hear the same evidence at the same time.
It is important that you keep an open mind throughout this trial. Evidence can only be presented a piece at a time. Do not form or express an opinion about this case while the trial is going on. You must not decide on a verdict until after you have heard all the evidence and have discussed it thoroughly with your fellow jurors in your deliberations.
Do not concern yourselves with the reasons for the rulings I will make during the course of the trial. Do not guess what I may think your verdict should be from anything I might say or do.
When you begin your deliberations, you may discuss the case only in the jury room and only when all the jurors are present.
You must decide what the facts are in this case. And, I repeat, your verdict must be based only on the evidence that you hear or see in this courtroom. Do not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence your verdict.
At the end of the trial, I will explain the law that you must follow to reach your verdict. You must follow the law as I explain it to you, even if you do not agree with the law.
Instruction No 116
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | x | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | X | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Why Electronic Communications and Research Are Prohibited
I know that many of us are used to communicating and perhaps even learning by electronic communications and research. However, there are good reasons why you must not electronically communicate or do any research on anything having to do with this trial or the parties.
In court, jurors must make important decisions that have consequences for the parties. Those decisions must be based only on the evidence that you hear in this courtroom.
The evidence that is presented in court can be tested; it can be shown to be right or wrong by either side; it can be questioned; and it can be contradicted by other evidence. What you might read or hear on your own could easily be wrong, out of date, or inapplicable to this case.
The parties can receive a fair trial only if the facts and information on which you base your decisions are presented to you as a group, with each juror having the same opportunity to see, hear, and evaluate the evidence.
Also, a trial is a public process that depends on disclosure in the courtroom of facts and evidence. Using information gathered in secret by one or more jurors undermines the public process and violates the rights of the parties.
Instruction No 101
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | X | Given on Court’s Motion |
Overview of Trial
To assist you in your tasks as jurors, I will now explain how the trial will proceed. I will begin by identifying the parties to the case. Katherine Jackson and Michael Jackson’s three minor children, Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr., known as “Prince,” Paris Jackson, and Prince Michael Jackson II, known as “Blanket,” filed this lawsuit. They are called the plaintiffs. They seek damages from AEG Live, LLC, AEG Live Productions, LLC, Brandon Phillips, and Paul Gongaware, who are called defendants.
Plaintiffs claim that the defendants are liable for the death of Michael Jackson because they negligently hired, retained, or supervised Dr. Conrad Murray, a doctor who administered a fatal dose of the anesthetic drug propofol to Michael Jackson on June 25, 2009. The defendants deny they hired, retained, or supervised Dr. Conrad Murray. The defendants also deny that they were negligent.
First, each side may make an opening statement, but neither side is required to do so. An opening statement is not evidence. It is simply an outline to help you understand what that party expects the evidence will show. Also, because it is often difficult to give you the evidence in the order we would prefer, the opening statement allows you to keep an overview of the case in mind during the presentation of the evidence.
Next, the jury will hear the evidence. The plaintiffs will present evidence first. When plaintiffs are finished, defendants will have an opportunity to present evidence.
Each witness will first be questioned by the side that asked the witness to testify. This is called cross-examination.
Documents or objects referred to during the trial are called exhibits. Exhibits are given a number so that they may be clearly identified. Exhibits are not evidence until I admit them into evidence. During your deliberations, you will be able to look at all exhibits admitted into evidence.
There are many rules that govern whether something will be admitted into evidence. As one side presents evidence, the other side has the right to object and to ask me to decide if the evidence is permitted by the rules. Usually, I will decide immediately, but sometimes I may have to hear arguments outside of your presence.
After the evidence has been presented, I will instruct youon the law that applies to the case and the attorneys will make closing arguments. What the parties say in closing argument is not evidence. The arguments are offered to help you understand the evidence and how the law applies to it.
Instruction No 102
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | Modified by Court | ||
| Given as Proposed | X | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Taking Notes During the Trial
You have been given notebooks and may take notes during the trial. Do not take the notebooks out of the courtroom or jury room at any time during the trial. You may take your notes into the jury room during deliberations.
A juror’s note from “American society of trial consultants” website: “Christine I love you, Robert” http://jurylaw.typepad.com/deliberations/american_gallery_of_juror_art/
You should use your notes only to remind yourself of what happened during the trial. Do not let your note-taking interfere with your ability to listen carefully to all the testimony and to watch the witnesses as they testify.
Nor should you allow your impression of a witness or other evidence to be influenced by whether or not other jurors are taking notes.
Your independent recollection of the evidence should govern your verdict, and you should not allow yourself to be influenced by the notes of other jurors if those notes differ from what you remember.
The court reporter is making a record of everything that is said. If during deliberations you have a question about what the witness said, you should ask that the court reporter’s records be read to you. You must accept the court reporter’s record as accurate.
At the end of the trial, your notes will be collected and destroyed.
Instruction No 111
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | X | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Instruction to Alternate Jurors
As alternate jurors you are bound by the same rules that govern the conduct of the jurors who are sitting on the panel. You will observe the same trial and should pay attention to all of my instructions just as if you were sitting on the panel. Sometimes a juror needs to be excused during a trial for illness or some other reason. If that happens, an alternate will be selected to take that juror’s place.
Instruction No 5000 (Modified)
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Duties of the Judge and Jury
Members of the jury, you have now heard all the evidence. The attorneys will have one last chance to talk to you in closing argument. But before they do, it is my duty to instruct you on the law that applies to this case. You must follow these instructions as well as those that I previously gave you. You will have a copy of my instructions with you when you go to the jury room to deliberate.
You must decide what the facts are. You must consider all the evidence and then decide what you think happened. You must decide the facts based on the evidence admitted in this trial.
Do not allow anything that happened outside this courtroom to affect your decision. Do not talk about this case or the people involved in it with anyone, including family and persons living in your household, friends and co-workers, spiritual leaders, advisors, or therapists. Do not do any research on your own or as a group. Do not use dictionaries or other reference materials.
These prohibitions on communications and research extend to all forms of electronic communications.
A juror: “Should I Facebook friend the defendant?” http://jurylaw.typepad.com/deliberations/jurors-and-the-internet/
Do not use any electronic devices or media, such as a cell phone or smart phone, PDA, computer, tablet device, the Internet, any Internet service, any text or instant-messaging service, any Internet chat room, blog, or website, including social networking websites or online diaries, to send or receive any information to or from anyone about this case or your experience as a juror until after you have been discharged from your jury duty.
Do not investigate the case or conduct any experiments. Do not contact anyone to assist you, such as a family accountant, doctor, or lawyer. Do not visit or view the scene of any event involved in this case. If you happen to pass by the scene, do not stop or investigate.
All jurors must see or hear the same evidence at the same time. Do not read, listen to, or watch any news accounts of this trial. You must not let bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion influence your decision.
I will now tell you the law that you must follow to reach your verdict. You must follow the law exactly as I give it to you, even if you disagree with it. If the attorneys have said anything different about what the law means, you must follow what I say.
In reaching your verdict, do not guess what I think your verdict should be from something I may have said or done.
Pay careful attention to all the instructions that I give you. All the instructions are important because together they state the law that you will use in this case. You must consider all of the instructions together.
After you have decided what the facts are, you may find that some instructions do not apply. In that case, follow the instructions that do apply and use them together with the facts to reach your verdict.
If I repeat any ideas or rules of law during my instructions, that does not mean that these ideas or rules are more important than the others. In addition, the order in which the instructions are given does not make any difference.
Instruction No 5001
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Insurance
You must not consider whether any of the parties in this case has insurance. The presence or absence of insurance is totally irrelevant. You must decide this case based only on the law and the evidence.
Instruction No.5002
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Evidence
Sworn testimony, documents, or anything else may be admitted into evidence. You must decide what the facts are in this case from the evidence you have seen or heard during the trial, including any exhibits that I admit into evidence. You may not consider as evidence anything that you saw or heard when court was not in session, even something done or said by one of the parties, attorneys, or witnesses.
What the attorneys say during the trial is not evidence. In their opening statements and closing arguments, the attorneys talk to you about the law and the evidence. What the lawyers say may help you understand the law and the evidence, but their statements and arguments are not evidence.
The attorneys’ questions are not evidence. Only the witnesses’ answers are evidence. You should not think that something is true just because an attorney’s question suggested that it was true. However, the attorneys for both sides have agreed that certain facts are true. This agreement is called a stipulation. No other proof is needed and you must accept those facts as true in this trial.
Each side had the right to object to evidence offered by the other side. If I sustained an objection to a question, you must ignore the question. If the witness did not answer, you must not guess what he or she might have said or why I sustained the objection. If the witness already answered, you must ignore the answer.
Instruction No 5003
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Witnesses
A witness is a person who has knowledge related to this case. You will have to decide whether you believe each witness and how important each witness’s testimony is to the case. You may believe all, part, or none of a witness’s testimony.
In deciding whether to believe a witness’s testimony, you may consider, among other factors, the following:
(a) How well did the witness see, hear, or otherwise sense what he or she described in court?
(b) How well did the witness remember and describe what happened?
(c) How did the witness look, act, and speak while testifying?
(d) Did the witness have any reason to say something that was not true? Did the witness show any bias or prejudice? Did the witness have a personal relationship with any of the parties involved in the case? Does the witness have a personal stake in how this case is decided?
(e) What was the witness’s attitude toward this case or about giving testimony?
Sometimes a witness may say something that is not consistent with something else he or she said. Sometimes different witnesses will give different versions of what happened. People often forget things or make mistakes in what they remember. Also, two people may see the same event but remember it differently. You may consider these differences, but do not decide that testimony is untrue just because it differs from other testimony.
However, if you decide that a witness deliberately testified untruthfully about something important, you may choose not to believe anything that witness said. On the other hand, if you think the witness testified untruthfuiiy about some things but told the truth about others, you may accept the part you think is true and ignore the rest.
Do not make any decision simply because there were more witnesses on one side than on the other. If you believe it is true, the testimony of a single witness is enough to prove a fact.
You must not be biased in favor of or against any witness because of his or her disability, gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, national origin or socioeconomic status.
Special instruction No 1
| Request by Plaintiffs | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Defendants Will Be Referred To As “AEG Live”
Throughout the jury instructions and on the verdict form, defendants AEG Live, LLC and AEG Live Productions, LLC will be referred to jointly as “AEG Live.”
Special Instruction No 2
| Request by Plaintiffs | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Minor’s Right to Sue: Guardian Ad Litem
Michael Joseph Jackson, Jr., Paris-Michael Katherine Jackson, and Prince Michael Jackson II are three of the plaintiffs in this case. They have been referred to throughout this trial as Prince, Paris, and Blanket, respectively.
Because Prince, Paris, and Blanket are under the age of 18, and are therefore minors, the law requires that an adult bring the suit on their behalf. The adult is called a guardian. In this case, Katherine Jackson, the children’s grandmother, has been named as the guardian for Prince, Paris, and Blanket.
Instruction No 5005 (Modified)
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | Modified by Court | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Multiple Parties
There are four plaintiffs in this trial. You should decide the case of each plaintiff separately as if it were a separate lawsuit. Each plaintiff is entitled to separate consideration of his or her own claims.
Unless I tell you otherwise, all instructions apply to each plaintiff and defendant.
Instruction No 5006
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Nonperson Party
AEG Live, a limited liability company, is a party in this lawsuit. AEG Live is entitled to the same fair and impartial treatment that you would give to an individual. You must decide this case with the same fairness that you would use if you were deciding the case between individuals.
When I use words like “person” or “he” or “she” in these instructions to refer to a party, those instructions also apply to AEG Live.
Instruction No 5007
| Request by Plaintiffs | Request by Defendants | Modified by Court | X | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
This was a joint jury instruction about Randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware no longer a party to this suit, only there were some variations between the two sides.
The Plaintiffs’ variant of this instruction of September 10, 2013 said:
- Brandon Phillips and Paul Gongaware are no longer parties to this case. Do not speculate as to why these persons are no longer involved in the case. You should not consider this during your deliberations.
And the Defendants’ variant of the same instruction said:
- Brandon Phillips and Paul Gongaware are no longer parties to this case. Do not speculate as to why these persons are no longer involved in the case. You should not consider this during your deliberations.
- Plaintiffs’ claim against AEG Live for negligently hiring or retaining Dr. Conrad Murray, to which AEG Live alleges the affirmative defense that Michael Jackson contributed to the harm by hiring Dr. Murray and requesting propofol.
And the judge approved it in the following variant:
Removal of Claims or Parties and Remaining Claims and Parties
Brandon Phillips and Paul Gongaware are no longer parties to this case.
Do not speculate as to why these persons are no longer involved in the case. You should not consider this during your deliberations.
The following claims remain for you to resolve by your deliberations:
1) Plaintiffs’ claim against AEG Live for negligently hiring, supervising, or retaining Dr. Conrad Murray, to which AEG Live asserts the affirmative defense that Michael Jackson contributed to his own harm through negligence and through failing to use reasonable care in connection with his medical care.
Instruction No 113
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Bias
Each one of us has biases about or certain perceptions or stereotypes of other people. We may be aware of some of our biases, though we may not share them with others. We may not be fully aware of some of our other biases.
Our biases often affect how we act, favorably or unfavorably, toward someone. Bias can affect our thoughts, how we remember, what we see and hear, whom we believe or disbelieve, and how we make important decisions.
As jurors you are being asked to make very important decisions in this case. You must not let bias, prejudice, or public opinion influence your decision.
Your verdict must be based solely on the evidence presented. You must carefully evaluate the evidence and resist any urge to reach a verdict that is influenced by bias for or against any party or witness.
Instruction No 114 (Modified)
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Bench Conferences and Conferences in Chambers
From time to time during the trial, it became necessary for me to talk with the attorneys out of the hearing of the jury, either by having a conference at the bench when the jury was present in the courtroom, or by calling a recess to discuss matters outside of your presence. The purpose of these conferences was not to keep relevant information from you, but to decide how certain evidence was to be treated under the rules of evidence. Do not be concerned about our discussions or try to guess what was being said.
I did not always grant an attorney’s request for a conference. Do not consider my granting or denying a request for a conference as any indication of my opinion of the case or of my view of the evidence.
Instruction No 200
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | Modified by Court | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Obligation to Prove—More Likely True Than Not True
A party must persuade you, by the evidence presented in court, that what he or she is required to prove is more likely to be true than not true. This is referred to as “the burden of proof.”
After weighing all of the evidence, if you cannot decide that something is more likely to be true than not true, you must conclude that the party did not prove it. You should consider all the evidence, no matter which party produced the evidence.
In criminal trials, the prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But in civil trials, such as this one, the party who is required to prove something need prove only that it is more likely to be true than not true.
Special Instruction No 3
| Request by Plaintiffs | Request by Defendants | Modified by Court | X | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Burden of Proof
Plaintiffs have the burden of proving the elements of their negligent hiring, supervision, or retention claim.
Defendants have the burden of proving their affirmative defense that Michael Jackson contributed to his own harm.
Instruction No 202
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Direct and Indirect Evidence
Evidence can come in many forms. It can be testimony about what someone saw or heard or smelled. It can be an exhibit admitted into evidence. It can be someone’s opinion.
Some evidence proves a fact directly, such as testimony of a witness who saw a jet plane flying across the sky. Some evidence proves a fact indirectly, such as testimony of a witness who saw only the white trail that jet planes often leave. This indirect evidence is sometimes referred to as “circumstantial evidence;” in either instance, the witness’s testimony is evidence that a jet plane flew across the sky.
As far as the law is concerned, it makes no difference whether evidence is direct or indirect. You may choose to believe or disbelieve either kind. Whether it is direct or indirect, you should give every piece of evidence whatever weight you think it deserves.
Instruction No 203
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Party Having Power to Produce Better Evidence
You may consider the ability of each party to provide evidence. If a party provided weaker evidence when it could have provided stronger evidence, you may distrust the weaker evidence.
Instruction No 205
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Failure to Explain or Deny Evidence
You may consider whether a party failed to explain or deny some unfavorable evidence. Failure to explain or to deny unfavorable evidence may suggest that the evidence is true.
Instruction No 206
| Request by Plaintiffs | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Evidence Admitted for Limited Purpose
During the trial, I explained to you that certain evidence was admitted for a limited purpose. You may consider that evidence only for the limited purpose that I described, and not for any other purpose.
Instruction No 208 (Modified)
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | X | Given on Court’s Motion |
Deposition as Substantive Evidence
During the trial, you heard testimony read from a deposition transcript or viewed deposition testimony on video. A deposition is the testimony of a person taken before trial. At a deposition the person is sworn to tell the truth and is questioned by the attorneys. You must consider the deposition testimony that you viewed or was read to you in the same way as you consider testimony given in court.
Instruction No 209
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Use of Interrogatories of a Party
Before trial, each party has the right to ask the other parties to answer written questions. These questions are called interrogatories. The answers are also in writing and are given under oath.
You must consider the questions and answers that were read to you the same as if the questions and answers had been given in court.
Instruction No 212
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Statements of a Party Opponent
A party may offer into evidence any oral or written statement made by an opposing party outside the courtroom.
When you evaluate evidence of such a statement, you must consider these questions:
1. Do you believe that the party actually made the statement? If you do not believe that the party made the statement, you may not consider the statement at all.
2. If you believe that the statement was made, do you believe it, was reported accurately?
You should view testimony about an oral statement made by a party outside the courtroom with caution.
Instruction No 215
| Request by Plaintiffs | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Exercise of a Communication Privilege
People have a legal right not to disclose what they told their doctor or attorney in confidence because the law considers this information privileged. People may exercise this privilege freely and without fear of penalty.
You must not use the fact that a witness exercised this privilege to decide whether he or she should be believed. Indeed, you must not let it affect any of your decisions in this case.
Instruction No 219
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Expert Witness Testimony
During the trial you heard testimony from expert witnesses. The law allows an expert to state opinions about matters in his or her field of expertise even if he or she has not witnessed any of the events involved in the trial.
You do not have to accept an expert’s opinion. As with any other witness, it is up to you to decide whether you believe the expert’s testimony and choose to use it as a basis for your. decision. You may believe all, part, or none of an expert’s testimony. In deciding whether to believe an expert’s testimony, you should consider:
1. The expert’s training and experience;
2. The facts the expert relied on; and
3. The reasons for the expert’s opinion.
Instruction No 220
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed. | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Experts Questions Containing Assumed Facts
The law allows expert witnesses to be asked questions that are based on assumed facts. These are sometimes called “hypothetical questions.”
In determining the weight to give to the expert’s opinion that is based on the assumed facts, you should consider whether the assumed facts are true.
Instruction No 221
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Conflicting Expert Testimony
If the expert witnesses disagreed with one another, you should weigh each opinion against the others. You should examine the reasons given for each opinion and the facts or other matters that each witness relied on. You may also compare the experts’ qualifications.
Instruction No 223
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Opinion Testimony of Lay Witness
A witness who was not testifying as an expert gave an opinion during the trial. You may, but are not required to, accept that opinion. You may give the opinion whatever weight you think is appropriate.
Consider the extent of the witness’s opportunity to perceive the matters on which the opinion is based, the reasons the witness gave for the opinion, and the facts or information on which the witness relied in forming that opinion. You must decide whether information on which the witness relied was true and accurate. You may disregard all or any part of an opinion that you find unbelievable, unreasonable, or unsupported by the evidence.
Instruction No 224
| Request by Plaintiffs | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Testimony of Child
You have heard testimony from Prince Jackson, who is 16 years old, and Paris Jackson, who was 14 and 15 years old when she testified. As with any other witness, you must decide whether these children gave truthful and accurate testimony.
In evaluating a child’s testimony, you should consider all of the factors surrounding that testimony, including the child’s age and ability to perceive, understand, remember, and communicate.
You should not discount or distrust testimony just because a witness is a child.
Special Instruction No 4
| Request by Plaintiffs | Request by Defendants | Modified by Court | X | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Hiring
In considering the issues in this case, you may determine that AEG Live, or Michael Jackson, or both, or neither, hired Dr. Conrad Murray.
Special Instruction No 5
| Request by Plaintiffs | Request by Defendants | Modified by Court | X | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Introduction to Contracts Questions
Plaintiffs claim that Dr. Conrad Murray was hired by a written contract, an oral contract, or through conduct (an implied in fact contract). In determining this question, you should consider the evidence in this case and the instructions I am about to give you.
Instruction No 302 (Modified)
| Request by Plaintiffs | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Contract Formation—Essential Factual Elements
Plaintiffs claim that AEG Live and Dr. Conrad Murray entered into a contract or agreement. To prove that a contract or agreement was created, plaintiffs must prove all of the following:
1) That the contract or agreement terms were clear enough that AEG Live and Dr. Conrad Murray understood what each was required to do;
2) That AEG Live and Dr. Conrad Murray agreed to give each other something of value (a promise to do something or not to do something may have value); and
3) That AEG Live and Dr. Conrad Murray agreed to the terms of the contract or agreement.
When you examine whether AEG Live and Dr. Conrad Murray agreed to the terms of a contract, ask yourself if, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would conclude, from the words and conduct of each party, that there was an agreement. You may not consider the parties’ hidden intentions. If plaintiffs did not prove all of the above, then a contract or agreement was not created between AEG Live and Dr. Conrad Murray.
Instruction No 304
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | Modified by Court | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Oral or Written Contract Terms
Contracts may be written or oral.
Contracts may be partly written and partly oral.
Oral contracts are just as valid as written contracts.
Instruction No 306
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | Modified by Court | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Unformalized Agreement
AEG Live contends that it did not enter into a contract with Dr. Conrad Murray because they had not signed a final written agreement. To prove that a contract was created, plaintiffs must prove the following:
1) That AEG Live and Dr. Conrad Murray understood and agreed to the terms of the agreement; and
2) That AEG Live and Dr. Conrad Murray agreed to be bound before a written agreement was completed and signed.
Instruction No 305
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Implied-in-Fact Contract
In deciding whether a contract was created, you should consider the conduct and relationship of the parties as well as all the circumstances of the case.
Contracts can be created by the conduct of the parties, without spoken or written words. Contracts created by conduct are just as valid as contracts formed with words.
Conduct will create a contract if the conduct of both parties is intentional and each knows, or has reason to know, that the other party will interpret the conduct as an agreement to enter into a contract.
Instruction No 426 (Modified)
| Request by Plaintiffs | Request by Defendants | Modified by Court | X | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
This is the crucial point about hiring Murray which originally had the following propositions from both sides. The Plaintiffs’ version had 4 points and a title:
Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee
Plaintiffs claim that they were harmed by Dr. Conrad Murray and that AEG Live is responsible for that harm because AEG Live negligently hired, supervised, or retained Dr. Conrad Murray. To establish this claim, plaintiffs must prove all of the following:
1. That Dr. Conrad Murray was unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired;
2. 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;
3. That Dr. Conrad Murray’s unfitness or incompetence harmed the plaintiffs; and
4. That AEG Live’s negligence in hiring, supervising, or retaining Dr. Conrad Murray was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’ harm.
And the AEG Defendants’ original variant had five points, adding “Did AEG Live hire Murray?” to the top of the list and crossing out the words “superivision” and “employee”. It was called Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee:
Plaintiffs claim that they were harmed by Dr. Conrad Murray and that AEG Live is responsible for that harm because AEG Live negligently hired or retained Dr. Conrad Murray. To establish this claim, plaintiffs must prove all of the following:
1. That AEG Live hired Dr. Conrad Murray;
2. That Dr. Conrad Murray was unfit or incompetent to perform the work specific tasks for which he was hired;
3. That AEG Live knew or should have .known that Dr. Conrad Murray was unfit or incompetent to provide general care for Michael Jackson and that this unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk to others the particular risk that he would harm Michael Jackson by administering improper medical treatment;
4. That Dr. Conrad Murray’s unfitness or incompetence harmed the plaintiffs and Michael Jackson; and
5. That AEG Live’s negligence in hiring or retaining Dr. Conrad Murray was a substantial factor in causing Michael Jackson’s and plaintiffs’ harm.
The Defendants were so concerned about this point that they had an alternative variant of the same instruction also called Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee:
Plaintiffs claim that they were harmed by Dr. Conrad Murray and that AEG Live is responsible for that harm because AEG Live negligently hired or retained Dr. Conrad Murray. To establish this claim, plaintiffs must prove all of 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 or retaining Dr. Conrad Murray was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’ harm.
The Judge approved this instruction in the following variant:
Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention
Plaintiffs claim that they were harmed by Dr. Conrad Murray and that AEG Live is responsible for that harm because AEG Live negligently hired, supervised, or retained Dr. Conrad Murray. To establish this claim, plaintiffs must prove all of the following:
- That AEG Live hired Dr. Conrad Murray;
- That Dr. Conrad Murray was unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired;
- 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;
- That Dr. Conrad Murray’s unfitness or incompetence harmed the plaintiffs; and
- That AEG Live’s negligence in hiring, supervising, or retaining Dr. Conrad Murray was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’ harm.
Instruction No 401 (Modified)
| Request by Plaintiffs | Request by Defendants | Modified by Court | X | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Basic Standard of Care
A person hiring, supervising, or retaining another person has a duty to exercise reasonable care in doing so. A person can be negligent by acting or failing to act. A person is negligent if he or she does something that a reasonably careful person would not do in the same situation or fails to do something that a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation.
A person is not negligent just because he or she failed to act affirmatively to assist another person or failed to protect another person from harm at the hands of a third party, even if he or she could have done so.
In this case, you should evaluate whether AEG Live acted negligently only in connection with plaintiffs’ claim that AEG Live hired, supervised, or retained Dr. Conrad Murray.
Instruction No 411
| Request by Plaintiffs | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Reliance on Good Conduct of Others
Every person has a right to expect that every other person will use reasonable care and will not violate the law, unless he or she knows, or should know, that the other person will not use reasonable care or will violate the law.
Instruction No 430
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Substantial Factor
A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm. It must be more than a remote or trivial factor. It does not have to be the only cause of harm.
Conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct.
Instruction No 431 (Modified)
| Request by Plaintiffs | Request by Defendants | Modified by Court | X | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Causation: Multiple Causes
A person’s negligence may combine with another factor to cause harm. If you find that AEG Live’s negligence in hiring, supervising, or retaining Dr. Conrad Murray was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’ harm, then AEG Live is responsible for that harm. AEG Live cannot avoid responsibility just because some other person, condition, or event was also a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs’ harm.
Instruction No 3703
| Request by Plaintiffs | Request by Defendants | Modified by Court | X | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Legal Relationship Not Disputed
In this case Paul Gongaware, Julie Hollander, John Meglen, Randy Phillips, and Shawn Trell are employees of AEG Live, and Timm Woolley and Kathy Jorrie were agents of AEG Live in connection with the This Is It tour in 2009.
If you find that any of these individuals were acting within the scope of his. or her employment or agency relationship when the incident occurred, then AEG Live is responsible for those individuals’ conduct.
Instruction No 3921 (Modified)
| Request by Plaintiffs | Request by Defendants | Modified by Court | X | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Wrongful Death (Death of an Adult)
If you decide plaintiffs proved their claim against AEG Live for the death of Michael Jackson, you must also decide how much money, if any, will reasonably compensate plaintiffs for the death of Michael Jackson. This compensation is called “damages.”
Plaintiffs do not have to prove the exact amount of these damages. However, you must not speculate or guess in awarding damages.
The damages claimed by plaintiffs fall into two categories called economic damages and noneconomic damages. You will be asked to state the two categories of damages separately on the verdict form.
Plaintiffs claim the following economic damages:
1. The financial support, if any, that Michael Jackson would have contributed to the family during either the life expectancy that Michael Jackson had before his death or the life expectancy of plaintiffs, whichever is shorter; and
2. The loss of gifts or benefits that plaintiffs would have expected to receive from Michael Jackson; and
3. The reasonable value of household services that Michael Jackson would have provided.
Your award of any future economic damages must then be reduced to present cash value.
Plaintiffs also claim the following non-economic damages:
1. The loss of Michael Jackson’s love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, moral support; and
2. The loss of Michael Jackson’s training and guidance.
“Unforgettable juror art” from:
http://jurylaw.typepad.com/deliberations/american_gallery_of_juror_art/
No fixed standard exists for deciding the amount of noneconomic damages.
You must use your judgment to decide a reasonable amount based on the evidence and your common sense.
For these noneconomic damages, determine the amount in current dollars paid at the time of judgment that will compensate plaintiffs for those damages.
This amount of noneconomic damages should not be further reduced to present cash value because that reduction should only be performed with respect to future economic damages.
In determining plaintiffs’ loss, do not consider:
(a) Plaintiffs’ grief, sorrow, or mental anguish;
(b) Michael Jackson’s pain and suffering; or
(c) The poverty or wealth of plaintiffs.
In deciding a person’s life expectancy, you may consider, among other factors, the average life expectancy of a person of that age, as well as that person’s health, habits, activities, lifestyle, and occupation. According to the National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 61, No.3, the average life expectancy of a 50-year-old male is 29.1 years, and the average life expectancy of a 83 year-old female is 7.8 years. This published information is evidence of how long a person is likely to live but is not conclusive. Some people live longer and others die sooner.
Instruction No 3924
| Request by Plaintiffs | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
No Punitive Damages
You must not include in your award any damages to punish or make an example of AEG Live. Such damages would be punitive damages, and they cannot be a part of your verdict. You must award only the damages that fairly compensate plaintiffs for their loss.
Instruction No 3925
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Arguments of Counsel Not Evidence of Damages
The arguments of the attorneys are not evidence of damages. Your award must be based on your reasoned judgment applied to the testimony of the witnesses and the other evidence that has been admitted during trial.
Instruction No 3964
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Jurors Not to Consider Attorney Fees and Court Costs
You must not consider, or include as part of any award, attorney fees or expenses that the parties incurred in bringing or defending this lawsuit.
Instruction No 517 (Modified)
| Request by Plaintiffs | Request by Defendants | Modified by Court | X | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Affirmative Defense—Patient’s Duty to Provide for His or Her Own Weil-Being
A patient must use reasonable care to provide for his or her own well-being.
AEG Live claims that Michael Jackson’s, death was caused by his own negligence in connection with his medical care. To succeed, AEG Live must prove both of the following:
That Michael Jackson did not use reasonable care to provide for his own well-being; and
That Michael Jackson’s failure to use reasonable care in connection with his medical care was a substantial factor in causing his harm.
Instruction No 407
| Request by Plaintiffs | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Comparative Fault of Decedent
AEG Live claims Michael Jackson’s own negligence contributed to his death. To succeed on this claim, AEG Live must prove both of the following:
That Michael Jackson was negligent; and
That Michael Jackson’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing his death.
If AEG Live proves the above, plaintiffs’ damages are reduced by your determination of the percentage of Michael Jackson’s responsibility. I will calculate the actual reduction.
Instruction No 406 (Modified)
| Request by Plaintiffs | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | ||
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Apportionment of Responsibility
If you find that the negligence of more than one person, including AEG Live and Michael Jackson, was a substantial factor in causing the death of Michael Jackson, you must then decide how much responsibility each has by assigning percentages of responsibility to each person listed on the verdict form. The percentages must total 100 percent.
You will make a separate finding of plaintiffs’ total damages, if any. In determining an amount of damages, you should not consider any person’s assigned percentage of responsibility.
“Person” can mean an individual or a business entity.
Instruction No 5009
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Predeliberation Instructions
The sketch called “Fellow jurors” from the American gallery of jurors art (click to enlarge): http://jurylaw.typepad.com/deliberations/2007/05/american_galler.html
When you go to the jury room, the first thing you should do is choose a presiding juror. The presiding juror should see to it that your discussions are orderly and that everyone has a fair chance to be heard.
It is your duty to talk with one another in the jury room and to consider the views of all the jurors. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after you have considered the evidence with the other members of the jury.
Feel free to change your mind if you are convinced that your position should be different. You should all try to agree. But do not give up your honest beliefs just because the others think differently.
Please do not state your opinions too strongly at the beginning of your deliberations or immediately announce how you plan to vote as it may interfere with an open discussion.
Keep an open mind so that you and your fellow jurors can easily share ideas about the case.
You should use your common sense, but do not use or consider any special training or unique CD personal experience that any of you have in matters involved in this case. Your training or experience is not a part of the evidence received in this case.
Sometimes jurors disagree or have questions about the evidence or about what the witnesses said in their testimony. If that happens, you may ask to have testimony read back to you or ask to see any exhibits admitted into evidence that have not already been provided to you.
Also, jurors may need further explanation about the laws that apply to the case. If this happens during your discussions, write down your questions and give them to the court attendant. I will talk with the attorneys before I answer so it may take some time. You should continue your deliberations while you wait for my answer. I will do my best to answer them. When you write me a note, do not tell me how you voted on an issue until I ask for this information in open court.
At least nine jurors must agree on a verdict. When you have finished filing out the form, your presiding juror must write the date and sign it at the bottom and then notify the court attendant that you are ready to present your verdict in the courtroom.
Your decision must be based on your personal evaluation of the evidence presented in the case. Each of you may be asked in open court how you voted on each question.
While I know you would not do this, I am required to advise you that you must not base your decision on chance, such as a flip of a coin. If you decide to award damages, you may not agree in advance to simply add up the amounts each juror thinks is right and then, without further deliberations, make the average your verdict.
You may take breaks, but do not discuss this case with anyone, including each other, until all of you are back in the jury room.
Instruction No 5010
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Taking Notes During the Trial
If you have taken notes during the trial you may take your notebooks with you into the jury room.
You may use your notes only to help you remember what happened during the trial. Your independent recollection of the evidence should govern your verdict. You should not allow yourself to be influenced by the notes of other jurors if those notes differ from what you remember.
At the end of the trial, your notes will be collected and destroyed.
Instruction No 5011
| Request by Plaintiff | X | Request by Defendant | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Reading Back of Trial Testimony in Jury Room
You may request in writing that trial testimony be read to you. I will have the court reporter read the testimony to you. You may request that all or a part of a witness’s testimony be read.
Your request should be as specific as possible. It will be helpful if you can state:
- The name of the witness;
- The subject of the testimony you would like to have read; and
- The name of the attorney or attorneys asking the questions when the testimony was
given.
The court reporter is not permitted to talk with you when she or he is reading the testimony you have requested.
While the court reporter is reading the testimony, you may not deliberate or discuss the case.
You may not ask the court reporter to read testimony that was not specifically mentioned in a written request. If your notes differ from the testimony, you must accept the court reporter’s record as accurate.
Instruction No 5012
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Introduction to Special Verdict Form
I will give you a verdict form with questions you must answer. I have already instructed you on the law that you are to use in answering these questions. You must follow my instructions and the forms carefully. You must consider each question separately. Although you may discuss the evidence and the issues to be decided in any order, you must answer the questions on the verdict form in the order they appear. After you answer a question, the form tells you what to do next. All 12 of you must deliberate on and answer each question. At least 9 of you must agree on an answer before all of you can move on to the next question. However, the same 9 or more people do not have to agree on each answer.
When you have finished filling out the forms, your presiding juror must write the date and sign it at the bottom and then notify the court attendant that you are ready to present your verdict in the courtroom.
Instruction No 5017
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Polling the Jury
After your verdict is read in open court, you may be asked individually to indicate whether the verdict expresses your personal vote. This is referred to as “polling” the jury and is done to ensure that at least nine jurors have agreed to each decision.
The verdict form that you will receive asks you to answer several questions. You must vote separately on each question.
Although nine or more jurors must agree on each answer, it does not have to be the same nine for each answer. Therefore, it is important for each of you to remember how you have voted on each question, so that if the jury is polled, each of you will be able to answer accurately about how you voted.
Each of you will be provided a draft copy of the verdict form for your use in keeping track of your votes.
Instruction No 5018
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Audio or Video Recording and Transcript
A sound or video recording has been admitted into evidence, and a transcript of the recording has been provided to you. The recording itself is the evidence. The transcript may not be completely accurate. It may contain errors, omissions, or notations of inaudible portions of the recording. Therefore, you should use the transcript only as a guide to help you in following along with the recording. If there is a discrepancy between your understanding of the recording and the transcript, your understanding of the recording must prevail.
Instruction No 5020
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified.by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Demonstrative Evidence
During the trial, materials have been shown to you to help explain testimony or other evidence in the case. Some of these materials have been admitted into evidence, and you will be able to review them during your deliberations.
Other materials have also been shown to you during the trial, but they have not been admitted into evidence. You will not be able to review them during your deliberations because they are not themselves evidence or proof of any facts. You may, however, consider the testimony given in connection with those materials.
Instruction No 5015
| Request by Plaintiffs | X | Request by Defendants | X | Modified by Court | |
| Given as Proposed | Given as Modified | Given on Court’s Motion |
Instruction to Alternate Jurors
As alternate jurors, you are bound by the same rules that govern the conduct of the jurors who are sitting on the panel. You should not form or express any opinion about this case until after you have been substituted in for one of the deliberating jurors on the panel or until the jury has been discharged.
* * *
Well, did you see any instruction here to look into the time of hiring Murray when answering question No. 2 in the verdict form? I mean the question “Was Dr. Murray unfit and incompetent for the job he was hired” ?
I didn’t see any.
So did the jurors break the judge’s instructions which clearly reminded them to look into the whole period of hiring, supervision or retention of Dr. Murray?
Well, the Defendants did suggest looking into “the time of hiring only” in their own version of the instructions, but the jury couldn’t know about them as all of us will surely agree.
This of course if the jurors did not break the rules and did not read certain websites or newspapers during deliberations, did not listen to outside advisors, did not receive text messages prompting them how to answer question No.2, and did not give in to domineering guys like juror Kevin White (for example), who will not leave a single person alone until he rubs his preconceived ideas into every else’s minds.
Message from a juror: “we’re deliberating where ‘re you?” http://jurylaw.typepad.com/deliberations/2007/07/scrushy.html
If you think that the jurors excursions to the internet, reading what they shouldn’t read and exchanging some materials during the deliberations period is the fruit of my imagination, you should get yourself familiar with a fantastic site on jury deliberations run by the American Society of Trial Consultants from which all the pictures in this post have been taken: http://jurylaw.typepad.com/deliberations/voir_dire/ . If you do you will be amazed at the scope and nature of outside activities some jurors involve themselves in.
If someone like that finds himself on the jury panel, anything will become possible for these people – up to repeating word for word the AEG lawyers’ ideas though they are not supposed to even know of the preliminary versions of their documents.
Here are some of the instructions to the jurors from the AEG lawyers’ preliminary documents which are not found in the final variant of the jury instructions approved by the judge.
AEG LAWYERS’ INSTRUCTIONS NOT INCLUDED IN THE FINAL VARIANT
Over here I’ve selected only four special instructions from AEG not accepted by the judge, though there were many more of them (most of them concerned AEG’s reflections on Murray’s contract). The full version of what was proposed by the AEG lawyers may be found here: http://ru.scribd.com/doc/167786034/AEG-Proposed-Jury-Instructions
AEG’s instruction No.2 implies that the moment of hiring Murray was not when the actual negligence took place (and was therefore at an earlier time):
Special instruction No 2
Request by Plaintiffs Request by Defendants X Modified by Court Given as Proposed Given as Modified Given on Court’s Motion Negligent Hiring Claim Requires Proof of Employment Relationship
Plaintiffs claim that AEG Live was negligent in hiring or retaining Dr. Conrad Murray. The first thing you must determine is whether or not AEG Live hired Dr. Murray at the time the acts which plaintiffs claim constitute negligence took place. Hiring requires that AEG Live and Dr. Conrad Murray had an agreement or contract for services in place. To determine whether or not AEG Live hired Dr. Murray in this case, you should consider the contract instructions I am about to give you.
And this AEG instruction clearly implies that at the time of hiring Murray the employer could not know that he would present a hazard to his patient:
Special instruction No 7
Request by Plaintiffs Request by Defendants X Modified by Court Given as Proposed Given as Modified Given on Court’s Motion Particular Risk Of Hazard
Negligence liability will be imposed on an employer if it knew or should have known that hiring a person created a particular risk or hazard and that particular harm materializes.
You may not find AEG Live liable unless you find trial AEG Live knew or should have known that Dr. Murray created a particular risk or hazard to Michael Jackson and that particular risk or hazard actually materialized, resulting in Michael Jackson’s death.
The next instruction from AEG points to the time of hiring again as it wonders if there were any notices at that moment that should have alerted AEG to Dr. Murray’s incompetence.
The instruction also presses on the jury the idea that any licensed doctor is a competent doctor, and surprisingly, it is exactly along these lines that the jurors discussed Dr. Murray.
The period of retaining or supervising Murray is totally ignored in this instruction as it focuses only on propofol and whether AEG could know about it, and all this naturally at the time of hiring Murray:
Special instruction No 8
Request by Plaintiffs Request by Defendants X Modified by Court Given as Proposed Given as Modified Given on Court’s Motion Unfitness or Incompetence of Doctors
For AEG Live to be liable for the negligent hiring of Dr. Conrad Murray, plaintiffs must prove that AEG Live knew or should have known facts that put it on reasonable notice that Dr. Conrad Murray was unfit and incompetent to continue as Michael Jackson’s personal physician.
A doctor is presumed to be competent if licenced by the state in which he is practicing. Dr. Conrad Murray was licenced to practice medicine in the state of California. Dr. Conrad Murray was therefore presumed to be competent, unless facts were brought to AEG Live’s attention, at the time that Dr. Murray was hired that demonstrated that Dr. Conrad Murray was either unfit and incompetent.
The plaintiffs must prove that despite a presumption of competence, AEG Live knew or should have known facts that put them on reasonable notice that Dr. Conrad Murray posed a risk of providing Michael Jackson with the anesthetic propofol, and that risk materialized, and resulted in the death of Michael Jackson.
And this instruction directly says that at the time of hiring Murray AEG could not foresee what he would do. The period of retaining and supervising Murray is totally ignored again:
Special instruction No 9
Request by Plaintiffs Request by Defendants X Modified by Court Given as Proposed Given as Modified Given on Court’s Motion Foreseeability
To determine whether AEG Live knew or should have known that Dr. Conrad Murray’s unfitness and competence created a particular risk of harm to Michael Jackson, one test that is helpful to ask the question whether or not, if a person of ordinary prudence had been in the same situation and possessed the same knowledge as AEG Live, he or she would have foreseen or anticipated that Dr. Murray might have harmed Michael Jackson in the manner that occurred here.
What’s strange about the above is that though these four instructions were not included into the final variant, the jurors nevertheless seemed to be guided by them alone. And simultaneoulsy they disregarded all instructions speaking of the whole period of hiring, supervision or retention of Dr. Murray.
And now they say that they were guided only by the law?
WHAT NOW?
This article written by legal advisors is summing up the situation with the verdict and what may come of it.
We learn the sad news that California law gives the prevailing party “the right to pursue the losing party for costs and attorney fees incurred in defending the case”, so in theory Mrs. Jackson may be required now to cover the multi-million expenses sustained by AEG on this lawsuit.
This makes me think that going forward and making an appeal is the only way out:
Michael Jackson AEG Verdict Analysis
LOS ANGELES (October 2, 2013) – The verdict on the civil lawsuit involving Michael Jackson’s death was read today in Downtown Los Angeles. After 5 months of trial and 14 hours of jury deliberation, the jury ultimately found on behalf of the Defendants, AEG. This means that AEG, and its executives who were named in the lawsuit, will not have to pay any damages to Katherine Jackson for the loss of her son.
Prior to entering the deliberation room, the jury was given a verdict form with several questions. In order to award any damages to the Jackson family, the jury must answer in the affirmative a list of 5 questions. A “No” response to any question would end the analysis and end the case, effectively giving to victory to the defense.
The two question the jury answered were:
1. ”Did AEG live hire Dr Murray?”
”Yes”
2. ”Was Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?”
”No”
Because the jury answered “No” on the 2nd question, the jury did not have to proceed to the other questions on the verdict form.
There were a total of 16 questions on the verdict form. From the perspective of the lawyers conducting the trial in a case, juries can sometimes be unpredictable.
Wrongful Death attorney and civil litigation expert Edmond El Dabe states “The jury’s verdict was not necessarily consistent with the evidence. The jury stated they did not think that Dr. Murray was unfit or incompetent, yet he has already been prosecuted in criminal court and had his license yanked.”
Dr. Murray’s medical license has been restricted in California, Nevada and Texas. ”Its clear that Dr. Murray is incompetent. A doctor cannot administer that kind of anesthesia to a person in a private home.”
An autopsy of Michael Jackson revealed that he was administered Propofol (Diprivan), a short acting and powerful intravenous anesthetic used to put patients to sleep during hospital procedures. Not intended for home use, it can only be administered in hospital setting where there is life-saving equipment available in the event an emergency resuscitation is required.
Many fans of Michael Jackson are expressing confusion as the verdict. Both sets of attorneys will now file various post trial motions, including motions for new trials, which will be heard in the next several months.
California law also gives the prevailing party the right to pursue the losing party for costs and attorney fees. It is not clear whether AEG will pursue the Jackson family for costs and fees incurred in defending the case.
The trial began on April 2, 2013 in the courtroom of Judge Yvette Palazuelos.
http://injurylawcentral.com/blog/michael-jackson-aeg-verdict-analysis
Vindicating Michael 
Suparna, what’s exceptionally good about this farce of a verdict is that its absurdity is seen with a naked eye to the whole world and even to non-fans of Michael Jackson. Everyone was stunned and this is a truly precious result.
Oh, who needs enemies with friends like Quincy Jones? He seems to be extremely envious of Michael and never lost a chance to attribute much of Michael’s success to himself and say something derogatory about MJ. I’ve read that these days he is suing the Estate over some royalties and producer credit in This is it (?):
LikeLike
The verdict is a farce and so is the judicial system. Unfortunately, Murray is out – his lawyer Valerie Wass felt the need to address the media with some angry MJ fans in the background. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1PDnokhEQk
LikeLike
Hi Helena,
Please do take care of yourself and do not strain your hand at all. Yes Michael bore far too much in his life. He was way too patient. I just spoke to a colleague of mine who has lupus and who fell ill after being out in the sun for a while. She said that the doctor has forbidden her from long exposures to the sun. Michael not only had lupus but also vitiligo- and the sun was almost lethal for him. And top of that he was doubted and considered to be a freak for carrying an umbrella and wearing masks And even his life long associates and ‘friends’ like Quincy Jones still believed that he lied about his diseases- despite the autopsy report. The jurors will of course offer various explanations for what they did. But as we all know the verdict is a farce.
LikeLike
Thank you, Simba.
I’ll reproduce the pictures here:
But it isn’t LaQuanda. The form of the nose is different and the chin of LaQuanda is much longer. And LaQuanda is older too (I am a woman, so I can tell).
The girl must be one of the customers in Ed Hardy’s shop where he hang about for some time and also managed to flirt with a lot of girls despite his ridiculous outfit. I also have some pictures from that notable event of April 27, 2009, for example:
One should have a very good memory of what Michael is really like to be able to enjoy a photo with him in this outfit. But what a flirt he is!
Unfortunately it is quite possible.
LikeLike
Sorry, Helena, I made an error in posting the link. Try this:
http://mjkit.forumotion.net/t502-very-important-laquanda-price
It would make sense for Murray to introduce Nicole Alvarez to Michael. He was living with her in LA. But Houston is quite a distance from Los Angeles. Murray wouldn’t bring Ms.Price all that way just to shake MJ’s hand. I don’t even think Murray introduced any of his older children to MJ.
In my opinion, it’s obvious that Murray let Michael die, or deliberately killed him, early in the morning of June 25. He made a few calls to fudge the timing, notably that fake call to the waitress he was dating, called Frank Dileo, called the Price sisters, then ran down the stairs hollering for Prince and security.
Thank you for all that you do. Please take care of your health first.
LikeLike
Simba, first of all, the photo does not open for me. Can you send another link please? But then even if it is LaQuanda it can very well mean that Murray brought some of his employees to get acquainted with Michael, same as he brought his current girl friend Nicole Alvarez to Michael’s home to impress her.
Secondly, I am sorry for not writing these days. It seems that I overstrained my hand by too much exercise and am constantly having a sort of a fever which is extremely annoying and draining of all energy. The progress is rather slow.
But I did a little research connected with these two Murray’s employees mentioned by Sina. Here is what I found:
1) It is clear that both women lie as they tell drastically different stories. The amount of lies is unbelievable, and even if the whole incident is nothing the fact that they tell so many lies is extremely strange.
The manager says she spoke to two of them, LaQuisha says she was with her sister there, while LaQuanda says she was not there as she was at the office.
The manager says they arrived by Mercedes car (or were accompanied by it) and placed everything into an old van, but the one who says she was there denies that there was a Mercedes. The article about the Mercedes car is absolutely impossible to find now – the TMZ reporter asks the women about this car, it was reported by Fox news, I’ve read it myself and saw the video where the manager spoke about it, it was reflected in MJEOL bulletin 336, but now this bulletin’s link no longer works. There is no video, there is no Mercedes.
One of the sisters says a box of used-up needles was taken, and the other says it was a chair. And the manager of the storehouse says it was 3-5 boxes and something they carried in their hands.
Here are their videos from TMZ:
LaQuanda Price: http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_ru5sml0s/
LaQuanda’s sister, LaQuisha Middleton told us a different story. That she went to the storage facility with her sister to retrieve a chair. http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_1dgnclh9/
2) From the police document it looks like that week LaQuisha was not working as she was on vacation.
Well, at least on Monday June 22, 2009 – three days before Michael’s death she was on vacation, and if her vacation lasted until Thursday, June 25th there was no reason why she would go to that storehouse at all as she was not at work. However she could go on a personal errand from Murray or someone else.
The information about her vacation comes from a unique document called Affidavit – it is the police detective’s affidavit laying the basis for the search warrant of Murray’s and other premises: http://fathersdayprojects.blogspot.ru/2011/06/fathers-day-date-2009-2013-in-united.html
The document is extremely interesting on its own. Here is a quote from it concerning LaQuisha Middleton:
3) The date of the rental contract agreement is also extremely interesting – it is April 1, 2009. Murray was not working in Houston already and there was another doctor filling in for him while he was away, and of course they could temporarily place his papers there, but what’s the point of paying much money for extra space if all medical records should be near at hand at the hospital and used by the other doctor in case of need? So what was the purpose of renting the storage space on April 1?
Quote from Affidavit:
4) In the same period another storage space was rented in Las Vegas. I wonder where he took all the money from to keep so many storehouses for himself?
5) But what amazes me most is that the police learned about Conrad Murray giving Michael propofol in an interview on June 27, but they went to search Murray’s storehouse in Houston, Texas only on July 23 or a month later!
I am also surprised that the prosecutor did not summon these two sisters to the trial to tell their extremely contradictory story there.
P.S. If I am strong enough I will turn these and some other questions into a post.
LikeLike
This may mean nothing, but it’s been lurking in the back of my mind for some time – the woman in this photo standing next to Michael bears an uncanny resemblance to LaQuanda Price:
http://mjkit.forumotion.net/1502-very-important-laquanda-price
The people on that website were dedicated to the idea that Michael had staged his death and was alive somewhere, which I emphatically do not believe! But isn’t it an odd coincidence that a woman with such a striking resemblance to Murray’s Houston-based employee is photographed in close proximity to Michael Jackson in May of 2009? Could there have been a plot in place to disable, but not necessarily kill Michael, long before June?
LikeLike
Here is the questioning of TMZ of the women who they said took stuff out of Murrays storage. They are 2 sisters who tell different stories ( one says she took out a box for needles and the other says it was ‘ chair’) But they dont really admit
http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_ru5sml0s/
http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_1dgnclh9/
LikeLike
But as you see it did not stop the AEG people. Evidently the practical use of Conrad Murray’s services at that moment was much more important for them than any possible difficulties with the British licence.
Their contract with Murray had a point saying he should obtain and comply with the necessary UK licences, and I am more than sure that if he broke that point he could forget about being paid for his job. But that would be an unpleasant surprise Murray was to find out later, and at the end of June 2009 AEG and Murray needed each other very much and therefore had a big love affair.
P.S. It’s very late here too, so I’m here only for a minute today. Rkatarina, thank you for the compliments. They make me shy but I still have a request to you – please try to group all your messages together especially if they are short. We have only 15 messages on display, so need to save up space. I took the liberty to compress some of your messages into one or two. I hope you understand that this is a necessity and not a whim.
LikeLike
Helena, it is your great intuition then. Amazing anyway.
LikeLike
If they ever thought Murray would be allowed to practice as PG in U.K. they are sorely mistaken.He would among other things have to sit for a personal interview with the General Medical Council in UK.I mentioned it previously on postOct.23.2020 at 4:47pm.I only mentioned 2 questions that are among the standard questions,but they are at liberty to ask whatever they see fit.It is late and Iam too tired to look further into this at present.Never mind as a specialist.
Again, I am amazed at your capacity for derective work of high standard Helena.
LikeLike
No, I am not a detective. It is something different. My quest for the truth is so burning that sometimes information comes to me effortlessly, almost on its own.
The real problem is different – it is finding where to go and what to do next. To be frank for the past two days I’ve just indulged myself thinking.
Of course I can write another post refuting lies in this crazy AEG case which are there on the surface for everyone to see them anyway.
But more than that I want to ask a question of all those who go into so much trouble justifying wrong decisions and big lies in this never-ending circus around Michael – Aren’t you sick and tired of these lies yourselves?
You know the truth, so why are you twisting it? What for are you doing it? What is there so precious at stake for you that you ready to sacrifice your immortal soul for lies?
I want to understand why clever and intelligent people devote their whole lives to defending lies. What is the big idea behind it? Are they protecting something this way? “Values”? “The system”? Someone else’s profits? What?
Or is it some kind of an intellectual game between lies and the truth?
LikeLike
Helena you are a great detective.Something good fron old Joe.
LikeLike
Great find Helena.What could be the mystery with that storage.Must be something important.
Also there is something wrong with Murray´s logic, thinking this wrong verdict somehow clears him.Even if you only call it verdict.
I liked Marcha´s comment on GP.s.Must have been under another headline.You have to search far and wide to find a doc.that incompetent. And ..hmm..that warehouse,must have been something Murray was in a hurry to hide.
LikeLike
And here is another interesting piece of information dated around the same time – July 24, 2009 when police finally got interested in Murray. It says he asked his employees to remove his files at 9:22am in the morning Michael Jackson died – three hours before 911 was called.
LikeLike
Yes, it will create a bad impression.
In the meantime I’ve found my earlier comment (of 2011) with information about Murray’s employees clearing his warehouse. It was published on the mjeol.com site but the link is naturally not working now. And over there was the video too. It was a Fox news video and not a Youtube one and could not be copied.
The information about it was reflected on the MJEOL site when the police finally got interested in Murray, or a month after Michael’s death. Here is what I wrote about it in 2011:
From the time frame given it seems that the employees were emptying the storehouse while Michael was still lying in bed and even before the paramedics arrived. So this was whom Murray was calling!
And if they ARRIVED at 11:22am it means that he had called them much earlier as they still had to get there! And this means that Michael died much earlier than Murray said he did. Just as we always suspected it…
Please go to the site to watch the video of FOX news which reported it:
http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/suspicions-grow-over-jackson-doc-conrad-murray-%E2%80%93-bullet-336.html#comment-191
Also here:
Also here (unfortunately no word is said about it being cleared of medical stuff on the day MJ died), but we learn that the storage unit was rented under the name of Acres Home Heart Vascular Institute):
LikeLike
Michael was sacrificed for corporate benefit.
If this verdict is not deemed wrong this will be a travesty of justice.Iy will show that crime pays.
LikeLike
Tatum, if the Appellite Court reverses the verdict there may be a retrial and as far as I understand, even with new charges made due to the newly discovered evidence.
LikeLike
“Juror 27″ keeps posting, evidently because in four days Conrad Murray will be free and since in the opinion of this jury he was ‘fit and competent” we can expect applause for him now from everyone around. The AEG people explained to us – “it was a tragedy and no one is to blame for it”, you see?
All of it looks like a theatre play where they have agreed who will play which part, and now we are going to see act three of this circus show.
LikeLike
Knowing more and more details re the project with AEG I think “there is something deeper as Mary( Ithink) said. Something sinister. AEG was much behind with arrangements. The morning of 6/25 remains in darkness, several suicides.”Juror 27 keeps posting to keep the nasty step alive.
LikeLike
This was AEG vs Katherine Jackson. Is it possible for any of the other relatives or children to sue AEG? They can not get away with their portion of this tragedy. Seriously, I don’t have depression officially, but I have been so sad off and on again since June 25th 2009. I wish we could sue for pain and suffering!!!!!!! Who knows what they’re doing to other artist if they treated the King of Entertainment that way.
LikeLike
And my point is that the word ‘skeleton’ was used by all those who saw Michael’s naked body, so Conrad Murray should have seen it too.
Michael Bush saw MJ’s heartbeat under his skin and was shattered by the sight and the fans who wrote panicky letter to Karen Faye and said that they saw a skeleton and Michael’s ribs.
Karen Faye herself said that Michael’s bones were protruding and we can also see it in this picture – the breast bone above the T-shirt opening is indeed visibly protruding:
And I object to your using the hindsight argument only when it suits your agenda.
In general the hindsight argument means that all of us go back to 2009 and imagine what people would or would not know at that time.
As regards AEG and what they could or could not know at the time of hiring Murray I’ve already written a dozen times about it. The very short of my arguments is that all statements in justification of the jury’s verdict depend on a number of dubious reservations ranging from the vague time when Murray was hired to the fact that the time of hiring was not even in the jury instructions, so they were not even to look into it. But though this mental construction of AEG’s advocates is extremely flimsy you still keep to it.
But as to Michael’s weight you totally refuse to use the same hindsight argument. You keep referring to the autopsy report and what the coroner said. But the people who saw Michael skeletal did not know what the coroner would say. They went by what they saw and saw at that time only.
And they saw that Michael was extremely thin and was quickly losing weight, and by Karen Faye’s estimate lost 15 lbs in the last week alone. And this quick loss of weight is confirmed by the fact that the stage clothes for MJ had to be fixed again and again.
So if we agree that we should not look at what the criminal trial said about Murray, we should also agree to disregard what the coroner said (by the way he said 136 lbs and not 137, and the person in the morgue said something different to Karen). But okay, let’s disregard both and go only by what everyone saw at that time.
However if you choose to apply the hindsight argument to one case and repeatedly refuse to do so in the other case it means that you have an agenda and are ready to absolve AEG of their guilt even by defying your own logic.
Conclusion:
If those people saw Michael skeletal, Dr. Murray should have seen it too. If they saw Michael quickly losing weight, Dr. Murray should have seen it too. And if he did not, it means that he was either totally incompetent or was absolutely indifferent to his patient’s condition.
Therefore he was negligent, and therefore the jury’s decision is wrong.
LikeLike
I have serious doubts that Murray would ever have been able to legally practice in UK. He would need to personally appear for The General Medical Council in UK and show appropriate training and only original dokumentation. Also required is among other things!. awareness of ones limitations .2, ability seek help when appropriate. and much more. If he want to be a specialist of ?what? the requirements are pretty strict.I know what it is to appear fot the GMC in UK.No joke.
LikeLike
I don´t remember if there was a post on polling the jurors. Much was asked about the great sums of money and about Michael in general. To my recolllection nothing was asked of what they know about doctors training and qualifications.. A lot of people do not like doctors or think they are not of much use,better going to New World practitioners.,spiritual healers and such. I dont mean that the spiritual needs be neglected, but that depends on the pt,if they want to talk about that its ok Isolating Michael socially was a very negative thing..Under
stress we need the people close and dear..
LikeLike
I have long tried to avoid the topic of hiring doctors.But fist a few other things. AEG fought not to have the words “at the time of hiring” included, but managed to sqeeeze”:competent for the job he was hired to do”.Also thanks to Helenas post Oct.22 2013 and video of KF talking withBush.
Now to the somewhat tedious matter of hiring doctors. !. first you send in a full curriculum vitae of your professional life. When and where you graduated. A list of all professional exams ,with date and preferably a xerox copy. Then a complete list of all jobs and positions you have held.The name of the supervisors or your teachers while in training, dates for employments and descriptions of duties,the type and nature of the work. A cerificate of CPR-training.You allow your future employer to contact persons named.Then you are in for interviews. You can ofcourse not talk about ,in this case ,Michaels problems,but you can be asked if you have had instruction and expierience in some special proceedures or illnesses.
I tend to remember that he lost priviledges in a couple of hospitals and he had not renewed his cerificate in cardiology.-It does state on court papers that hiring implies a duty to exercise reasonable care and foreseeability.
LikeLike
Gboete, there are different rules regulating contract-making and since there is a rule that an oral agreement is as valid as a written one (though some will dispute it) formally they reached an agreement in May 2009. There was a special point about it in the jury instructions:
But again, there are so many legal details here which may be interpreted this or that way that I don’t even want to look into it. All those things will be highly formal and will not be necessary for ordinary people like the jurors whose job is to render a verdict on the basis of common sense and their past experience.
And common sense is telling us that though they agreed with Murray at the beginning of May they deliberately stalled him for a month and a half and only in mid-June started working on a contract. All this time they could see the results of his work perfectly well. Gongaware was at each of the rehearsals. It was simply impossible not to see the signs of Michael’s ill health.
In fact AEG did know perfectly well that something was wrong with MJ as they themselves arranged an “intervention” for him some time on June 15 or June 16. By the way the meeting coincided with Ortega’s words about “bringing the doctor into the fold” and with the time of making the first draft of Murray’s contract – it was made on June 16th too.
Two days later Kathie Jorrie checked Murray up on the internet for 10 minutes. The same day, June 18th she asked Murray to help them with the insurance and he agreed.
June 18th was also the day when Michael was not at the rehearsal in the morning and came very late, at 9:30pm “scared to death” as Karen Faye said. June 19th was the disaster day when everyone saw that Michael was gravely ill.
But it did not have any effect on the process of hiring Murray. Kathie Jorrie made some changes in the contract (for example, now Murray was to perform services for the Artist from time to time only, while the main services were for the Producer), then she showed the amended variant to Shawn Trell of AEG.
After June 19th Shawn Trell knew perfectly well that Michael was ill and had every reason to doubt Murray’s competence, but never did. Neither he, nor Randy Phillips, nor anyone at AEG paid attention to Michael’s grave deterioration of health, and on June 23 they made the final contract. On June 24 Murray signed it.
So what of it that AEG agreed with Murray in May? It was a promise they were obliged to keep. But the process of hiring actually took place in the middle of June only, by which time they had ample evidence that Murray was performing his services poorly. Michael was not only losing weight, but began to forget his dance moves and words of his songs – something he did well even at the beginning. He displayed very strange symptoms like being icy cold in mid-summer, and this is not to mention his “rambling and obsessing”.
And when a person is icy cold it may be anything! Heart trouble, low blood pressure, anemia, an under-active thyroid and whatnot! All these conditions are very serious and low body temperature should have been immediately paid attention to (in rats devoid of sleep it is a step immediately preceding death). But no one did. AEG sent everyone away and calmly signed a contract with this “doctor”.
And this is not negligence? It is negligence all right – if not something worse.
LikeLike
I don’t know what legally is correct, but imo, and logically : as long as the contract was in AEG’s possession, at the moment the last draw was sent to CM (that he signed) was the time that should be taken into consideration here. Why, because AEG up to that point was able to see what was happening to Michael, how people got concerned and hinted them about deterioration. They still could have stopped or changed the contract then (even later), but at that time they had had the chance to evaluate Dr. Murray, to fire him or to change the contract, or to consult a 2nd doctor or take MJ to hospital. They did nothing but threatening CM, which alone could be a sign that they KNEW there was something wrong, why would they have to write him such a mail otherwise…
I don’t remember when the contract that was signed by CM left the office of AEG, but at that specific point in time I think is the moment of hiring, whatever is stipulated in the contract about retro-active to May 1). By that time, AEG had to know and act.
LikeLike
Thank you Kris for the Buckeye marching band link. It did cheer me up very much. I really enjoyed it and think Michael would have too. Good on them!!
LikeLike
Thank you, ever so much for your time, insights, effort, loyalty to MJ and the love!
LikeLike
Regarding all the statements of AEG and their defenders that Michael was well again after the June 20th meeting and that he did great rehearsals and everything was perfect, I want to remind everybody of Kai Chase’ testimony. To me this is another indication that the presentation of the rehearsals on June 23 and 24 by AEG is not accurate. Michael probably was somewhat better on these days, but he was not really well after the June 20 meeting. According to Kai Chase on June 24 Michael was not sure what to do, he was thinking about whether he should go to Staples Center at all.
This is what Kai Chase told in her testimony about the day June 24, 2009:
A: I was preparing lunch for him and his children. I remember that day he was actually having lunch with his children, and he was going to have rehearsals that day, as well, outside of the house.
Q: And how would you describe his appearance and mood on that day?
A: He was dragging. You know, he was dragging a little on that day. But I did tell him, I said, ‘You look good’, you know, because I didn’t want him to, you know – to people, you know, that he – he looked good today, give him some encouragement. But he was dragging, and he was tired, and I could tell that about him.
Q: Was he happy, though, to have lunch with the kids?
A: Well, of course, with his children, yes.
Q: All right. And do you know whether he went to rehearsal that day?
A: That day, he was back and forth contemplating whether he was going to go to the Staples Center or he was going to rehearse at the house. So he ultimately decided – he went to Staples and he went to rehearsal.
(Kai Chase testimony June 18, page 61)
LikeLike
HI Helena
thank you so much once again for all this information – it really is very helpful to understand the whole trial proceedings.
However, it seems very simple to me in the end. The jury answered question 2 incorrectly by adding in their own “at the time of hiring”. This completely slewed their verdict of yes in terms of the Plaintiffs case, which was of course that CM was incompetent throughout his time with MJ, no matter what the date of hiring (which date still seems to be a bit of a mystery to me?) Therefore this should be declared a mistrial, and a 2nd go at it stating clearly what the questions are as written, not what the jury interprets them to mean!!
LikeLike
Competent doctors do not go around leaving a patient unattended under circumstances where he knows he needed an assistant and monitoring equipment and had neither. Conrad Murray’s tone said during his NBC interview that he was impatient with the business of monitoring his patient. “What was I supposed to do sit there and watch him sleep?” Since he was contracted by AEG to provide medical services to Michael Jackson the answer is yes. Since he was a trained physician who is supposed to be accustom to long hours working on one patient then the answer is yes. His tone during his NBC interview also implied it was not the first time he left his patient for an extended period of time.
Whether it was impatience with staying in one place or chronic bladder problems which would cause Murray to leave his patient routinely or for a dangerously lengthy period time Murray was not fit nor did he display competence
“Only Michael & Murray knew what was going on in Michael’s bedroom which they kept secret. Murray deviated from his job description.”……….Bunkum. I believe the men of AEG to be criminal, but even I would not call them stupid.
LikeLike
Stephenson, do you believe testimony from the PP who was actually there physically before and after he died, who saw him in person, who touched him, who dressed his body (MB) after he died, who did his hair and makeup (KF) or you believe the picture you saw from the distance?
More over, autopsy picture probably taken after several hrs later he died, I guaranty you that the person body before and after death doesn’t look and weight the same even we did something to keep it ok for a little bit longer. Autopsy report is correct but it tells us after he died, not before and still to me he looks mskeleton.
Or if you don’t believe the PP who was there in person and witnessed everything but only the picture, I suggested you to see the picture he had on June 19/2009 which is taken very close when he was trying that clothe. I see “Skeleton”
Finally, if you still don’t believe after all this pictures and living wetness, all I can say is you just don’t want to believe or accept the fact.
LikeLike
Thanks for clarifying. Why not say it in the first place instead of hammering on legal technicalities. ‘ To suit your agenda.’
Again, Ferrigno had not seen Michael in the last month of his life and Michael had lost much weight in very short time that with every fitting his stage clothes had to be fixed. If many independent witnesses even in the AEG camp ,said real time how concerned they were ,one cast member even said that he was dying, there must be some truth in it. It is all on trecord. AEG used worse phrases than ‘skeletal’ to describe how they thought Michael looked .
CM was already in the media with his garbage documentary that aired in and outside the US during the worst time for the family. And on gossipmedia while behind bars. What he has to say is nowhere near what he has done and worrying about it will not stop him from his evil doings. Murray is a convicted felon, whoever gives him a platform is abject and that also goes for undue attention by fans. Wade Robsons allegations imo are more of a concern than Murray.
More than who or what? Dont you think its presumptious to think that you are more concerned than the childrens grandmother or than other fans/supporters of the civil case. And what do you know about Prince Paris and Blanket and their wellbeing other than what you hear from the media. Why do you assume that your line of thinking is theirs. Since Prince supports the case and testified of what he saw, did it ever cross your mind that they might feel that fans like yourself are undermining their search for justice, which in the end is the Jacksons vs AEG and not ‘the people’ . And that unlike you and I, they cannot vent their opinion in public?
This remark is more telling about yourself than about the plaintiffs.
I think it is totally inappropriate, irrelevant and insensitive to play the concentration camp victim card.
Murray IS a villain and so is AEG. If what was done to Michael was done to Barbara Streisand, Sting or any other artist I bet you would see it. But to see it you have to look.
LikeLike
Thanks Helena, didnt see them at first look. I will start to save the documents.
LikeLike
Sina, you asked me this question:
@ Stephenson: what exactly is your stance on the case , legal technicalities and revelations aside and what is the point you want to make with this statement?
‘Again, look at the autopsy photo–he is naked there except for a cover and he does not look emaciated! You can’t see a skeleton. His trainer was Lou Ferrigno (the Hulk) and he did not ever say MJ was emaciated. He worked out with MJ and stretched his body. The autopsy never said ‘one kilo’ made the difference. I have never read that’.
My stance on this case: I agree with the verdict that did not find AEG guilty of negligent hiring, supervision of Murray. I have various reasons for this conclusion but basically I never saw evidence that AEG wanted to hire Murray or manipulated him in any way so as to cause MJ’s death. I do not think this civil suit should have been brought in the first place. Murray is going to be all over the media soon spilling his garbage to the public and this concerns me more, also I am more concerned about PPB and their well-being, esp Paris, than this effort to get billions from AEG. I just don’t see AEG as the villain here. I see Murray as the villain.
My point with the statement I made: VMJ keeps using the word ‘skeletal’ in describing MJ before he died. I am trying to point out that he was not sketetal. I have seen photos of concentration camp victims and others who have truly been skeletal, and MJ was not. This is borne out by the autopsy that found him within normal weight limits for his height. I agree he was thin. Yes, there is no doubt about that. The question is was he so thin as to create alarm in everyone that he could never do the shows, he was not healthy, etc. I read that he was asked about his weight by AEG (forget exactly who it was) and he responded he had always been thin, had trouble putting weight on, and that he was trying to have a ‘dancer’s body,” and dancers are often thin (ballet dancers especially). I think he told Travis Payne about wanting a dancer’s body.
What I object to is the twisting the facts/evidence to suit an agenda, which is happening too much. For example, the autopsy report and the autopsy photo are dismissed b/c they don’t fit the agenda–so of course they are not accurate for one bogus ‘reason’ or another.
MJ’s driver’s license when he lived at Hayvenhurst lists his weight as 120 lbs, and LMP confirmed that was his weight when she was married to him. When he died he was 137 lbs.
LikeLike
Sina (and everyone), please look up the exhibits for the AEG trial: http://www.psblaw.com/michael-jackson-trial-exhibits.html
They are still on Panish & Boyle’s website, and while they are we can save them on our computers for further analysis and use.
LikeLike
OH, WHAT A GREAT COMMENT! Only I didn’t understand where it came from because it is not in the interview, right? Anyway, they said it all and even more of it. Look at this:
EXACTLY!
As to the exhibits from Panish’s website I copied many of them but not all. If you ever want to write on Wiki about this case I will send you everything I have.
LikeLike
Just a moment please. Let me clarify. The matter was not discussed with the jurors – it was discussed between the lawyers from both sides and the judge, and we have no transcript of that discussion as it was not in the presence of the jury.
The AEG lawyers evidently insisted that the time of hiring should be included in the jury instructions. This we know from several instructions they proposed to the judge. Over there they wanted to introduce the time of hiring in various indirect ways. They never worded it directly as it would be too blatant and this is not AEG’s style.
But those AEG’s instructions for the jury did not make it into the final variant, so we can conclude that the judge did not allow them.
On the other hand Mr. Panish said that the judge insisted on “the time of hiring” and I think that he simply made a mistake here – he confused it with another phrase on which the judge possibly really insisted – “for the job he was hired” (in the question “Was Dr. Murray unfit and incompetent for the work he was hired?”).
Mr. Panish is so exhausted by this trial that it is visible to the naked eye.
LikeLike
@ Stephenson: what exactly is your stance on the case , legal technicalities and revelations aside and what is the point you want to make with this statement?
‘Again, look at the autopsy photo–he is naked there except for a cover and he does not look emaciated! You can’t see a skeleton. His trainer was Lou Ferrigno (the Hulk) and he did not ever say MJ was emaciated. He worked out with MJ and stretched his body. The autopsy never said ‘one kilo’ made the difference. I have never read that’.
Don’t you think the people who dressed Michael will know better than you and me and even than a personal trainer what he looked like undressed. A photo doesn’t prove anything. Most people are much shorter and a thinner than they look on film or photo.
I have read many interviews of Lou Ferrigno and he made different statements at different times.
Lou stated that Michael would come to the work outs fully dressed , that he was under a lot of stress and thin AND he had last seen Michael end of May so he had no idea what went on with him in the weeks before he died.
This is it Movie was edited to make Michael not look ‘skeletal” as per Randy Philips and the bad shots are kept locked up in a vault. Karen Faye refused to participate in the movie because she wouldn’t support a make believe that Michael was healthy . What about the fans who saw him get thinner, wrote alarming letters and contacted KF about it. Why deny something that is on record. ?
Here is an interview with KF Tompkin and Bush about Michaels health and that everyone was warned.
Helena, it seems that the exhibits and court documents of the Jackson vs AEG case are not on Panishs website anymore. I hope someone saved it all because they are a great source of information.
I was thinking we should make a WIKI page about the trial, what happened to Michael and AEGs role in it . I haven’t found anything about it yet .
The majority of the public does not know the ins and outs of the case . And unlike much of the information on WIKI, we have evidence and original documents to back it up.
I saved some of the documents and emails, but not all. Hope someone has them.
LikeLike
Simba, a great observation. Yes, Kai Chase did speak about it and anyone who was at the house should have seen those tanks (the children did by the way). And in June when the tanks were all over the place with a sign “Fill up every Friday” the AEG people were constantly there. Travis Payne was in Michael’s house every day too! And none of them wondered why they were there?
An excerpt from Kai Chase’s testimony on June 18, 2013:
LikeLike
Unfortunately I did see the autopsy photo and no, I can’t say that I saw a skeleton. But by then the body had been infused with so many various liquids that the photo could simply be not accurate. And it was just a body. Only doctors can say what happens to the body after this happens…
If we could see him alive that would be different. And all those who did see him said it in unison that he was too thin. His thinness looked abnormal to them, that’s the point, and it does not matter whether it was only the impression he produced. It was a sign of some illness and this is what people realized.
There was something abnormal in his lacking muscles despite all his exercise and it was surely abnormal to see his heart beating under his skin. It was also abnormal that each time they tried on a costume they had to reduce its size.
It was this downward dynamics that worried people. Or it could be the haggard look on his face which created the impression of him being thinner than he was. And this haggard look could easily be the result of sleeplessness as doctors say they can immediately recognize those who have not slept by their faces in the crowd.
So again, people should not necessarily know the right body mass index of another person to realize that something is wrong. They just see that someone is too thin, too haggard, too worn out and wonder how this person will be able to give a 3 hour long concert in two weeks, by which time he will lose even more weight. Especially since he usually loses several pounds after each concert and will have to give three concerts a week.
Anyone will be worried in this situation, and it is totally abnormal that Dr. Conrad Murray was not.
LikeLike
It just occurred to me – both Kai Chase and the previous chef Douglas Jones described seeing Conrad Murray with large oxygen tanks. Sometimes the tanks were leaned against the security shelter. The household staff was not allowed to enter Michael’s private areas, but evidently there was no effort made to conceal the tanks.
If the chefs saw the tanks, it’s very likely that Phillips, Gongaware, and Ortega saw them, too. Phillips was at the house all the time. The tanks we’re a clear indication that Murray was doing more than attending to the occasional sniffle.
It’s no wonder Panish got the wrong result – he wasn’t asking the right questions
LikeLike
It is a fallacy thay a GP only sees easy cases. He/she may be encountered by anything from severe accidents, poisoning, intentional or unintentional, sudden outbreaks of epidemics, just anything you can imagine. They are often the first called outside big cities. Naturally they rarely can cope with all by themself. it is essential that there is a system for this kind of matters. Forethought is what makes a difference.
Murray was afraid of letting any other medical personell know what he was doing, because all along he acted criminally. He took the risk of Michael dying before his crimes came to light. And AEG was not forthcoming when it came to prevention of catastrophies.
-I don´t know law enough to know how to deal with this lack of responsibility. But it is clear something very wrong was done by AEG,and they are cleverly lying, but judge said:The only time of hiring. The jurors had asked for anytime..Was she bought? All of the above horrors I listed above could have happened. What then judge?-
Thank you suparna for your post. BTW did Murray usually work in one of his clinics or as a private physician. I believe not as he did stents& required a team.
They did cover as much as possible by insurance, but hit the wall with Michael and Murray having no file or follow up.,no notes.-I just wonder if Murray would ever been allowed to practise in Enlland.They are more picky there
Suppose your patient is prone to severe uri,upper respiratiry infections.He can usually be treated at home. But one day it goes futher anf he has pneumonia and difficulty breathing.
Normally his “private physician” would send him to a hospital..but Murray couldnn´t for obvious reasons.
And Susan Joyce, Do you know if DEA has changed it´s postion om propofol.It is not abused that much,some homicides, suicides and overworked anestetitsAnd not addictive in the way of opiates.
LikeLike
Susan Joyce, I have studied some paragraphs of the Californian Civil Code and found that the appellite court has the full right to order a new trial and return the opposing parties to where they were before the verdict. They cannot retry the case themselves but they reverse or annul the verdict.
WE NEED AN APPEAL!
LikeLike
This is a real classical knot.Unfortunately it can´t be solved ala Gordon these days.Juror 27
has made himself a small celebrity. Maybe that what he wants.!5 min is too little. He is doing every thing more difficult and against common sense. More for AEG of course.Or he thinks he is so smart.Everyone knows that when illness strikes bad,that is really when a competent doctor is neded. Not when you use 10 min. on the computer to find out about him that may not even have registered. And Murray was not competent to handle an emergency. And a competent doctor has a sense of what may happen and go wrong. Does not just trust his unbelievable luck.( that nothing had gone seriously wrong earlier). NO, murray had to closely follow MJJ to deaths door,would not let an other doctor give an opinion or come to see mjj..A gp has to meet many potentially dangerous situatiions. But they have worked out beforehand how to get the help needed.Foresight is something a competent doctor has to have,.
LikeLike
What I understand is that a huge mistake was made and there must be a way in the Californian law to correct it. In fact, since an appeal is always difficult to win and it only registers the mistake, there are other options provided for by the law, for example these:
The last point surely applies to this case, though options based on new facts can also apply. By the new facts I mean Karen Faye’s messages which were never made public, Tohme’s testimony that was never heard, etc. But action on these options depends totally on the judge, and here I am not sure.
LikeLike
Michael performed very well but it doesn’t mean that his health improved. He was still very cold, especially on June 24 when we saw him wearing a sort of a winter jacket over his numerous shirts and when he was more listless than on June 23d.
Imagine a man dancing in a winter coat while dancers around him perspire with heat, and this picture alone should have raised a red flag and made people wonder what was going on. Even on June 24th, when the rehearsal was good.
As regards the theory that on the days prior to those two rehearsals Murray did not give MJ propofol, today I’ve read a blog which supposes exactly the opposite – on those two days Michael slept with propofol while before that he didn’t.
The article is rather thought provoking, and there might be something to it: http://nonlocaluniverse.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/the-55-minutes-thinking/
LikeLike
Susan Joyce, this is half the truth only, even a quarter of it. First of all Karen Faye did talk about it and on numerous occasions. Second, in every organiazation there is a chain of command, and Karen had to keep to it like everyone else. She was told she could complain only to Frank Dileo, but despite that she defied those instructions and spoke to Kenny Ortega and Randy Phillips himself. Ortega brushed it off saying that Phillips was hiring ten top doctors, and Phillips smirked and said “he was so drunk he had to scrape him from the floor”. These were the only answers she got.
Well, she also overheard Frank Dileo saying “Bring him a bucket of chicken”, but that was all.
Michael Bush had even less influence than Karen Faye. AEG did not even pay him though to Zaldi they did, so Bush was a nobody to them and his voice was nothing. Michael spoke to Karen about seeing Michael’s heartbeat under the skin and surely hoped that at least she would be able to bring his concerns to AEG bosses.
Ortega was constantly balancing between complaints about MJ missing rehearsals and concerns for his health. On June 13 or 14 he informed AEG that Murray had given MJ a sick leave and then urged them to pay more attention to his nutrition and stamina. Reaction from AEG to it? Gongaware: “We have discussed it with Frank Dileo and want to remind Murray who is paying his salary”.
Then came some meetings and “tough love” (from Ortega), the need for a “straightjacket” for MJ (from Randy Phillips), threats to “pull the plug” (apparently from both) and it was only after the terrible stress they drove Michael into resulted in the disaster of June 19th, Ortega made a U-turn and grew afraid that they had gone too far in pressuring Michael.
He sent a SOS letter to Randy Phillips which was largely ignored by both Phillips and Murray. Phillips’ reaction: “This guy is beginning to concern me” (meaning Ortega and not MJ) and Murray was rude to Ortega and told him to mind his own business. Phillips called Murray’s performance “fantastic” and was happy that “Ortega’s hysteria” was checked.
And before that there was a chain of emails “Trouble at the front” from Bugzee which were thoroughly discussed by AEG between themselves, but no one even thought of helping Michael. They did “circle the wagons” as Bugzee told them to, but in a different way – they stepped up their efforts to get the insurance and asked for death (!) insurance from the insurers for the first time.
And after all that Randy Phillips said to Ortega and company that it was “critical” not to be amateur physicians or psychiatrists ordering everyone to keep silent this way.
So which of the company could really speak up for Michael? If even Kenny Ortega could not say a word who else could?
No matter who tried to voice his concern all of them faced a wall of brick. And why are you denying this obvious fact?
LikeLike
VMJ, you wrote:
“At that time Michael looked skeletal to those who saw his half-naked body (Michael Bush, the fans who brought him a jacket AND Dr. Murray who also saw his body every night). This is how Michael looked, and everyone who saw it was concerned about it.”
Again, look at the autopsy photo–he is naked there except for a cover and he does not look emaciated! You can’t see a skeleton. His trainer was Lou Ferrigno (the Hulk) and he did not ever say MJ was emaciated. He worked out with MJ and stretched his body. The autopsy never said ‘one kilo’ made the difference. I have never read that.
There were so many things none of us knew til the trial in 2011–we didn’t know the details of the propofol, the dangerous and unmeasured way it was administered, the lack of resuscitation equipment, the amt of propofol, lorazepam, etc ordered by CM, the time on the phone with his lady friends–none of that was none til the trial.So this has to be kept in mind in trying to understand what was known when MJ was alive. He was seeing other drs besides CM–Klein, Metzger, drs in Las Vegas. They did not know what was wrong–was it psychological, was it diet, was MJ on drugs, was it Klein. Travis Payne said we did not know what was wrong.
LikeLike
Helena –
“SO WHAT? IS ALL THIS REASON ENOUGH TO LET GO OF THIS CRAZY SITUATION?”
I was hoping you would understand this. This is what Panish is up against if he files an appeal with the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court. This is the law and process in California. Yes, this is the crazy situation.
LikeLike
I understand what you are saying Helena. It should be a natural reaction for any person watching a person deterioate in front of their eyes to do something, yet Karen Faye, Kenny Oretga, Bugzee, Dennis Tompkins, Michael Bush, etc. didn’t do anything for two months except watch. They finally spoke up a week before MJ died. I hold them, AEG Live and Murray responsible. MJ’s friends of 25 years never approached him directly to help or ask questions and I think that is deplorable. A human life is more important that a job.
Then after the 3 day weekend, MJ comes to rehearsal and performs at 100% level. That has always been a mystery to me why after 3 days MJ went from very sick to top notch performance. Do we believe Murray when he said he didn’t give MJ propofol for 2 days prior to his death?
LikeLike
Thank you Kris, it is always nice to see MJ’s remembered like this.
LikeLike
If any of you need cheering up, here’s something positive–the Ohio Buckeye halftime show, 10-19-13, commemorating Michael’s BAD album. Good job, Buckeyes!
LikeLike
This was the answer Kenny Ortega gave to Karen Faye when she expressed her concern about Michael’s health. And where Ortega took it from I have no idea. Possibly, Randy Phillips told him so?
Here is a long excerpt from Karen Faye’s testimony on May 9, 2013. I cannot cut it into a shorter one because all of it is important:
The period of “missing rehearsals” they are discussing here is either the very beginning of June when Michael was at Culver studios (at night) or after June 16th.
Michael attended all rehearsals on June 5-11, then on June 12 he did not come and for June 13th (Saturday) Murray gave him a sick leave. It did not work because on Monday June 15 Michael was back on the stage.
Karen describes him as “stoic” on June 15 and 16, then there was a “bad rehearsal” (June 17?) and on June 18 he did not come until 9:30 pm when he arrived very shattered and scared to death. Ortega was very angry that day and Karen heard something from him which she messaged to her boy friend the next morning. Up till now we don’t know what it was.
On June 19th Michael was shivering all over and was in a terrible condition and implored Kenny Ortega not to leave him (we know it from Ortega’s email). On Monday 20th was the meeting with Murray, Ortega, Phillips and MJ.
LikeLike
Michael was very thin. Extreme tiredness also makes a person, at least the face look different, Propofol given over an exensive time had the most damaging effect on the nervous system, and especially the central nervous system. That is why he could´nt remember words to songs he had written himself and at least twice turned left when the dance turn would have been to the right.
And vv..Apart from that he exibited symptoms like shivering from cold while the outside temperature was warm. Wasn´nt the fireplace on in his room. He had serious psychological,pathological symptoms.& he couldnt spin as before. This was noted before the very last 2 weeks. His chef and make-up artist were very vocal re these. Heard but not listened too..Dr Czeltric was expressing concern over his survival.
-The formalities of his hiring were executed while he still was alive. This juror27 is trying to further confuse the odd verdict and esp.the public as he has become so freqvently on line.He certainly wants AEG to win and attempts to let the strange verdict stand..So mjj was treated to tough love. I am sure a normal familymember would have rushed someone in Michaels state to the E.R.
I am very curious as to juror 27´s dcentity, but we will never know.Or his agenda may be just intense hate of MJJ.
ps,we don´t know how much liguid murray let flow in that morning.I think he never even botherd to weigh Michael.And did he give glucose in those infusions? The brain only uses glucose to function.A real physician has an understanding of a humans total physiology and would never have committed the stupidities like murray..
LikeLike
Stephenson, you are forgetting the same hindsight argument which you yourself are applying to everything else.
At that time Michael looked skeletal to those who saw his half-naked body (Michael Bush, the fans who brought him a jacket AND Dr. Murray who also saw his body every night). This is how Michael looked, and everyone who saw it was concerned about it.
And it does not matter that after Michael’s death the coroner weighed him up and calculated his body index. “If he had had one kilo less he would have been called emaciated but since he had one kilo more he wasn’t” – this is the logic and the figures of the coroner.
But when you see a person you don’t know all this theory. What you see is that someone is terribly thin, and you see his heartbeat under his skin, and that he is losing his weight and losing it too quickly, and the very fact that he is losing weight is what should be worrying you, because if he goes on like that in a couple of weeks he will turn into a skeleton.
Probably at that moment theoretically he was not a skeleton, but if the tendency remained by the beginning of the concerts he would be. This is what they saw then. And all our today’s arguments that he did not reach that stage yet are not valid. See my point?
Yes, let’s be clear about it.
If the jurors looked into the whole period of April-June 25 employment of Murray and noted the signs of Michael’s deterioration of health I mentioned above, they could not naturally know that in 2011 Conrad Murray would be found criminally negligent towards his patient, but they could very well conclude that he was at least incompetent and unfit to do the job he was hired for – and that was taking care of MJ’s general health.
LikeLike
I don’t want to stretch the truth where I don’t know the sure facts. At the moment the facts known to us are as follows:
– the final jury instructions do not mention the time of hiring Murray, so Mr. Panish meant “for the job he was hired” in the phrase “Was Dr. Murray unfit and incompetent for the job he was hired?” added by the judge. However they possibly discussed the time of hiring too with AEG and the judge, and that is why Panish confused one with the other.
– since Mr. Panish didn’t want the addition “for the job he was hired”, it could be added by the judge only at the request of AEG
– AEG also wanted to add “the time of hiring Murray” in various wording, but could not. Evidently the judge did not allow it as the final jury instructions do not contain AEG’s proposals
– however now the whole community is talking about “the time of hiring” as if it were in the jury instructions and were really the basis for the jury’s decision
– but if it really was, someone must have introduced that idea to the jurors because all of them could not understand that question in the same way, especially since they looked into the whole period of Murray’s employment with AEG (juror #27 said so in one of his answers)
– and if it really was the basis for the jury’s decision, it was done not in accordance with the jury instructions
– and since all of us are discussing this point as the main one, it seems that it was introduced into the picture much later, with the help of Juror #27 and some others.
LikeLike
Hi Suparna, thank you for your kind words – the right arm seems to be ok, but the left one is like a piece of wood which is totally immobile and swollen. I need to do exercise for it but it hurts. Now I am in even more awe of Michael who had to cope with his terrible pain for months and even years, gave concerts in a condition he was in, wrote new songs and composed new music, and did all of it with a smile on his face. It is through little personal experience like this that we start realizing some things about Michael much better.
Yes, the video was embedded into the previous post and I even transcribed the first part of it. And it is mostly because of Mr. Panish’s words that I returned to the jury instructions. To my big surprise I didn’t find there any “time of hiring” Mr. Panish mentioned in the interview.
Panish was told about the time of hiring by the jurors to whom he spoke after the trial, and since he is very tired now he is making mistakes. Now it is clear that he confused “the time of hiring” with the phrase “for the job he was hired”.
Most probably the judge changed the question from “Was Dr. Murray unfit and incompetent?” into “Was Dr. Murray unfit and incompetent for the job he was hired?” and this change was surely made at the request of AEG lawyers, as the judge rarely introduces anything by herself – she selects out of the variants proposed by the two sides.
So we can be more or less sure that “for the job he was hired for” was suggested by AEG. But their final proposal of jury instructions also show that they wanted to go much further than that and lots of their instructions were suggesting that the jurors should focus on the time of hiring Murray.
However the judge rejected those instructions and theoretically the jurors did not know about them.
This is why I am so much surprised that after the trial this point is getting into the forefront of everyone’s attention. In the jury instructions it was missing, the foreman did not speak about it and all of a sudden it turns into the main point!
The prehistory of how this point grabbed everyone’s attention is as follows:
– Ivy of MJJC introduces the idea of “hindsight” to the forum members meaning that AEG could not know then what we know now,
– one forum member refers to that idea and appreciates that juror #27 also looked at it that way
– juror #27 makes it clear to everyone that the “hindsight” angle and the time of hiring Murray was the basis for their decision making.
This is how this idea became the dominant one.
Here are some quotes from their discussion with juror #27.
“So if we apply this logic to the AEG case, Murray passed a cursory check?” NO, if we apply this logic to the AEG case Murray did not pass a check. When AEG was hiring Murray they knew very well what kind of a “specialist” he was and this is why they hired him.
They wanted a chameleon who would change according to the instructions given to him and they got him.
LikeLike
VMJ, I think it would be a good idea to not say that MJ was “skeletal” at any time prior to his death b/c that statement is contradicted by the autopsy report, which said he was within noirmal weight guidelines and his body mass was thin but not emaciated (body mass index was 20:1). Also if you look at the autopsy photo, it does not shpow an emaciated person.
VMJ, you wrote:
“I am talking of the jurors’ mistakes in their own logic which led them to a totally absurd decision – they regard a doctor fit and competent though he was found guilty of manslaughter.”
Let’s be clear that he was found guity in late 2011 and the hiring issue has to be concerning when he was employed, not afterwards. So when was he employed by AEG? From late April to June 25, 2009. That’s it. He was not employed when he was on trial.
LikeLike
SO WHAT?
IS ALL THIS REASON ENOUGH TO LET GO OF THIS CRAZY SITUATION?
LikeLike
Susan Joyce, you are repeating AEG’s arguments word for word. But this is only one side of the story. The same key phrase about “the work Murray was hired for” (making Michael healthy) can be interpreted in a totally different way.
And propofol does not matter here. It was totally unnecessary for AEG to know what Dr. Murray was giving him – propofol, diazepam or too much aspirin (aspirin is not innocent either, too much of it can lead to inner bleeding and ulcer).
The only thing necessary to know for AEG was seeing Michael healthy, building up his stamina and not deteriorating in front of everyone’s eyes.
Actually I am surprised I have to explain it. Everyone knows that when you have a patient and he is getting stronger and looks healthier with every new day, you come to a conclusion that his doctor is okay.
But if you see the patient turning skeletal, growing weaker with every new day, losing the dance moves that he could do at the earlier stage of rehearsals and shaking with cold in midsummer when all others perspire, any person will begin wondering – what’s going on? where is the doctor? and is this doctor competent at all? does he attend to his patient or does he spend his time in strip-tease clubs (as Murray did)? shouldn’t we call someone else?
This would be the natural reaction of any person. Any person – except AEG.
P.S. I’ve read in Randy Phillips’s testimony that they did look into how Conrad Murray was spending his time and they found that he had been attending strip-tease clubs, but it seems that this check-up was done after Michael’s death.
LikeLike
Simba, yes, the function of this juror#27 is to revise, misdirect and misrepresent and we can even guess in favor of which party. By the way the fact that he is brushing off Prince’s testimony as unimportant because he was a child clearly contradicts one of the final jury instructions:
By mistrusting Prince juror #27 shows his disrespect for the law and his failure to follow the jury instructions which the jurors say were their guiding star in decision taking.
And this is exactly the reason why I posted all of them in full. It is really interesting to see how well the jury followed the instructions given to them and which of them were breached.
LikeLike
Helena says, “Now a certain juror #27 comes to the foreman’s help and says that they were thinking of the moment of hiring Murray only.”
You have identified Juror 27’s function. He is revising what actually happened and hiding his real intent with misdirection. For example, he goes on at great length about matters that have been re-hashed, then he casually drops a bomb such as this:
“I didn’t put much stock into that portion of Prince’s testimony (the elbow grab). He was pretty vague on it himself, and as you said he was 12 years old at the time. It appeared to me that he was maybe combining incidents or remembering incorrectly, but I don’t know. Same for the testimony about people coming over when MJ wasn’t there.”
Are you kidding me – “SAME THING FOR THE TESTIMONY ABOUT PEOPLE COMING OVER WHEN MJ WASN’T THERE”. This was huge! And Juror 27 dismisses it, trying to convince us that Prince imagined the whole thing, or else he was lying. Prince Jackson was twelve years old when this happened, not three. There was nothing vague about his recollection in his testimony. For reasons best known to himself, Juror 27 wants us to believe this very odd occurrence was of no importance, or didn’t happen at all.
In my opinion, this is key.
LikeLike
I am not disputing this argument. I am talking of the jurors’ mistakes in their own logic which led them to a totally absurd decision – they regard a doctor fit and competent though he was found guilty of manslaughter. Every person with some common sense will agree that something is wrong here.
What’s wrong? Many things are.
The jurors’ foreman said that they looked only into the general care for which Murray was hired and over there everything was okay. NO, NOTHING WAS OKAY THERE, because under Murray’s general care Michael turned skeletal, lost the dance moves he could do even at the beginning, began “rambling and obsessing”, and his body temperature dropped to icy cold. Any general practitioner would have regarded it as an emergency situation, but not Murray and not AEG who denied Michael any medical help except Murray’s.
Now a certain juror #27 comes to the foreman’s help and says that they were thinking of the moment of hiring Murray only. But even if we agree to that, will you please explain to me what was the moment of hiring? May 1st, May 8th or end of May when Timm Woolley asked Kathie Jorrie to draft Murray’s contract? Was it the end of the first two weeks of June when she started doing it at last? Or June 16th when she sent the first draft to Murray? Or June 24th when Murray signed the final variant?
WHEN WAS THE TIME OF HIRING MURRAY? And if you know the answer wasn’t it technically the time when AEG already knew of Michael’s health problems?
It is another matter that they backdated it to May 1 (which is very good in another respect) but factually they were hiring Murray only in the middle of June, when Michael’s problems were already glaring into everyone’s eyes. This was the time when they could realize perfectly well that Dr. Murray was not the right doctor because under his care Michael’s health was steadily deteriorating and not improving.
In fact this doctor himself realized that things were so wrong that he gave Michael a sick leave, and it is only due to AEG’s involvement and Murray giving in to their pressure that Michael was forced to come to rehearsals again.
So even if you look at the question “Was Dr. Murray unfit and incompetent for the work he was hired?” from the point of view of when he was hired, you will see that the jurors made a huge mistake here. And if they had answered a logical YES to that question, there wouldn’t be so much discrepancy now between their own decision and Murray’s guilty verdict in 2011.
You can say that since the contract was backdated, the time of hiring Murray was May 1st and at that moment AEG could know nothing about him. But over here the AEG people themselves said throughout the trial that they had no idea about Murray at that time, that they never saw him until the beginning of June, and Kathy Jorrie said that until they started making a contract she thought Murray was continuing working for Michael (and not for AEG).
And the third point in all this mess is that “the time of hiring” Murray is not found anywhere in the jury instructions. It is the invention of someone else’s minds and a belated argument provided only now, meaning to add at least some logic to the jurors’ totally wrong decision.
P.S. Thank you for showing me that I didn’t make myself clear enough in the post. Now its text has been changed to reflect some of the above issues.
LikeLike
stephenson: I agree with your comment.
Jury question #2: That Dr.Conrad Murray was unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired.
“For which he was hired” are the keywords in question #2. AEG Live hired Murray to make sure Michael was healthy. AEG Live did not hire Murray to give Michael propofol. Only Michael & Murray knew what was going on in Michael’s bedroom which they kept secret. Murray deviated from his job description.
Also:
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
LikeLike
rkatarina Did this “mailman” Lopez just take the propofol fro Murrays clinic, how was that payed for and did he have any suspicions leaving it to the insrtument at a private home?
Murray purchased the propofol from a pharmacy (Allied Pharmacy) in Las Vegas. Murray paid for the propofol with his credit card and it was shipped to Murray’s girlfriends home. The outside of the box had the return address as Allied Pharmacy, but the delivery person would have no idea what was inside the box. The search warrant from the Los Angeles detectives provided all this information.
LikeLike
Hi Helena! Hope you are healing fast and doing well ! Thank you for this very insightful- write up yet again. I was watching the video- ‘BHL- Justice Is Served- Brian Panish. You may have watched it already- but here’s is the link still: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XumaTcF-kso&feature=youtube. I was shocked at about 2:40 where one of the hosts asks Panish ‘Did You fight for a different wording of that second question?’ To which Panish replied that they did. He said- “We wanted to say ‘anytime’, and the judge made a ruling that the one she gave say at the time of hiring. and that was really a dispute..” As you have pointed out, why did the judge not advise the jury that they need to look that the remaining sentence of whether Murray was fit and competent through the period of being hired? It is like telling an employee who wants to press charges of bullying against her colleague or manager- that the colleague or manager in question was very polite and civilised at the time when the person joined the services and greeted her with smiles and hugs. So now, six months down the line, when those same ‘polite’ and ‘civilised’ colleagues are bullying the new joinee to no end, she cannot complain because at the time of her being hired, everything was fine! This is illogical to say the least, and going by this ‘logic’ many complaints can never be filed! The failure of the jury to answer the full question should have been objected to more strongly -by the judge of course and also by Panish and his team.
LikeLike
Randy Phillips stated that murray was one of the top 10 of physicians, I wonder where he got that from. The economic situation of a doctor has nothing to do with a doctors ethics. But just of curiosity i would like to know what his income before the hireing was. To my recollection it was ridiculously small. And everybody knew somehing was seriously wrong with Michaels health week or weeks before he died. Murray of course kept no records, why? You do that almost automatically. Neither did he bother with any laboratory follow up, always done, sometimes even for minor illnesses. He was just afraid of letting any outside M.D. see what was going on.I know how doctors are hired and can write a full page on that, but it would be rather boring. There is a difference to other hiring. Murray got away because he was a “private” physician. But there are laws/ rules for that too. No loose cannonballs can be permtted.
-Did this “mailman” Lopez just take the propofol fro Murrays clinic, how was that payed for and did he have any suspicions leaving it to the insrtument at a private home?
Was Michael officially dead when transported to the hospital. No.But even the Murray lied to police and fled to lawyer up.
LikeLike
Of course she did change it, there is a document to prove that and it is clear.
LikeLike
The argument that CM was incompetent and not fit b/c he was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter is not relevant to this civil suit b/c the civil suit is dealing with matters that took place before MJ died or up to the point of his death (during MJ’s lifetime) and certainly not a few years afterwards when the CM trial was held in 2011. The question of damages looks beyond MJ’s death but the issue re negligent hiring is during his lifetime.
The phrase ‘for which he was hired’ is giving the relevant time frame–not ‘at any time.’ (One can argue that CM was hired when MJ told PG that he wanted CM on tour and PG started negotiations and that was end of April-early May.) Btw, the questions the jury got are standard questions in any CA civil suit for negligent hiring. She did not change a thing.
LikeLike