Skip to content

THE DECLARATIONS OF FOUR HONEST JURORS

December 22, 2013

The series about Conrad Murray is not finished, but it is simply impossible to go on keeping silence about the declarations of four jurors made after the recent AEG trial.

These honest and courageous people openly admitted that they had been trapped during their deliberations by the way the verdict form was worded and by the arguments of some super-active juror who persuaded them that question No.2 was about the time Murray was hired only.

Sometimes it takes only one well-prepared person to confuse the minds of unsuspecting people. It was indeed a trap as everything this juror said was wrong. 

Firstly, no one can be really sure when the moment of hiring Murray was. Until June 24thMurray was working without a contract and was on a kind of probation with AEG within which time his future employer had more than enough chance to see him in action. The fact that Michael’s health deteriorated was seen by everyone with a naked eye and provided overwhelming proof of his total ineptitude for the job.

However even if we give up all theory over the question and simply read it as: “Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?” every normal person will answer it: “His job was to keep his patient safe and sound and this is exactly what he didn’t do, so the answer is – he was unfit and incompetent for the job”.  Any other reply would be a violation of simple common sense.

And this is essentially what the four honest jurors are saying in their affidavits. However even when the truth is simple it is not always easy to tell it. This is why the sense of responsibility of these four jurors and their fortitude in going against the tide are awesome.

When things like that happen it restores some hope in humankind in general. When people like that exist you realize that all is not lost yet.

These people know that their declarations can still lead nowhere but they cannot keep silent and live in a compromise with their conscience.  Their choice is to stand up and fight. My hat is off to these great jurors – no matter what is awaiting all of us we can say that they have fulfilled their duty and honestly did their job.

Here are their declarations retyped so that each reader can translate them into their language and take the word further. The affidavits come without any comment because when the truth speaks it does not require any.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT’

KATHERINE JACKSON, individually and as the Guardian ad Litem of MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON, JR., PARIS-MICHAEL KATHERINE JACKSON, and PRINCE MICHALE JACKSON II, Plaintiffs, 

v.

AEG LIVE LLC, ANSCHUTZ ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC. AEG LIVE PRODUCTIONS, LLC;L BRANDON PHILLIPS, as individual; PAUL GONGAWARE, an individual; TIMOTHY LEIWEKE, an individual and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive.

Case No. BC445597 [Assigned for all purposes to Hon. Yvette M. Palazuelos, Dept. 28]

Juror's affidavit 1Exhibit 1

DECLARATION OF ….. 

I, ….., declare as follows:

1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the matters stated herein.

2. My experience as a juror in this case was the first that I have ever served on a jury before and after such a long and important trial, I really wanted to perform my duty as a juror to the best of my ability.

3. Since the jury verdict, I have been very upset, and initially I was unable to eat or even check my emails because 1 was so sorry about the verdict and the fact that justice was not done in this case, because of how question 2 on the verdict form was worded.

4. Although I was eager to begin deliberations and discuss the evidence, I did not ever get the chance to discuss any of the important issues that arose in the trial because of the jury verdict form. The verdict form limited our discussions to only the hiring issue, even though the most evidence presented at trial involved the issue of the conflict of interest created by AEG Live between Dr. Conrad Murray and Michael Jackson.

5. Question 2 on the verdict form asked: “Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?” The clear meaning of that question, when coupled with the first question asking, “Did AEG Live hire Dr. Conrad Murray?”, limited our consideration to Dr. Murray’s competency at the time he was hired. The question did not allow us to discuss the issue of whether Dr. Murray became unfit or incompetent later in time. 

6. I was shocked to see that we had to stop our deliberations at the end of Question 2 if we voted “no” to the question of whether Dr. Murray was unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired, I wanted and expected to deliberate on the issues of negligent supervision and negligent retention, which we had been instructed and told were separate theories.

7. I do not believe that the verdict form was fair or worded correctly, and as phrased, Question 2 was a trap that prevented us from deliberating on the real issues in the case. The question in this trial was not whether Dr. Murray was unfit or incompetent at the time that he was hired – but whether AEG Live should have hired him at all, and whether Dr. Murray was rendered unfit and incompetent because of the creation of a conflict of interest. 

8. I do not understand why there were no time frames put in these questions – and I believe that the addition of the words “at any time” to Question No. 2 would have helped. The question was too specific and narrow, making it impossible for us to answer the question logically.  

9. This was a very unfair and upsetting way to end the case. There was no question in my mind that AEG Live was liable, but I had no way of discussing this issue because of Question 2 on the verdict form. …………………………………………………………….. ……… …………… ………… …………………………………I will always feel badly for what happened in this case.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed December 11, 2013 at ……………………………, California.

Juror's affidavit 2EXHIBIT 2 

DECLARATION OF ……….

I,…………, declare as follows:

1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the matters stated herein.

2. After sitting though almost six months of the trial in this case, I believe that Mrs. Jackson had proven her case against AEG Live. Despite this fact, I had no way of voting in favor of the Plaintiffs because of the way that the verdict form was worded.

3. Question 2 of the verdict form asked: “Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?” When we reached this question, …………… discussed with us the fact that the clear meaning of that question, when coupled with the first question asking, “Did AEG Live hire Dr. Conrad Murray?”, gave us no choice but to consider Dr. Murray’s competency at the time he was hired. We discussed the fact that the question did not allow us to vote or discuss the issue of whether Dr. Murray became unfit or incompetent later in time. I believe that the evidence showed that Dr. Murray became unfit because of the conflict created after AEG Live tried to control Dr. Murray and make him get Michael Jackson to practice.

4.  I was shocked to see that we had to stop our deliberations at the end of Question 2
if we voted ‘no” to the question of whether Dr. Murray was unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired.  I wanted and expected to continue to talk about the issues of negligent supervision and negligent retention, which we had been instructed and told were separate theories. I do not think whether or not Dr. Murray was competent to be a general practitioner for the tour at the time that he was hired had anything to do with the real issues in this case.

5.  Many jurors became very upset about the fact that we were not able to continue or complete our deliberations – especially because we had spent a lot of time listening to the evidence in this case. One juror, ……. refused to stop deliberating and he insisted that we continue answering the rest of the questions, Our foreman, ………, told ….. that we would send our verdict to the judge, and she would tell us if we completed it incorrectly.

6. I do not believe that the verdict form was fair or worded correctly, and I do not think that justice was achieved in this case.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed December 10, 2013 at ……………………………, California.

Juror's affidavit 3EXHIBIT 3

DECLARATION OF …………. 

I, ……, declare as follows:

1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the matters stated herein.

2.  Being selected for and serving on the jury for this trial was one of the greatest experiences of my life. For such an important case, I would have been willing to deliberate fully and thoroughly until December. I took my role as a juror very seriously, and even before we began deliberations, I asked for all the evidence to be brought into the jury room.

3. To my shock and huge disappointment, however, I never got the chance to discuss the most important issues or review the most pertinent e-mails because of the confusing verdict form and the order in which the questions appeared on that form.   To this day, I cannot understand why we had to stop deliberating after answering Question 2, or why we were prevented from discussing the ethical conflict or any of the real issues in this case.

4. Question 2 of the verdict form asked: “Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?” When we reached this question, ……… …. discussed with us the fact that the clear meaning of that question, when coupled with, the first question asking, “Did AEG Live hire Dr. Conrad Murray? “, gave us no choice but to consider Dr. Murray’s competency at the time he was hired. 1 believed that the question should have included the words “at any time”, but it did not I also thought that it would have been preferable to have this question at the end of the form. The real issues in this case were the negligent retention and negligent supervision of Dr. Murray by AEG Live – and we should have been allowed to discuss those issues first.

5. During our deliberations, 1 asked to send a question to the judge to explain Question 2, but by then the foreman had already answered “no” and followed the instructions to sign the form. I feel so cheated because I sat through more than five months of trial and listened to a lot of evidence on the ethical conflict created – yet I never got to even deliberate at all on that issue or even review the hundreds of exhibits that had been brought in. Most of the jurors discussed the fact that they also believed that such an ethical conflict existed, but our deliberations

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the forgoing is true and correct.

Executed December   11, 2013, at ……………………………….. California.

Juror's affidavit 4EXHIBIT 4

DECLARATION OF ……….

I,…………, declare as follows:

1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the matters stated herein.

2. I want to have this opportunity to share my thoughts and feelings with Judge Palazuelos about the jury instructions and verdict.

3.  As jurors, we did everything that was asked of us, made sacrifices, and willingly sat through almost sis months of a very important trial. The case, however, ended abruptly thus rendering a verdict for the defense. The verdict form caused us to stop deliberating after Question 2. I believe that the verdict form was ambiguous; and that it did not provide a way for the jurors to move forward in our deliberations. 

4. I believe that some of the jurors wanted to render a verdict for the Plaintiffs, and some of the jurors were stunned and upset after learning that we had to stop deliberations after answering “no” to Question 2. Question 2 of the verdict form asked: “Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?” When we reached this question, one of the jurors, discussed with us the fact that the clear meaning of that question, when coupled with the first question asking, “Did AEG live hire Dr. Conrad Murray?”, gave us no choice but to consider Dr. Murray’s competency at the time he was hired.

5. I discussed with the jurors my belief that the strongest claims for the Plaintiff were negligent supervision and negligent retention – but we were never allowed to deliberate on those claims because of the verdict form. One of the jurors, …… even refused to stop deliberating and he wanted to continue answering the remainder of the questions. We discussed writing a question to the judge about the question, but we did not want anyone to know where we were in the deliberations.

6.  I would like the judge to know that we did not have the opportunity to deliberate or render a verdict on the Plaintiffs” claims that Dr. Murray did not become unfit or incompetent until after the conflict of interest was created, Dr. Murray’s duties were changed, pressures were mounting, or even after the contract was prepared and signed by Dr. Murray.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed December 12, 2013 at ……………………………, California.

Here are the originals:

View this document on Scribd

The declarations are attached to the Plaintiff’s Motion for a new trial filed on December 12, 2013. 

I don’t agree with the Plaintiff’s estimation of Kenny Ortega’s role in the case but let us consider it a minor issue.  Here is an excerpt from the document:

 PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

(filed Concurrently with Declaration of Deborah S. Chang in Support Thereof)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In this unique case involving an extraordinary decedent and an unprecedented factual scenario, Plaintiffs have continuously claimed that Defendants were negligent in the manner in which they hired Dr. Murray, wrongfully interfered with the doctor-patient relationship, and turned a traditional two-party relationship into a dangerous and risky three-party arrangement in which Dr. Murray was unduly pressured into keeping the Artist on the stage and the show on the road at all costs. The evidence presented in this case showed that AEG Live wanted the King of Pop to return to the stage at the 02 so badly that it was willing to do the unthinkable: it agreed to pay for a doctor who was willing to put his prescription pad on sale for an exorbitant price. Defendants knew or should have known exactly what Dr. Conrad Murray was and what he offered: an unlimited supply of prescription drugs. And Defendants needed Dr. Murray to make sure that Michael Jackson got back up on that stage where they needed him to be.

By April of 2009, too much was on the line. Randy Phillips had just seen Michael Jackson at the March 5, 2009 press conference, where just hours before Michael Jackson was found “locked in his room drunk and despondent” (Trial Ex. 93, attached as Ex. 6 to Chang Declaration). It was “the scariest thing” he had ever seen: Michael Jackson was an “emotionally paralyzed mess riddled with self loathing and doubt” (Id). In order to get him out of the room, Mr. Phillips had to scream at him “so loud the walls [were] shaking”, throw him in a cold shower, and then “slapped him” (Id; Trial Ex. 2780, attached as Ex. 7 to Chang Declaration). But by then, AEG Live could not “back off” because it “would be a disaster” for the company, which was “holding all the risk” (Trial Ex. 178, attached as Ex. 8 to Chang Declaration). Mr. Phillips got Michael Jackson on the stage for the press conference, but Mr. Jackson was, at best, described as “underwhelming” and “he did not give [AEG Live executives] the feeling that he was together enough to do 30 shows” (Trial Ex. 102, attached as Ex. 9 to Chang Declaration). The ticket sales, however, were overwhelming: it was a “cultural phenomenon”, with 50 shows selling out in record time (Trial Ex. 663-142, attached as Ex. 10 to Chang Declaration; Trial Ex. 112, attached as Ex. 11 to Chang Declaration). Randy Phillips knew that “the next battle” was going to be “getting [Michael Jackson] to play those shows” (Trial Ex. 102, attached as Ex. 9 to Chang Declaration). As March ended, he was asking people, “Odds I get MJ through the 50 O2s?” (Trial Ex. 121, attached as Ex. 12 to Chang Declaration).

With the shows sold out, AEG Live still had a huge problem: “This is It” was only insured for accident cancellation in the amount of $17.5 million – yet its production costs were already $30 million (Trial Testimony of Shawn Trell, attached as Ex. 13 to Chang Declaration at 4923:22-4924:4). It was the first time in AEG Live’s history that the company had ever had insufficient insurance to cover production costs (Id at 4924:14-19). Even worse, there was zero sickness cancellation insurance until Michael Jackson could be examined by a physician in London – which meant that if a show had to be postponed or cancelled due to sickness, AEG Live would have to repay ticketholders (Id. at 4925:11 -15; 4927:1 -3). No one at AEG Live knew if Michael Jackson could cover the mounting costs of the production (Id. at 4371:20-25).  There was, understandably, concern within AEG Live because the company had never lost $30 million before (Id. at 4945:7-10). For AEG Live, it was critical for Michael Jackson to get up on that stage to perform the shows – and no one knew if he would or could.

Defendants made the decision to do something unheard of in the industry or by any expert in this case: step in between the doctor-patient relationship, and turn a traditional two-party relationship into a non-traditional three-party one. Defendants chose to do much more than just agree to pay Dr. Murray $150,000 a month; they entered into a contractual relationship with him. By doing so, Defendants interfered with the doctor-patient relationship and controlled the terms of the engagement. Most importantly, Defendants made it known to Dr. Murray that he could be terminated by AEG Live at any time and for any reason if the “This is It” shows were cancelled or postponed (Trial Ex. 343, attached as Ex. 14 to Chang Declaration at 7,2). Incredulously, AEG Live made the conscious decision to take responsibility for the hiring of Dr. Murray and committed a substantial portion of the production budget to his retention without first checking into his background. The show had to go on – and AEG Live would do “whatever it took” to make sure it did (Trial Testimony of Paul Gongaware, attached as Ex. 15 to Chang Declaration at 5297:6-10). Paul Gongaware told Dr. Murray that he “wanted him to have everything he needed” to get the job done (Id at 5297:18-27). Dr. Murray requested an array of medical equipment, including a cardio pulmonary resuscitation unit, saline, catheters, needles, a gurney and a “qualified assistant medical person” to be approved by AEG Live (Trial Ex. 343, attached as Ex. 14 to Chang Declaration at 3.3; 3.4), to which Defendants turned a blind eye.

Defendants continued to manipulate the relationship and reinforce the existing conflict by reminding Dr. Murray “that it is AEG, not MJ, who is paying his salary” and making him “understand what is expected of him” (Trial Ex. 256, attached as Ex. 16 to Chang Declaration). They made it clear to Dr. Murray that Michael Jackson could not delay the show from opening and thus could not continuously miss rehearsals – despite his obvious gradual deterioration. When director Kenny Ortega and others associated with the production began sounding well-intentioned alarms about Mr. Jackson’s declining health, Randy Phillips lied to silence such alarms. He falsely told Kenny Ortega that Dr. Murray “is extremely successful (we check everyone out) and does not need this gig so he [is] totally unbiased and ethical” (Trial Ex. 307, attached as Ex. 17 to Chang Declaration). He also told Kenny Ortega to stop being an “amateur psychiatrist or physician” and warned him: “You cannot imagine the harm and ramifications of stopping this show now” (Id). To make certain that Kenny Ortega was silenced, Mr. Phillips called Dr. Murray before a critical meeting to discuss Mr. Ortega’s concerns in a 23-minute phone call. At the meeting, Dr. Murray parroted Mr. Phillips’ words and told Mr. Ortega to “stay in his lane” and stop sending Michael Jackson home from rehearsals. AEG Live thereafter designated Dr. Murray, instead of Mr. Ortega, as one of the persons responsible for Michael Jackson’s attendance at rehearsal (Trial Ex. 336, attached as Ex. 18 to Chang Declaration).

Defendants’ decision to create such a conflict of interest while hiring Dr. Murray was a fatal one. Because of Dr. Murray’s precarious financial situation, the AEG Live deal caused him to make desperate and unwise medical decisions that ultimately led to Michael Jackson’s untimely death (Trial Testimony of Dr. Gordon Matheson, attached as Ex. 19 to Chang Declaration at 8400:3-8). Within two short months, Michael Jackson died as a result of an unintentional overdose of prescription drugs administered by a doctor who was more interested in keeping the show, instead of his patient, alive.

……

This Court modified this instruction by adding another element, “That AEG Live hired Dr. Conrad Murray”. When that first element was coupled with the next element, “That Dr. Conrad Murray was unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired”, the instruction wrongfully placed all of the emphasis on the unfitness or incompetence of Dr. Murray at the time of hire – even though such characteristics or even his assigned duties could have changed after he was already hired. The verdict form that was prepared pursuant to this modified instruction required the jurors to end deliberations if the answer to the second question was “No”.  As given, these instructions and the verdict form were misleading and erroneous in that they did not distinguish between a negligent hiring claim (what the employer knew or should have known at the time of hiring) and a negligent retention or negligent supervision claim (what the employer knew or should have known during the courts of the relationship).

As a result, the instructions and the verdict form permitted the jury to only focus on

the knowledge AEG Live had at the time of hiring instead of what it learned or should I have learned during the course of the relationship. By forcing the jurors to stop if they answered “No” to Question Number 2 on the verdict form, the form never allowed the jurors to consider AEG Live’s separate ongoing duties relating to supervision and retention. This Court, in its ruling on Motion for Nonsuit, specifically found that after Dr. Murray’s hiring and until Michael Jackson’s death, “substantial evidence has been presented at trial from which a jury can reasonably infer that Defendant knew or should have known that Dr. Murray presented an undue risk of harm to Decedent.” (Court’s Ruling on Defendants’ Motion for Nonsuit at 14:5-9). Listed within such substantial evidence were numerous events that occurred after Dr. Murray was hired, including AEG Live’s preparation and negotiation of a contract to the exclusion of Michael Jackson, the

inclusion of a clause within such contract that allowed AEG Live to terminate Dr, Murray if the show was postponed or cancelled, the increased pressures inflicted on Dr. Murray by ABO Live after Kenny Ortega threatened to shut down or postpone the show, and the obvious deterioration of Michael Jackson that continued up to the time of his death, The jurors, however, never had the opportunity to consider such substantial evidence.

The erroneous jury instructions and verdict form given to the jury constituted prejudicial error because it misted the jury and affected the verdict. See Spriesterhach v, Holland (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 255,263. Based on interviews of several jurors, it is more than probable that they would have come to a different conclusion but for the erroneous instruction and verdict form (See Declarations of four Jurors, attached to Chang Declaration at Ex. 1 through 4). Many of the jurors, who sacrificed so much to serve on this jury, are understandably upset that they were “trapped” by a question that had nothing to do with the real issues of this case. One juror even refused to stop after Question 2, and wanted to continue deliberating on the issues of negligent supervision and retention. Because the jurors read the question so literally, some believed that the addition of the words “at any time*’, specifically requested by Plaintiffs, would have helped.

As written, however, the instructions and verdict form effectively took from the jury any consideration of whether AEG Live negligently supervised or negligently retained Dr. Murray.…

View this document on Scribd

And here is Alan Duke’s article explaining some details:

Michael Jackson death trial jurors: ‘Stunned,’ ‘cheated’ by verdict process

By Alan Duke, CNN

December 13, 2013 — Updated 0533 GMT (1333 HKT)

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Four jurors gave sworn statements to help Katherine Jackson get a new trial
  • The trial ended with a victory for the concert promoter that Jackson’s family had sued
  • One juror called the verdict form “a trap that prevented us from deliberating on the real issues”
  • “I do not think that justice was achieved in this case,” another jurors says

Los Angeles (CNN) — Four jurors in the Michael Jackson wrongful death trial said they feel cheated by the outcome, which they blame on a misleading verdict form.

The six-month-long trial ended in October with a victory for AEG Live, the concert promoter Jackson’s mother and children had claimed was liable for his death because it hired, retained or supervised the doctor convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death.

The jurors, whose sworn statements were attached to a motion for a new trial filed Thursday by Katherine Jackson’s lawyers, said most of the jury wanted to find concert promoter AEG Live liable in Jackson’s 2009 death.

Along with arguing that the verdict form was faulty, the Jackson lawyers contend the judge erred by refusing to let them pursue a negligence claim independent of the hiring case.

Jackson died from an overdose of the surgical anesthetic propofol on June 25, 2009, which Dr. Conrad Murray told police he used to treat the pop icon’s insomnia as he prepared for a tour produced by AEG Live.

They jurors used the words “stunned,” “upset” and “shocked” when they were told they had to stop deliberations after a majority agreed that the answer was “no” to the second question on the verdict form — “Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?”

One juror called the question “a trap that prevented us from deliberating on the real issues of the case.”

“After sitting through almost six months of the trial in this case, I believed that Mrs. Jackson had proven her case against AEG LIve,” another juror said. “Despite this fact, I had no way of voting in favor of the plaintiffs because of the way that the verdict form was worded.”

Jackson lawyers, in their arguments for a new trial, contend that Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazeulos erred by denying their request to add the words “at any time” to the question.

The four jurors, whose names were redacted from the documents released by the court, agreed.

“I would like the judge to know that we did not have the opportunity to deliberate or render a verdict on the plaintiffs claims that Dr Murray did not become unfit or incompetent until after the conflict of interest was created, Dr. Murray’s duties were changed, pressures were mounting, or even after the contract was prepared and signed by Dr. Murray,” one juror said.

The jury voted “no” only after one member convinced them that the question could have only meant “at the time he was hired,” two of the juror statements said.

“During our deliberations, I asked to send a question to the judge to explain Question 2, but by then the foreman had already answered ‘no’ and followed the instructions to sign the form,” one said. “I feel so cheated because I sat through five months of trial and listened to a lot of evidence on the ethical conflict created — yet I never got to even deliberate at all on that issue or even review the hundreds of exhibits that had been brought in.”

Another juror said they decided not to ask the judge for direction on the second question because “we did not want anyone to know where we were in deliberations.”

“I do not believe that the verdict form was fair or worded correctly, and as phrased, Question 2 was a trap that prevented us from deliberating on the real issues of the case,” a juror said.

The same juror described the emotional toll it has caused. “Since the jury verdict, I have been very upset, and initially I was unable to eat or even check my e-mails because I was so sorry about the verdict and the fact that justice was not done in this case, because of how question 2 on the verdict form was worded.”

“I do not think that justice was achieved in this case,” another said.

The affidavits revealed that one of the 12 jurors refused to stop deliberating despite being told it was over. “He insisted that we continue answering the rest of the questions,” a juror said.

Judge Palazeulos will hear arguments on the new trial motion on January 3.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/12/showbiz/michael-jackson-new-trial-motion/index.html?iref=allsearch#cnn-disqus-area

So the first news will be on January 3, 2014  and we don’t have long to wait.

In the meantime our good old AEG is expecting Katherine Jackson to cover their costs on the trial amounting to $1,2 million:

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

The Jackson matriarch is seeking another trial in the case against AEG Live over the death of Michael Jackson, citing possibe jury misconduct, her lawyer said.

BYNANCY DILLON / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

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

Jackson seeks another trial against concert giant AEG Live over her son Michael’s 2009 death. Katherine Jackson claims the company failed to properly investigate the doctor who was convicted in 2011 of involuntary manslaughter for the singer’s death, but the company denies all wrongdoing.

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

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

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

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

Jackson died in 2009. The pop icon’s family has been in a feud with concert promoter AEG Live over who is responsible for Jackson’s death.

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

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

Another of Katherine’s lawyers disputed that statement.

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

But Putnam said the King of Pop was responsible for his own health and “demanded” that his personal physician, Dr. Conrad Murray, join him on his ill-fated “This Is It” tour.Jackson even demanded the drug that killed him-a drug he had abused for decades,” Putnam said Tuesday, referring to the surgery-strength anesthetic propofol.

“Jackson ignored several doctors who told him taking propofol for sleep could kill him. AEG Live had absolutely no knowledge of what Jackson was doing in his bedroom at night with his personal physician. And as the jury found, AEG Live could in no way be held responsible for Mr. Jackson’s death.”

He said a retrial would be a waste of time and money.

“Taxpayers have already spent a fortune paying for the judicial resources for a five month jury trial so that Katherine Jackson could bring this lawsuit and try to get more money,” Putnam said.

“The jury has spoken. And the jury got it right. AEG Live is confident that the Court will reject plaintiffs’ attempt to start all over again.”

ndillon@nydailynews.com

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

Putnam is wrong. Four honest jurors say that they and the others didn’t get it right and justice was not served.

37 Comments leave one →
  1. February 17, 2014 5:08 pm

    Hi Helena, maybe it escaped your attention that Putnam is going to adress students and alumni at Georgetown Law faculty about his career as a litigator and will be talking about the Michael Jackson case. http://www.law.georgetown.edu/alumni/alumni-events/washington-dc-student-alumni-reception-february-2014.cfm – Sina

    Sina, this is horrible. Putnam will brainwash these young minds with his highly sophisticated lies about Michael, AEG and even Conrad Murray. And I think that this is not the first law faculty he speaks at – he is probably making rounds of all universities.

    Yes, please give them the links to some posts here if you think they can help. But it would probably be best to send the students short summaries of the methods AEG lawyers used – laughing in the face of laywers of the other side, meddling with the jurors and instructing their defendants not to remember anything.

    What will Putnam teach his students there? How to totally disrupt the trial process by all these tricks?

    I think that in order to learn of Putnam’s style the first thing the students should listen to is that part of Brian Panish’s speech where all AEG people one after another say “I don’t remember it”, “I don’t remember sending this email”, I don’t remember reading it” – all of them remember nothing!

    Putnam can surely teach students these and other dirty tricks. Unfortunately they do work.

    Like

  2. Sina permalink
    February 17, 2014 4:39 pm

    Hi Helena, maybe it escaped your attention that Putnam is going to adress students and alumni at Georgetown Law faculty about his career as a litigator and will be talking about the Michael Jackson case.

    http://www.law.georgetown.edu/alumni/alumni-events/washington-dc-student-alumni-reception-february-2014.cfm

    SBA Alumni Speaker Series: Marvin Putnam (L’93)
    Join fellow alumni and current students for a reception with Marvin Putnam (L’93), as he discusses his successful career as a litigator.

    Someone wrote the following comment on their website :

    Sirs, I’m writing you because when visiting your website I read “Georgetown is one of the world’s leading academic institutions, offering a unique educational experience”. Therefore, I think it’s reasonable that what is expected of you can’t be anything else but a honest and truthful education to your students. So, I find shockingly offensive to the prestige of your University the promotion of the event at this link: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/alumni/alumni-events/index.cfm using a title disrespectful towards Michael Jackson, the victim of a homicide whose name is extremely unfair to be exploited. This is the official LA Superior Court website: http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcase…/ui/index.aspx… etc.

    There are also messages probably by fans on their facebook..

    I am trying to find a contact adress of students of the law school who will probably attend, to direct them to your blogposts of the trial.
    This could be a perfect opportunity and platform to expose AEG. Let them know what was done to Michael and how he was treated by them.

    Like

  3. January 7, 2014 5:34 pm

    When a doctor is hired in UK or US this is never based on paper credentials only HE/She has to meet with the doctors and adminisration of the hospital and will be questioned about his,her manner of(treatment(s). Murray would never have passed.

    Like

  4. January 6, 2014 6:38 pm

    To repeat; Murray did many mistakes and did not act as proper gp. Here our primary healthcare is on a GP level. They routinely check bloodchemistry, take bloodpressure and EEG. And make referrals to specialists.Murray falls well below that standard + much more.

    Like

  5. January 4, 2014 7:57 am

    Guys, please google this headline Judge tentatively rules against new Jackson trial and you will find something interesting – the scope at which this news is being spread all over the world.

    When the media people want something to be known they play it really big!

    Here are only the first 4 pages out of 7 (!) of my Google search that carry the same title and same text:

    Actually all I was looking for was something by Alan Duke on this matter but the above was the only result I got.

    Very diverse news.

    Like

  6. January 4, 2014 6:17 am

    As could be easily expected the judge Yvette Palazuelos issued a (tentavite) ruling that she would not grant Katherine Jackson a new trial. Now the case can go to the Superior Court which very seldom goes for the appeal of cases:

    JUDGE TENTATIVELY RULES AGAINST NEW JACKSON TRIAL
    By ANTHONY McCARTNEY
    — Jan. 3, 2014 4:31 PM EST

    LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge issued a tentative ruling Friday against granting a new trial in a negligence case filed by the mother of Michael Jackson claiming a concert promoter was financially liable for the singer’s death. Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos did not immediately finalize the ruling after hearing more than two hours of arguments from lawyers.

    A jury in October rejected Katherine Jackson’s lawsuit claiming AEG Live LLC negligently hired the doctor convicted of giving her son an overdose of anesthetic in 2009.
    Her lawyers argued the verdict form didn’t allow jurors to fully consider evidence in the case. Lawyers for AEG Live countered that there was no basis for a new trial.
    AEG Live attorney Jessica Stebbins Bina told the judge it was actually Katherine Jackson’s lawyers who included the disputed language in drafts of the verdict form and instructions.
    Jackson family attorney Deborah Chang, however, said the question that brought jurors to end the case couldn’t have been corrected and should have been excluded from the form.

    Palazuelos did not indicate when she would finalize her ruling. If she stands by it, Katherine Jackson’s attorneys could pursue an appeal with a higher state court.

    Jurors heard more than five months of evidence in the lawsuit trial.
    Katherine Jackson sued AEG Live on behalf of herself and her son’s three children, accusing the concert promoter of hiring Dr. Conrad Murray and creating a conflict of interest in his care of the pop superstar.

    Murray, who was deeply in debt, expected to be paid $150,000 a month to care for Jackson while the singer prepared for a planned series of comeback concerts in London’s O2 Arena. Jackson died on June 25, 2009, after receiving an overdose of propofol, which Murray was giving Jackson as a sleep aid.
    Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2011 and released in October after serving two years in jail.
    The trial offered a close look into Jackson’s personal life as well as his routines as an entertainer and medical treatments for a variety of ailments.
    Jurors later said their verdict did not mean they thought Murray was ethical in his care of Jackson, but that he was fit and competent to serve as his doctor.
    AEG Live denied any wrongdoing throughout the trial and said there was no way executives could have known that Murray was giving Jackson propofol in the bedroom of his rented mansion.
    ___
    Anthony McCartney can be reached at http://twitter.com/mccartneyAP
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-tentatively-rules-against-new-jackson-trial

    All of us are disappointed and upset, but I hope no one is terribly surprised here. Any other ruling from this judge would have been a complete miracle.

    Like

  7. January 3, 2014 9:50 am

    “Please let me know the transcript of T Mesenreaus interview. I was not able to get the live program up.” -rkatarina

    Rkatarina, I wish we had this transcript as the program was indeed very diverse and well prepared. Unfortunately Thomas Mesereau doesn’t remember the specific details of the trial now as 9 years have already passed but he is absolutely great in singling out the main points and showing a balanced approach to many things that are a matter of controversy among fans. The questions were also singularly good. I wish we had the full transcript of it – does anyone know if there is a chance to get one?

    Susannerb is right, the program has been recorded and may be listened to at any time: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jordan-king/2014/01/03/tom-mesereau-returns-to-king-jordan-radio

    P.S. It was no use asking Thomas Mesereau about his questions to June Chandler during her 2005 testimony – he doesn’t remember them any more. He probably doesn’t remember the Love bracelet either. This means that Michael didn’t tell him anything about June, or otherwise Thomas Mesereau would remember.

    Like

  8. January 2, 2014 11:32 pm

    Please let me know the transcript of T Mesenreaus interview. I was not able to get the live program up.

    Like

  9. December 27, 2013 4:58 pm

    “Murray did the worst a doctor can do, he lied to his patient regarding the safety of his treatments. He did this by choice and knowingly over a long period of time. It was by cheer luck Michael did not die earlier.There was nothing involuntary about it.” – rkatarina

    Murray is a criminal doctor. He was absolutely unqualified to treat Michael’s insomnia but for some reason thought he could try his hand on Michael. Okay, he is a cardiologist, but it does not mean that he is a sleep specialist! He was simply engaged in medical experiments and with all those Versed/Lorazepam/Propofol exercises on Michael treated him like a guinea pig in a medical lab.

    Recently I had a dispute with MedLaw (correction: LawMed) admin who brushed Michael off as a “huge benzo addict”. I asked why he thought so. He said because Murray was giving those benzos to him. I said Michael didn’t want them, and the LawMed admin arrogantly answered me:

    “It does not matter whether Jackson sought out and ingested benzodiazepines on his own accord or he was tied down and force fed them. The result is the same….addiction to benzodiazepines”

    And though formally this medlaw admin may be right (though we don’t know how many benzodiazepines Murray already gave Michael and whether the addiction already formed) not making a difference when it is done despite a patient’s will seems to me an absolutely disgusting point of view. And it is all the more disgusting when this opinion is voiced by a medical professional.

    It again shows that ethics and responsibility are not regarded by some of them as the necessary components of a medical profession. So what that Murray was giving Michael huge doses of benzodiazepines (even despite his will)? It does not matter! This person answered me:

    “the single thing Murray likely did correctly was attempt to steer Jackson away from propofol, recommending instead the benzos”.

    “Recommending” them? I’m afraid that he was giving those injections to Michael by force or at least despite his huge unwillingness to take them. And it concerns Versed in the first place. I wanted to leave a reply, but was blocked without any explanations whatsoever. Here is my attempt at a conversation with this guy: http://lawmedconsultant.com/2485/jackson-received-more-propofol-than-anyone-in-medical-history/#comment-2996

    Now that we know what a terrible drug Versed is I am extremely resentful of the fact that Murray was forcing it on Michael. Remember Investigator Fleak finding 5 pieces of 10ml bottles of Versed in Murray’s bag? Initially I thought that she could probably make a mistake in the report and those were the 2ml vials he ordered from the Applied Pharmacies.

    However Ms. Fleak was right – Murray indeed was keeping the 10ml vials of Versed, so he was increasing the dose of it and was indeed turning MJ into a benzo addict. And benzo addicts have a problem with waking up, they get up groggy and live as if in a haze, they are sleepy, listless and disoriented during the day and “enjoy” all the additional side-effects which this horrible Versed is giving to people – up to developing a total amnesia, shaking as if in freezing cold, rambling and obsessing and being even unable to walk.

    Here are the new bottles of bigger, 10ml vials of Versed found by Fleak in Murray’s bag:

    The 10ml vials of Midazolam (Versed) come in two variants of dosages – 1mg and 5mg per ml. Judging by the color Murray’s vials had a 1mg concentration.

    The 2ml Midazolam vials are not only a different size but a different form too:

    Like

  10. December 27, 2013 3:55 pm

    The AEG trial folloved in the same style.. It was done as it turned out on purpose.It is time to stop wondering how things always turn against Michael and his family.

    Like

  11. December 27, 2013 3:52 pm

    Murray did the worst a doctor can do, he lied to his patient regarding the safety of his treatments. He did this by choice and knowingly over a long period of time. It was by cheer luck Michael did not die earlier.There was nothing involuntary about it.

    Like

  12. December 27, 2013 3:52 pm

    “I dont know of any case where there was so much direct and hard evidence – emails, contracts, media statements – many witnesses with consistent and similar accounts of what happened and an almost perfect timeline.” – Sina

    Yes, the case was crystal clear and it is totally unimaginable that it turned into such a mess. The whole procedure reminded me of Jonathan Swift’s satire the way he described the legal system in Gulliver’s travels.

    As to the direct and hard evidence of those emails this is what I’ve been looking into in the past few days. I’d like to pick up some loose ends in Murray’s and AEG’s case and will try to do it within the next few days. Of course the New Year celebrations are a big distraction, but I will try. 🙂

    Like

  13. December 27, 2013 3:28 pm

    “Yet the judge was incapable to handle the case, in the courtroom , in the procedures and in her explanation of the law. The whole case was a mess. She allowed defendants to feign amnesia and lie under oath and rewarded them by dismissing them from the case.” – Sina

    Yes, it was a travesty of justice. Randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware LIED in full view of everyone when they didn’t recognize their own emails and then, just a couple of days before deliberations they were suddenly no longer part of the lawsuit?

    Actually no one even understood why this happened and what reasons were given for it by AEG. It was like a thunderbolt in the clear blue sky, a totally groundless decision on the part of the judge and frankly, looked like a well thought-out move as it struck at the last moment.

    It must have amazed the jury in the same way and clearly sent them a signal – since the main culprits are dismissed, there is simply no one left to talk about here.

    And sending the case back to her? In the hope that she will reconsider her decision and admit it as her mistake? This looks to me like the theatre of the absurd.

    Like

  14. December 27, 2013 3:12 pm

    “I also wish KJ and the children all the best with this application for a re-trial, so that justice can be seen to be done for them. I will light a candle on 3 January and sent out prayers that their application is successful.” – Caro Attwell

    Oh, great idea. I think that all those who support Katherine should light a candle on that day (as well as all others when important decision will be taken). Let it be a sea of lights for Katherine and justice for Michael.

    Like

  15. December 27, 2013 3:03 pm

    “If he does not have license to practice in England, how come he fit for the job? That should make jurors to say NO for question #2. AEG hired a Dr. who is not even allowed to practice in England which is illegal.” – Mariam

    Mariam, you mean YES as an answer to question # 2, because the question was “Was Conrad Murray unfit for the job?”. So yes, he was unfit for it as he didn’t have a licence. By the way, a very good point!

    But regarding jurors, AEG lawyers was trying to contact the jurors, flirting with jurors during the trial, I do remember the fans did complain about one of AEG lawyer (Jessica if I am correct) she was flirting with jurors and also there was another incident that AEG lawyer attempted to talk to the jurors and another time giving cookies or candy to jurors e.t.c.

    I also remember fans complaining that one of the AEG lawyers constantly had an eye contact with the foreman (I even wondered whether he was attractive).

    And AEG lawyers often spoke to each other standing by the jurors’ seats where the discussion was within the jurors’ hearing – Brian Panish complained about it to the judge.

    And yes, and there were some candies or cookies from AEG’s lawyers too, so that the judge had to allow Panish’s team to do the same to counterbalance this gesture.

    It may look funny but it is not. The AEG lawyers are very good PR people – they know when to smile, when to make a joke, when to comfort the witness (Nurse Lee who cried on the stand), they know how to distract attention of the jury when the other side speaks about something important.

    In short it was quite a theatre even by the small scraps of information we heard.

    Like

  16. December 27, 2013 2:22 pm

    “If I am not mistaken it seemed to me that according to the contract it was Michael that had everything to lose and AEG everything to gain including the Beatle’s catalog.” – Marsha

    The way AEG presented it at the trial and the way we see the contract now it was Michael indeed who was to cover all the expenses and to lose everything as a result.

    But it does not mean that the situation was initially presented to Michael in the same way. And it does not mean that the contract we see now is the same paper that was shown to Michael. There was even some evidence pointing to Michael not agreeing to covering all the expenses. Here is only some of it:

    1) Tohme and Dileo had to sign special papers stating that Michael had agreed to cover those costs. From Michael AEG had not received any written consent and without a written approval that point in the contract was ineffective.

    2) Conrad Murray’s salary was put on AEG’s budget.

    3) Paul Gongaware’s and Timm Woolley’s emails suggest that there was a split of expenses between AEG and MJ. Transportation, housing in London and security were AEG’s business or rather “show costs”:

    On Jun 18, 2009, at 6:45 PM, Timm Woolley wrote:

    All
    I have prepared what I think is an equitable division of expense between MJ and the Tour. Pays for entertainment arcade & bowling alley because they were a precondition in terms of facilities he needed at the house and part of the bargain.

    AEG
    Pays for 3 of the local houses – Bush, Faye and Murray (wardrobe dresser, make-up/hair & personal physician).
    Pays for the additional furniture because we are providing a fully-furnished house. MJ’s stylistic additions are added at his discretion.

    MJ
    Pays for 5/8 of the staffing housing: security, nanny, miko. And the initial food stocking. Food & supplies will continue to be an MJ expense and the security people have credit cards of their own for that, but we’ll eventually credit the MJ account with a notional per diem allowance.

    Costs of security detail and transport continue to be show costs. Former because we’d have had to secure any London hotel he would stay at. The latter only to the extent that the family local transport is a chargebak to MJ.

    If anyone has other thoughts to offer, I hope we can agree that this is fair. If there is agreement, then PG to give approval.

    Timm
    Timm Woolley

    From Paul Gongaware
    Sent: 19 June 2009 03:27

    Timm Woolley
    Cc: ‘Brigitte Segal’; Rick Webking; Julie Hollander; Colin Chapple; Luke Flynn
    Re: estimated costs for MJ in London

    I agree with Timm’s allocation and the charges. Approved.

    Paul G.

    Like

  17. December 27, 2013 2:06 pm

    “Murray had wondered into the security peoples trailer outside MJ home before MJ died and asked Alberto Alverez if they had any batteries for some piece of equipment ,he had in his hand..( I will have to re watch his testimony, to find out which piece of equipment)” – Nan

    Nan, it was a pulse oximeter, the one that measures oxygen in the blood and shows the heart rate. Murray had the cheapest version of it, and clipped it to Michael’s finger when Alvarez was already in the room. This suggests that he was not using it when Michael was under a drip that night.

    “Even if he graduated med school, even if he never had any problems practicing medicine before…he was not licensed to practice in England , so how could he be fit for the job, he was hired to do , in a country he cant practice in? Throughout all that time and Phillips conversations with Murray, nobody is wondering how he is supposed to practice in England , without a license?”

    As far as I remember the AEG contract of June 24th did say that Murray was to provide the documents allowing him to practice in England, but you are right, the jurors were looking at Murray’s credentials from an absolutely formal angle and only at the moment Murray took up the job. And from this formal point of view Murray was not fit or ready to go to London – he didn’t have an English licence.

    Like

  18. Sina permalink
    December 27, 2013 9:48 am

    Correction.
    When the case was allowed to proceed to the jury in september, it was based on the following ruling of the judge :

    “Substantial evidence has been presented at trial from which a jury can reasonably infer that defendants (AEG Live) knew or should have known that Dr. Murray presented an undue risk of harm to decedent (Jackson),” she said in her ruling.

    Then how can her instructions be limited to the time of hiring or for what he was hired to do.

    Like

  19. Sina permalink
    December 27, 2013 9:37 am

    ‘As to searching for the truth… “The truth will set you free”. Who said that? Jesus. And Michael repeated it in his “Cry”: “All we need is reach for the truth”.

    In an ideal world those who are part of the truth or the lie would eventually tell and free their conscience AND grant the victims survivors the gift of closure.
    However, the justice system has proven itself incompetent to get the culprits to acknowledge their wrongdoings. Murray was indicted on a ridiculous count so as not to jeopardize a verdict ( and Walgrens election to become a judge) and got away with a slap on the wrist. One of the purposes of punishment is rehabilitation, to better oneself . Murray has shown no remorse what so ever and served only half of his sentence, not because he has become a better citizen, but on strictly formal grounds.
    The criminal case only established that he committed a crime, but we still don’t know exactly what happened and why. A very frustrating thought.
    The civil case is closely linked to the criminal case as for the main players and the events that lead to Murrays crime. I dont know of any case where there was so much direct and hard evidence – emails, contracts, media statements – many witnesses with consistent and similar accounts of what happened and an almost perfect timeline.
    When the case was allowed to proceed it was based on the fact that the
    Yet the judge was incapable to handle the case, in the courtroom , in the procedures and in her explanation of the law. The whole case was a mess. She allowed defendants to feign amnesia and lie under oath and rewarded them by dismissing them from the case. I have no doubts that AEGs close ties with the city council of LA helped their case, both in the criminal as well as the civil trial.
    http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/14/local/la-me-leiweke-city-hall-20130315

    http://www.kcet.org/shows/socal_connected/undertheinfluence/education/the-business-behind-the-district-5-school-board-election.html

    Sometimes the truth is found where you least expect it, the impossible has the habit of happening. It only takes an open mind and to never rule out any option,
    I never expected the 4 jurors to come forward and speak up against the verdict after the fact. I don’t know if there is even a precedent of it. They are very courageous to stand up against a judges ruling, not knowing the repercussion they may face or if their action will change anything. Especially since it’s the same judge who will look into the complaint.
    But these people understood that telling the truth is key if you are given such an imminent responsibility. They will feel free of the burden to be part of a faux verdict.
    Ofcourse it was to be expected that AEG would find the 7 other jurors more than willing to make a counter claim to save face and go as far as to accuse KJs lawyer of manipulation.

    But even if they are a majority it seems to me that if a substantial part of the jurors feel ‘cheated’ the verdict should be overturned. I think Paluezo would rather reverse her own decision than have a court of appeal do it or send the case back to her to reconsider.
    I hope for the sake of justice and for the peace of mind of Michaels family and supporters that this time justice will be served.
    Keeping my fingers crossed.

    Like

  20. Caro Attwell permalink
    December 27, 2013 4:53 am

    thanks for this post Helena. Your untiring work is just awesome, and I wish you everything of the best for 2014, including full recovery from the injuries to your arms.

    I also wish KJ and the children all the best with this application for a re-trial, so that justice can be seen to be done for them. We all know that Michael’s wonderful legacy will live on for generations and generations to come, but it would be good for his family to have some peace, and that can never happen for them until they feel they have done all they can. I will light a candle on 3 January and sent out prayers that their application is successful.

    Like

  21. Susanne permalink
    December 26, 2013 7:03 pm

    Thank you Vindicatemj (Helena) for your reply and explanation. It’s a full-time job if you want to follow and understand it all.

    I read your reply further down talking about Jesus words, ” The Truth Will Set You Free.” It made me think about Conrad Murray and his documentary. He was praying in his documentary and he praised the lord.

    Funny though, he doesn’t seem to have heard about Jesus holy words or has he? Of course he has!

    It reminds me of MJ’s lyrics in his song ‘Money’, ” So You Go To Church, Read The Holy Word, In The Scheme Of Life, It’s All Absurd………”

    Like

  22. Mariam permalink
    December 26, 2013 1:35 am

    “Even if he graduated med school, even if he never had any problems practicing medicine before…he was not licensed to practice in England , so how could he be fit for the job, he was hired to do , in a country he cant practice in?” Nan

    That is very interesting and it is also my question. If he does not have license to practice in England, how come he fit for the job? That should make jurors to say NO for question #2. AEG hired a Dr. who is not even allowed to practice in England which is illegal.

    But regarding jurors, AEG lawyers was trying to contact the jurors, flirting with jurors during the trial, I do remember the fans did complain about one of AEG lawyer (Jessica if I am correct) she was flirting with jurors and also there was another incident that AEG lawyer attempted to talk to the jurors and another time giving cookies or candy to jurors e.t.c.
    So, I am not surprised entirely that few jurors or foreman are voted a favour of AEG, I am even thinking may be AEG did more than that to get those jurors. Sadly, this is a common practice these days.

    However, my problem is with the whole a court system, as I said it before, we should be more confident and rely on with authorities like (a government, a police, a court) that we will get a fair treatment and justices no matter what colure is our skin, whether we are rich or poor, either we are famous or not or where ever we come from, but as a human and as a citizen.

    I expect a lot specially, from modern, civilized, democratic countries that is fighting for human right, justice and equality for other countries that does not have. I am not just dismissing all the effort they did for others, but what I am saying is we are not quite there and still needs a lot of work, unfortunately.

    I am glad still there are a lot of good people (like those 4 honest jurors) who stands for truth, human right and justice and because of those people hoping we will have a better world, a better place to live in future.

    “This is why the sense of responsibility of these four jurors and their fortitude in going against the tide are awesome. When things like that happen it restores some hope in humankind in general. When people like that exist you realize that all is not lost yet” I like what Helena said here, because it gives me hope too.

    I am hoping MJ will get justice that he deserve on the next trial and the court will decides AEG is responsible for MJ’s death and hopefully AEG will learn from their terrible mistake which cost somebodies life who was/still is very important person for so many people all over the world. Hope 2014 will be MJ’s fans and KJ year and then we will get closer.

    Helena, what can I say, I cannot tell you enough that how important and valuable is your blog to me and I think the same to all MJ’s fans and thank you for helping me to understand what exactly happened to MJ and what Murray did to him. I lost respect to call him Dr. anymore because to me he is not/does not sound and absolutely not qualified to be a Dr. in my opinion. I apologized for my strong opinion but that is what I feel and think.

    I wish you all Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!

    Like

  23. Marsha permalink
    December 25, 2013 11:54 pm

    Dear Helena, hope you had a blessed Christmas. As usual you have written a great post. But I do have a question about one statement that was made.The statement that AEG would lose thirty Mill. if the “show “did not go on. If I am not mistaken it seemed to me that according to the contract it was Michael that had everything to lose and AEG everything to gain including the Beatle’s catalog.Also, Phillips claiming that Michael was despondent or scared, and perhaps having a drink or two who would not be strange esp. after what he had recently been through and not being in the public eye in a while. he had no way of knowing how he would be received, but once he saw and heard his fans and after the amazing sellout his would have and probably did gain his confidence back. But for Phillips to slap him, well that may help win a verdict against AEG in the future, but for him to do it at that time would have been devastating to a kind, peaceful, and gentle person like Michael and it also set the tone for what followed and how Phillips and AEG treated him with very little respect. Why does there seem to be a double standard when it comes to Michael, Lots of tours have been cancelled. in fact one tour that was cancelled not to long after Michael died, was cancelled because the performers pet dog was sick. Now please tell me what insurance company covers a performers dog being sick? And yet I heard not one complaint. Also gleaning from your post. the fact that Murray started ordering meds from the beginning, and the fact that it was not just diprivan that he ordered shows that they intended to drug him from the beginning, this is esp. disconcerting when it comes to versed, a drug that Michael never requested or had a prescription for. In fact I doubt that Michael had even heard of it. but Murray would be very acquainted with it being a cardiologist. And concerning versed I recently read a post that stated as you did the differences between conscious sedation and deep sedation and it had this to say,”The definition of CS is worth remembering. CS is a minimally depressed level of consciousness that***** retains the patient’s ability to maintain a patent airway independently and continuously****, and respond appropriately to physical stimulation and verbal commands. Conscious sedation should be distinguished from two other levels of consciousness: deep sedation and general anesthesia.***** Deep sedation is a controlled state of depressed consciousness or unconsciousness from which the patient is ***not easily aroused, accompanied by a partial or complete loss of protective reflexes, including the ability to maintain a patent airway*** (in other words they lose the ability to breath on their own) independently and respond purposefully to physical stimulation or verbal command.Murray should have been aware of this information concerning maintaining airways as well. (Also just to note what a jerk Murray is when discussion Michael wetting the bed, well it was because of the drugs that he gave him not because of some psychologiocal problem that Murray likes to insinuate about.)
    In this post I found it very interesting that when discussing the lightest form of sedation which is conscious sedation it said that reasons for not doing it were:
    1. Recent (<2 hr) ingestion of large food or fluid volumes
    2. Physical class IV or greater( how sick they were)
    3. Lack of support staff or monitoring equipment
    4. Lack of experience/credentialing on part of clinician

    The last two we know were violated by Murray, so how any jury could say that he was competent when hired is beyond me when he failed at the smallest things like monitoring which would have included weighing him, and keeping a record of his weight as well as his other vital signs. So again we have ask why versed, Was it to keep him compliant or to get him to sing certain papers or agree to do fifty show? or to try to get him to confess to certain activity and tape such a confession? Why versed, As for the jurors I agree that the second question was a trap. As a matter of fact I do not think it should have been on the form to them to even debate, They had no way of knowing if he was competent or not because they could not review the charts of his patients and he did not have a chart of his care of Michael to even compare or review. In fact the fact that there was no chart shows that he was not competent. I also think that they should have asked the judge for clarification if they were not sure of what to do , I suspect though that they may have been unduly pressured not to aske for further clarification.

    Like

  24. Nan permalink
    December 25, 2013 10:13 pm

    Merry Christmas !! , and a special thank you to Helena and all the others who do so much to clear Michael’s name..
    Reading some on the comments and the part where MJ told the nurse he would be alright as long as he was monitored and had proper equipment…he must have discussed the proper equipment with Murray , and yet he had NOTHING..how could that be? I would think MJ would insist on it
    Murray had wondered into the security peoples trailer outside MJ home before MJ died and asked Alberto Alverez if they had any batteries for some piece of equipment ,he had in his hand..( I will have to re watch his testimony, to find out which piece of equipment) but evidently he couldnt be bothered to go looking for batteries , after they told him they didnt have any…So maybe MJ thought he was being monitored with proper equipment and Murray was lying to him ,How would he know if he thought the equipment would be put on him after he was put under.
    I am still confused as to the foreman of the jury , saying Murray was fit and competent when hired..and people rolling over on that question.
    Even if he graduated med school, even if he never had any problems practicing medicine before…he was not licensed to practice in England , so how could he be fit for the job, he was hired to do , in a country he cant practice in?
    Throughout all that time and Phillips conversations with Murray, nobody is wondering how he is supposed to practice in England , without a license?

    Between the judge letting that question go, and the foreman in such a rush to get the deliberations over , it is very very strange..nevermind the person who was supposed to be on the jury talking to fans, never mentioning any of this in these depositions that I recall

    Like

  25. December 25, 2013 6:29 pm

    Hope you had a happy Christmas and that 2014 will be a good year.
    And I would like to hear the thruth from Murray; the names of the doctors who said that propofol is safe in the manner and combinanations with other drugs the way he used it,
    including the site, ie Private bedroom,equipment ,all details he needed to know..

    Like

  26. December 25, 2013 3:09 pm

    “Wishing you and all who contribute to your tireless, dedicated work to vindicate Michael a Warm Peaceful Christmas, and quality time with your loved ones. And let us continue to search for the truth…….” – Sina

    Sina, I wish you and all of us a warm and peaceful Christmas too.

    As to searching for the truth… “The truth will set you free”. Who said that? Jesus. And Michael repeated it in his “Cry”: “All we need is reach for the truth”.

    Why free? Why will it not make us just happy, knowledgeable or powerful (for example). Why free of all things?

    And why all we need to do is reach for the truth? Why nothing else but only that?

    To me it essentially means that those who willfully lie – for example, about Michael (for money, career, success, ratings of their paper or other reasons), are actually paying heed to the dark entity D. which many ancient texts call the origin or father of lies. And those who believe these lies are trapped in them, are blind and don’t know their way. Any liar can take them by their hand and send them in a wrong direction, and they will never know. They are not free to make their own choices and are not free to even think on their own.

    And what is reaching for the truth then? It is breaking away from this dark entity and returning to our Father. To me it is a divine process, the process of returning to God. And it concerns not only the truth about Michael Jackson – I think that separation of the truth from lies is the fundamental principle for everything else in our lives and the basic choice people make. Some don’t care and prefer to live in the non-free world of illusion and lies, but some want to break away from it and want to be free.

    Jesus said to them, “I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

    Michael absolutely believed in Jesus’s words, was living by them and this is why I love him so much. He is the most sincere public person I’ve ever met in life and finding this quality in an entertainer (and not some revered hermit in a monastery) was a complete marvel.

    Like

  27. December 25, 2013 1:46 pm

    “The jurors answered yes on the main question, Did Aeg Live hire the doctor? Shouldn’t the case be closed after question Nr 1? The whole thing is like a sick joke to me. I mean seriously, are they kidding.” – Susanne

    I think the main claim of the Plaintiff was negligent hiring of Murray by AEG. The fact that the jury answered “Yes” to the question whether AEG hired Murray at all is already half the success. As to negligence in hiring it does not even require any proof in my opinion – AEG never even checked Murray for more than 5 minutes on the Internet.

    And the fact that Michael “brought” Murray does not matter. Michael brought Kenny Ortega too and see what he did to him during those rehearsals? By several accounts, including Murray’s, Kenny Ortega turned into Michael’s worst harasser during the rehearsals – most of the time he didn’t give a damn how Michael felt and all he needed was the show, even at the expense of Michael’s full exhaustion.

    Travis Payne said that “all of them were very tired” which means that the production process was poorly organized – the performers cannot be very tired before the tour starts. They are like sportsmen – their peak form should come at exactly the moment when the competition begins, and if they very tired before that they will not be able to perform at all.

    In fact, so many claims can be made against AEG that I am surprised the Plaintiffs selected only “negligent hiring”- the fact alone that AEG did not have the right to demand Michael’s performance at rehearsals but forced him to can give grounds for a claim. The Plaintiffs probably thought that “negligent hiring” would be the easiest path.

    Like

  28. Susanne permalink
    December 25, 2013 12:14 pm

    I don’t understand. May somebody please explain.

    Before the trial it was said over and over again that the trial was about who hired Dr.Conrad Murray, MJ or Aeg Live. Paul Gongaware and Randy Phillips said long before the trial that they didn’t hire Dr.Conrad Murray, MJ did.

    The jurors answered yes on the main question, Did Aeg Live hire the doctor?

    Shouldn’t the case be closed after question Nr 1? Question 2, what is that bs all about. The whole thing is like a sick joke to me. I mean seriously, are they kidding.

    Like

  29. Sina permalink
    December 25, 2013 6:33 am

    Dear Helena,

    Wishing you and all who contribute to your tireless , dedicated work to vindicate Michael a Warm Peaceful Christmas, and quality time with your loved ones.
    Helena I wish you strength and good health, hope your arms are getting better each day. Take care of yourself,.

    Also hoping for better times for those who are less fortunate than we are especially the children.Let us help them whenever we can, there are so many ways to do it..

    And let us continue to search for the truth……..

    Like

  30. December 25, 2013 4:59 am

    “it could mean that it was Murrays idea to supply the drug in the first place. Just because Michael inquired about the drug doesnt mean he wanted it in the capacity that Murray administered it. It could have been forced on him in some way similar to benzodiazephines.” – TatumMarie

    Tatum, what we can be certain of is that Murray was assuring Michael that Propofol was absolutely safe. Murray evidently searched the Internet (same as we did) or made some enquiries, and as a result was assuring Michael that propofol was not addictive and if administered properly was a safe drug. What he didn’t tell Michael was that he was not a safe choice as he wasn’t going to administer it properly.

    See Murray’s police interview – he says he looked up some studies about Propofol and they said it was not addictive:

    Murray: “I had not seen any study where someone was addicted to that medication, because that’s always used in some situation where one does not get it so frequently.”

    He says that Propofol can be used on a continuous basis and it is indeed done to some patients:

    Murray: “But there’s also — used in patients who, you know, are very ill and they need to keep them completely sedated. You know, it’s being used.”

    He makes it clear to us (and the police) that he knows of REM sleep and probably even discussed it with Michael:

    Murray: “I do understand that children have a better sleeping habit for REM sleep than adults. And as we grow older, we don’t sleep as well and as long.”

    In short he repeated to Michael what we’ve read too and all these observations are indeed true. They might have convinced Michael that Murray was familiar with the subject and knew what he was saying.

    Nurse Lee argued with Michael over it but he repeated to her again and again that she (as a nurse) simply didn’t know and that doctors assured him that it was safe. And it is indeed safe, only in skilled hands!

    Nurse Lee said in her testimony at the AEG trial:

    Lee: I remember telling him that it wasn’t something he wanted to use at home, that it wasn’t a safe medication, that it was definitely not a medication for insomnia. Because that was his issue, was insomnia, and — you have to forgive me because I tried — he kept leaning into me and saying, “you don’t understand. I’ve been told that Diprivan is safe,” because I had already told him how unsafe it was. And he said, “No. Doctors have told me that it’s safe,” and — and I was telling him it wasn’t because it’s not used at home.

    … Q. So this — this first conversation, it seems like — was it upsetting to you?

    A. It was upsetting to me because there was just some inner feeling that I had that it just wasn’t safe. And for some reason, physicians had told him that it was, and he felt that physicians are not going to lie to him. They’re going to tell him the truth, and he took their word for it. So he felt — like I’m a nurse, I’m a nurse practitioner, I’m not a medical doctor, and so — not that he was disqualifying me because I was. He just felt doctors have — he kept telling me — I mean, it’s so stressful for me because of the way — you have to see his face for him to say, “you don’t understand. Doctors have said this is safe. I just need a good night’s sleep.” and he was becoming more persistent about asking because he wanted a good night’s sleep. And I was trying to tell him that, and he said, “you don’t understand. Doctors have told me it’s safe.” that’s one of the reasons I went to go get my P.D.R.

    …Q. So you warned Mr. Jackson that if he took this medication, propofol, for sleep, he might never wake up again?

    A. Yes.

    Q. What did he say in response to that?

    A. That’s when he kept telling me, “you don’t understand. Doctors have told me that the medication is safe just as long as I’m being monitored.”

    Q. And did you respond to him about that? Did you say anything further?

    A. I asked him who again, and he didn’t say. And I still stated that it isn’t a medication that you — you want to have — you should not have this at home, monitored or not. I know that part is — but he said, “as long as they bring equipment and I am monitored, I am safe, and doctors have told me that I am safe.”

    Q. And how long did you and Mr. Jackson go back and forth talking about him saying, “I’ll be safe if I’m monitored” and you saying, “this is not safe”?

    A. We went back and forth for a few minutes because he was very persistent to try to explain to me how, “I’m going to be safe.” if a doctor tells you, you know — and I could feel where he was coming from, because the doctors will put people on medication and tell them, “you will be safe.” I hear it all the time from my cancer patients to the chemo — this is something I hear all the time. So I could feel where he was coming from. You know, and these people, they’re not — it isn’t safe. So that’s why I was trying to tell him how it wasn’t safe, but if doctors have already told him it was safe, and your doctor has told you it’s safe — this is one reason why I couldn’t even help my own mother. I’m sorry. I kept telling her she couldn’t take all this medication, and she did, and she died in 2010 because she believed her doctor, you know. And I’m so sorry.

    A. He just said that doctors have always told him it was safe. And I asked him what doctors, and he didn’t mention any doctors.

    This is the reason why Michael was sure that Diprivan was safe – ALL doctors including Murray told him that.

    Like

  31. December 24, 2013 10:27 pm

    If Murray claims Michael wanted propofol and he met him with his own stash, it could mean that it was Murrays idea to supply the drug in the first place. For every lie, Murray is covering his own actions. Just because Michael inquired about the drug doesnt mean he wanted it in the capacity that Murray administered it. It could have been forced on him in some way similar to benzodiazephines.

    Like

  32. December 24, 2013 4:59 pm

    A fit GP (and Murray´s certification to a specialty had expired) may be treating patient A: for a chronic condition X.The patient then tells him that he has sporadically been treated by treatment zx. by some other doctors. A fit, ethical GP listens and takes mental note of treatment zx. Then goes to top specialists ,consults with other doctors specialist in the field ,how treatment zx is used. then, reads up scientific journals and books..In consultation the GP will tell all details he knows of his patient and an agreement that he will consult the specialist in the future would treatment zx be seen appropriate.
    He will act as the highly informed specialist advises him.
    It is common that doctors consult with those who are well informed,this whether you are a specialist or a GP. Murray acted in secrecy and on his own.This is very unusual, most doctors have a lot of contact, a Network of colleagues. His very secrecy makes him suspect.
    Before being hired he should have been cleared by specialist in the kind of treatments he intended to use.That is absolutely common practice.
    Personally I don´t think he was the least concerned over any “addiction to propofol”. I think he started to worry how that kind of treatment would be at all possible in UK. No Mr. Lopez bringing him that anestetic and other meds, meds that are controlled.It seems he gave little thought of the possible obstacles for his most unothodox.Neither did AEG give that much thought-which should give us much thought.

    Like

  33. December 24, 2013 4:15 pm

    To this day Murray is continuing to show his poor judgement.The judges directives to the jury were calculated and strangled the jury. And the jury foreman was in on it. It is very easy for a person to manipulate a group. All you need is a person who appears somehow authorative to make the rest of the group members to follow suit. He was also fast and hasty. A person more introspective and psycologically sensitive, maybe with less selfconfidence, but ability to see and contemplate issues at her/his own rate logically may not be able to speak up in such a situation.There may be more than these 4 who do not agree with the verdict, but have not informed the court.

    Like

  34. December 24, 2013 2:39 pm

    This is awesome. The main media won’t expose this story. I hope the other jurors will be as truthful.

    Like

  35. December 24, 2013 4:07 am

    Murray was unfit because of his poor judgement.No fit GP would ever have considering taking on the task that he did..He demonstrated this at every opportunity that presented itself, the poor judgement that is

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Un processo civile inquietante | TruthandManipulations

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: