The seven jurors’ affidavits – WHY DIDN’T THEY ASK JUROR #27?
Now seven more jurors from the AEG trial also made their affidavits and are saying in unison that they did not look into Murray’s competency “at the time he was hired” only.
Earlier other four jurors said that they had been told to focus only on the moment of hiring Murray.
The situation is unclear and understanding what’s what may be crucial for the outcome of the trial as theoretically there is a possibility of a hung jury (when the jurors are deadlocked and can’t decide).
It is also absolutely crucial to know which side is telling the truth.
This is why I suggest that the Plaintiffs’ lawyers immediately contact Juror #27 (the one who spoke on the MJJCommunity forum) and get an affidavit from him.
This juror said he was also on the jury and elaborated in much detail on his views on the trial. His viewpoint is that they based their decision mostly on the time of Murray’s hire. He repeated it many times over and provided us with various examples to make us swallow and digest this point and remember it forever after.
And we didn’t forget it. This is why we know that now the Plaintiffs cannot find a better witness than Juror #27 himself about the way the jurors deliberated and how they came to answer “no” to question 2 on the verdict form.
THE 7 JURORS’ AFFIDAVITS
But first here is a short word about the seven jurors’ affidavits. Surprisingly, all of them follow one and the same pattern:
- the mysterious Juror X (his name is blocked out in all affidavits) did not say to them that they should consider Murray’s competency only at the time he was hired
- no one prevented them from asking questions
- and even if they answered “Yes” to question #2 they would have answered “No” to question #3.
I was very much impressed by the common pattern of these affidavits and especially by their answer that they would say “No” to question #3 even if they said “Yes” to question #2.
All seven of them repeated that statement almost word for word which made their replies practically identical.
What’s also interesting is that all of them suddenly decided to mention that matter and decided to place it at the end of their affidavits – somewhere in the range of points 7 to 9. The beginnning is exactly the same up to a comma:
- “Even if we had answered “yes” to Question 2, I do not believe this would have affected the overall verdict. I would have answered “no” to Question 3 as well, because I do not believe …:
This amazing uniformity betrayed the hand of one writer for all seven of them. Five of the affidavits do indeed look like they were written by one person and make us suspect that their forms were just signed by different jurors, while the affidavits made by the foreman and one more juror are more elaborate and provide some details, some of which are rather interesting.
The foreman, for example, says that Ms. Chang spoke to him for an hour saying that other jurors were somewhat unhappy and allegedly told him that Bugzy (Houghdahl) never came to testify at the trial because the Defendants “conveniently kept him out of California so he couldn’t be served with a subpoena”.
She also allegedly said that “Paul Gongaware knew that doctors had given Michael Jackson propofol on prior tours”.
The foreman was surprised to hear it which makes me think he was not attentive enough at the trial. Of course Paul Gongaware knew of those two Propofol incidents as he was the promoter of the History tour and the two German doctors arrived at the hotel through the front door with all their bulky equipment, so the security should have reported it to him on two consecutive nights when Michael was using it. Michael was absolutely not making a secret out of it and there was no way for Gongaware not to know it.
The foreman also says that Ms.Chang gave him the form of an affidavit and he refused to sign it. Probably she did draft a form of it which does not surprise me – the affidavits of the other 6 jurors prove that they did exactly the same, only they signed the ready-made forms drafted for them by the AEG lawyers, and this explains their uniformity.
Here is an excerpt from one of those affidavits – if you’ve seen one you’ve seen five of them:
…4. When we first began our deliberations, we reread the Court’s instructions to make sure we understood how to apply the law properly to the questions on the verdict form.
5. [Juror X] did not say that we could only consider Dr. Murray’s competency at the time he was hired. [Juror X] said instead that we should consider what Dr. Murray was hired to do, as the verdict question said.
6. We discussed sending a question to the judge at one point, but collectively decided not to do so. No one was prevented from expressing their thoughts or opinions about the case during deliberations at any point. No one was prevented from asking questions of the judge.
7. Even if we had answered “yes” to Question 2, I do not believe this would have affected the overall verdict. I would have answered “no” to Question 3 as well, because I do not believe the evidence supported plaintiffs’ claim that AEG Live knew or should have known that Dr. Murray was unfit or incompetent.
Besides this last statement being uniform for all affidavits there is one more remarkable point about these documents.
All of them direct us to a certain Juror X and say that “neither juror X, not any other juror insisted that we only consider Dr. Murray’s competency at the time he was hired”.
Why is this statement remarkable?
Because if seven jurors say that juror X did not say it and four jurors say that he did, all in all it makes 11 jurors, so in order to come to number 12 only one juror is left and should be asked to make a statement on the above.
This mysterious juror is evidently the Juror X himself whom everyone is referring to and about whom all this fuss is about.
THE MYSTERIOUS JUROR
And the most incredible thing about this mess is that we know who this juror is.
Our past experience with Juror #27 on the MJJCommunity forum suggests that this person is the only one who could be the mysterious Juror X.
He cannot be among those who were distraught by the verdict and made the initial declarations to the Plaintiffs – Juror #27 was perfectly satisfied with their answers, so he cannot be one of the dissatisfied four.
But he cannot be one of the seven either as they say they didn’t take their decision based on the time of hiring only, while Juror #27 says that they predominantly did as he explained on numerous occasions. The idea behind it was that it was only the beginning of AEG/Murray cooperation, and at that time there was no way for them to know that Murray would be doing anything inappropriate to his patient – hence the focus on the time of hire only.
Now we know so much about this juror that we can even predict what he will say in his affidavit if requested to do so – his statement will support the Plaintiff’s point of view. All the Plaintiffs need to do now is approach this Juror #27 and ask him for an affidavit where he will have to repeat just what he said before.
And this is what he said before on the MJJCommunity forum (the juror’s arguments were discussed in this post ):
JUROR: The problem I have with what our foreman said and the question you are asking is that it mixes up the timelines. If the word unethical was included in question 2, we would still have to assess whether AEG knew that at the time they hired Conrad Murray. ... So no, I don’t think we would have answered differently if the question asked whether he was ethical because we didn’t see any evidence that showed that AEG knew Murray was going to act unethically.
JUROR: What we were looking for was disciplinary action against Murray in the form of malpractice suits or complaints, something that would give a reasonable person cause to find Murray unfit or incompetent at the time they hired him. Kathy Jorrie’s “10 minute google search” of Murray was talked about at length at trial, but I am of the opinion that that is a reasonable amount of due diligence for someone who you are bringing onboard as a favor to someone else.
JUROR: Think of it like this. A doctor works at a hospital and is caught stealing meds and performing unauthorized procedures in secret. When the hospital hired the doctor, there was nothing in his record that showed this kind of behavior. The doctor in this example should be held responsible, not the hospital.
FORUM MEMBER: But question2 was about simple fact – was he competent or not to do the job. My logic is: the job required first aid skills, he didn’t have them, hence – not fit.
JUROR: But that again is taking what we learned in hindsight and applying it to an earlier time frame.
FORUM MEMBER: I appreciate that you pointed out the word “timeline.” It is so important IMO for this trial. Ivy used the word “hindsight” in pointing out that many things re Dr. Conrad Murray were completely unknown until it was too late and MJ was already gone. To judge a hiring on the eventual outcome of Murray’s treatment would not be fair to the defendants. The question remains, was there evidence to anticipate or to ‘know’ that despite his licenses, education, training, he was going to be one of the most incompetent and unfit doctors ever. I am convinced by the evidence presented that such was not a reasonable conclusion at the time he was hired.
JUROR: …I’m happy to see that even in the midst of all this there are so many MJ fans who continue to remain positive and use his caring, loving nature to guide them along their path.
FORUM MEMBER: the jury foreman Gregg Barden said the following to reporters “Conrad Murray had a license, he graduated from an accredited college and we felt he was competent to do the job of being a general practitioner”. If you go by that logic, no qualified doctor can ever be unfit or incompetent. What’s your take on that??
JUROR: You are mixing up what a person should know at one point in time, with what comes to light after the fact… Now, if I did a check on the nanny’s references and 2 people told me she hurt their kids and they fired her, or if I looked online and found she had a criminal record for abusing children, and I then hire her anyway, NOW I have been negligent in my hiring. Now I should share responsibility for what she did. So if we apply this logic to the AEG case, Murray passed a cursory check.
JUROR: Thank you for the kind welcome. To answer your question, it was not an either/or, we looked at both the time of hiring and the 2 month period of ‘deterioration’, but we felt that the most pertinent part was the time of hire.
No, I definitely insist that the Plaintiffs should approach Juror #27 for an affidavit.
He will be the fifth juror to confirm that the jurors answered question 2 considering the moment of hiring Murray only.
Moreover, since juror #27 is the only one left out of the whole company and all jurors refer to this remaining person as the source of all controversy, it proves that he was actually the one who was convincing everyone that his point of view was the only correct one, same as he was persuading MJ’s fans of the same after the trial was over.
And he won’t be able to deny his words now – he himself said on the MJJCommunity forum that “they felt the most pertinent part was the time of hire”.
They felt. Not only him, but they too.
And the Senior Staff of MJJCommunity also thought we should perceive the events only in “hindsight” which means looking at them from the point of view of the moment of hire only, and not later.
At that time many forum members were seeing eye to eye with juror #27 and now it is totally amazing to see the same forum members no longer remember that they insisted on the “hindsight” point of view and said that the time of hire was the only correct angle to ever look at the problem.
But even this is not all about this incredible situation.
By his earlier statements about the jurors focusing on the time of hiring Murray Juror #27 is actually proving to us that the seven jurors are now lying in their affidavits.
Of course there is always an option that Juror #27 is an impostor and the MJJCommunity website intentionally or unintentionally brought this fraudster to spread his ideas among MJ’s fans. There were some who suspected the fraud from the very beginning of it, however to refute the allegations the Senior Staff provided us with a copy of the Juror’s credentials, and this silenced some of their opponents:
Now the forum people are facing a wonderful alternative of either admitting that Juror #27 is an impostor and a terrible liar or confirm that he is the “real McCoy”, indeed sat on the jury at the AEG trial and is actually the mysterious juror whom all the other jurors are referring to.
By agreeing to the latter they will have to admit that the jurors answered Question 2 considering the time of Murray’s hire only, and this in its turn will prove that the seven jurors are now lying in their affidavits.
Whichever way it is, it is a hilarious follow-up to the story of juror #27.
Can someone please contact Brian Panish or Katherine Jackson and tell them that a juror with all the necessary credentials available to the MJJCommunity Senior Staff can provide to them first-hand information that “they felt the most pertinent part was the time of hire” (only)?
And that he was probably the one who convinced all others of the same? And that the seven affidavits may not be that truthful after all?
PLEASE INFORM THE PLAINTIFFS OF IT.
Merry Christmas and a very happy New Year to all truthseekers!
HERE ARE THE AFFIDAVITS OF SEVEN JURORS:
AND HERE IS THE AEG NEW TRIAL REPLY:
THE PLAINTIFFS ALSO MADE A REPLY TO AEG BUT IT IS NOT POSTED BY THE MJJCOMMUNITY.
IT IS LISTED AS PRIVATE.
UPDATED January 1, 2014
HERE IS THE JACKSONS’ REPLY TO AEG’s OPPOSITION
The reply is highly technical and is difficult to read, especially after a glass of the New Year champaigne, but I still gathered that the most important point in the reply is the following one:
- To maintain a defense verdict, they need at least three-fourths of a jury, or at least nine jurors out of a twelve-member jury. Cal. Const. Art 1 #16; CCP #618. Without Declarations from nine jurors, Defendants cannot say that a different result would not have been probable had the error not occurred. The inevitable hung jury that would have resulted is a different result than a defense verdict, and would have ensured that Plaintiffs had a new trial.
And the Defendants (AEG) do not have nine declarations in their favor to maintain a defense verdict!