Skip to content

The seven jurors’ affidavits – WHY DIDN’T THEY ASK JUROR #27?

December 29, 2013

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 …:

Affidavits of 7 jurors - even if we answered yes to question 2 - 4 pcs

Affidavits of 7 jurors - even if we answered yes to question 2 - 3 pcs

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:

Sample page for 5 affidavits

Sample page for 5 affidavits

SAMPLE TEXT:

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:

View this document on Scribd

AND HERE IS THE AEG NEW TRIAL REPLY:

View this document on Scribd

THE PLAINTIFFS ALSO MADE A REPLY TO AEG BUT IT IS NOT POSTED BY THE MJJCOMMUNITY. 

IT IS LISTED AS PRIVATE.

Source:

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/130852-KJ-vs-AEG-Trial-outcome-Appeal/page18

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!

View this document on Scribd
154 Comments
  1. April 1, 2014 3:21 am

    Such conformity. There is 1 ie one, hand behind it all.And there is money and/or other goodies.And it is not the hand of the Allmighty.

    Like

  2. March 31, 2014 10:06 am

    Oh okay:/ I see, I truly believe in your work so don’t stop writing the truth:)

    Like

  3. February 4, 2014 3:13 pm

    “I’d like to cooperate with you and finish my book about Michael Jackson. The title is: “The secrets of Sylvie” (indeed, the name has nothing in common with MJ but I did it on purpose), it’s a roman dealing with the life of our beloved King of Pop and how he suddenly died killed by his former managers for his catalog Sony ATV music publishing. It would be a great pleasure to work with you cause you got a lot of informations and I’m sure that together we will write a best-seller. If you are okay please answer this mail. Thank you very much, Cécilia”

    Cecilia, thank you for the suggestion. I think I am not ready for a venture like that and am absolutely not good at writing novels. This blog has nothing to do with fiction – it does tedious research often based on studying boring documents the results of which are interesting to no one except real truthseekers.

    Like

  4. February 2, 2014 8:52 am

    Hello Helena, My name is Cecilia and I’m from Reunion Island. I’m a big fan of MJ and I’m so sad about what’s happening to him and his family. I’d like to do something, I’m also a writer and I’ve got a blog about MJ, in which I defend him. I love your blog VindicateMJ and even if I disagree with some posts, I’d like to cooperate with you and finish my book about Michael Jackson. The title is: “The secrets of Sylvie” (indeed, the name has nothing in common with MJ but I did it on purpose), it’s a roman dealing with the life of our beloved King of Pop and how he suddenly died killed by his former managers for his catalog Sony ATV music publishing. It would be a great pleasure to work with you cause you got a lot of informations and I’m sure that together we will write a best-seller. If you are okay please answer this mail. Thank you very much, Cécilia

    >

    Like

  5. Wannabe Legal Eagle permalink
    January 15, 2014 2:20 pm

    Where did you read it Lee?

    Judges are supposed to be thorough. J/K

    Like

  6. Lee permalink
    January 14, 2014 10:22 pm

    I’ve read the judge’s ruling. It’s very thorough.

    Like

  7. January 14, 2014 5:53 pm

    “And who is talking of conspiracy here? Only you and Susan Joyce. I prefer the words “plants” and an exceptionally wide use of “PR resources” by some ? people.”–Helena

    Good grief Helena !!! Lee writes a short generalized sentence regarding conspiracy and I responded that I agree with Lee. I don’t believe MJ’s death was a conspiracy. No one had discussed conspiracy up to Lee’s generalized sentence If Miriam believes there was a conspiracy that is her choice and she has every right to believe that.

    Numerous MJ fan’s throughout the world have exceptionally wide use of PR resources such as yourself. That certainly doesn’t make them, you or me a “plant”.

    Like

  8. Wannabe Legal Eagle permalink
    January 13, 2014 1:49 am

    “Miss-stating the origin of the “freak” comment is not an “opinion” – it’s a lie. A lie that, for no apparent reason Juror 27 told twice.”

    Another time 27 got tripped up LOL.

    Like

  9. January 12, 2014 8:35 pm

    Miss-stating the origin of the “freak” comment is not an “opinion” – it’s a lie. A lie that, for no apparent reason Juror 27 told twice. Doesn’t that strike anyone, besides me, as very odd? It certainly suggests that Juror 27 is not just being friendly; he has an agenda, even if it’s just jerking the fan base around.

    Like

  10. Wannabe Legal Eagle permalink
    January 12, 2014 1:12 am

    “She doesn’t have to. CACI is straightforward. All 4 elements. If the hiring wasn’t negligent then the rest is irrelevant. There’s no ruling to get.” – Lee

    Um, I don’t think it works that way but, I’m waiting to see what the judge says. Panish said you don’t have to hire someone to supervise them and I think he’s right. I didn’t hire anyone in Starbucks but, I tell them how I want my coffee LOL. They thought AEG DID hire Murray and that’s about it. Nothing on retention or supervision. Maybe I’m wrong. IDK.

    “Katherine had done some things that made me think it was more about money than justice.” – Lee

    See, that’s what I’m talking about. You feel that way, cool but, that has nothing to do with the case because whatever reason she filed the case has nothing to do with what AEG did. The trial is about AEG not her or anything she did. It’s like posts saying I don’t want the Jacksons to win because we don’t know what they’ll do with the money.

    LOL VMJ Helena, I didn’t know you were the same Helena on there.

    Like

  11. Mariam permalink
    January 11, 2014 10:12 pm

    Helena, yes, Out of 140 post only Lee and Susan mention this word “conspiracy” first and I replied for that. Sorry about that

    Like

  12. Lee permalink
    January 11, 2014 5:50 pm

    “And who is talking of conspiracy here? Only you and Susan Joyce. I prefer the words “plants” and an exceptionally wide use of “PR resources” by some ? people.”–Helena

    Who? The person I was chatting with point blank says:

    “Lee and Susan I disagree 100% with you, there is conspiracy.”

    I’m not surprised since there certainly is enough material posted throughout this blog attempting to steer readers in that direction. It can’t simply be that Panish did not prove their case. Instead, a parade of “plants”, PR, a bad judge, a juror with the power to bend minds and (somehow ) a fan forum are blamed.

    Like

  13. Lee permalink
    January 11, 2014 5:35 pm

    “I don’t have any interest what #27 has to say. #27 can only give his/her opinion of what he analyzed from the evidence and testimony of plaintiff’s and defendant’s case and to run to an MJ fan site to discuss so soon after the trial, I thought was strange.” –Susan

    Yes, it was just one man’s opinion and while an interesting read I do wish jurors would wait a bit before they publicly discuss things. At least he waited until after the trial. In other cases, jurors have posted stuff online DURING the trial.

    Like

  14. Lee permalink
    January 11, 2014 5:19 pm

    “She denied a new trial. The article says it clears the way to an appeal:

    Katherine Jackson Denied a New Trial Against AEG
    Posted by Craig Clough (Editor) , January 08, 2014 at 09:06 AM”

    While I imagine she will affirm her tentative ruling, that article is based on the clerk error made earlier this week.

    The actual entry noting “completed” wasn’t posted until Friday afternoon per court website.

    Like

  15. January 11, 2014 4:25 pm

    “There’s no proof of some grand conspiracy either.” – Lee

    And who is talking of conspiracy here? Only you and Susan Joyce. I prefer the words “plants” and an exceptionally wide use of “PR resources” by some people.

    Like

  16. January 11, 2014 4:18 pm

    “the judge spent 30 minutes going over instructions in open court. Nothing was a “surprise”. – Lee

    I think that in this case it isn’t important what the judge said. It is important what the judge didn’t say.

    And she didn’t convey to the jurors the fact that the CACI instructions were covering both hiring and supervision or retention of an employee. In other words that the jurors were to look into the whole period of employment (and not the time of hire only).

    And I am not even saying that the time of hire in Murray’s case is a very vague point too as it spanned the period of probation (May-June 23) and the final conclusion of the contract on June 23rd by which time AEG had a perfect chance to see the results of Murray’s “treatment” of Michael Jackson.

    I don’t know in which way but the judge could (and probably should) have briefed the jurors on the matter mentioned in Points and Autorities of CACI’s No.426 instruction:

    • “Apparently, [defendant] had no actual knowledge of [the employee]’s past. But the evidence recounted above presents triable issues of material fact regarding whether the [defendant] had reason to believe [the employee] was unfit or whether the [defendant] failed to use reasonable care in investigating [the employee].”

    As you remember Kathie Jorrie was the only one who investigated Conrad Murray. It took her 10 minutes on the Internet to look him up. Is this “reasonable care in investigating the employee”?

    Like

  17. January 11, 2014 1:56 pm

    ” In my opinion, MJJC was one of the few sites that spent time discussing the actual law underlying the case. I’m sorry but I see a lot of misunderstanding on this blog of the law and how the judicial system works.” – Lee

    I’m sorry too, but I also saw a lot of misunderstanding on MJJC of the AEG trial and even misguidance from its Senior staff in respect of Murray’s contract, for example.

    The AEG witness (lawyer Kathy Jorrie) claimed with a big smile on her face that “of course they changed Producer into Artist” as the one to whom the services were to be rendered by Murray under his contract with AEG.

    However the contract said exactly the opposite – Murray was to perform the services requested by the Producer, and only from “time to time” – those requested by the Artist.

    Initially “from time to time” in point 1 of Murray’s contract referred to the Producer, but when AEG realized that it contradicted point 4 where Murray’s responsibilities were enumerated they referred “from time to time” to the Artist.

    Thus Murray was to mostly work for AEG and only “from time to time” perform his services for the Artist (yes, this is the literal meaning of that contract).

    But the Senior Staff of MJJC didn’t explain AEG’s games with those words, but instead drew everyone’s attention to the fact that Producer was changed into Artist. In that situation NOT explaining the real picture was equivalent to misguiding people.

    Actually the follow-up events showed that almost everyone understood Murray’s contract the way Kathie Jorrie explained it.

    Here are the parts of Murray’s contract I am talking of. First comes its point 1 in its final version – services to the Artist will be rendered “from time to time only”:

    And here is point 4 stating Murray’s main responsibilities:

    When you look at this contract it is even obscene to claim that Murray was working for Michael.

    He was working for AEG.

    For details please see this post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/jacksons-aeg-trial-kathy-jorrie-dr-gary-green-and-ivy-of-mjj-community-all-in-one-pack/

    Like

  18. January 11, 2014 1:47 pm

    At one point judge Palazuelos herself became impatient with the all pervasive amnesia and stopped it(Ican´t recall who it was) stating”:If a witness is evasive it will be noted”

    Like

  19. January 11, 2014 1:14 pm

    “you got to admit it was rough for anyone on the Jackson side there. Anyone reading those posts can see that. I didn’t say all fans had to support the Jacksons but, let’s not act like those that didn’t had only legal reasons why they didn’t. Many said in their posts they didn’t want the Jacksons to win because they didn’t like them and money and a bunch other stuff that had nothing to do with the laws of this case. A lot of things AEG did got rationalized as not that bad and no reason to lose the case.” – Wannabe Legal Eagle

    Wannabe Legal Eagle, this is what totally amazed me when I went to MJJC for some information. I was reading their thread and with every new page my hair was standing on end more and more. There was so much dirt about Katherine and her “disgusting deadbeat cubs” – with no real look into the essence of the case – that at some point I lost all patience and asked them a question whether they understood what they were doing. I actually reached the boiling point when some forum members began to advise AEG how to form their strategy against Katherine:

    “AEG’s strategy should be to go after her and her real motivations for filing this lawsuit”

    The reply I got? First I was moderated for hours and then I was told to behave myself. What’s interesting is that no other member of the discussion had been reprimanded in the same way.

    This is actually just an example of what most probably happened to everyone who didn’t follow the style of dragging Katherine through the mud adopted there. My comment was No.2053 so you can imagine how many anti-Katherine comments were there before me.

    Not all of them were but this was the predominant style.

    Like

  20. January 11, 2014 12:39 pm

    “I don’t have any interest what #27 has to say. #27 can only give his/her opinion of what he analyzed from the evidence and testimony of plaintiff’s and defendant’s case and to run to an MJ fan site to discuss so soon after the trial, I thought was strange.” – Susan Joyce

    I also thought it strange, but as long as the statements of juror #27 were not connected with the jurors’ affidavits, it was more or less a private matter of Juror #27 and MJJC. I say “more or less” because if the same juror had come here he would have been asked much tougher questions than at MJJC, and we surely would not have thanked him for what he had done.

    But as soon as his statements began to contradict the seven jurors’ affidavits from the Defendants’ side the matter ceased to be private. They said they had not focused on the time of hire, but juror #27 said that this was their main premise, and this means that those 7 people were not telling the truth. It discredits this jury as a whole.

    Like

  21. January 11, 2014 12:20 pm

    “The money asked for may have clouded the issue of guilt in the strictest sense. More cloudy to me were the poor and absent memories of the AEG officials.” – W

    W, in my opinion the money problem was exaggerated out of all proportion. The media went for weeks and weeks about the sum of $40 billion which was not the figure the Plaintiffs’ lawyers really asked for. They mentioned it in some preliminary document but the transcript of Katherine Jackson’s testimony at the AEG trial made it clear that she had never subscribed to that figure and didn’t even know about it.

    An excerpt from a side bar:

    Mr. Putnam: It says completely the opposite of the arguments made. What I don’t understand is, we have had two different figures in this case: there’s the $42 billion figure, and now we have $1,5 billion that happened within a span of four months.

    The judge: What was the $40 million?

    Mr. Putnam: On December 3rd, 2010.

    Mr. Panish: It was a statement of damages that she’s never seen.

    The judge: Yeah.

    See this post for details please: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2013/07/25/jacksons-aeg-trial-days-53-and-55-katherine-jackson-and-dr-farshchian/

    The Plaintiff him/herself does not name the figure in a wrongful death case – it is calculated by lawyers on the basis of their experts’ estimation. And the final figure the Plaintiffs’ lawyers came up with was around 1,5 bln.

    But remember the hysteria the media went into over the initial $40 bln? The scope of coverage and ridicule the media gave to that preliminary sum makes me think that AEG used here their full publicity arsenal. Even now some media outlets still talk about the figure of 40 though it is totally wrong.

    However when it came to the poor and absent memories of the AEG officials no one really noticed it or spoke about it.

    It was the most disturbing feature of this trial because their amnesia was a clear lie and there were also numerous cases of impeachment of the AEG officials, but the judge didn’t notice it, the media didn’t notice it and as a result few in the general public noticed it too.

    What’s glaring in this case is that the media looks like a marionette of AEG Live and this is what is really disturbing. The media is supposed to be independent, same as the court.

    Like

  22. January 11, 2014 11:41 am

    “The judge finalized her ruling. No idea which way.” – Lee

    She denied a new trial. The article says it clears the way to an appeal:

    Katherine Jackson Denied a New Trial Against AEG
    Posted by Craig Clough (Editor) , January 08, 2014 at 09:06 AM

    By City News Service

    A judge finalized her ruling that denies Katherine Jackson a new trial of her lawsuit against concert-promoter AEG Live stemming from the 2009 death of her pop superstar son, Michael Jackson.

    The decision issued Tuesday by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos adopts the tentative ruling she issued Friday, when she heard arguments from attorneys and took the case under submission. It also clears the way for Katherine Jackson’s lawyers to file an appeal.

    In their court papers, Katherine Jackson’s attorneys — citing juror statements — claimed flaws in jury instructions and in the verdict form establish that a different outcome might have occurred Oct. 2 instead of the verdict in favor of the promoters of the singer’s never-realized comeback concerts in London.

    “Even if you wanted to find for the plaintiff you really could not,” plaintiffs’ attorney Deborah Chang told Palazuelos during Friday’s hearing.
    Four jurors submitted sworn statements on behalf of the plaintiffs.

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

    But the judge struck all juror affidavits submitted by both sides.

    Chang said the lawsuit “should have been a negligence case” rather than one that dealt with whether AEG Live appropriately hired, retained and supervised Dr. Conrad Murray as Michael Jackson’s personal physician.

    However, AEG Live attorneys contended in their court papers that Katherine Jackson’s lawyers were raising new issues and that the juror affidavits filed in support of their motion were inadmissible.

    “After failing to prove their case during five months of trial, plaintiffs’ now attack the jury’s unanimous verdict and this court’s rulings,” AEG Live lawyers stated in their court papers. “While plaintiffs’ notice of intent to move for new trial raised every single possible statutory ground available under the Code of Civil Procedure …, plaintiffs now abandon all (their) arguments except irregularity in the proceedings and error in law.”

    After nearly 14 hours of deliberations over four days, the six-man, six- woman jury determined that AEG Live did hire Murray as Jackson’s doctor, but it answered “no” to question No. 2, which asked if Murray was “unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired.”

    With that answer, the jury denied any damages to Katherine Jackson and to Michael Jackson’s three children.

    Murray, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for Jackson’s death, has since been released from jail. Jackson died June 25, 2009, at age 50 of acute propofol intoxication.

    In documents filed earlier this month, the Jackson lawyers claimed that once the jurors found Murray was competent at the time he was hired, the panel could not go any further and examine his subsequent conduct.

    “As given, these instructions and the verdict form were misleading and erroneous in that they did not distinguish between a negligent hiring claim and a negligent retention or supervision claim (what the employer knew or should have known during the course of the relationship),” the Jackson attorneys’ stated in their court papers.

    By forcing the jury to stop deliberating after they concluded Murray’s capabilities were up to par when he was hired, the form never allowed the jurors to consider AEG Live’s separate ongoing duties relating to supervision and retention, the Jackson attorneys’ court papers stated.

    AEG Live attorneys stated in their court papers that Katherine Jackson’s lawyers were trying to “muddy the waters” with the four jurors’ sworn statements.

    The state’s Evidence Code “flatly forbids (a judge) from considering juror affidavits that concern the mental processes by which the verdict was determined,” the defense attorneys stated in their court papers. “Indeed, the court’s consideration of these affidavits would constitute reversible error.”

    Katherine Jackson, 83, sued in September 2010 on behalf of herself and her son’s three children — Michael Jr., Paris-Michael Katherine and Prince Michael — claiming that AEG Live hired Murray to be Jackson’s personal physician and failed to properly supervise him.

    Katherine Jackson and many members of the Jackson family lived for decades lived in Encino, but she currently reside in Calabasas.
    http://encino.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/katherine-jackson-denied-a-new-trial-against-aeg

    Like

  23. January 11, 2014 10:00 am

    The money asked for may have clouded the issue of guilt in the strictest sense. More cloudy to me were the poor and absent memories of the AEG officials.

    Like

  24. January 11, 2014 9:48 am

    VC –
    “Juror 27″ could have retrieved juror certificate forms from the jury room or the floor, or he could have dummied them up. It’s very easy to prove authenticity – Juror 27, tell us your name!
    Perhaps Lee or Susan Joyce can put forth a plausible explanation as to why Juror 27 lied about the origin of the “freak” comment – twice. It was totally unnecessary.” – VC

    VC – I don’t know how the L.A. Superior Court records the juror’s time. They may use a timeclock or a sheet of paper in which each jury member writes their own daily time and if it is turned in daily or weekly. The jurys daily time should match each other. If not, the payroll department would question it.

    I can’t give you an explanation as to why #27 lied about the “freak” comment. On MJJC, I only read the forum page when #27 began to comment. After reading that one forum page, I left the website. I don’t have any interest what #27 has to say. #27 can only give his/her opinion of what he analyzed from the evidence and testimony of plaintiff’s and defendant’s case and to run to an MJ fan site to discuss so soon after the trial, I thought was strange.

    Like

  25. Lee permalink
    January 11, 2014 3:10 am

    The judge finalized her ruling. No idea which way.

    Like

  26. Lee permalink
    January 11, 2014 2:53 am

    Miriam —

    I simply feel fans are entitled to their feelings and don’t believe in any oaths of loyalty to be an MJ fan. We are going to disagree on many things beyond our devotion to Michael. I followed the trial and wasn’t on either side. Katherine had done some things that made me think it was more about money than justice. That doesn’t change my deep empathy for her loss. As for AEG, they are just another soulless company making money off the backs of artists so I had no love for them. I wanted to see where the evidence would lead.

    ” I said that because a judge and many lawyers said indeed the plaintiff did provide substantial evidence that prove AEG is liable for MJ death. ”

    And the flip side is true as well.

    Like

  27. January 11, 2014 2:43 am

    “It’s not cool that anyone on the Jackson side got roughed up because it’s supposed to be a site that is on MJ’s side but, they clearly weren’t in this case. They were on AEG’s side. Nothing wrong with that but, they have a hard time admitting it. They don’t need to admit because anyone can see it.” – Wannabe Legal Eagle

    Yes, the Michael Jackson fan site was on AEG’s side and it is not just my subjective impression – it has statistics behind it. I have proof that when the wrongful trial was over this MJ fan site had much more AEG supporters than even among the general public.

    Towards the end of the trial the HLN (CNN) website conducted a public opinion poll among its readers asking them a question: “Is AEG responsible for Michael Jackson’s death?”

    71% answered “Yes, AEG is responsible” (almost 3/4 of those polled) and 29% answered “No”.

    And at exactly the same time the MJJC forum was conducting a poll among its members. And over there the results were in favor of AEG.

    51% of the forum members said AEG was not liable, and only 49% said that it was.

    So if you compare the figures of AEG supporters on HTL (29%) and on MJJCommunity (51%) you will see that MJJC had a much bigger AEG bias even as compared with the general public who often left on HTL highly derogative opinions about MJ. But even this opinion didn’t change the figures.

    So Michael’s detractors voted for Katherine’s case, while Michael’s fans voted against it. Isn’t it a bit strange?

    I reported those figures on October 7, 2013 in this post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/jacksons-vs-aeg-trial-the-verdict-is-in-overview-of-the-battlefield/ and half-jokingly suggested renaming MJJC into AEGcommunity.

    It was a joke only partially as it was based on hard facts and though Gaz recently wrote that this statement hurt them veryyyyy much, if he is honest with himself he should admit that there was a reason for it.

    Gaz said he started the forum in 2001 and as I understand it functioned perfectly well – I mean as a real MJ fan site – until 2009 when some new people joined it. You will notice that the Senior Staff guiding the forum on the issue of AEG joined it in September 2009 only and this is probably when the pro-AEG bias actually began. This is why I do not put an equal mark between the forum itself and the pro-AEG bias there which is relatively recent.

    Here are the screen shots of the polls I was talking about.

    The HLN (CNN) poll conducted towards the end of the trial:

    The MJJC poll conducted at the same time:

    By the way I’ve visited the HLN poll once again today and by now some 200 more people added their answers.
    The result is the same: http://www.hlntv.com/poll/2013/09/24/aeg-responsible-michael-jacksons-death

    Draw your conclusions yourself.

    Like

  28. Lee permalink
    January 11, 2014 2:24 am

    “I got that but I want to see the judge explain why a verdict on hiring was enough. Right now, I don’t get it. If that’s cool then Panish wasted time trying to show supervision and retention, right? He never got a ruling on those.”

    She doesn’t have to. CACI is straightforward. All 4 elements. If the hiring wasn’t negligent then the rest is irrelevant. There’s no ruling to get.

    Like

  29. Mariam permalink
    January 11, 2014 12:28 am

    “I’m not sure why being a MJ fan requires one to be on Plaintiff’s side.”

    I have the same question for you Lee; I am not also sure, even surprised how MJ fan devoutly supporting AEG after all we heard what they did to MJ, not only that, trying to clean their name to this extent is even questionable. It is not required of MJ fan to be on AEG side too, actually it is unusual.

    Did the Plaintiff hurt MJ as AEG did? Isn’t plaintiff MJ’s mother and kids? We need reality check if we are really still with MJ or not. Even we do not agree with plaintiff, It would be wise if we just be silent and see. Otherwise it does not look good.

    Plaintiff did the right thing trying to find out what happened to their son and trying to find out who did what to their son or father as any family who lost beloved one suddenly, it is happening every day.

    Plaintiff did very common thing and has right to know who involved and contributed to their son and father sudden death. There are a lot of suspicions around MJ’s death; he himself told too many people including his mother that he was afraid for his life. In fact, they tried to many times to hurt him when he was alive, to through him to jail e.t.c. After all this suspicions, isn’t it natural, if his family try to find out who did what to their son/father?

    Why are some MJ fans so upset with his family? You know if you never experience what they feel, you will never understand why they do this, but it would be wise for us (fans) if we don’t say much even we do not agree with the plaintiff because they are MJ’s family, the family of MJ whom we love and respect greatly.

    Lee and Susan I disagree 100% with you, there is conspiracy. I said that because a judge and many lawyers said indeed the plaintiff did provide substantial evidence that prove AEG is liable for MJ death. So, I do believe those expertise strongly and to me, it is just a matter of time. This is what we know now, but maybe there is more what we don’t know.

    Even though AEG(PG &RF) walk away free, I have no doubt for a second that AEG and CM are responsible for MJ death. That is just me; that is ok, you do not have to agree with me.

    But one thing is certain, truth will be revealed one day then we will all be surprised.

    Like

  30. Wannabe Legal Eagle permalink
    January 10, 2014 11:31 pm

    ETA: It’s not cool that anyone on the Jackson side got roughed up because it’s supposed to be a site that is on MJ’s side but, they clearly weren’t in this case. They were on AEG’s side. Nothing wrong with that but, they have a hard time admitting it. They don’t need to admit because anyone can see it.

    Like

  31. Wannabe Legal Eagle permalink
    January 10, 2014 11:12 pm

    “CACI is the preferred choice. And again, per CACI, they didn’t have to consider further per those instructions. It’s all or nothing.” – Lee

    I got that but I want to see the judge explain why a verdict on hiring was enough. Right now, I don’t get it. If that’s cool then Panish wasted time trying to show supervision and retention, right? He never got a ruling on those.

    You’re getting the Q&A forum confused with the trial thing where 27’s Q&A took place.

    BTW, I said the MJJC posts were all good. I was there too because they did try to talk about law concepts. I’m not a lawyer (yet LOL) but most people aren’t. We’re trying to understand and we make mistakes here and there. That’s what happened at MJJC too but, you got to admit it was rough for anyone on the Jackson side there. Anyone reading those posts can see that.

    I didn’t say all fans had to support the Jacksons but, let’s not act like those that didn’t had only legal reasons why they didn’t. Many said in their posts they didn’t want the Jacksons to win because they didn’t like them and money and a bunch other stuff that had nothing to do with the laws of this case. A lot of things AEG did got rationalized as not that bad and no reason to lose the case.

    Like

  32. Lee permalink
    January 10, 2014 9:25 pm

    “I read the posts on MJJC and that’s all I’m talking about. The trial is different. A lot of MJJC posts wanted AEG to win. Only a few posts were for the Jacksons and people would jump all over them. Some posts were ok with Michael looking bad if it meant AEG looked good to win.”

    I too read the posts and those on a number of other forums, along with several private discussion groups too. I’m not sure why being a MJ fan requires one to be on Plaintiff’s side. In my opinion, MJJC was one of the few sites that spent time discussing the actual law underlying the case. I’m sorry but I see a lot of misunderstanding on this blog of the law and how the judicial system works.

    As to the MJJC Q&A being private — that’s not unique to juror 27’s interview. Q&A’s are perks of supporting members from what I understand. (I know the forum showed “private” for me before his interview.)

    Like

  33. Lee permalink
    January 10, 2014 9:10 pm

    “Lee, Susan Joyce, while it may be your sincere belief that “there is no conspiracy”, unless you’re holding out on us, you have no proof that it’s true. ”

    There’s no proof of some grand conspiracy either.

    Like

  34. Lee permalink
    January 10, 2014 9:06 pm

    “I don’t think this is a conspiracy either. The Judge has to explain why she chose CACI over BAJI for hiring, supervision OR retention. The way the form is, they only found AEG hired Murray. Nothing on supervising or retaining.”

    CACI is the preferred choice.

    And again, per CACI, they didn’t have to consider further per those instructions. It’s all or nothing.

    Like

  35. January 10, 2014 7:56 pm

    Lee, Susan Joyce, while it may be your sincere belief that “there is no conspiracy”, unless you’re holding out on us, you have no proof that it’s true. “Juror 27” could have retrieved juror certificate forms from the jury room or the floor, or he could have dummied them up. It’s very easy to prove authenticity – Juror 27, tell us your name!

    Perhaps Lee or Susan Joyce can put forth a plausible explanation as to why Juror 27 lied about the origin of the “freak” comment – twice. It was totally unnecessary.

    Like

  36. Wannabe Legal Eagle permalink
    January 10, 2014 4:45 pm

    “Disagreeing and being upset with a verdict is understandable but accusing others of being dishonest or liars or in league with AEG is not to me without solid proof. A belief is not such.” – Lee

    I read the posts on MJJC and that’s all I’m talking about. The trial is different. Alot of MJJC posts wanted AEG to win. Only a few posts were for the Jacksons and people would jump all over them. Some posts were ok with Michael looking bad if it meant AEG looked good to win.

    That’s all good.

    Like

  37. Wannabe Legal Eagle permalink
    January 10, 2014 4:09 pm

    Susan Joyce, can a timecard be sold or doctored? LOL.

    I would have to go to MJJC and post 10 times about anything to see the trial thing again. I don’t remember ANYONE saying that Q&A would be private. Fans were told on Twitter to read the Q&A and I don’t remember any tweets saying it would be private soon. If missed that, that’s cool but, it was public for what looks like three months, not a few days!

    I don’t think this is a conspiracy either. The Judge has to explain why she chose CACI over BAJI for hiring, supervision OR retention. The way the form is, they only found AEG hired Murray. Nothing on supervising or retaining.

    27 got tripped up on Katherine’s deposition AND the employment contract. Smart or not, he was cocky and got caught LOL.

    Everyone says Murray was a GP and he was hired to do that but, no one REMEMBERED on the stand if he was a GP helping with sleep and if that was why he was hired LOL.

    Like

  38. Lee permalink
    January 10, 2014 4:05 pm

    “Lee – I agree with you 100%. Plus, the juror’s also had a copy of the instructions with them in deliberations.” –Susan

    Yes and the judge spent 30 minutes going over instructions in open court. Nothing was a “surprise”.

    Disagreeing and being upset with a verdict is understandable but accusing others of being dishonest or liars or in league with AEG is not to me without solid proof. A belief is not such.

    Like

  39. January 10, 2014 3:05 pm

    No, they didn’t have to cover all 4 actually. One “no” stopped deliberations because ALL 4 elements together are needed to prove negligent hiring and supervision. There’s no point in continuing since they’d already struck down one element. (I believe 3 would have had the same result, another “no” so it wouldn’t have a different outcome.) Lee

    Lee – I agree with you 100%. Plus, the juror’s also had a copy of the instructions with them in deliberations.

    Like

  40. January 10, 2014 2:48 pm

    TatumMarie and Mariam – You are welcome for the link clarification regarding the jury instructions or new trial vs appeal trial.

    Lee – I agree, there is no conspiracy.

    WannabeLegalEagle – A court timecard cannot be duplicated. Since it’s a court document it should have the courthouse name and location printed on it because the check issued from the timecard is ultimately being paid from taxpayer money. There has to be accountability and traceability for the State of California.

    I recall when Ivy announced that juror #27 was going to be interviewed on their website, she disclosed in the very first paragraph (first comment on page 1) that it would only be public for a few days. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
    ********
    A hospital or employer cannot be held responsible for an employee that deviates outside his/her job description.

    “at the time of hire” is very different vs “for which he was hired”. A timetable is irrevelant to all the jury questions.

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

    Like

  41. Lee permalink
    January 10, 2014 2:11 pm

    “…this person is too articulate, too well-prepared, too lawyer-like for an ordinary Juror.”

    This was an educated jury. Look up their occupations.

    Like

  42. Lee permalink
    January 10, 2014 2:04 pm

    “The way it looks to me all four points were to be covered, and if the jurors had looked into point 3 for example, they would have had to admit that Murray’s incompetence harmed Michael Jackson. But the jurors did not look into that point. And the judge evidently did not explain to them that in the Hiring, Supervision or Retention case the whole period should be covered to be able to answer all the four points.” –Helena

    No, they didn’t have to cover all 4 actually. One “no” stopped deliberations because ALL 4 elements together are needed to prove negligent hiring and supervision. There’s no point in continuing since they’d already struck down one element. (I believe 3 would have had the same result, another “no” so it wouldn’t have a different outcome.)

    Like

  43. January 10, 2014 2:03 am

    Susan, thank you very much for the information.

    Like

  44. January 10, 2014 12:50 am

    “California Civil Jury Instructions (“CACI”) 426. Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee” – Lee

    Oh, Lee, those CACI rules are very helpful indeed. Besides the 4 instructions there also have Directions for use and citations from other cases (Sources and Authorities) which are even more helpful as they explain how to apply this point.

    But first come the CACI instructions (I simplified them a bit by taking out the word “name” and excessive brackets):

    426. Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee

    [Plaintiff] claims that [he/she] was harmed by [employee] and that [employer defendant] is responsible for that harm because [employer defendant] negligently hired/ supervised/ or retained [employee]. To establish this claim, [plaintiff] must prove all of the following:

    1. That [employee] was unfit/ or incompetent to perform the work for which [he/she] was hired;
    2. That [employer defendant] knew or should have known that [employee] was unfit/or incompetent and that this unfitness/or incompetence created a particular risk to others;
    3. That [employee]’s unfitness/or incompetence harmed [plaintiff]; and
    4. That [employer defendant]’s negligence in hiring/supervising/ or retaining [employee] was a substantial factor in causing [plaintiff]’s harm.

    The way it looks to me all four points were to be covered, and if the jurors had looked into point 3 for example, they would have had to admit that Murray’s incompetence harmed Michael Jackson. But the jurors did not look into that point. And the judge evidently did not explain to them that in the Hiring, Supervision or Retention case the whole period should be covered to be able to answer all the four points.

    And point 1 does not specify that it should be understood as assessing the person’s unfitness at the time he was hired only.

    Now come the Directions for use and the Points and Authorities section (the case numbers were ommitted for simplifying it):

    Directions for Use
    Give this instruction if the plaintiff alleges that the employer of an employee who caused harm was negligent in the hiring, supervision, or retention of the employee after actual or constructive notice of the employee’s unfitness.

    Sources and Authority
    • “California case law recognizes the theory that an employer can be liable to a third person for negligently hiring, supervising, or retaining an unfit employee.”

    • “Negligence liability will be imposed on an employer if it ‘knew or should have known that hiring the employee created a particular risk or hazard and that particular harm materializes.’ ”

    • “Liability for negligent hiring and supervision is based upon the reasoning that if an enterprise hires individuals with characteristics which might pose a danger to customers or other employees, the enterprise should bear the loss caused by the wrongdoing of its incompetent or unfit employees. The tort has developed in California in factual settings where the plaintiff’s injury occurred in the workplace, or the contact between the plaintiff and the employee was generated by the employment relationship.”

    • “Apparently, [defendant] had no actual knowledge of [the employee]’s past. But the evidence recounted above presents triable issues of material fact regarding whether the [defendant] had reason to believe [the employee] was unfit or whether the [defendant] failed to use reasonable care in investigating [the employee].”

    • “A claim that an employer was negligent in hiring or retaining an employee driver rarely differs in substance from a claim that an employer was negligent in entrusting a vehicle to the employee. Awareness, constructive or actual, that a person is unfit or incompetent to drive underlies a claim that an employer was negligent in hiring or retaining that person as a driver. That same awareness underlies a claim for negligent entrustment. In a typical case, like this, the two claims are functionally identical.”

    etc.

    This last point here is very interesting. The way I understand it in cases of entrustment (a doctor with someone else’s health, for example) the employer should proceed from a presumption that the person is unfit for the job unless he proves otherwise (they speak of “awareness that he is unfit”).

    Other points explain that the employer is liable for the loss caused by the employee’s wrongdoing.

    The full version is here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/caci_2014_edition.pdf

    Like

  45. January 10, 2014 12:11 am

    “the more I analysed Jurour #27 statement, I become more convinced that Jurour #27 has some relationship with AEG, if he is REAL juror, I have no doubt that he did something” – Mariam

    Mariam, there is something definitely fishy about juror #27 – this person is too articulate, too well-prepared, too lawyer-like for an ordinary juror. And this juror had too much spare time too as if he didn’t have to catch up with things after being so long away from work.

    This is why I suspected that it was no juror at all, but someone else (biased towards AEG). If the whole thing was indeed a sham then those responsible for it are very much interested in covering up all traces.

    Like

  46. January 9, 2014 11:58 pm

    “I don’t remember MJJC EVER saying they would make that Q&A private. That Q&A caused the WHOLE trial thing to become private.” – Wannabe Legal Eagle

    Exactly. First of all I don’t remember the MJJC planning to make the Q&A session private, and secondly, it is unclear why the whole AEG trial with all its documents and discussions became private too.

    The Trial and Tribulations section had more than a thousand threads:

    Like

  47. January 9, 2014 11:46 pm

    “I read the interview the day after it was posted and the MJJCommunity disclosed they would keep the interview public for only a couple of days.” – Susan Joyce

    I don’t remember anything of the kind because the Question and Answer session started at around October 5th, was meant to be continued and the last entries were made sometime around October 17th (as far as I know) after which they stayed right until the recent controversy with the jurors’ affidavits.

    Requesting a new trial is different from an appelliate (appealed) trial. Plaintiff’s (K. Jackson) has asked for a new trial. If a new trial is approved or denied is determined by the judge that heard the case which is Judge Palazuelos. Last week Judge Palazuelos tentatively denied a new trial. We are waiting to learn what Judge Palazuelos final decision will be. If Judge Palazuelos final decision is to deny a new trial, then Plaintiff’s can file an appeal. An appeal is determined by 3 judges in the District Court in California.

    Oh, that was a very helpful clarification. Now the way it works is more or less clear.

    Like

  48. January 9, 2014 11:39 pm

    “Final Court Ordered Jury Instructions. Michael Jackson Wrongful Death, Jackson V AEG Live September 23rd, 2013
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/171637162/Final-Court-Ordered-Jury-Instructions-Michael-Jackson-Wrongful-Death-Jackson-V-AEG-Live-September-23rd-2013” – Susan Joyce

    Susan, thank you for reminding us of it. The document is embedded in the special post I made about the final instructions: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2013/10/20/the-time-of-hiring-murray-and-jury-instructions/

    By the way over there I came to a conclusion that the judge did not insist on the words “the time of hire” – at least in the documents. So I had to suppose that the jury focused on this issue due to the influence of someone else. In fact this is what actually happened according to the four jurors’ affidavits – a certain juror took it into his hands and convinced everyone that the time of hire was the only correct way to look at the problem.

    Like

  49. January 9, 2014 11:26 pm

    That quote shows they did discuss the entire period so where’s the “lie”? – Lee

    Lee, after his initial statements were argued eventually juror #27 half-heartedly did say it, but it didn’t sound convincing as it contradicted all his previous statements numerous in number. And they were not just statements but examples of a doctor hired by hospital, a nanny taken for children, etc. which I remember very well as I disputed almost each of those examples in an earlier post.

    Whatever he said later his main statement was about the time of hire. This is what he came to the forum with and this was his main message to it:
    juror 27

    Like

  50. Lee permalink
    January 9, 2014 10:00 pm

    ETB: typo! It should read: “questions 2-5”

    Apologies.

    Like

  51. Lee permalink
    January 9, 2014 9:56 pm

    “Lee, the instruction is indeed “deception/ trap”. I am sure, if it is not AEG and Judge Palazuelos, the outcome would be totally different.”

    Changing the judge or even the defendant would not change established law. Please compare questions 2-4 on the Jackson/AEG trial verdict form to:

    California Civil Jury Instructions (“CACI”)
    426. Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee

    [Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she] was harmed by [name of employee] and that [name of employer defendant] is responsible for that harm because [name of employer defendant] negligently [hired/ supervised/ [or] retained] [name of employee]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:

    1. That [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] to perform the work for which [he/she] was hired;
    2. That [name of employer defendant] knew or should have known that [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] and that this [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] created a particular risk to others;
    3. That [name of employee]’s [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] harmed [name of plaintiff]; and
    4. That [name of employer defendant]’s negligence in [hiring/ supervising/ [or] retaining] [name of employee] was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.

    There’s no conspiracy.

    Like

  52. Mariam permalink
    January 9, 2014 8:53 pm

    Thank you for the clarification Susan. At least we have one hope “appeal”

    Lee, the instruction is indeed “deception/ trap”. I am sure, if it is not AEG and Judge Palazuelos, the outcome would be totally different.

    Based on those 4 jurors affidavit and also as per Jurour #27,there was something going on between jurors during deliberation process, the more I analysed Jurour #27 statement, I become more convinced that Jurour #27 has some relationship with AEG, if he is REAL juror, I have no doubt that he did something, he would be the one who confused the rest of the jurors (behalf of AEG) during deliberation. I am not surprised, because, AEG/their lawyers where trying to get jurors and judge attention during entire trial.

    “Under the legal doctrine of Respondeat Superior*(Let the superior answer), an employer is legally responsible for the actions of his employees when they are acting within the course and scope of employment unless the employee deviates from his assigned duties.” Judge Mathis

    Therefore AEG should have been held liable for his wrongful death because AEG hired Dr. Murray but because the court want to send AEG free, they come up with this question#2 in fact to deceive the jurors. If the jurors believed that AEG hired CM, so AEG should be responsible for their employee action, and the next decision should be to estimating the damage.

    “The hospital is always sued when a doctor they hired engages in wrong practices at any time..Both doctor and the hospital.” rkatarina

    I agree with Rkatarina, they should made their decision based on “Responeat Superior” concept/law not based on question#2.

    Like

  53. Wannabe Legal Eagle permalink
    January 9, 2014 5:15 pm

    Lee, how does that comment compare to the others listed by 27 about the time of hire and the comments jurors gave after the verdict?

    Susan Joyce, anyone can sell a timecard or make one up. I don’t remember MJJC EVER saying they would make that Q&A private. Actually they told people about it on Twitter so it got more views! That Q&A caused the WHOLE trial thing to become private so even other things are now private like the Cascio track argument (I miss that).

    27 got tripped up by a few posters!!

    Like

  54. TatumMarie permalink
    January 9, 2014 9:07 am

    Thank you for the clarification. There is still hope.

    Like

  55. January 9, 2014 8:59 am

    Anyone can purchase the Final Court Ordered Jury Instructions from L.A. Superior Court just like the MJJCommunity and TeamMichaelJackson did.

    Final Court Ordered Jury Instructions. Michael Jackson Wrongful Death, Jackson V AEG Live September 23rd, 2013
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/171637162/Final-Court-Ordered-Jury-Instructions-Michael-Jackson-Wrongful-Death-Jackson-V-AEG-Live-September-23rd-2013

    Also, when the MJJCommunity published juror #27’s interview on their website, they stated they verified the juror was valid by asking him/her to send in their timecard from court. Juror #27 did so to validate himself/herself. I read the interview the day after it was posted and the MJJCommunity disclosed they would keep the interview public for only a couple of days.

    Requesting a new trial is different from an appelliate (appealed) trial. Plaintiff’s (K. Jackson) has asked for a new trial. If a new trial is approved or denied is determined by the judge that heard the case which is Judge Palazuelos. Last week Judge Palazuelos tentatively denied a new trial. We are waiting to learn what Judge Palazuelos final decision will be. If Judge Palazuelos final decision is to deny a new trial, then Plaintiff’s can file an appeal. An appeal is determined by 3 judges in the District Court in California.

    Like

  56. January 9, 2014 4:35 am

    Then is AEG blind or forgot what they saw?

    Like

  57. Lee permalink
    January 8, 2014 10:47 pm

    “…..we did consider Murray’s competence over the entire period and whether what AEG saw was enough to conclude that he was not fit. We felt that based on what they saw and were communicated, there was not enough to say that they should have known CM was breaking his sworn duty to do no harm.” — juror 27 copied from your other section

    That quote shows they did discuss the entire period so where’s the “lie”?

    Those questions are taken from California’s jury instructions guide used in civil trials every day.

    Like

  58. January 8, 2014 8:26 am

    “It’s all MJJC’s doing and they have to blame someone else (like AEG AND Murray did with Michael!). If Lee is right and 27 signed an affidavit, he either lied on the affidavit or on MJJC. Take your pick. Either way it’s a lie. That’s why MJJC’s trial thing is private.” – Wannabe Legal Eagle

    Exactly, Wannabe Legal Eagle. I thought that juror #27 was the only one who wasn’t approached by the AEG lawyers as they knew he had testified to the contrary on the forum, however one of our readers said this juror had made an affidavit too.

    This makes things even worse, because if he did, he lied – either on the affidavit or on the forum, so either way it is a lie.

    And this is the only real reason why MJJC closed that topic to the public. They don’t want the general public (“lurkers” in their terminology) to know what this juror #27 really said and how he contradicted his own affidavit.

    Now they will disclose this “secret” information to the chosen few and will have an added advantage that each new member will have to write 10 posts to be able to join the club of the initiated thus increasing the number of hits for the forum as a whole.

    So it is advantageous for them all around.

    As to blocking and banning people this practice will continue if someone dares express a different point of view and stands up for it. All of it is the censorship at its worst.

    Like

  59. January 8, 2014 5:04 am

    Here is something from Dee Pfeiffer .
    “When applying for a press pass for the first ‘This is It’ show back in 2009, I was told by Lucy Ellison at AEG Worldwide to apply through the company ‘Outside’. They said that Adam Cotton, dealing with such matters, would get straight back to me. In spite of many emails and calls from March to June, he NEVER got back to me. My final email to Adam was on 19th June, just days before the world became a darker place. I can’t help but ask whether their ignoring of my requests was simply ignorance, or whether there was something more sinister (ie. how much did they know, at the very least about Michael’s stress and predicament). Even more disturbing is the fact that the company tasked with giving out press passes was none other than the very company screening the autopsy programme THIS evening.”

    Dialdancer, this is extremely interesting and extremely disturbing.

    So this company was in direct connection with AEG Live as it was authorized by them to give out passes to the press?

    And the same versatile company has now screened an autopsy program for channel 5 in the UK? Showing Michael Jackson in the most unfavorable light, as an addict?

    Channel 5:

    “The most startling evidence, however, uncovers the bewildering number of drugs that were coursing through his veins, bearing witness to a number of addictions that had spiralled out of control.”

    Let us look into the root of the problem and ask ourselves – who wants Michael to be portrayed that way to release them of all responsibility for his death?

    It is AEG.

    And also Murray.

    This is where their interests fully coincide and this is why Murray has turned into a pet dog for AEG which will be barking at each of their orders.

    Like

  60. January 8, 2014 4:41 am

    “You will also be aware the Appellate Judge has ruled against a Wrongful Death retrial.” – Dialdancer

    Dial, already? So soon? Can you give a link please?

    Well, if this is the case the only thing I can say is that the truth about the way Michael was treated in the last weeks and months of his life now depends wholly on us – Michael’s advocates and supporters.

    Like

  61. January 7, 2014 8:09 pm

    Helena,

    By now you are hearing the results of the UK Channel 5 autopsy broadcast. You will also be aware the Appellate Judge has ruled against a Wrongful Death retrial.

    Here is something from Dee Pfeiffer .

    “When applying for a press pass for the first ‘This is It’ show back in 2009, I was told by Lucy Ellison at AEG Worldwide to apply through the company ‘Outside’. They said that Adam Cotton, dealing with such matters, would get straight back to me. In spite of many emails and calls from March to June, he NEVER got back to me. My final email to Adam was on 19th June, just days before the world became a darker place. I can’t help but ask whether their ignoring of my requests was simply ignorance, or whether there was something more sinister (ie. how much did they know, at the very least about Michael’s stress and predicament). Even more disturbing is the fact that the company tasked with giving out press passes was none other than the very company screening the autopsy programme THIS evening.”

    Like

  62. Wannabe Legal Eagle permalink
    January 7, 2014 6:15 pm

    “Wannebe Legal Eagle, I appreciate very much that you understand what games they are playing.
    Dictatorship regimes do exactly the same – if one opposition paper reveals some truth about it, it closes all others to make the one who spoke out responsible for the repressions. People begin to complain – if it weren’t for you we could function at least in some way, so now you see what happened to all of us? Now our readers are devoid of any information!
    This is one of the dictatorship methods meant to silence everyone who wants to tell the truth.”
    -VMJ Helena

    YES!!! This is what I’m trying to say! You are not the reason the trial thing is private. First they said it’s because they were called AEG Plants. Now LOL, it’s because of you. Which one is it?

    It’s all MJJC’s doing and they have to blame someone else (like AEG AND Murray did with Michael!) and the ones that don’t know any better agree with MJJC and AEG. There are people that do agree with Murray too.

    IMO, you’re right. If Lee is right and 27 signed an affidavit, he either lied on the affidavit or on MJJC. Take your pick. Either way it’s a lie. That’s why MJJC’s trial thing is private.

    The judge’s tentative ruling wasn’t a shocker. She might change, she might not. It will probably end up in appeal court with the ruling on Randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware being removed as defendants.

    Like

  63. January 7, 2014 1:12 pm

    I’m so slow… the article says it was a tentative ruling..duh. This is not set in stone, maybe that’s why TMZ isn’t jumping all over it, I became super depressed for not reading.

    Like

  64. January 7, 2014 9:46 am

    I should have said wrongful practices. And for sure if this leads TO A PATIENTS DEATH
    The hospital is responsible as is the doctor..The chief of the hospital usually is fired. or abdicates immediately. ,..

    Like

  65. January 7, 2014 9:34 am

    Answer to juror-forum discussion: The hospital is always sued when a doctor they hired engages in wrong practices at any time..Both doctor and the hospital..

    Like

  66. January 7, 2014 6:07 am

    “They got something to hide.” – Wannabe Legal Eagle

    What do they have to hide? A WHOLE LOT. For example, this proposed verdict form from the Jacksons’ side which AEG didn’t agree to:

    1. Were any of the Defendants negligent in hiring, retaining or supervising Conrad Murray? Yes… No…
    2. Was Defendants’ negligence a substantial factor in causing Michael Jackson’s death? Yes… No…
    3. What are Plaintiff Katherine Jackson’s total wrongful death damages for the death of Michael Jackson?
    a) Economic damages (past support…)
    b) Economic damages (future support…)
    c) Non-economic damages (past…)
    d) Non-economic damages (future…)

    Besides the fact that the Plaintiffs didn’t include the notorious question No.2 “Was Murray fit..?” at least in this verdict form, it is interesting how the Senior staff of MJJCommunity could have access to this preliminary document. I doubt that it came from the Jacksons or their lawyers.

    Like

  67. January 7, 2014 5:36 am

    “Nice statement from MJJC but, I lurked there long enough to know what’s real. You said thank you here and they didn’t turn the trial thing back on!” – Wannabe Legal Eagle

    Wannebe Legal Eagle, I appreciate very much that you understand what games they are playing.

    Dictatorship regimes do exactly the same – if one opposition paper reveals some truth about it, it closes all others to make the one who spoke out responsible for the repressions. People begin to complain – if it weren’t for you we could function at least in some way, so now you see what happened to all of us? Now our readers are devoid of any information!

    This is one of the dictatorship methods meant to silence everyone who wants to tell the truth.

    They got something to hide. They’re hiding the truth about 27 because anyone reading there already knows they supported AEG! When the trial thing helped AEG, it was public. It doesn’t help AEG now. 27 got them in trouble and now it’s private.

    EXACTLY. As far as I got it all their information about the AEG trial is for the “initiated” only – not only about juror #27 about whom I wrote.

    Like

  68. Tatum Marie permalink
    January 6, 2014 6:09 pm

    Murray was doing CPR and was trying to orally push some air into Michael’s lungs he raised Michael’s head and this cleared his breathway. Or Murray cleared the breathway manually. – VMJ

    Exactly, that’s the exact same thing I was thinking. Plus, he was running around trying to cover up everything.

    So do we have anyone in the MJ community that works with the Supreme Court? I’m confused about the article that’s copied over and over again . It claims the judge ruled there will not be a retrial but I thought there were supposed to be a panel of 3 judges making the decision?…:(

    Like

  69. Wannabe Legal Eagle permalink
    January 6, 2014 5:06 pm

    Nice statement from MJJC but, I lurked there long enough to know what’s real. The trial thing isn’t private because no one was grateful LOL! You said thank you here and they didn’t turn the trial thing back on!

    They got something to hide. They’re hiding the truth about 27 because anyone reading there already knows they supported AEG! When the trial thing helped AEG, it was public. It doesn’t help AEG now. 27 got them in trouble and now it’s private.

    Like

  70. Tatum Marie permalink
    January 6, 2014 9:20 am

    I doubt Michael was lying about his weight, but neither is the coroner. The listed weight from February was still an estimate by both Michael and Dr. Slavit. It’s not a significant amount of weight, anyone could be off 5 or 6 pounds unless they get on the doctors scale. It’s also possible that he could have gained afterwards.

    While we’re on the subject of fluids Murray also admitted that he gave Michael fluids too at some point. Fluids wouldn’t have put nearly 10 pounds on him at the hospital and at 136, he still looks super thin in that autopsy photo.

    Like

  71. January 6, 2014 5:45 am

    “True, but even though Dr. Slavit said the weight Michael listed seemed to be about right, it’s not set in stone because he also admitted that he didn’t weigh him.” – TatumMarie

    Tatum, Michael would be the last person interested in lying about his weight – so if he said it was only 127 pounds then this was really the case. However I agree that his weight could have changed after February 4, 2009. But again not too much as all people around him noticed that he was only losing weight and not gaining it.

    The weight of 136 pounds found by the coroner is indeed inexplicable except for some fluids received by his body after death.

    Like

  72. Tatum Marie permalink
    January 5, 2014 7:57 pm

    All this time he was training, dancing performing and was reported by everyone to be only losing weight, and not gaining it.

    Dr. Rogers who conducted the autopsy admitted that Michael’s body had been given many intravenuous fluids that could increase his weight:
    – Vindicate MJ

    True, but even though Dr. Slavit said the weight Michael listed seemed to be about right, it’s not set in stone because he also admitted that he didn’t weigh him. I think too much emphasis is being placed on the 136 number itself. Michael had the fluids injected in him by the paramedics and medical team and still looked rail thin in the autopsy photo, the coroner admitted that he was thin too. The number itself doesn’t discredit the witnesses who said he was losing weight nor does it discredit the coroner. The gaining of muscle mass from working too hard is possible for a slimmer looking appearance. The amount of loss in the time frame of not even 2 months is what’s troubling.

    I liked Brian Panish, but many times in the AEG trial I felt the defense should have focused on more stronger points.

    Like

  73. Mariam permalink
    January 5, 2014 7:26 pm

    “Now the case can go to the Superior Court (which seldom supports the appeal of cases)”Helena

    So still there is HOPE. That is what we need to think now, find other way and continue to fight for justice no matter how long it takes. Who said the millionairs are not punished or paid for their wrong doing or criminal conduct? Who said they are omitted from that? It is not written anywhere in the constitution or no legislation/law sporting that. AEG or the judge may be able to rule the court in California, but not all the world. They successfully manipulated those 12 jurors but not the whole world.

    There are a lot of people who is working and fighting for human rights, for justice, for equality and peace, fighting poverty and in general there is millions who is working day and night to make all right and safe for a mankind (MJ was one of them, unfortunately he is gone soon). So that we cannot hide the truth or AEG or people like AEG will not always get away from their crime or wrong doing, they might think; but not really.

    One day justice will serve for MJ. I am predicting that AEG will be liable for what they did to MJ one day, sooner or later; causing death or taking somebodies life is not easy to avoid or to run away from it. They killed HUMAN not a dog. It will follow them until their grave and even after, because there is a court/ judge after death too as Bible thought us. It would be better for them to admit now and regret/repent and ask forgiveness and pay whatever price cost them and move on. Denying and trying to escape or hiding does not change the fact what they did or what really happened, no freedom.

    I am sure RF, PG (AEG) and Murray not feeling right or peace when they think about MJ, they know deep down that they did push MJ to death, they know they didn’t treat him right, they know that they didn’t care about him, they know that they didn’t help him , they know that they had a lot of alternative to make that show happened instead. If we are able/can see it, and for sure they do too.

    “If the appeal is not successful we should arrange an alternative trial – a public one with all evidence and documents published all around the internet.” Helena

    Thank you Helena, What I am thinking the same, we have to say what we feel about AEG or the Judge on every social avenue if we are allowed to because ,remember that there is a millions of people who can hear and see us and wants to fight to fix things right .

    Like

  74. January 5, 2014 6:31 pm

    That sloppy Murray should have weighed him every night to know how dehydrated he was..
    He may have left him dehydrated till he started pushing in all those drugs. On the other hand it is dangerous to overhydrate a patient.Any GP knows this.There were many basic, easy things this “competent as gp” did not do. Then he saves lives on planes by sticking a needle into the arm of victim and starting a simple iv. Did he check them first? Now many people drink too much alcohol and drink too little water on planes. That could have been taken of by remaining on the plane floor and drinking some juice. But the drama would have been lost.-Dehydration + those drugs could have been bad for his CNS and cause organic brain injury over time. i presume mild until the last high or am.6/25
    Murray´s book ´s title: 50 ways to kill your patient, get 2 years and prosper from the book.

    Like

  75. January 5, 2014 2:13 pm

    “Helena.I lean towards OnlyJustice4MJ re his health before the TTI was filmed. That movie was put together By the best pieces from the rehearsals. An autopsy can see the anatomical changes, but cannot make a good estimate of how reversible the changes would have been and especially it cannot determine how well his brain and psychological factors would have played in.” – rakatarina

    Rkatarina, there are so many views on the subject that before any serious assessment of Michael’s health all of us should agree about the rules – the period we are talking of, the signs of Michael’s good or ill health, and what the autopsy can reveal or cannot.

    It is clear even from a perfunctory comparison that Michael’s condition in February and in June 2009 was dramatically different. In February his mind was lucid, his speech didn’t slur, he was energetic and not tired according to Dr. Slavit.

    Dr. Slavit said that Michael was in “excellent health” and also this:

    Q.Let’s look at the first full paragraph on the last page of your letter, Slavit 7. During the February 4th, 2009 physical examination of Michael Jackson, did you find that he was mature,communicative, open and candid?
    A. Yes.

    And in June Karen Faye said that he was barely coherent, Ortega – he was rambling and obsessing, Bugzy – he was not allowed to go on stage for fear of embarrassing himself and something even worse, Michael Bush – he was so thin that he could see his heartbeat, and all of them said he was icy cold.

    Everything pointed to a grave deterioration of his health.

    However since the autopsy report said that the condition of his heart, blood vessels and the overall condition was even better than in an average 50 year old man, it means that all those problems had not reached the organic or physical level, and could possibly be the temporary effect of some medications – for example, Versed (and Lorazepam) Murray was injecting despite Michael’s will – or it could be a psychosomatic disorder.

    Psychosomatic Disorders

    Psychosomatic disorders are manifestations of physical imbalance in which emotional components have a strong influence. The link between the affect and compromised health issues can be followed, in such cases, as the disease emerges, develops or repeats its pattern over time. “Psycho” or “psyche” refers to the emotional or mind related aspects and “somatic” has to do with the organic or physical symptoms and signs observed.

    Recent research has revealed that inappropriate activation of the autonomous nervous apparatus, endocrine network (hormones and internal secretion glands), and the immune system (defence structures and cells) accounts for several of the known paths that link emotional overload to a condition of organic dysfunction and, in some cases, even physical damage.
    http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/139/

    In Michael’s case his psychosomatic disorder did not bring about any organic dysfunctions in the body yet as none were shown by the autopsy report, so all those dysfunctions were reversible in case the emotional overload and pressure was taken off Michael or he was put into a much more emotionally comfortable situation.

    Like

  76. January 5, 2014 1:36 pm

    “Michaels stress began when AEG.Tohme without his consent increased the number of shows to 50 with one or two days in between. Anyone could see that this was not going to end well.” – Sina

    Sina, exactly. Those 50 shows with no rest in between are the crux of the matter.

    I didn’t have Dr. Slavit’s testimony and started reading it only just now. See what he is saying:

    Q. Looking again at that first paragraph on page 7 of the production, it says “He appears very capable with regards to assessing his physical condition and respecting the need for rest and proper medical care on a preventative basis.” What did you mean by Michael Jackson appearing capable of respecting the need for rest and proper medical care on a preventative basis? Anything beyond what you just testified to?

    A. Just his specific reporting as to what his problem in the past was with regards to the cancellation and his acknowledgment of the need for rest or avoidance of exhaustion.

    So Michael specifically reported to Dr. Slavit that he would be able to perform only if he had adequate rest and avoided exhaustion.

    And Gongaware perfectly knew it as he had been with Michael on two tours before that, however despite that they set up for him an inhuman schedule of shows and demanded that he also attended rehearsals 6 days a week for two months running. With ONE DAY OFF only. They exhausted Michael even before the tour started.

    I really don’t know what that AEG trial was about. There are SO MANY claims that could have been made against AEG, but none of them were looked into.

    If the appeal is not successful we should arrange an alternative trial – a public one with all evidence and documents published all around the internet.

    Like

  77. January 5, 2014 1:10 pm

    “The weight listed in the autopsy looks to be accurate.” – TatumMarie

    Tatum, on February 4, 2009 when Dr. Slavit was conducting a medical examination, Michael himself reported his weight as 127 pounds. It is 57,7 kgs. Considering that after that Michael was mostly losing weight, I really cannot understand how on autopsy he could show 136 pounds.

    All this time he was training, dancing performing and was reported by everyone to be only losing weight, and not gaining it.

    Here is an excerpt from Dr. Slavit’s testimony:

    Q. I just wanted to confirm for the record. It says weight, 127 pounds. Is that what Mr. Jackson told you he weighed or did you weigh him on the scale that day?
    A. That’s what he told me he weighed.
    Q. And based on your experience, did that appear to be a roughly accurate report of his weight when you examined him physically?
    A. Yes.

    Dr. Rogers who conducted the autopsy admitted that Michael’s body had been given many intravenuous fluids that could increase his weight:

    Earlier in the day, Christopher Rogers, the Los Angeles County deputy medical examiner, testified that Jackson’s weight was in the normal range for his height. Rogers said that Jackson was 5 feet, 9 inches tall and 136 pounds when he was weighed and measured at the coroner’s office the day after he died.

    Rogers said he gave Jackson a body mass index of 20.1. It would take a BMI of less than 18.5 for him to be considered underweight.

    Rogers’ testimony was used by AEG to try to rebut witnesses who testified that Jackson was rail thin. A paramedic testified that when he answered the 911 call to Jackson’s rented Holmby Hills mansion, the singer was so emaciated that he looked like an end-stage cancer patient who had come home to die.

    However, under questioning by Jackson attorney Michael Koskoff, Rogers said that by the time the pop star was weighed, intravenous fluids had been administered to him in the ambulance and at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, which could have increased his weight.

    Rogers testified that Jackson didn’t have much fat on him.
    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-jackson-vocals-20130513,0,6854924.story

    Like

  78. January 5, 2014 12:21 pm

    In the beginning there were 2 neighbours, Michael Jackson and Thomas Barrack.Michaels home in danger of forclosure, so this neighbour got it cheap, now for a quarter of it´s present worth.Love thy neighbour…..T.B. even got some medal fo his ways.This is the way of US and the rest of the word follows.. I no longer live in US but this mentality has spread all over.People have changed.
    –It is my belief that many people did not follow tre AEG trial closely.But they read the cheap newspaper headlines, watched TV.Throughout there was a line, sometimes thin, but always there, it was drugs.And every one knows about that!

    Michael died of drugs,given By Murray a licesed MD..Nevermind the details, drugs says everything..In US presidential elections and such are decided on the gross abscence of votes from the population in prisons for minor drug offences.No I am not pro drugs. Just against the omnipotent meaning this word has gotten.Throughout the trial there was a thread of Michel and drugs.It is thanks to the multitude of new drugs discovered we can live much longer.

    -In medical school out professor stated that in polar north not faraway small etnic groups that does not try to at times alter its”head,so to speak”.Some there in the frosty north having taken to over breathing. .Aborinals often use drugs in their ceremonies.
    Addiction to immense weath and luxury while other are dying in wars or famine is very real.Jeez kill dr it …Michael was known to oppose this malignant addiction- maybe therefore he was so dangerous –Thank God for propofol,but in hands other than Murray and his handlers.

    Like

  79. January 5, 2014 7:42 am

    Laura Messina has made a good video about the jurors at the AEG trial. I only wish she could add my name to the list too:

    Like

  80. January 5, 2014 7:17 am

    “even in the most corrupted and uncivilized countries, you do not see it obvious like this; I couldn’t believe the “government body” is influenced and intimidated with a power of wealth/money like” – Mariam

    Unfortunately in my country political trials are carried out in exactly the same way – they pretend to be criminal cases where the court procedure is observed only formally and everyone knows the verdict well in advance. But seeing almost the same in the USA? It is indeed a shock.

    Like

  81. January 5, 2014 6:17 am

    Since no one seems to notice anything here, let me repeat this piece too.

    If you google the headline Judge tentatively rules against new Jackson trial 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 of my Google search. Seven (!) pages of Google search carry exactly 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

  82. January 5, 2014 6:13 am

    “BAD NEWS!” – Susanne

    Folks, I’m really surprised. I posted this information as a comment on a different post (about the four jurors’s statements) long ago and even showed how big a thing the media made of it by occupying by this news the first 7 pages of Google search, and no one noticed it?

    The news is of course bad but could be easily expected. The same judge, the same bias, the same lies, the same everything. What else did you expect?

    YOU EXPECTED JUSTICE??? But don’t you know what we are dealing with?

    The article I’ve posted says that judge Yvette Palazuelos issued a tentative ruling that she would not grant Katherine Jackson a new trial. Now the case can go to the Superior Court (which seldom supports 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

  83. January 5, 2014 6:04 am

    – “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.” – Helena
    – “The juror did submit an affidavit.” – Lee

    How can you prove that?

    If this juror did submit an affidavit he stated there the opposite of what he had said in the forum, and consequently lied.

    So the option is that he either lied in his affidavit or didn’t submit it at all. I selected the latter.

    Like

  84. January 5, 2014 4:39 am

    The weight listed in the autopsy looks to be accurate. Michael had a dancers body, he was more muscular in form. Taking into consideration that muscle is more dense than fat, with Michaels lean body mass, I can see how his frame could appear so small.

    The dismiss of the AEG retrial is really depressing for me. This drives the point home that in these cases you only have one shot. I blame the manipulated question No 2 and I also blame Katherine’s defense team as well. Had they focused on more important points and showed how AEG had reason to believe Murray was incompetent before being hired we would be getting some justice.

    Like

  85. Lee permalink
    January 5, 2014 3:55 am

    “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.”

    The juror did submit an affidavit.

    Like

  86. Susanne permalink
    January 4, 2014 11:08 pm

    BAD NEWS!

    © 2014 Los Angeles Wave Wire

    A judge tentatively denied a motion by Katherine Jackson’s attorneys for a new trial of her lawsuit against concert-promoter AEG Live stemming from the 2009 death of her pop superstar son, Michael Jackson, then heard arguments from attorneys Friday before taking the case under submission. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos sent attorneys a 45-page tentative ruling denying the motion by lawyers for the Jackson family matriarch Thursday night, in advance of Friday’s hearing on the issue. Details of the judge’s ruling were not immediately available. Palazuelos said she put some of the final touches on her tentative ruling on Wednesday while at the Rose Bowl watching Stanford University — of which she is an alum — lose to Michigan State. In their court papers, Katherine Jackson’s attorneys cited affidavits from jurors and claimed flaws in jury instructions and in the verdict form establish that a different outcome might have occurred Oct. 2 instead of the verdict in favor of the promoters of the singer’s never-realized comeback concerts in London. “Even if you wanted to find for the plaintiff you really could not,” plaintiffs’ attorney Deborah Chang told Palazuelos during the court hearing. Chang frequently referred to charts prepared for the hearing as she made her pitch to Palazuelos, saying the lawsuit and trial were unique. “There will never be another case like this again … because there will never be another person like Michael Jackson,” Chang said. Chang said the lawsuit “should have been a negligence case” rather than one that dealt with whether AEG Live appropriately hired, retained and supervised Dr. Conrad Murray as Michael Jackson’s personal physician. Noting that the arguments during trial were often contentious, Chang called the trial “a fight to the bitter end.” AEG Live attorneys contended in their court papers that Katherine Jackson’s lawyers are raising new issues and that the juror affidavits filed in support of their motion are inadmissible. “After failing to prove their case during five months of trial, plaintiffs’ now attack the jury’s unanimous verdict and this court’s rulings,” AEG Live lawyers state in their court papers. “While plaintiffs’ notice of intent to move for new trial raised every single possible statutory ground available under the Code of Civil Procedure …, plaintiffs now abandon all [their] arguments except irregularity in the proceedings and error in law.” After nearly 14 hours of deliberations over four days, the six-man, six-woman jury determined that AEG Live did hire Murray as Jackson’s doctor, but it answered “no” to question No. 2, which asked if Murray was “unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired.” With that answer, the jury denied any damages to Katherine Jackson and to Michael Jackson’s three children. Murray, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for Jackson’s death, has since been released from jail. Jackson died June 25, 2009, at age 50 of acute propofol intoxication. In documents filed earlier this month, the Jackson lawyers claimed that once the jurors found Murray was competent at the time he was hired, the panel could not go any further and examine his subsequent conduct. “As given, these instructions and the verdict form were misleading and erroneous in that they did not distinguish between a negligent hiring claim and a negligent retention or supervision claim [what the employer knew or should have known during the course of the relationship],” the Jackson attorneys’ stated in their court papers. By forcing the jury to stop deliberating after they concluded Murray’s capabilities were up to par when he was hired, the form never allowed the jurors to consider AEG Live’s separate ongoing duties relating to supervision and retention, the Jackson attorneys’ court papers state. Four trial jurors gave affidavits that Katherine Jackson’s lawyers are citing in support of the new trial motion. “After sitting through almost six months of the trial in this case, I believed that Mrs. Jackson had proven her case against AEG Live,” one 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.” But according to the AEG Live attorneys’ court papers, Katherine Jackson’s attorneys did not argue during trial that question No. 2 was improper. “Remarkably, plaintiffs’ challenge is based on a question and instruction that plaintiffs specifically requested,” the AEG Live lawyers state in their court papers. “Contrary to the demonstrably false claims in their brief, plaintiffs never objected to question No. 2, never sought to modify it and never claimed that it could somehow result in juror confusion.” AEG Live attorneys state in their court papers that Katherine Jackson’s lawyers are trying to “muddy the waters” with the four jurors’ sworn statements. The state’s Evidence Code “flatly forbids [a judge] from considering juror affidavits that concern the mental processes by which the verdict was determined,” the defense attorneys state in their court papers. “Indeed, the court’s consideration of these affidavits would constitute reversible error.” The defense lawyers further state in their court documents that even if the juror statements were deemed admissible, the plaintiffs’ attorneys have still not shown that their clients probably would have won the case if the questions on the verdict form were different. Murray was “fit and competent” to take care of Michael Jackson’s general medical needs and had been doing so for the singer and his family, as well as other patients, for years, the AEG Live lawyers state in their court papers. “There is simply no reason to believe the jury interpreted the verdict form at odds with its plain language and the arguments of the parties,” according to the AEG Live lawyers’ court papers. Katherine Jackson, 83, sued in September 2010 on behalf of herself and her son’s three children — Michael Jr., Paris-Michael Katherine and Prince Michael — claiming that AEG Live hired Murray to be Jackson’s personal physician and failed to properly supervise him.

    Katherine Jackson denied a new trial in Michael Jackson death case By Wave Wire Services | Posted: Saturday, January 4, 2014 2:00 pm

    Like

  87. Mariam permalink
    January 4, 2014 7:24 pm

    “Margaret Carrero ‏@MargaretCarrero 3 Jan
    Judge tentatively DENIES request by Katherine #Jackson lawyers for a new trial against #AEGLive, but both sides are being heard. @KNX1070
    Retweeted by MJJCommunity ”

    Somebody twitted this, Is that true? If so, what is the next option for KJ ? Unless AEG is accountable for what they did (contribute) for MJ death, justice not served which means that California should be only for billiners not for everybody.

    I still couldn’t believe the court let go AEG free after all those evidence presented. I am still stand and disbelieve about the judge action in this matter ( dismissal of PG & RF case, how the instruction question are calculated, those small and systematic action done to distract and misleading Jurors), ¬¬ even in the most corrupted and uncivilized countries, you do not see it obvious like this; I couldn’t believe the “government body” is influenced and intimidated with a power of wealth/money like.

    My prayer and wish is, if KJ and kids and all friends and fans have a closer. I can imagine for the parents, going without having a closer about your child death.

    But one thing is true, time will reveal the truth, from now to 5 or 10 years or may be sooner, will know more truth or secrets about what happened to MJ. I hope his parents-KJ &JJ will get that chance to see too.

    There is a lot that PG , RF, FD, TT, and of course Murray or someone else knows why & how MJ died. I believe it is not over yet.

    Like

  88. Sina permalink
    January 4, 2014 5:23 pm

    Talking about hindsight, this was not, it happened realtime.
    Michaels stress began when AEG.Tohme without his consent increased the number of shows to 50 with one or two days in between. Anyone could see that this was not going to end well.
    .

    17 April 2009
    The concert promoters, AEG Live, are publicly upbeat about his chances of pulling it off. ‘He’s 50, but he’s going to dance his ass off!’ says the group’s Randy Phillips excitedly.

    But privately the people involved in nannying Jackson back on to stage after an absence of three years say it’s like trying to train a host of butterflies to march in time – it’s a delicate task, and at times it seems quite hopeless. ‘I can’t talk to you about how he is, because I will be sacked for sure,’ says one. ‘But this is not going to be easy.’
    Jackson’s family are aghast and say in private that they don’t think he can. His mother Katherine felt comfortable with him taking on ten dates, which was the initial plan. But she and the rest of his family were stunned when he seemed TO BE PRESSURED by the demand for tickets into adding a further 40 shows.
    ‘Michael wants to put up a hell of a big show, but we are all holding our breath,’ said a family friend. ‘He is going all out, and when you do that it comes with risks. Everyone is concerned about the number of dates.’

    His family aren’t the only ones who are worried. AEG, which is staking millions on his residency at the O2, cannot get insurance for any more than the first ten dates.

    Randy Phillips, naturally, says he must. ‘If Mike gets too nervous, I’ll throw him over my shoulder and carry him on stage – he’s light enough,’ he says. Now that would be a spectacle.

    This was in the daily mail, a tabloid I dont like to link for ratings.

    Like

  89. January 4, 2014 4:51 pm

    Helena.I lean towards OnlyJustice4MJ re his health before the TTI was filmed. That movie was put together By the best pieces from the rehearsals.An autopsy can see the anatomical changes, but cannot make a good estimate of how reversible the changes would have been and especially it cannot determine how well his brain and psychological factors would have played in. Gross anatomy can only tell us so much,but it can not estimate physiology.
    And Michael had other illnesses, tended to become more and more insomniac with increasing presssure.There is no absolute thruth in this regard. However I wish Kahterine and the kids would have gotten the insurance money.-A more pressing question at this point is what happens re the re trial and weather judge Panalueos has some say in the matter, as well as what happens withRP ang PG. ,2 of the mainplayers.I thought she was biased.

    Like

  90. OnlyJustice4MJ permalink
    January 4, 2014 4:27 pm

    I promise I will leave this topic alone because it really is nothing I have knowledge in…
    I just have very strong opinions that Michael was a sick man prior to TII rehearsals from information I have gathered over the years despite his general appearance earlier in 2009…
    Channel 5 (UK) are doing a documentary on the autopsy report starting this Tuesday (I believe)

    Just maybe, we might have a better understanding of the autopsy, assuming that we have somebody reporting who truly is an expert in the field and not doing it for sensationalism to attract viewing with false information…

    Perhaps we may even have a better understanding why the Estate are not using the autopsy report as their evidence against Lloyds that Michael was a healthy and fit person and the reason why they are strangely using the TII documentary as their evidence…

    Here is a description of the documentary…

    In the first of three hour-long documentaries, world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr Richard Shepherd investigates the death of Michael Jackson, ‘The King of Pop’. He was the biggest-selling recording artist of all time, but when he suddenly died at just 50 years old, he left $400 million in debts and more questions than answers.

    The evidence revealed by his autopsy shows a severely sick man. Jackson was plagued by complications from his many plastic surgeries, suffered from two rare skin conditions and was riddled with arthritis. His lungs were severely damaged, he had an enlarged prostate, and was still suffering the effects of a horrific accident that left him partially bald.

    The most startling evidence, however, uncovers the bewildering number of drugs that were coursing through his veins, bearing witness to a number of addictions that had spiralled out of control. It was Jackson’s desperate battle against insomnia, however, that would ultimately cost him his life.

    http://www.channel5.com/shows/autopsy-michael-jacksons-last-hours/episodes/autopsy-michael-jacksons-last-hours#comments

    Like

  91. Sina permalink
    January 4, 2014 3:19 pm

    Lou Ferrigno has said many different things in different interviews. He last saw Michael in may, which was almost a month before he died.

    Former THE INCREDIBLE HULK star LOU FERRIGNO is convinced MICHAEL JACKSON’s health deteriorated rapidly over the last few weeks – because the superstar “looked fantastic” just last month (May09).

    http://www.examiner.com/article/lou-ferrigno-talks-michael-jackson-s-tremendous-pressure-video
    Lou Ferrigno talks Michael Jackson’s ‘tremendous pressure’
    “He hugged me and said ‘take care of yourself, I love you’,” said Lou Ferrigno. “It gave me a funny feeling because I knew something was wrong. I knew he was under tremendous pressure and that kind of concerned me.”

    Lou Ferrigno: ‘Michael’s Body Went Through a Lot of Stress’
    By Jessica Herndon
    06/30/2009 at 10:05 AM EDT

    MJ pal Ferrigno: I knew something was wrong
    By Mike Duffy
    updated 4:48 PM EDT, Mon October 08, 2012

    Like

  92. January 4, 2014 2:02 pm

    “Helena, we will have to agree to disagree on the issue of Michael’s health. It is my opinion, that Michael was NOT in the best of health even before embarking on the rehearsals for TII.” – Onlyjustice4MJ

    Onlyjustice4MJ, I was only speaking of the official autopsy report. The report showed the state of Michael’s system in general. It could not perceive such unfathomable for a pathologist things like insomnia and stress under which a person had been living. The autopsy report usually looks into life-threatening diseases and causes of death, and in this respect nothing could have shortened Michael’s life. He could have lived to be a hundred even with the state his lungs were in.

    The only life-threatening condition was his extreme thinness and the speed with which he was losing weight (which cannot be reflected by the autopsy either), but as regards the weight the pathologist stunned everyone with his estimation of it saying it was in the lower range of normal.

    This seems to me a big mistake on his part but how this came about I don’t know – it could be due to some fluids injected into Michael’s body after his death, or for some other reasons, but Michael definitely wasn’t 136 pounds when he died. I have found other information about it and will write about it in one of the posts.

    But all this extra information is not important for the Estate’s lawsuit against Lloyds. For them the official autopsy report is the bible, and it is this document that their case must be based upon, and not Michael’s real condition.

    As to Michael’s real condition I fully agree with you. First of all a person who cannot sleep cannot be called healthy – it is a very grave ailment which needs professional help. And his thinness too was a sign of an increasing deterioration of his health. And the number of those benzos which Murray was giving Michael was horrendous – it was mostly probably Versed (and Lorazepam) that turned him “a basket case” who could not keep balance when on stage.

    But all these things were reversible, they did not affect Michael’s heart, brain and blood vessels bad enough to be seen in the autopsy report. This is why we have this HUGE discrepancy between what the autopsy report says and how he really felt in the last weeks of his life.

    P.S. As regards what Nurse Lee said about Michael in April she was right that his energy had boosted by then (Kai Chase also spoke about it), but both these women spoke about the relative changes they saw in Michael during a certain period of time. During that period he looked better than before (and after). This means that in both cases during the time “before and after” Michael looked more frail.

    Like

  93. OnlyJustice4MJ permalink
    January 4, 2014 1:29 pm

    Helena, we will have to agree to disagree on the issue of Michael’s health.
    It is my opinion, that Michael was NOT in the best of health even before embarking on the rehearsals for TII.

    The autopsy report reveals that there were damages to the lungs (from memory of the autopsy report other vital organs were in good health). We also know that Michael suffered from Lupus, Vitiligo, continuous suffering from his head burns, chronic back problems, insomnia during times of stress and anxiety not to mention his own self doubt and what the 2005 trial did to him psychologically which mixes in with one’s well being.

    So overall, I do not believe that Michael was in the best/greatest of health.

    How Michael ever passed a 5 hour fitness test with Dr David Slavit is beyond me…

    Fans could see Michael’s rapid deterioration and were passing him letters of concerns whenever they got the chance to…

    How the Estate could possibly use the TII documentary of the rehearsals of 23 and 24 June is beyond me, with all the evidence that is out there…

    “As to the issue of Mr. Jackson’s fitness to perform, that is conclusively proved by the footage of Mr. Jackson rehearsing on June 23 and 24, 2009, immediately prior to his death,” says court papers filed on Dec. 31 by the Michael Jackson Company (an entity set up by the singer and now controlled by executors of his estate). “This footage, which was compiled into the motion picture This Is It clearly shows that Mr. Jackson was not only fit to perform in concert, but that he could still do so brilliantly.”

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/michael-jackson-company-singer-fit-668200

    The paramedic that arrived at Carolwood did not even recognise Michael, and thought it was a man from a hospice that had gone home to die…

    “The Los Angeles paramedic who answered the emergency call to the Holmby Hills mansion where Michael Jackson lived said that the condition of the singer resembled that of a cancer patient who had come home to die.

    Richard Senneff testified Tuesday that Jackson’s body was pale and so underweight his ribs were showing.

    “To me, he looked like someone who was at the end stage of a long disease process,” said Senneff, the lead-off witness in a wrongful death suit against concert promoter and entertainment giant AEG.”

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-michael-jackson-cancer-patient-20130430,0,6989336.story#axzz2pRk6FP7b

    Karen Faye testified that in order to make TII that they asked her to assist with editing and retouching footage for TII documentary but she declined because she did not want to be a part of the “lie”

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-jackson-thin-20130510,0,3229693.story#axzz2pRk6FP7b

    Karen Faye also testified that MLB told her that he could see Michael’s heart jumping out of his chest…

    Travis Payne testified that doubles were used in some parts of the TII documentary including the stunt for Smooth Criminal. Misha Gabriel was the body double…

    Fans have said since TII was released that the vocals were dubbed.

    Phillips wrote, “Make sure we take out the shots of Mj in that red leather jacket at the song stage… He looks way too thin and skeletal”, prompting Gongaware to reply, “Ok, will have a look when it comes on screen.”

    http://www.contactmusic.com/news/aeg-president-wanted-skinny-michael-jackson-images-removed-from-this-is-it-film_3696253

    “The Michael Jackson Company points to other evidence, including personal trainer Lou Ferrigno’s testimony that the singer “looked great,” the Los Angeles Coroner’s Office conclusion that Jackson’s general health was “excellent” prior to his death, and This Is It director Kenny Ortega’s testimony that the singer was fit to perform.”

    I really cannot take the above seriously…
    Lou Ferrigno doing fitness training.. Now let us be real here… A ball, elastics, and weights less than 3 pounds…
    This was what Michael could manage.. I can hardly describe this as a fit person…
    And Kenny Ortega… Kenny was the one spoon feeding Michael, rubbing Michael’s feet trying to warm him up, sending Michael home because he was unwell…

    http://www.examiner.com/article/kenny-ortega-michael-jackson-was-abusing-drugs-vanished-for-a-week-video

    These pictures to me do not resemble a healthy/fit man…

    http://twitpic.com/dr7w2l
    http://twitpic.com/czwkd1

    So all in all the Estate using TII documentary as evidence coupled by the testimonies of Lou Ferrigno and Kenny Ortega that Michael was fit and healthy to perform 50 shows, I would say that Lloyds are in a position to debunk very quickly what the Estate are bringing as evidence…

    I agree with you Helena that Michael appeared well back in April 2009… But that is appearance… As stated in my second paragraph above, I do not believe for one minute that underneath his appearance that he was really a fit and healthy man and these rehearsals for TII were far too much for him, let alone the stress of performing 50 shows…

    A long while ago you did an excellent blog comparing the AEG contract to the Allgood Entertainment proposal…
    With hindsight the Allgood Entertainment proposal would have been far better for Michael taking into account his age, the length of time since he last performed live and his struggle with personal health issues.

    Sorry for the rant, but I do get emotional when I see TII is proof of Michael’s good health… In my opinion this is utter rubbish and a complete lie…

    Like

  94. January 4, 2014 1:13 pm

    Some people may not know the word Ehtics.There are experiments on babies that show they have an instinct that proves people have a deep knowledge of this concept. The AEG trial tried to win by a play on words which is in itself unethical.. Everyone knows that Murray did something very wrong and that AEG was complizit. They were in no shape to go to England, so AEG settled for the money from TTI and the ticketsales + what they can extricate from from MJ´s legacy and material holdings. By pretending afterwards to like him the tried to wash off their guilt. But that will follow them to the day they die.
    At one point the judge became tired of the amnesia and said that evasivness will be noted. I noticed nothing of the kind.
    And everyone in US knows about malpractice suits, don´t try pseudoimbecility. If a doctor messes up badly he and the hospital will be sued.

    Like

  95. Sina permalink
    January 4, 2014 10:11 am

    Helena thanks for the Q&A , its very insightful of the jurors state of mind about the case. .

    Re the insurance case: Michael Jacksons death was by no means an accident ,not even by the standards of the policy. No doctor goes to jail for an accident , accidents are made on a daily basis. This was as you yourself said many times pre meditated murder.
    The autopsy showed that Michael had a strong CONSTITUTION, which was to expected with both his parents in their 80s and still going strong. But he was intimidated, and stressed out by AEG and debilitated and killed by the medication and the treatment of Murray. Which is not all revealed by the autopsy. Despite many emails of Michaels condition, Ortegas own analyses of Michaels situation, he and Payne lied through their teeth . Why are the other witnesses not quoted who said that Michael was dying?
    AEG was the holder of the policy, but were excused after they were readily paid their advance by the executors.. In the civil case in court,when it came to possible damages they did everything in their power to prove that there was no way Michael could have done the shows and make the money the plaintiffs requested. They even denied that they had plans in place to extend the shows to a world tour and called everyone they could find to paint Michael as a secretive drug addict whose faith was sealed because if his addiction. They did that after they were fully compensated and had nothing to loose. That will bite them in the tail. Unfortunately in claiming that Michaels death was an accident only to get the insurance money- even if it would go to the beneficiaries- it does not do Michael justice and undermines KJs case. By the way even on this photo Michaels face is very thin and looks nothing like how he looked when he was in normal health.

    Re: the Q&A
    JUROR: 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: And why exactly should AEG be expected to conduct this extensive vetting process for a doctor that was being brought to them by their star performer, especially since they were in essence doing nothing more than giving MJ a loan to pay him?

    Here is where this juror exposes his unfounded opinion and bias against Michael Jackson. The idea that AEG was doing Michael favor is a very ignorant pov for someone who has to make a judgement about liability, which could easily lead to the conclusion that AEG could not have been responsible for the damaging situation.

    JUROR: I agree with you that the correct course of action given what AEG knew at the time should have been to cancel or postpone the shows.

    So he understands that AEG should have taken action which they didn’t. The law has a word for this lack of action : negligence.
    But interesting that he absolves them but in doing so actually confirms that they didn’t do it because money stood in the way.

    JUROR: But that is very easy to say for a person who has not invested over $30Million in the project. I would have liked to see some more compassion from the AEG side, but they are in a ruthless business and there is not a lot of room to fit compassion and caring into a for-profit venture.

    He likes to stress that AEG is a business, but ignores that the business deal was not a one way street, but that the ‘favor’ was covered by a billion dollar collateral which in itself generates as much annually as the total sum of the ‘favor’.
    But what is most shocking to me is that the juror( during the trial and verdict) was not aware of the extend and the content of Murrays contract , part of the terms being that that only AEG could fire Murray. In the Q&A he presents a false interpretation of the contract, for which he even has to be corrected by a forum member. But that wrong interpretation was how he viewed the contract when he had to make a judgment about it. This tells me that the jurors or anyway this juror did not even analyze the most important documents but just relied on the explanation of it by …. AEG.
    .
    He wrongly considers the contract as a formality and fails to see the impact of it , that it was executed exactly the way AEG meant it to be. First why sign a three party contract with the contractor and not just with Michael. Why send the contract to Murray first and not to Michael , which would be the normal thing to do if you are doing someone a favor. Wouldn’t you ask him first if he agrees with the terms of the contractors employment before having the contractor sign?
    They put their self in the position of the commissioning party and clearly took control with their intervention and telling in no uncertain terms who was paying Murray . They also put Murray in position as a mediator to get the insurance in place, which he was not doing on Michaels request but on AEG s ( and while busy doing it leaving his patient to die).
    Gongaware’s threat who was paying Murray specifically referred to Michaels deteriorating condition which caused him to miss rehearsals, for which AEG blamed the doctor. Even though Michael had no obligation to AEG to attend rehearsals , which was another false representation of facts by AEG.
    So everything indicates that they were in charge of the whole proces and the contend. So how could the jurors and the judge not see AEGs responsibility for supervising and retaining a situation that was clearly out of control?

    Like

  96. January 4, 2014 6:57 am

    “The fact that Murray in combination with AEG can take someone who is as healthy as Michael and kill him in a few months speaks volumes on the amount of negligence from both parties.” – TatumMarie

    EXACTLY, TATUM, EXACTLY! Michael had always lived with a truckload of trouble before Murray and AEG came along, but none of it was able to kill him. The amount of trouble they gave Michael was really too much.

    Like

  97. January 4, 2014 6:46 am

    I am shocked to read that the Estate believe that Michael was fit to perform and that TII proves this… How can they possibly claim such a thing after all we have learned from the AEG Trial not to mention all we knew before hand… – OnlyJustice4MJ

    OnlyJustice4MJ, but in a way they are right. The autopsy report said that Michael was a healthy man (and he was!) and if AEG had created for him the right conditions he could have easily performed 10 shows and even 50 shows if they had been spread in time and allowed enough rest between the shows.

    The article you’ve sent a link to is wrong in another respect – the Estate is not acting together with AEG in this case. They are acting on their own as AEG dropped their claim to Lloyds when Lloyds were outraged to find out that AEG’s losses had already been fully covered by the Estate and therefore Lloyds’ insurance would compensate AEG for a second time.

    The insurance was made out for two beneficiaries – AEG and Michael Jackson, so the Estate has a right to claim compensation on his behalf. The fact that they regard Michael’s death as accident – well, over here I don’t know, let the trial decide on this matter.

    What I am absolutely sure of though is that in April 2009 when the insurance was issued Michael was indeed in excellent health, as Nurse Lee testified to it, and it was only under Murray’s care that his health deteriorated. So there were no false representations made by Michael either in April or when he underwent a medical examination in February 2009 all the more so.

    The journalist is twisting information when he claims that Katherine Jackson’s suit contradicts the Estate’s case against Lloyds – no, it is not. They are simply talking about different things.

    Michael Jackson Company: Singer Fit to Perform Before Death

    The late singer’s company demands that insurers be held to a $17.5 million “accident” policy issued before the This Is It concert tour.

    Ever since Michael Jackson died on June 25, 2009, there’s been almost nonstop action in courts. Last year, Katherine Jackson and the rest of the singer’s family pursued AEG Live on the theory that the concert promoter had pushed the King of Pop to the edge. The effort was unsuccessful, but get ready for another possible trial examining the circumstances surrounding the performer’s death.

    This one puts the handlers for the Jackson estate on the same side as AEG Live. Together, they are defending a lawsuit brought by underwriters at Lloyd’s of London wishing to get out of paying a $17.5 million insurance policy on the This Is It tour.

    Here, the Michael Jackson Company presents the singer in fine condition.

    “As to the issue of Mr. Jackson’s fitness to perform, that is conclusively proved by the footage of Mr. Jackson rehearsing on June 23 and 24, 2009, immediately prior to his death,” says court papers filed on Dec. 31 by the Michael Jackson Company (an entity set up by the singer and now controlled by executors of his estate). “This footage, which was compiled into the motion picture This Is It clearly shows that Mr. Jackson was not only fit to perform in concert, but that he could still do so brilliantly.”

    In the lawsuit, Lloyd’s of London asserts it was misled about the singer’s health. The insurance underwriters point to some of the same AEG Live internal emails that were presented to a jury by Jackson’s family last year. Those emails allegedly show that AEG tried to hide his deteriorating health. The insurer says it would have refused an “accident” policy had the singer’s true condition been revealed.

    A trial is tentatively scheduled for February. First, a judge considers the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and the defendants’ opposition.
    According to documents in the case, AEG looked to secure cancelation insurance in January 2009. The concert promoter went to a London-based insurance broker, which allegedly was aware of the “almost daily” press about Jackson and therefore recommended the singer be examined by a doctor.

    On Feb. 4, Jackson was examined by Dr. David Slavit, a New York-based ear, nose and throat doctor who found the singer to be in “good health” and “excellent condition.”

    The insurance broker then presented the This Is It tour risk to insurers in the Lloyd’s market and provided details about the planned concerts as well as a history of Jackson’s touring (including past concerts given and canceled by the singer).
    Several underwriters responded. The insurers agreed to “accident” coverage but not “illness” coverage until Jackson could be examined by another doctor. An in-depth medical examination was scheduled to take place in early July 2009. Of course, Jackson died first.

    A day after the singer’s death, an executive at one of the underwriters wrote in an email that an employee handling the coverage application “had taken a good decision on this risk in my view as he hadn’t believed the medicals.”

    But the Michael Jackson Company believes that nothing about the “illness” coverage holdup did anything to negate the “accident” coverage. Further, the defendant says, “The record shows that there is no evidence establishing that MJC made false representations to Underwriters.”

    The only representations made by Michael Jackson, says his company, were to Dr. Slavit, retained by the broker, not the underwriter. According to the defendant’s legal papers, “Putting aside the issues of whether Underwriters in fact relied on the Slavit exam and whether it was material to the issuance of ‘accident’ coverage, there is no evidence that the purported representations about Michael Jackson being in good health and fit to perform were false. All of the evidence in fact proves them true.”

    The Michael Jackson Company points to other evidence, including personal trainer Lou Ferrigno’s testimony that the singer “looked great,” the Los Angeles Coroner’s Office conclusion that Jackson’s general health was “excellent” prior to his death, and This Is It director Kenny Ortega’s testimony that the singer was fit to perform.

    And as for Jackson’s reported drug addiction? From the court papers:

    “MJC acknowledges that negative press, speculation and rumors have abounded about Mr. Jackson both before and after his death. Media speculation, rumors and opinions cannot be the evidentiary basis for a finding that Michael Jackson was abusing drugs in Feb. 2009 when he appeared for the Slavit exam, or in April 2009 when the Policy issued.”

    On Friday, Katherine Jackson is due back in court in a motion for a new trial in her case against AEG Live. No matter what happens tomorrow, however, it won’t be the end of the legal fussing over Jackson’s death. Next comes a Jan. 15 summary judgment hearing in the insurance dispute.

    In other words, right after one judge decides whether Jackson’s family gets another shot to prove AEG negligently hired and supervised Dr. Conrad Murray for administering him a fatal dose of propofol, Jackson’s estate will attempt to persuade a different judge that insurers have failed in demonstrating any wrongdoing by those preparing the This Is It tour.

    Or, as the estate puts it, “Michael Jackson’s death was an ‘accident’ under the policy.”
    Email: Eriq.Gardner@THR.com
    Twitter: @eriqgardner
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/michael-jackson-company-singer-fit-668200

    Here is a picture of Michael on April 10, 2009:

    Like

  98. January 4, 2014 6:04 am

    “You really have to laugh at MJJC, their behaviour is quite pitiful and to be honest embarrassing how they will do anything to support AEG… All they are doing by their recent actions is trying to hide the evidence of their support for AEG… But we know the Truth.” – OnlyJustice4MJ

    I was almost ready to write a separate post calling on MJJCommunity not to change history, keep things as they are and not to erase evidence, but today it turned out that the fright of not having the thread was short-lived – it is still there and the only difference is that it was made private.

    • Personal note: Someone like me cannot see it as I was banned there for my criticism of their support of AEG, while all the rest of you can. To see all private threads one needs to become a member, and to become a member one needs to write 10 posts. This requirement is tricky though as I think that I’ve written even more than 10 posts (actually I wrote 21), but they were grouped together by the Senior staff and I was reprimanded for answering each forum member by a separate post – apparently I should have answered all of them in one. This can easily turn your 10 posts into 1, but this obstacle is a minor one and with some persistence can be eventually overcome.

    The fact that the thread is there can be only welcomed. I absolutely stand for freedom of everyone to express their points of view if they allow others to do the same, however this is exactly what seems to be a problem there as the current and previous censorship shows. Hope this will change.

    This is the latest news about the posts on Katherine Jackson vs. AEG posts on the MJJCommunity forum:

    Today, 12:32 AM#19
    ivy
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA

    Re: MJJCommunity Statement Re: Trial & Tribulation forum closure to the public.

    I’ll add my two cents here:

    Trials and Tribulations forum is an effort of several of our members. Most of the time I provide the court documents out of my pocket. During KJ- AEG trial a handful members contributed to the transcript fund. One member in CA gets the MJ Accounting documents. And then there are the several members who provide their knowledge / expertise (such as accounting) to understand the documents. And finally everyone that contributes to the discussion. All of the above combined makes Trials and Tribulations not only one of the most informative sections but also one of the most intellectual and interesting discussion section.

    We – as MJJC- are more than happy to provide all of these information to the fan community. That’s why we had the forum on public setting and shared / tweeted the information we were proving. The more the fans have knowledge the better.

    While a little courtesy, a thank you etc. is appreciated , most of the time we did not even need or require it. Anyone who wanted to share what we posted is more than welcome.

    But.. a very important but..

    we had to draw the line where people use,copy the documents, exclusive and/or subscription only info we provided with our time/effort/money and simultaneously attacking us and even more twisting stuff, coming up with conspiracy theories to insult and accuse us. To us this was unacceptable.

    Don’t get me wrong, we don’t expect everyone to like us or agree with us or even thank us, but we expect people at least show some respect and hold back accusations/insults/attacks if they are using the fruits of our time/effort/money. I don’t think this is too much to ask.

    I’m saddened as it came to this point and we had to make Trials & Tribulations section members only for the time being. We realize this will take away the easy access for public/non-members but if it can prevent the access of people who use and abuse us simultaneously it might be worth it. For all of the innocent third parties out there that no longer has access to the Trials and Tribulations, please join our forum to get full access. All of the information is still there and we will still keep providing info. You’ll just need to be a full member to see it.

    Thank you for listening to me.
    Twitter : Ivy_4MJ
    Email: ivy@mjjcommunity.com

    The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to ivy For This Useful Post:
    Ashtanga, Bubs, cristimjj, jamba, LastTear, LMP Jackson, Petrarose, Selling_Out_Souls
    http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/131505-MJJCommunity-Statement-Re-Trial-amp-Tribulation-forum-closure-to-the-public/page2?p=3945864&viewfull=1#post3945864

    Let me add my two cents to the above too. I am thankful to Ivy of MJJCommunity for the documents she and some of her colleagues provide about the AEG trial, but reserve for myself full right to express my opinion of the way they interpret these documents as well as the principles of their selection.

    Similarly, if Radaronline or TMZ post some documents I am grateful to them for the opportunity to see them, but reserve for myself the right to criticize their interpretation.

    A note thanking Ivy for the documents she posted on scribbd has been added to this post.

    Like

  99. TatumMarie permalink
    January 3, 2014 8:18 pm

    I agree with the estate when they say Michael could have performed the 50 shows. The autopsy supported this statement as well, however I don’t think these comments are centering around Murray and AEGs’ capabilities, but it shows how deadly they are. The fact that Murray in combination with AEG can take someone who is as healthy as Michael and kill him in a few months speaks volumes on the amount of negligence from both parties.

    Like

  100. OnlyJustice4MJ permalink
    January 3, 2014 7:08 pm

    I am shocked to read that the Estate believe that Michael was fit to perform and that TII proves this…
    How can they possibly claim such a thing after all we have learned from the AEG Trial not to mention all we knew before hand…

    Michael Jackson Company: Singer Fit to Perform Before Death

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/michael-jackson-company-singer-fit-668200

    Thank you Helena for posting all the comments/statements made by Juror #27
    You really have to laugh at MJJC, their behaviour is quite pitiful and to be honest embarrassing how they will do anything to support AEG…
    All they are doing by their recent actions is trying to hide the evidence of their support for AEG… But we know the Truth.
    Juror #27 made a complete fool of them…

    Like

  101. January 3, 2014 5:50 pm

    Today the following statement from the MJJCommunity has been brought to my attention. I’m posting it here with no comment:

    MJJCommunity Statement Re: T&T forum closure to the public.
    Today we have had little choice but to turn off to the public a very educational platform for Michael Jackson’s fans, one in which to seek information and updates on the latest happenings, developments, analysis, transcripts, with regards to trials and controversial topics relating to Michael Jackson.
    We were given no choice but to action this due to a minority who feel it fit to spread tabloid like lies and false information about us and our standings even to one point being called AEGCommunity which hurt, really realllyyyyy hurt.
    MJJCommunity prides itself for being a Michael Jackson fan club since 2001, our standings our loyalty to him HAS never and WILL never change.
    We have said countless times both here and in our pages that we do not support anyone we do not side with anyone AEG, Jackson’s or the like – we stand steadfastly by Michael Jackson and Michael Jackson only – at the end of the day this case was not brought by Michael Jackson thus we have a stand alone take on it.
    You have to realise MJJCommunity is a public board for all Michael Jackson fans worldwide, what ever they say is on them directly not on MJJCommunity, we encourage freedom of speech we are not a dictatorship and will not dictate member opinions/standings/discussion, all we ask is be respectful, fans are freely able to voice their own opinion and discuss that opinion respectfully and to one another, anyone no matter what that belief what side they take if contravening any of MJJCommunity rules will be dealt with – END OFF.
    At the end of the day all we want is this all to be over, none of this is bearing well for Michael, his fan base and how he is perceived in the greater wider world, that and that alone is our only wish.
    With that all said and done lets all try and get back to some Michaeling!!!!!
    Kind Regards,
    Team MJJCommunity

    Like

  102. January 3, 2014 5:37 pm

    And this is the continuation of the Q&A session. There might have been some other pieces in it, but this is all I have:

    FORUM MEMBER: thanks for answering my question. re what you said above. one of the issues many fans had with the judges rulings is she seemed to let anything and everything be heard during the trial. for example the majority of the jacksons case had been thrown out pre trial but the judge still seemed to let witnesses that were more related to the sections that had been thrown out testify in the actual trial. many fans also pretrial and right at the begining felt the judge had a bias against mj as she made several comments that stated her feelings that mj was just another typical druggie rockstar “like the rollingstones” when the evidence clearly shows that was not the case.

    JUROR: I don’t know the judge’s personal opinions, but I doubt very highly that she allowed her alleged “bias against MJ” to color her judgment in the case, especially if she supposedly let any and everything in the case for the plaintiffs. If she let everything in the case for the plaintiffs, wouldn’t that be bias in favor of MJ?

    I think it is far more likely that she did her best to keep things neutral.

    FORUM MEMBER: i also wonder whats your opinion on the jacksons trying to have their cake and it it interms of in one hand claiming mj was a drug addict who needed saving from himself and was weak and didnt want to do 50 shows and was being bullied by AEG etc etc. yet in the next breath claim he was going to carry on working/touring into his 70s plus and was going to tour with his brothers afterwards (something mj denied himself many a time the last being in late 2008) obviously said to try and increase the damages to the ridiculous figure of 40 bill. seems to me the jacksons were trying to have it both ways in their quest to win lots of $$

    JUROR: That does appear to be contradictory at first glance, but if I may speculate for a moment I would guess the rebuttal to that would be that Murray’s negligence and AEG’s pressure is what wore MJ down and weakened him so much. So if we take those things out of the equation in an alternate future where MJ successfully completes the first 50 shows, then the contradiction between weakened/invigorated MJ disappears. (Of course this is all predicated on Murray being somehow removed from MJ’s life, and I don’t see why that would be the case since he was there due to MJ wanting him there. I guess we are to speculate that MJ at some point in this alternate future would just get rid of Murray?)

    The more glaring contradiction in my mind is simply comparing MJ’s actual touring history and revenues with Mr. Erk’s projections. I wish I still had the demonstrative exhibits they showed and passed out to us because all the numbers were there. But from memory it was speculated MJ would do something like 260 shows in ~3 years, and his actual touring history was 272(?) shows over a 10 year period. A 10 year time period when he was much younger and with no kids, I might add.

    FORUM MEMBER: @Juror 27 I personally was surprised that defence lawyer Putnam didn’t bring up Katherine dropping restitution more times during the trial, in order to show reason from this trial. Putnam only brought it up during Katherine’s testimony. Second issue for me was that Katherine sued AEG Sept 2010 and before Conrad Murray was sentenced to prison, which was Nov 2011. Did this raise any questions in your mind?

    We got this from ABC7 tweets:
    Putnam: You do believe Dr. Murray has some responsibility for your son’s death? Mrs. Jackson: Of course
    Putnam asked Mrs. Jackson if Dr. Murray was convicted in the criminal trial. She said yes.
    He asked if the doctor is now in jail. “I hope he is,” she responded. (ABC7)
    Putnam inquired about Mrs. Jackson asking the District Attorney to drop the $100 million restitution against Dr. Murray. Mrs. Jackson said yes, that Dr. Murray has children and has no money. “Because I felt his children needed him to take care of them,” she explained. “He didn’t have any money.”
    Putnam: You asked the DA to drop the $100 million restitution claim against Dr. Murray?
    Mrs. Jackson: I asked them to drop it because of his children, he has quite a few children, 7 or 8, I don’t know.
    Mrs. Jackson said she believes the DA may have dropped the $100 million restitution claim.
    Putnam: Did you drop the restitution claim so you could file this lawsuit? Mrs. Jackson: No (ABC7)

    I quess you cannot remember everything that was said during the trial, but I personally would have wondered greatly that mother of deceased son is more angry at concert promoter for “alledged” hiring than being angry at the real killer of her son.
    That to me would have been proper and clear red flag.
    Were you aware of that plaintiffs offered settlement twice before the trial?

    JUROR: I was unaware of the settlement offer until after the trial. If it was mentioned during the trial I didn’t recall it. It was definitely not something that was talked about at length.

    Reading those tweets refreshed my recollection a bit and I do remember her answering those questions now. I remember getting the impression that there were probably a lot of people in her ear who convinced her to go after AEG and not Murray. And at the same time I reminded myself that the case was to be decided by the facts and not my speculation as to Ms. Jackson’s motivation for bringing the suit. So even if I believed that she was just going after deep pockets, in the end I would have awarded damages if I thought they proved their case.

    FORUM MEMBER: More hypothetical questions:

    Regarding that Panish’s pie chart, would all the juror have to agree the percentage of responsibility or how it would have worked? If you say MJ was responsible 99%, were other jurors had to be in agreement with that amount, or all jurors put their own percentage and then judge would have decided average?
    ———————–
    Also, did all the juror had to be in agreement amount of money awarded or all jurors put their own amount and judge decides average?

    JUROR: Based on how we deliberated the first 2 questions, I think we would have tried to agree on the percentage rather than just averaging our different percentages.

    I’m not sure but I think we had to be in agreement on the amount of damages. I don’t know if that is explained in the verdict form or not, but I’m certain that if we made it that far we would have wanted to agree on both the % and the amount of damages. I don’t know how the court would’ve handled it if we couldn’t agree on those numbers.

    FORUM MEMBER: Thank you so much for the detailed description in the courtroom. It’s really interesting to read and envision these two opposing forces facing off in a court of law. I knew that Brian Panish was very good just by taking a look at his winning track record, and it seems Putnam was some real competition for Panish. It takes some real skill to be a trial attorney.

    Thanks for giving us a peak into that world. I wanted this trial to be televised. It would have been something to see.

    JUROR: You’re welcome.

    I agreed with the judge’s decision to not televise the trial, but looking back I do wish I had a way to watch it (some of it, I should say) all over again. While I took my duty as a juror very seriously, there were just so many entertaining moments that it would be nice to see some of them again.

    Another funny thing I remember during the trial was when Mr. Phillips was on the stand and Mr. Panish was questioning him. He was asking about an email that Mr. Phillips had sent someone where he said he had info that would exonerate Conrad Murray, or something to that effect. Mr. Panish asked why Mr. Phillips didn’t take this info to the police, and Mr. Phillips said that it was something crazy and unreliable. He tried to elaborate on what the info was but Mr. Panish wouldn’t let him. So later when he was being cross examined, Mr. Putnam got around to the email info and asked Mr. Phillips to relay it. Mr. Phillips said that Lionel Ritchie’s wife at the time had called him and told him – Mr. Panish: “Objection, Hearsay” – Overruled. Mr. Phillips continued and again Mr. Panish objected on the same grounds. Overruled again. So Mr. Phillips finally says that Ms. Ritchie told him that Michael told her – through a medium – that he had accidentally killed himself and that Murray was not to blame. Immediately Mr. Panish says “Objection. C’mon. Double, triple hearsay now?” The whole courtroom erupted on that one.

    FORUM MEMBER: The end is that CM decided to do wrong/go against oat (under clear debt pressure… u have a family , u have to pay your rent and bills. what if they tell u that they pay your salary and u have to do what told otherwise no $ for your bills?) and AEG was / is liable for CM wrongdoing because they hired him, as your verdict of hiring said.

    JUROR: That is incorrect. The question of liability is separate from the question of whether they hired him. If I hire someone to fix my roof, and while working for me they decide to shoot my neighbor, you believe that I should be liable for their actions?

    That is why the questions are broken down further to ask whether AEG hired a person who was unfit or incompetent, and whether they knew or should have known he was incompetent. If I have information that the roofer I hired has killed someone before or attempted murder, then I can be held liable. If I have information that the roofer I hired has no experience working on roofs and is actually a gardener, and he injures someone on the job, then I can be held liable.

    In this case, AEG had no information that Conrad Murray was an unethical and dangerous doctor. That was purposefully kept secret from them by Michael himself. His medical background qualified him to give basic medical care, so they were not hiring a gardener to work on a roof. They were hiring a doctor to be a doctor.

    FORUM MEMBER: There is 1 thing very important to note :
    Thanks to the verdict about “AEG Hired CM” there are legal grounds (much stronger than before) for the Jackson Family to have AEG liable , via an appeal and probably without even passing through a jury.

    JUROR: Now I’m no fancy bigshot lawyer, but I’m having a hard time believing this to be the case. I am interested to see where this appeal business ends up, however.

    FORUM MEMBER: Thanks, Juror #27, for your great replies. Some of the things you witnessed must have been hilarious–like the judge reacting to Debbie Rowe’s colorful language. And the conflicts between the 2 teams–at one point they were almost coming to blows (at least from the reports)–was that true?

    JUROR: Yeah Ms. Rowe was a trip. I liked her a lot, but I have to admit there was a small incident where she rustled my jimmies. When Ms. Rowe was being questioned by Ms. Chang of the plaintiffs, Ms. Bina from the defense objected to a few of the questions. For some reason, Ms. Rowe took these objections as personal attacks and kinda lashed out at Ms. Bina. I was totally taken aback because in my opinion Ms. Bina was by far the sweetest, most unassuming attorney on either side. Even when she was grilling a witness she was just so nice and pleasant. So seeing Ms. Rowe go after her when she didn’t do anything wrong was a definite WTF moment, but Ms. Rowe had to go into some pretty tough testimony and I chalk the incident up to emotions running high + misunderstanding. Ms. Bina handled the situation with grace and a smile.

    As far as Mr. Panish and Mr. Putnam, I never saw any outright physical hostility or even any raised voices between them, but I heard from a few people who said they saw them arguing loudly in the hallway one time. I got the sense early on that there was very real animosity between the two of them. At one point Mr. Panish was questioning Mr. Phillips about having lunch at the Polo Lounge with Mr. Putnam and a third party I can’t remember at the moment. I want to say Dr. Tohme Tohme or someone from Colony Capital. Whoever it was, Mr. Panish was intimating that some serious shenanigans were afoot at the meeting. When it was Mr. Putnam’s turn to cross examine you could just feel the anger coming off him even though he kept his composure exceptionally well.

    Remember the cartoon where the wolf and the sheepdog would clock in and out like they were at a job? They’d try to kill each other while on the clock and then clock out and be nice and chummy? That is how I pictured the two lead attorneys for a while. Early in the trial I often wondered whether they would have lunch or have a couple beers with each other after it was all over, but I stopped wondering that after a certain point.

    FORUM MEMBER: So, maybe you could comment on 2 other witnesses–Prince and Metzger? Specifically, what did you think of Prince’s testimony that he saw Randy Phillips grabbing Murray by the elbow? Also I think he said some men came to see MJ while he was away at rehearsal, including Phillips (if I remember correctly). As I recall, he was not sure of the date (understandable since he was 12 years old). I think he called MJ and MJ told him to offer them something. How did you, and the jury, feel about this testimony as far as the negligent hiring issue and AEG’s alleged pressure on Murray was concerned?

    JUROR: I didn’t put much stock into that portion of Prince’s testimony (the elbow grab). He was pretty vague on it himself, and as you said he was 12 years old at the time. It appeared to me that he was maybe combining incidents or remembering incorrectly, but I don’t know. Same for the testimony about people coming over when MJ wasn’t there.

    FORUM MEMBER: What did you think of Metzger’s deposition statement versus his live testimony in court? Did you think he was contradicting himself, or at least walking back what he said in his deposition? What was his effect on the jury in that he was the final witness for both sides.

    Thanks–I really appreciate your sharing your thoughts and experiences.

    JUROR: Actually he wasn’t the final witness for the plaintiffs. They called Dr. Metzger’s attorney last. Dr. Metzger had retained the attorney just a few days prior to testifying, and that attorney also just happened to be Ms. Rowe’s attorney (who was referred to Ms. Rowe by plaintiffs). But he was a last minute thing and was only on the stand for maybe 20 minutes total.

    Dr. Metzger’s flip-flop was something that stood out like a sore thumb. In his deposition it was clear what he meant when he said that MJ was doctor shopping, and then on the witness stand he was practically calling his own deposition out as untrue. I don’t know what that change was about but it was impossible to ignore.

    We spoke about his change in testimony briefly in deliberations since it was so fresh in our minds, but his testimony was not germane to the questions on the verdict form so it was nothing we considered too heavily. We all noticed the change though, I remember asking if I had remembered the deposition incorrectly or attributed it to the wrong person. We all scratched our heads on that one.

    FORUM MEMBER: From my vantage point, it’s clear Murray was more influenced by the pressure applied by MJ rather than AEG. Conrad knew it wasn’t AEG that wanted him there. Look at events: Michael’s getting sick, AEG is trying to figure out what’s going on, Conrad obviously knows what’s causing it and yet, despite the confrontation with AEG execs, he doesn’t stop because Murray knew MJ would replace him if he said “no” to the Propofol. Regardless though, Murray is the one who CHOSE to violate his oath as a doctor and that’s solely on HIM no matter who or what was pressuring him. (Many individuals have found themselves in far dire circumstances than Conrad’s situation and they didn’t resort to unethical and/or criminal behavior.)

    JUROR: Just want to say that this is an excellent summary of the events as I see them.

    FORUM MEMBER: Id like to know juror27’s impression of TJ and Taj Jacksons testimony.

    Id also like to know the reaction/atmosphere in courtroom and among jurors when Debbie Rowe broke down over Paris Jackson.

    Id like to know what you thought about the notes the kids wrote to their father and the homevideos that were shown. Did it somehow change your perception of MJ as a father?

    JUROR: I thought Taj and TJ were great. I’m exactly Taj’s age so it was interesting to hear about him growing up with MJ as an uncle since at the same time I was growing up knowing MJ as a worldwide phenomenon.

    I thought they were both smart, humble and honest. Their testimony didn’t really have anything to do with the central questions of the trial, but I appreciated hearing their stories of being with their uncle both as kids and adults. I got the impression that they really loved him and miss him and I thought they were both good people at heart based on what I saw and heard. It was pretty disheartening for me to read Taj’s tweet about “big money wins again, no justice for MJ” or whatever it said after the verdict. That bummed me out.

    There were a lot of emotional breakdowns in the trial but Ms. Rowe’s was especially hard to see. You’re sitting there and this person is going through this soul-crushing emotional pain, and your instinct is to want to give them a hug or comfort them somehow. But you can’t. And the attorneys can’t either. You just have to sit there and watch them struggle. I’m a pretty sympathetic person in general, but this trial really pushed me to the limit. Ms. Cherilyn Lee also broke down when testifying about how MJ trusted doctors too much, and she relayed how her mother also trusted doctors too much and that her mother died because of that misplaced trust. She had the most intense emotional breakdown and I can still remember the feeling in the pit of my stomach as I sat there watching her. My heart just broke for this poor woman over and over and having to sit there detached as someone is pouring their heart out and crying in pain was very hard.

    The atmosphere was like being at a funeral whenever someone would break down. The air felt heavier, everything got quieter and you could just feel the tension every time it happened. To the judge’s credit she handled emotional testimony with care and concern for the witnesses. Always offering to take a break if they needed it, quick to hand over tissues, reassuring them in a kind way. I really liked how she handled those instances.

    One day towards the end of the trial (actually after Ms. Rowe’s testimony I think), before the next witness was called, the judge read an instruction to us that said that there was a lot of emotional testimony during the trial, and that attorneys are forbidden from approaching the witness to console them in any way, and that we were not to view their inaction in a negative light. I kind of figured that on my own but it was interesting to hear it officially spelled out.

    As far as the videos and handwritten notes, I was really touched by those. I honestly had no impression of MJ as a father before the trial so I didn’t even have a perception that could be changed. I do have an impression of him as a father now and it is overwhelmingly positive. The thing that stood out to me the most about Michael as a father is how well he kept them grounded and instilled in them good character traits like caring for others, being helpful, being disciplined, being grateful for what they have, etc. Just imbuing them with good, old-fashioned values that are unfortunately going by the wayside more and more every day. And you see this manifested in the letters that they wrote to their father and how they treated everyone around them. They just seem like great kids and I think they are that way because they had a great father.

    They showed the clip of Paris crying at Michael’s funeral a bunch of times, and it hit me like a truck every time. Even now I just feel so much sorrow for her that this amazing, positive force in her life was taken away so early. I truly hope she manages to find peace and harmony in her life after all she has been through at such a young age. I hope for that for all of them.

    Like

  103. January 3, 2014 2:10 pm

    Continuation of the Q & A session:

    FORUM MEMBER: Jurors were not to decide if AEG knew about propofol or any treatment the doctor administered to Michael. AEG was the ONLY party in the three- party contract that could terminate the doctor so the “boundaries of the promoter” were already crossed thus, the conflicted interest of the doctor.

    JUROR: Where are you getting that AEG was the only party who could terminate CM? The contract clearly spelled out that if at any time and for any reason MJ did not want CM’s services, he could fire him. Maybe you are thinking of an earlier draft before “producer” was changed to “artist” in the clauses?

    FORUM MEMBER: The jurors were to decide if AEG hired the doctor and the jurors did. Jurors were then asked if the doctor was unfit or incompetent for the job he was hired for which speaks to his conflicted interest during his two months of employment.
    It is interesting that it is being suggested the doctor was hired in “the weakest sense possible” yet; it was that contract, where only AEG could terminate the doctor that the jurors relied on to answer no to question two. The doctor was considered fit and competent by the jurors to provide general care to Michael as per the contract and to his children who were not included in the contract.

    JUROR: You are all over the place here. We did not buy the conflict of interest argument. Sorry. AEG was not the only one who could terminate Murray. The kids were going to go to London, and if they were to get sick while over there it would be Murray who would treat them. That they were not named in the contract does not mean that Murray would not have attended to them while in London.

    FORUM MEMBER: It is also interesting that there was no response regarding the doctor’s attempt to fleece Michael of $5M being seen as a precursor to unethical or conflicting behavior.

    JUROR: Because the mere act of asking for a large amount of money does not make a person unethical in my opinion, nor does it indicate a precursor for unethical behavior. I think that line of thinking is irresponsible and dangerous and I reject it wholeheartedly.

    FORUM MEMBER: Juror27, again, your responses are extremely familiar. AEG drafted an employment contract and that is what the jurors found AEG did in question one.
    The jurors depended on the contract for their verdict to question two and that contract had eight terminations clauses. Michael could only terminate the doctor THROUGH AEG as per clause 7.3. Michael was NOT allowed to terminate the doctor directly as per that contract. The contract that was relied upon by the jurors explicitly stated Michael was to receive the doctor’s care, NOT Michael’s children or anyone else.

    JUROR: I’m sorry but you are flat out wrong. The original boilerplate contract that Ms. Jorrie used had “producer” listed in the termination clauses. When she sent the draft contract to Murray, he reviewed it and told her to change “producer” to “artist”. She agreed with that and changed it in subsequent drafts.
    I don’t know what else to tell you.

    FORUM MEMBER: Anyone who asked for outrageous amounts of monies only because it was Michael Jackson attempted to fleece Michael Jackson. When that same logic is applied to the doctor who jurors found to be fit and competent as opposed to be negligent which would cause AEG to be held liable for negligent hiring, here is the reply:

    JUROR: You will never convince me that the act of asking for large sums of money means that a person is unethical or likely to be unethical. I will also not accept that a person in debt or foreclosure means that they are unethical or likely to be unethical. I find that view extremely troublesome.

    FORUM MEMBER: you told the world the man that killed mj is competent and fit inspite mj detoriating for 8 weeks. that is on your conscience.

    JUROR: My conscience is as clean as a whistle, bro. You can hold that.
    If I’ve offended anyone here with anything I’ve said I apologize sincerely as that was not my intention at all.
    I really did not intend to cause any problems here, and I do hope to stick around for a while. I was apprehensive about posting at first but I did so with no other intention than to give some insight as to what we saw on the jury and to let you all know that we came away from the trial with so much admiration for Michael the person.
    I always prefer direct information over speculation if it is available to me, and that is all I wanted to provide here. I understand there will be disagreements about the verdict and I don’t mind that or take that personally, but calling my character or conscience into question is completely uncalled for and I refuse to engage in that kind of discussion.

    FORUM MEMBER: I understand how you and the jury don’t feel what aeg did or didn’t do in may/june 09, doesn’t rise to the level of liability in this lawsuit. It was a tough lawsuit for the plaintiffs to win and it was aeg’s to lose, seeing the cause of mj’s death was such an unusual occurrence – an o/d with a doctor present making foreseeability really difficult to prove.
    I can’t say i agree that aeg showed care and concern, when tii reached a crisis point on 19th june, it seemed phillip’s main concern was to keep ortega onside to make sure the shows went ahead, rather than any concern as to what the matter with mj was. I agree with you that ortega seemed to be one of the few genuine ones around mj. It was telling that when asked about mj’s petrified state at the press conf in london ortega replied that if he had known about it he wdn’t have taken on the tour as he wd have recognised mj wasn’t emotionally/psychologically ready, whereas randy’s reaction was to slap and scream and increase the number of shows mj had to perform from 31 to 50.

    JUROR. I agree with this. Like I said, I don’t think Phillips is a saint. But I also don’t think it’s fair to hold everyone to the Kenny Ortega standard either. He is a pretty special guy.

    FORUM MEMBER: Maybe by looking in detail at how mj died on 25 june? I’m just assuming here that you didn’t closely follow the murray trial a couple of years back. This trial didn’t dwell on murray’s negligence, there seemed to me to be an emphasis on the asking of prop by mj being the key to his death rather than how it was administered. Aeg actually made that claim explicit which ticked me off in that it was mj’s negligence that led to his own death, not the hiring/supervision of murray, the admin of prop being like russian roulette – at a certain point death was inevitable.
    The facts at the murray trial actually showed the quite spectacular breaches in the standard of care that murray had for mj in order for him to die on 25 june – 17 egregious breaches of care. Such negligence that there was discussion in the da’s office to prosecute the case as murder 2. It wasnt a series of unfortunate little incidents which added up to a horrible consequence – it was really quite massive violations which would be quite unexpected and inexplicable in a fit and competent general practioner doctor, never mind an anaesthesiologist – it made me wonder why aeg didn’t fight the case on foreseeability alone rather than blaming mj. The absence of any written record of what drugs mj had been given and when, the leaving of mj’s bedroom for up to an hour whilst mj under a prop drip so murray cd make non urgent social phonecalls , no monitoring equipment whatsoever, long delay in phoning 999, lying to paramedics and hosp staff about what had been given to mj. Mj had the right like we all have to expect basic standard of care and competence from his doc, what went wrong on 25 june was not a complicated set of circs only an anaesthesiologist cd overcome, mj cd prob have been saved by a pair of eyes seeing he needed a chin lift to unblock his airway. I honestly think you would reconsider your 50/50 split between mj/murray if you knew the details.

    JUROR: You are correct that I didn’t follow the Murray trial and those details about how Michael died were unknown to me.
    I don’t believe that MJ taking propofol to sleep was something he did under the impression that it was safe. He was warned repeatedly about and knew full well the dangers of using propofol in an inappropriate manner. So MJ is at least 1% responsible for his death. That seems absurdly low to me considering that he knew he was requesting something that was illegal, unethical, and highly dangerous.
    Taking your points into consideration about what CM actually did that morning I do agree that he should hold the majority of responsibility for MJ’s death. Whether that amount should be 60 or 75% or whatever seems impossible for me to resolve on my own.
    I will say that I had no idea CM was sentenced to only 4 years until I heard it towards the end of the trial, and I damn near fell out of my chair. Even if I were to assign CM 50% of the blame, I would still have given him life in prison. That sentence and the fact that he is getting out in a few weeks is unbelievable to me.

    FORUM MEMBER: The below is the contract the doctor signed. This is what was admitted into evidence and what the jurors based their verdict on. NOWHERE in that contract does it state the artist could terminate the doctor WITHOUT going through the producer. It also does not mention the doctor caring for anyone else besides Michael.
    http://www.psblaw.com/wp-content/upl…388-127393.pdf

    JUROR: You are correct. My apologies for saying you were wrong. I was mistaken with other clauses which had their language changed.
    It seems clear to me that the reason he would be terminated by producer is because the agreement is between the producer and CM. How would Michael have any legal authority to void a contract between Murray and AEG? That’s why they have that provision in there in the first place, because he is only being hired at the request of the artist.
    Are you saying that if MJ said he wanted Murray gone, that AEG would have held this contract up to him and forced CM to keep treating him?

    FORUM MEMBER: To Juror 27: I have sort of a two part question for you
    1. Do you think the jury could have reached the same verdict given the facts
    determined in the contract between AEG/Murray without the many weeks spent by
    both sides exposing Michael’s private medical records? Was his struggles with pain
    issues related to his burn, skin condition…etc. necessary information for you to
    hear in order to reach the verdict you did?

    JUROR: On one hand, no I don’t think it was necessary for us to hear that to reach the verdict we did. That stuff gave a backstory, but it wasn’t relevant to the questions we were asked to answer.
    On the other hand that evidence was some of the strongest as far as garnering sympathy for MJ’s struggles. I was completely unaware of the procedures they performed on Michael to heal the burn scars. Good lord that balloon implant stuff sounded so painful. I didn’t know that he had that fall where he hurt his back in (Munich?).
    I never believed MJ was a junkie like so many people say, and that evidence made it clear to us that he was indeed not one and was trying to deal with unimaginable pain.

    FORUM MEMBER: And 2. Was it noticed by the jury that there was a large span of time, probably
    2003-2009 that was barely addressed during trial, if at all. Did you wonder why
    testimony focused on 20, 10 years ago but not the immediate years before his death;
    or did it matter?

    JUROR: We definitely noticed that big chunk of time that was not focused on, but from what we heard it seemed Michael left the country in ’05 or so? I’m not too sure on the dates but that is the impression I got, that he was just not around much in that time period. We did get a lot of ’02-’03 testimony from the doctors who were seeing him in Santa Barbara during that time, Dr. Farshchian from Florida, from Randy talking about staging interventions, Mr. LaPerruque who was traveling with Michael during that time and also at Neverland, etc.
    It just seemed to me that after the ’05 trial MJ went away for awhile until around ’07-’08.

    FORUM MEMBER: Wondering what 27 thinks about the family dropping restitution inturn for going for the jackpot against aeg and what that says about the families motives for filing the suit as this is probably the one thing that has caused the biggest anger and outrage amongst the fan community although not the biggest surprise considering the jacksons actions to mj over the years

    JUROR: I was unaware that the family dropped restitution against CM to go after AEG until earlier today when I read it here. On the surface it does seem to imply that they were setting their sights on a target with deeper pockets, but I don’t wish to speculate as to Ms. Jackson or the family’s motives when deciding their legal actions. I am not privy to their discussions and I think for me to question their motives is inappropriate.

    FORUM MEMBER: I beleive he said he doesn’t recall Katherine ‘explanation’ of why she didn’t go after Murray,. I truly hope Katherine is awarded a lifetime Academy Award before her time is up on earth, she truly deserves one as she is the epitome of an actor/actress.

    JUROR: As a complete outsider to the whole Jackson saga, it is killing me to read this kind of stuff about Ms. Jackson all over the place. All I saw was a very sweet lady who reminded me of my grandmother. Obviously that does not mean that she is incapable of questionable decisions or actions. And I know that plaintiffs presented the nicest, sweetest picture of her to us that they possibly could.
    I think on this one I’m going to bury my head in the sand.

    FORUM MEMBER: Katherine saying she didn’t accept restitution because Murray had to feed his kids was ridiculous IMO. I believe she made that answer otherwise she would have to admit she didn’t bother going after him because he has no money and it would have greatly reduced damages from AEG.
    Now he’ll be out there profiting freely from killing her son.

    JUROR: That is a questionable reason to drop restitution for sure. I have a hard time swallowing that explanation.
    FORUM MEMBER: Juror#27, you are making way too much sense with your explanations. It’s clear to me that the jurors discussed and considered all points and didn’t rush the verdict. I find their reasoning logical.
    MJ deteriorating didn’t make Murray unfit for what he was hired. He was still hired for general care. No one knew MJ was like that because of him and you had Karen sending emails to Dileo telling him MJ was self-sabotaging as this was how he was operating according to her, so why would anyone suspect Murray?

    JUROR: Agreed.

    FORUM MEMBER: Panish actually admitted outright that Katherine sued AEG and didn’t sue Murray for financial reasons:
    http://news.yahoo.com/judge-sets-rul…144028519.html
    So there is nothing to question here, they basically admitted that they dropped complaints againgst Murray in order to be able to go after AEG because AEG had money and Murray didn’t.

    JUROR: Hmm. Seems pretty cut and dry from where I’m sitting.

    FORUM MEMBER: Oh and I forgot to add about Juror”27′s point that AEG tried to help – it’s true. In the emails they offered to get the best therapist for MJ as they had access due to dealing with sports teams.
    And they also got a food person taking ccare of MJ’s eating when they were told he wasn’t eating much. So it ain’t like they completely turned a blind eye. The problem was they were in the dark as to what the real issue was.

    JUROR: Yes. I think Mr. Phillips and Mr. Gongaware could have shown more compassion towards MJ, but that is a matter of my personal morality and what I think I would have done in their situation. At the same time they did make efforts to help him and they certainly wanted him healthy and ready to do the shows. So while I might wag my finger in disapproval at them for not being as caring as I like to think I would have been, I do not agree with holding them liable for MJ’s death or forcing them to pay billions of dollars to anyone.

    FORUM MEMBER: Juror27, there is nothing illegal, unethical, or highly dangerous about the use of propofol.

    JUROR: If you are ordering propofol under false pretenses and administering to someone in a non-medical setting without the proper skills or monitoring equipment, I think that qualifies as being illegal, unethical, and highly dangerous. How can you possibly dispute this?!?
    Form member: There is nothing illegal or unethical about the administration of propofol even in a home setting. The administration of propofol is highly dangerous and was ultimately fatal when done by a negligent, conflicted, cardiologist. Michael passed from the negligent administration of propofol by the doctor not from simply the substance itself.

    JUROR: You seem to be implying that Michael’s choice for curing his insomnia was not dangerous had it been done by a qualified anesthetist. This is counter to what the experts testified at trial, where they showed that being in an induced coma is not restful sleep, and that to continue to use propofol to treat insomnia was an extreme deviation of standard medical care. There was not one expert who testified that it is OK to use propofol to sleep, regardless of whether it was in a home setting, hospital room, or administered by an anesthetist or a layperson. The use of the drug to ‘sleep’ is highly dangerous FULL STOP.

    FORUM MEMBER: It was unnecessary for the jurors to know when the doctor would be released from prison. Senneff testified to the state that Michael was found in on the day he passed. The “trustworthy” Detective Martinez and Detective Smith determined the doctor was suspicious in the death of his patient because they believed he was conflicted enough to put his patient second to the $150K fee.

    JUROR: I agree it was not crucial for us to know when CM was getting out of prison. Like I said, it was revealed in an offhand comment towards the very end of the trial. No time was spent discussing it in testimony.
    Yes, it is detectives’ jobs to be suspicious about things. They were investigating a death. Their post facto suspicion does nothing to convince me that AEG should have been expected to run a check on CM’s finances prior to hiring him.

    FORUM MEMBER: It was also unnecessary that the jurors knew that a plaintiff previously rejected restitution because jurors are not to rely on or express biases to any party. Certain Jackson family members can sue the doctor civilly as AEG could have also sued the doctor civilly. One may feel a plaintiff was “targeting a deeper pocket” however, AEG was made whole by the estate and profited from TII as testified to in court.

    JUROR: I agree, I understand why that information was kept from us.

    FORUM MEMBER: It did not seem clear to another juror who spoke to the media and stated the children would be cared for by the doctor when they were not listed in the contract. Another juror did not characterize Michael as a junkie however, the juror did characterize Michael as addict who no one would say no to.

    JUROR: You are reading far too much into that comment by the juror. There is no question that MJ was dependent on Demerol and an addict for a period of his life. He checked himself into rehab in case you forgot. And yeah, there was ample testimony that showed that MJ had no shortage of doctors throwing whatever drugs he wanted at him. And there was plenty of testimony that when MJ was challenged or stood up to by someone, he would often cut that person out of his life.
    This is evidence we were shown in court. If you want to take that juror’s comments as slanderous or malicious in spirit you are free to do so, but Mr. Smith was just as fond of Michael as the rest of us. I know for a fact that he was not intending to disparage MJ.

    FORUM MEMBER: Jurors are instructed to ask any questions they may have during deliberations. Any concerns about AEG possibly forcing a doctor to continue to care for Michael were to be addressed at that time.

    JUROR: Interesting. So rather than follow your implications to their logical end, you would rather deflect with a meaningless statement. We had no reason to discuss the termination clause because it was a red herring. I was asking YOU to explain your assertion, and your answer speaks volumes.

    FORUM MEMBER: It was also testified to that Michael trusted doctors by the “trustworthy” Rowe. As Lee testified to in the criminal trial and the civil trial, Michael believed it was safe as long as he was monitored.
    Juror: Ms. Lee testified that when Michael asked her if she could get propofol, the first thing she did was check the Physician’s Desk Reference to see what it was used for and what the side effects were.
    She then brought the book back to Michael and explained to him that it was not intended for sleep and that a possible side effect is death.
    Michael also had tried to get propofol from Dr. Quinn back in 1999, and she refused and told him of the very same dangers.
    When Michael was given propofol in the mid ’90s at the order of Dr. Metzger, the 2 anesthesiologists who administered it told him that it was highly dangerous and that they would not administer it to him again.
    So no, I’m sorry but I don’t believe you when you say “Michael believed it was safe”. If he trusted doctors so much, why would he disregard all these warnings?

    FORUM MEMBER: No one is qualified to speak to that juror’s feelings or views except that juror. It was also testified to that Michael was an addict however; he was not a participant in his addiction in 2009. An ethical doctor would say no to Michael and not be concerned about not being able to participate in Michael’s celebrity lifestyle.

    JUROR: Yes, I agree Dr. Murray was highly unethical and negligent in his care of MJ.

    FORUM MEMBER: And your response again is extremely familiar. I previously stated I am neutral on the validity of your identity. I also said I would not pose any questions to you as that discussion will not change the verdict I do not agree with.

    JUROR: What does my identity have to do with anything? I asked you a simple question based on the contract we were talking about and an assertion you made, and the best you can do is deflect and question my identity?

    FORUM MEMBER: There is no proof anything being said about Katherine or any Jackson to you in this thread is fact yet you readily and eagerly believe these negative views. Interesting indeed.

    JUROR: Oh? So that link to quoted trial testimony is fabricated? Have you any evidence of this? Interesting indeed.
    1. I didn’t know about restitution being dropped against CM by Katherine.
    2. On the surface it does seem to appear that the plaintiffs are looking for deep pockets.
    3. I don’t think it is my place to question or speculate as to Ms. Jackson’s motives.
    Under what kind of twisted and tortured logic can you read that and say that I have formed an opinion of Katherine? As I sit here right now I don’t hold an opinion of her other than that I really liked her testimony.
    3. I don’t think it is my place to question or speculate as to Ms. Jackson’s motives.
    We are done. Cheers.

    FORUM MEMBER: In your opinion did Randy Jacksons deposition help the defence or the Plantiffs?

    JUROR: It really didn’t factor in for either side because what he testified about was not directly related to the questions we were asked. He was never brought up in deliberations since we were focusing on the hiring time period rather than the time Randy testified about, which was the early-mid 2000′s mostly.

    FORUM MEMBER: if you had to award damages did or have u ever thought about what sort of figure you would go for and how it would be split amongst kj and the kids or have u never even thought

    JUROR: At a certain point during plaintiffs case they were just drilling us daily with the ‘nasty’ side of AEG (mean emails, Mr. Phillips slapping MJ, etc.). Mr. Panish just went to town on them. I did start to think that I would be OK with awarding some kind of small punitive damages. Something like $10M.
    Later in the trial as other information came out and I got a clearer picture of everything, I stopped thinking that they should owe $10M or any money at all.

    FORUM MEMBER: This is hypothetical question to Juror 27.
    This is about the verdict form and if jury was to find AEG liable, what percentage would have been put on Michael.
    Plaintiffs agreed that Michael was 20% responsible as per their pie chart. If the verdict would have been AEG liable, what percentage would you have put for Michael?

    JUROR: I was never convinced that AEG’s actions in any way caused Murray to give MJ propofol. If AEG had known what Murray was doing they would have shut everything down in a heartbeat.
    So on that pie chart I would have had to unfortunately put MJ at 100% and AEG at 0%. I think the instructions said we could put any percentage on each side as long as it equaled 100%. But since AEG is being held liable in this hypothetical, I guess they have to be at least 1% responsible.
    The real pie chart should be between MJ and Murray, and after reading a lot the last few days about how Michael died and thinking it over more, I think I’d put Murray at around 90%.

    FORUM MEMBER: I was interested in what he said about Briggs’ testimony and it implied he was impressed with Panish as a lawyer. I was wondering if he had any comment about the interactions between Panish and Putnam, and between the 2 legal teams in general.

    JUROR: I was blown away by Mr. Panish. What an awesome, commanding presence in the courtroom. Knows the law inside and out. A quick wit and genuinely funny as well. I might not have been buying all of what he was selling, but the sales pitch was the best I’ve ever seen. Just a master of his craft.
    Mr. Putnam I found equally impressive in every regard. He is just as commanding a presence, just as quick witted and funny, and he also knows the law inside and out. I took careful note of how Mr. Putnam handled sensitive witnesses like Prince and Katherine Jackson. He was ever respectful even while asking hard questions. Just a class act all around.
    The interactions between the two legal teams was by far the most entertaining thing about the trial. I could not believe the amount of snarky comments and mean looks being thrown back and forth. So many childish arguments (“He started it, your honor!”) it sometimes felt like the judge was more of a nanny and she even said something to that effect a few times.
    There was one incident where Mr. Panish had heard during a break that an AEG attorney (Ms. Strong) was staring at him while he was questioning a witness. She was seated to his left about 6 feet away. So when Ms. Strong went to the podium (which was a few feet behind Mr. Panish’s spot at the attorneys’ table) to question the same witness, Mr. Panish turned 180° in his chair and stared directly up at her. That lasted a few minutes before the judge told him to face front. So he faced front, kinda. Then started to slowly turn back around until he was finally staring directly back at her. Ms. Strong says “Your honor…” and motions to Mr. Panish, who is already turning back around. The judge admonishes Mr. Panish a 2nd time, and he says “It’s OK your honor, I have her on video now.” Mr. Panish had set his laptop camera to capture Ms. Strong and he sat there face front, staring down at his laptop video to watch Ms. Strong question the witness. It was so hard to not laugh out loud at this.
    That was something I did not expect, that there would be so much humor in the courtroom. Quips between the attorneys, or an unexpected answer from a witness (Like when Ms. Rowe repeatedly used the phrase “pissing match” to describe 2 doctors who were trying to give MJ more and better drugs — the judge’s reaction to that was priceless), or any other random thing that would happen in there. There were laugh out loud moments almost every day.

    FORUM MEMBER: did the jurors (or this juror) feel the trial went on too long and that it was too drawn out and maybe repetitive? Was the jury burned out after 5 months?

    JUROR: Looking back it’s pretty clear now that a good amount of what we were shown wasn’t relevant to the questions we were asked to answer. I didn’t think it was too repetitive, and the times it was repetitive were mostly towards the very end. The beginning and middle of the trial were riveting. I personally wasn’t burned out by the length and I don’t think anyone else really was either. I think a few just were itching to get back to their normal routine.

    FORUM MEMBER: What did Juror #27 think of the witness Earley, the one who did the study on propofol addiction and who had been an addict himself (heroin) at one point?

    JUROR: I really, really dug Dr. Earley. He had some very emotional testimony and I teared up listening to him describe his struggles. How he hit bottom and managed to get himself clean. It was just so inspirational and my heart went out to him.
    I was surprised to learn about the propofol study funded by AEG, and hearing him explain that whole thing was fascinating. Dr. Earley was one of the rare witnesses who were questioned by Mr. Boyle, and I thought he stood his ground well when Mr. Boyle was grilling him about a few blog posts he made shortly after MJ’s death (I don’t know if you’ve seen them). I do have to say though that I thought those blogs were way too sensationalist and poorly-written. I don’t think they damaged his credibility, but I just didn’t like them.

    Like

  104. January 3, 2014 2:04 pm
    “The Juror talking about a SMALL statement and then doing a Q&A says enough of his ego. What was this Q&A all about?” – Sina
    Sina, at the time I made a copy of this “small” statement for analysing it, so if anyone is interested here is the Q&A session (probably without the last few entries which I will try to add later): Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable – Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG FORUM MEMBER: It is increasingly alarming to me how many people seem to be losing the ability to analyze facts critically. It’s scary how any illogical theory or conspiracy theory can be thrown up and people will believe it without paying any attention to the facts. Randy and the Jackson’s have done a good job of messing with the minds of MJ’s fans. JUROR: I couldn’t agree more with the bolded. It’s practically an epidemic as far as I’m concerned. I was on this jury, and of all the places I’ve seen where this is being talked about, this community seems by far to be the most level-headed and approachable. So many passionate MJ fans rationally discussing the verdict rather than lashing out in anger is very nice to see, and makes me think this is probably the best place for me to make a small statement. Initially I planned to avoid and ignore all the comments about the verdict after the trial ended. Because as soon as we answered ‘no’ to question 2 in the jury room, I knew how it would be reported and misunderstood (“DURR STUPID JURY HOW CAN CONRAD MURRAY BE FIT AND COMPETENT WHEN HE IS IN JAIL FOR KILLING MJ??? DURRR”). And sure enough, the very first question asked by the media when we got outside was “How could you find Conrad Murray competent?” And of course a bunch of hardcore MJ supporters outside were yelling, calling us stupid and confused, etc. So I figured rather than getting annoyed at misinformation being spread or seeing us called morons ad nauseam, it’d be better to just ignore it all. Well that lasted about a day before my curiosity got the better of me, and I had to peek around to see what people were saying. I had to see if that version of us as idiots was the main narrative going on. Thankfully most people commenting on the verdict are actually looking at what we were instructed to consider, and agree with our decision. We knew from day 1 that no matter the outcome we would have people agreeing and disagreeing with the verdict, and I’m thankful that this jury did not concern itself with what people would say or think about us and decided to follow the instructions and base our verdict on the evidence in the case. Just like our jury foreman, I went into this trial about as neutral as one could be towards Michael Jackson. I was 7 when Thriller came out so I grew up with his music and loved it, but I knew very little about his life other than what I’d seen in the media, and I honestly had no strong feelings about him as a person either way. I walk out of this trial completely understanding why he has so many fans who practically deify him. Who are so strongly attracted to his kind spirit, huge heart, gentle nature, love of his children and mother, etc. I totally get it now. Every single witness who was questioned about whether they thought MJ was a good father (and almost every one who knew him closely was asked) sang endless praises about his love of his kids. If Prince’s testimony is any indication, MJ was definitely a great father. The kid is bright, intelligent, caring, has great character and a great personality, and I truly believe MJ did a phenomenal job raising him in the few years he was able to. Honestly, every single juror came away feeling very positive about Michael Jackson as a person and father. I know there was concern about MJ’s image being hurt because of this trial, and maybe to outside viewers it was because of some of the details that came out. But for us in the jury in that courtroom for all these months, we just grew more and more fond of him during the course of the trial. I’d like to say thank you to all the people I’ve seen here supporting us jurors in our decision, it really means a lot. I will be happy to answer anything I can about the trial if you’d like to ask and if I am able. I will answer as many questions as I can, as well as post my jury certificate with my screen name here to prove myself as soon as I get home. I understand being skeptical and don’t have any problem showing proof. Thx for your patience. I have sent pics of the last two months of service certificates to ivy. I really wish I had held off posting initially until later. I didn’t mean to drop a post and not be around to respond, but since it had to be approved and I didn’t know how long that might take I posted right before I went to bed. Then had plans for all day today. So I apologize for my delay in responding. FORUM MEMBER: I have a question for you if question 2 had included the word ethical would your personal answer still have been no? JUROR: The problem I have with what our foreman said and the question you are asking is that it mixes up the timelines. If the word unethical was included in question 2, we would still have to assess whether AEG knew that at the time they hired Conrad Murray. The most the plaintiffs could say in that area was that Murray asked for $5million initially and that should have sent up red flags. Asking for that amount would definitely catch my attention and maybe raise an eyebrow, but it still doesn’t qualify in my mind as unethical. Asking for a lot of money doesn’t mean one is unethical in my estimation (and I hope the irony of repeatedly implying that in court was not lost on the plaintiffs ). Also that Murray was being foreclosed on and had a lot of owed child support. Again, being in debt or being foreclosed on doesn’t in itself cross an ethical boundary in my mind. So no, I don’t think we would have answered differently if the question asked whether he was ethical because we didn’t see any evidence that showed that AEG knew Murray was going to act unethically. I can’t stress enough how much we all liked him by the end of the trial. So many witnesses and so much heartfelt testimony. Lots of pure love and affection for Michael poured out over these months and it left an incredible impression on all of us. This hits the nail on the head. Throughout all the testimony and witnesses, that was one of the strongest recurring themes — MJ was a wonderful father and person. FORUM MEMBER: Thank you, Juror#27. Before the verdict was read, we were going through the questions like you guys had to. Though I personally wouldn’t have answered question 1 with a “yes”, I can understand and thought it was very likely that this question had to be answered by 12 jurors with “yes” because it was realistic that at least 9 jurors would argue that both MJ and AEG Live could have hired Dr. Murray. If you go through my postings in this very thread here, I was trying to explain the meaning of the terms “unfit” and “incompetent” in question 2 and their association with “the work for which he was hired”. I was also trying to show that even if that question would not lead us to a “no”, there was nothing factual in those 5 months for question 3 that could tell us AEG Live had or should have had knowledge of Murray being unfit or incompetent. Like you, we noticed here that many are confused by the fact that Dr. Murray did in fact cause involuntary manslaughter of Michael Jackson and why this fact has nothing to do with determining Dr. Murray being “fit” and “competent” for the work he was hired for. If you want to take a look at my thoughts on these questions and terms, here are some of my postings: • thoughts on question 2, possible guiding questions • about the terms “unfit” and “incompetent” • Korgnex & Tygger disagreeing about question 3 • Korgnex & Tygger disagreeing about contract theories, “the work he was hired for” and “general medical care” • Korgnex & Tygger disagreeing about contract “termination” (of what?) [Part I], clause 7.3, other clauses • Korgnex & Tygger disagreeing about contract “termination” (of what?) [Part II], services of Dr. Murray and fundamental rights • Korgnex & Charles Thomson (freelancer journalist) disagreeing about terms “unfit” and “incompetent” As you might have read, there was a particular idea that came up here: it was whether a conflict of interest due to AEG Live advancing money to Murray (as per draft agreements) would a) be affirmed and b) thus determine Dr. Murray as “incompetent” in question 2. However I highly disagree with this point of view for these reasons: • There is no precedent that established a cash-stricken person would automatically provide substandard work / putting a patient at risk. [The person in question has to be cash-stricken as otherwise, he couldn’t care less about the money and there would be no conflicting interest.] • Dr. Murray had ordered propofol before Michael even introduced him to AEG Live. [You can’t establish a conflicting interest that way since Dr. Murray was not affected by AEG Live or any other third party at all.] • Every doctor that is receiving (advance) payment from a third party would then – after this idea – have to be considered “incompetent” and that’s quite untrue. • A doctor’s Hippocratic oath would dwindle in importance since the Hippocratic oath is the fundamental ethic framework for doctors. [Dr. Murray breaking his Hippocratic oath was his very own choice, his very own responsibility and noone else can be blamed for being or becoming unethic than the unethical person itself.] I would be interested what you think about this idea. JUROR: You are right on the money in my opinion. The conflict of interest idea was countered by the defense saying that in actuality all 3 interests were aligned. It was clearly in everyone’s best interest for Michael to be healthy and to do the shows and I see no way to dispute this. MJ being healthy and performing was good for everyone involved. And even if one wants to view this as a conflict of interest, I don’t see how the existence of it in and of itself renders Murray unfit or incompetent. We were told over and over that conflicts of interest arise all the time in medicine and are the responsibility of the doctor to mitigate. So even if a conflict of interest was in place, it was on Murray’s shoulders to mitigate it since he was the one providing medical care to MJ. As for question 1, our first vote had 3 answers. Hired him. Didn’t hire him. Unsure. After first vote it was 6 votes unsure, 4 votes no and 2 votes yes. I initially voted no. But we then looked at the jury instructions which said that contracts can be written, oral, or partly written and partly oral. It said that oral contracts are just as valid as written contracts, and that implied-in-fact contracts could be valid through the parties’ conduct. So we looked at AEG’s behavior in dealing with Conrad Murray, and we felt that between the drawn up contracts, the fact that they backdated his starting date from June 1 to May 1 in one of the drafts, the Gongaware emails about who was paying Murray’s salary, that Randy Phillips and Murray were in charge of getting MJ to rehearsals, it was all enough conduct to say that they “hired” him. I honestly don’t see how letting a license lapse means that someone is negligent. Doctors let licenses lapse all the time when they are not going to practice in a particular state any more. 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. If AEG had found out about CM’s financial troubles and told MJ “We can’t hire your doctor for you, because we have seen that he is in financial straits and is therefore likely to be unethical or unfit”, I can’t imagine that going over very well, either with MJ or in the media if the story were to get out. FORUM MEMBER: I understand the reasoning behind saying NO to question number 2 because of its wording! But, because the jurors did find that Murray was Hired by AEG, for some anything he did wrong later should fall on their responsibility, regardless! And I can understand that too because they did hire him. I will always be split with this case and the verdict, both sides made good arguments IMO! 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. The decision to deviate from the standard of care and to ignore his Hippocratic Oath was CM’s, not AEG’s. FORUM MEMBER: Technically that was what the next question was about (3). And there I would agree with you. But q. 2 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. It is a skill, because when you are taught first aid, you are taught that call 911 is the first thing you should do, before you start CPR. He didn’t do it, and his excuse later was the he didn’t call because he started doing CPR first. This technically means he didn’t have the proper skill. JUROR: But that again is taking what we learned in hindsight and applying it to an earlier time frame. When you go to see your general practitioner, are you absolutely certain they can perform CPR? Don’t you think it is reasonable to assume that a licensed doctor who is practicing medicine would know that? Is it really reasonable to say that AEG should have quizzed CM about how to perform CPR and whether calling 911 immediately in case of an emergency is the best course of action? I have never asked a doctor who is treating me these things and I doubt I ever will. You are very welcome. I just thought it was important to let you guys know that we did not come away with any negative feelings toward MJ. Quite the opposite, actually. FORUM MEMBER: If I was to ask questions to the jurors, I would be curious about – What did they think about the witnesses? Who did they believe to be honest and who did they believe to be not honest? – and if they discussed it or considered it, what did they think about the other questions on the verdict form? or in other words of we assume question 2 wasn’t on the form would the verdict change? (it looked like 2 jurors believed AEG didn’t and couldn’t know what was going on in regards to Propofol. I wonder if this was a widely shared belief). JUROR: 1. We thought that most people were genuinely trying to be honest, but the way they were boxed in by the attorneys’ questions often led to witnesses trying to clarify, avoid answering, or just answering something that wasn’t asked, and that could sometimes come across as trying to hide something or being less than truthful. I thought Kenny Ortega was the most forthright out of everyone, and his testimony was a refreshing change because there was no dodging of questions or anything like that. His emails expressed sincere care and concern for MJ and his testimony in person just solidified and strengthened that feeling. He very obviously cared for and loved MJ. I didn’t applaud when he left the witness stand because I thought that was inappropriate, but I understand the other jurors doing it. It was spontaneous and the result of the conclusion of a lot of heartfelt, riveting testimony. 2. I don’t think if question 2 was gone the verdict would have changed. We did not discuss question 3 much once we reached a ‘no’ on question 2, but the impression I got is that there is no way we would have said that AEG knew or should have known that CM was unfit or incompetent and that his unfitness or incompetence would pose a particular risk to others. There was simply no evidence presented which would prove that AEG should have known that. In the jury instructions it explicitly said we are free to believe a witness or not, but I would never slander or disparage any of the witnesses I saw. The stress of being on that stand is unbelievable and I can’t fault someone for their answers while in that hot seat unless I thought they were flat out lying, and I very rarely got that impression during this case. After hearing about MJ so much for the last 5 months and reading a bit more the last few days, I understand why some fans are so protective and emotional about MJ, so I know not to take their anger at the verdict personally. I promise that I won’t hold the actions of a few against everyone. I’m very relieved to see that so many MJ fans are willing to discuss the case with reason and logic rather than get emotion. I understand being emotional but when dealing with law and facts I think logic and evidence should reign supreme. FORUM MEMBER: I have no question for you personally as any discussion we would engage in will not change the verdict rendered that I do not support. I will however, leave you with this comment: jurors are expected to use their common sense, life experiences, and intuition when deciding on the trustworthiness of witnesses and the rendering a resulting verdict. Jurors should not rely on or express personal biases against either party. JUROR: And whether you choose to believe me or not, I am telling you that not one juror on this case relied on or expressed personal bias against either party during the entire trial nor during deliberations. I don’t understand where this comment is stemming from? FORUM MEMBER: There were four plaintiffs. Testimony and evidence did not dismiss the fact that Michael idolized his mother as well as being an outstanding and loving father to his three children. JUROR: Again, I don’t understand this comment? We all believed without exception that MJ idolized his mother and was an outstanding and loving father to his three children. I only mentioned Prince because he was the only one to testify in person and I was very impressed by him. We never discussed damages while deliberating. I was simply turning the plaintiffs’ logic against themselves. They told us that someone asking for an outrageous sum of money is a red flag of unethical behavior. Does that logic not also apply to them? I ask only in a playful, rhetorical sense, because had we decided to award damages the ethics of the plaintiffs were completely irrelevant and would not have factored in at all. Randy’s deposition was interesting. I liked him a lot. The testimony was mostly about the time period where he was trying to stage interventions for MJ, and I believe he really tried his best to help get his brother clean. Katherine’s testimony probably hit me the hardest, emotionally. Late last year I lost my grandmother who raised me, and during her testimony I was reminded of her over and over. Very emotional stuff and I teared up more than a few times. I thought she was a sweetheart. Karen Faye’s testimony and demeanor was off-putting to a lot of the jury. I think I’ll leave it at that. 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. As you might have noticed, the MJ ‘fan community’ has a number of heated, on-going debates within it, and it is sometimes a struggle to deal with these in a way that reflects MJ’s message of love and tolerance. People strive to present their opinions in a way that respects the other party’s views, but let’s face it, we are not perfect–we are human–we make mistakes and we get caught up in our likes and dislikes, our deeply felt convictions, so please bear with us. I would like to ask you this: How well did you think the case was managed? Do you think it should have been dismissed, as some have argued? JUROR: Yes, it is interesting and kind of sad for me to read now about the factions fighting within MJ’s fanbase. As I said earlier, I was completely clueless before this trial. Obviously I knew he had millions of fans all over the world, but the in-fighting and schisms and drama was all completely unknown to me. 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. Looking back it is easy to say that the case should have never been brought to trial, but after considering all the evidence I’m not sure I agree with that. There was an exceptionally high hurdle to cross for the plaintiffs to win this case, but since the burden of proof is lower in civil trials, and considering the words and conduct of AEG themselves, I’m honestly unsure about whether this case should have been thrown out or not. Obviously what that threshold is is determined by the court and gets into legal matters which I as a layperson am not qualified to discuss. Judge Palazuelos was awesome, I really liked her. She easily had the hardest job in overseeing this entire case. There were times where I thought she could have cracked down on witnesses or the attorneys a little harder, but overall I thought she did an outstanding job. The attorneys on both sides were incredible. This was my first time serving on a jury, and it was like going to your first live boxing match and getting to see Ali vs. Frasier. I can’t fully articulate how impressed I am with the attorneys. I didn’t get the impression that many witnesses were not truthful. The only time I felt that was with a few of the doctors who were treating MJ in the early-mid ’00s. Most truthful I thought were Debbie Rowe and Kenny Ortega. They felt the most neutral and did the least filtering of their answers, Debbie especially. 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. whats 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. If I hire a nanny to watch my kids, and after checking her references and checking online I can find nothing that says she has hurt a child, or done anything illegal or unethical, should I be held liable if she kills my children? Liability can only go so far, and in this example as well as the AEG case, the liability for the unethical behavior falls with the individual who acted unethically. Period. 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. He was being hired at the request of MJ. The only ‘red flag’ is the fact that he asked for a ton of money at first. In my opinion that is not sufficient evidence to say someone is unethical, unfit, or incompetent to perform a job for which they are qualified. FORUM MEMBER: I also want to add my thanks to Juror#27. I’m grateful you chose MJJC to share your thoughts and answer questions–something you don’t have to do–and you are furthering our understanding of what thought processes you and others on the jury went through to arrive at the verdict. Your commentary here is invaluable and helps us connect the dots on all our conversations and speculations through many months. What you’re doing is a gift and I’m among many others here who are very grateful. JUROR: Thank you so much for the kind words. That is why I am posting here. I knew there would be so much speculation and wonder after the verdict so I just hoped to provide a little understanding or clarification. It’s also helping me to get my bearings on this whole thing. What a weird experience to sit in silence for 5 months absorbing this incredible story, then deliberate for a few short days and have it all end so abruptly. Talking about it is definitely helping me to sort my mind out and move on. FORUM MEMBER: juror 27 if I may ask two questions 1.) I’m presuming that in the beginning or on the end of the trial the jurors got plaintiffs complaint and statement from AEG. If yes, do you got the 2 older plaintiff complaints too? 2.) What was you thinking about Mr. Panish’ argument alteration in relation to his opening plädoyer? (i mean addiction; Michael’s health etc.) JUROR: 1. I’m not sure what you are referring to, but I think there was something to that effect in the jury instructions? In a very basic manner it laid out the claim by plaintiffs and AEG’s statement of affirmative defense, but I’m not sure if that is what you are asking about. 2. I thought Mr. Panish handled everything well and I didn’t notice too much deviation from his opening statement. FORUM MEMBER: The decision to deviate from the standard of care and to ignore his Hippocratic Oath was CM’s, not AEG’s.” Does “Juror#27″ call it “decision”, the being forced by AEG via threatening CM, being financially broken ? Let’s remind CM who is paying his salary…we want MJ’s butt on stage, no matter what… JUROR: Yes, it was still a decision even if he was being pressured. He could have just as easily decided not to give MJ propofol. If there was pressure or a conflict of interest, then it was up to CM to choose, “Do I risk my career and freedom by violating my duty as a Dr., or do I do the right thing and refuse to break my Hippocratic Oath?” He made that decision, and I do not see that AEG’s pressure was ever so great to say that it alone is what caused him to act unethically. FORUM MEMBER: Thank for answering this. to go by your example with the nanny. what if i hire the nanny and as time goes, i start to hear things that should worry me, is that nanny still competent or should i take action?? yes, she WAS competent at the beginning but she’s still on my payroll and my employee when i start to hear worrying things. is she competent or not?? she’s still hired by me… during trial we did hear testimony from worried THIS IS IT members that were worried about mjs condition and told various people about it. we know that randy philips, paul congaware and even the ppl above them in the aeg hierarchy were alerted of mjs condition week(s) before mj passed. kenny suspected dr conrad murray was not good and told randy philips. we have seen the emails from Houghdal where he said Mj was detoriating for the past 8 weeks and many other emails. this was all going on during the time murray was hired by aeg and aeg execs were informed. the jury instructions did not put a timeframe on the second question it if im correct. so during the time murray was hired by aeg, there were OBVIOUS signs that he was not fit and competent to treat mj. did you not concider this at all or did you all base your answer from the time he was hired (may 1)? like a poster wrote before ‘did aeg become negligent in allowing Murray to continue to care for MJ when it was clear to them that Michael was detoriating..???’ remember, jury instructions did not state that you had to base your answer ONLY at the time he was hired (may 1). JUROR: You bring up good points, and we did consider Murray’s competence over the entire period and whether what AEG saw was enough to conclude that he was not fit. We felt that based on what they saw and were communicated, there was not enough to say that they should have known CM was breaking his sworn duty to do no harm. The main issue for me personally that cements this is that on the June 20th meeting, everyone saw a rested, healthy looking Michael. He and CM personally reassured Phillips and Ortega that MJ was fine, that he was OK to continue forward. Then on the 23rd and 24th MJ had great rehearsals and everyone had reason to be hopeful that he would be fine from then on. FORUM MEMBER: what did the jury think of the fact that Randy Phillips & Paul Gongaware were dropped as defendants a week before the end of testimonies? Were you all aware that Kenny Ortega was initially one of the defendants? The Jacksons had also accused him of having a hand in MJ’s death. I find it ironic that the jurors ended up liking him so much. JUROR: Phillips and Gongaware being dropped from the suit had zero impact on us. Same with Kenny Ortega. We heard early on that he was a defendant who was also dropped from the suit, but honestly that did not factor in to our decision or deliberations at all. I also find that a bit ironic. FORUM MEMBER: Why did you ask to see This Is It? And what did you think of the movie itself? JUROR: We thought it was only fitting to watch it since we had just sat there for 5 months listening to all the details about this concert series. Plus we had seen mostly the same clips over and over, so we wanted to see the whole thing in its entirety. I enjoyed it. I had never seen MJ in concert and even if This Is It had come to L.A. I probably would not have gone to see it, but I was blown away by what they were going to be doing on stage. The concert looked like it was going to be amazing and seeing it partially coming together in the film just made the ending of everything that much more tragic. I’m one of the 6 male jurors. FORUM MEMBER: In other words everyone thought MJ was getting better and as such felt there was no need for further intervention. Also, given that Murray was hired at the request of MJ, I don’t think AEG could impose another doctor to MJ. they tried it and he was not interested. JUROR: Exactly. AEG were not Michael’s parents, and as a grown man he has responsibility for his own health care. Let’s not forget that AEG was accommodating Michael’s wishes by hiring CM, they didn’t just go find a random doctor and force him on MJ. If after the June 20th meeting AEG had said “You know what, Michael? We know that you are saying you are fine, and we know that your own doctor says you are fine, but we really feel like we know better and so we will be removing your chosen doctor for one that we think is better”, do you honestly think that would have been OK? First of all, it is not their place to choose MJ’s doctor. Then they would be going directly against what MJ himself is telling them. To ask any more of AEG at that point is unreasonable. FORUM MEMBER: It has been evident from the beginning and reading jurors statement in the press that this is what you all believed. Blame Michael for his death. JUROR: I’m of the opinion that Micheal definitely has some blame for his death. I don’t see how you can believe otherwise? CM was giving him propofol at his request, not against his will. MJ was repeatedly warned about how dangerous it was to use propofol to ‘sleep’. He ignored those warnings. I can’t understand the idea that MJ has zero responsibility for his death, I really can’t. If he was injecting himself with propofol every night without CM involved, I would say he is 100% to blame. Since CM was in the picture, I think that 100% is now shared between 2 people. How much blame on each side? Who knows. There isn’t a formula for this type of thing. But seeing as how CM was doing what MJ wanted, and seeing as how CM wasn’t qualified to be doing what he was doing, my gut tells me to just split the blame 50/50. I really don’t know how else to see it. FORUM MEMBER: I came to terms and understood the verdict when it was first announced. but now when the juror has said they had the possibility to determine if murray was fit and competent based on the entire period of time murray was hired, im really shocked at how they came up with that conclusion, esp since aeg didnt needed to know about propofol specific. JUROR: They didn’t need to know about propofol, but they needed to know that MJ was being put in danger by CM. If they didn’t know that, then how can they be held liable? So then you might say, well since AEG saw MJ sick a few times and got some concerned emails, that should have alerted them to remove CM. I disagree. The best doctor in the world can not prevent a patient from becoming ill. If the mere act of a patient becoming ill while under a doctor’s care means that that doctor is unfit or incompetent, then one could say that every doctor is incompetent and go down that crazy road. At that point you lose grip on evidence and reason, and land in the realm of speculation and revisionist history. Yes, there were concerns raised to AEG about MJ’s health, but not one of those concerns was “Hey, Michael’s doctor is over here doing dangerous stuff to MJ, please advise”. Because no one besides MJ and CM knew what they were doing every night. Not Kenny, Travis, Karen, nobody knew. And since AEG was even more removed from MJ than all those people, how in the world can you say that they are the ones liable for what he did in private? I’d just like to clarify a bit where I said MJ is partly to blame for his own death. I don’t like the word blame there, I used it because it was in the post I was replying to and I should have changed it to reflect what I actually feel. I do think MJ is partly responsible for his own death, but I feel like any blame put upon him is misplaced. He was suffering greatly, only found relief by using an extremely inappropriate and dangerous method, and paid the price for it with his life. It’s like a person who commits suicide. They are responsible for their actions but it does no one any good to then lay blame on that person after the fact. FORUM MEMBER: question 2 did not include anything about ‘If AEG knew or should have known’. Question 2 was if Murray was fit and competent for the job he was hired for. JUROR: And he was fit and competent for the job he was hired for. FORUM MEMBER: I believe MJ detoriating was a process and not ‘sick a few times’ like you have described. It seems judging by trial testimony that as of May things got worse (chef kai Chase being away and returning and seeing MJ in bad shape). houghdal writing and email that he has seen mj detoriating for the past 8 weeks. Cherilyn Lee shocked when she saw that pic of how mJ looked at fitting. michael beardens email that MJ was still not ready. JUROR: I am not disagreeing that things got worse, but there is no evidence that ties MJ’s worsening condition to what CM was doing or not doing. FORUM MEMBER: I believe the evidence presented in this trial showed that murray was not fit and competent for the job he was hired for. i believe as time transpired and mj not getting better but weaker, it was obvious the doctor was not doing what he was suppose to do. JUROR: But he was a lot better on the 23rd and 24th. Everyone who testified said that it was an unbelievable transformation from the 19th and that he looked perfectly healthy. Why would it be reasonable to see MJ look so much better, hear from MJ himself that he was fine, and conclude that they should remove his personal doctor? It doesn’t make any sense unless you are looking at everything after the fact with the things done in private finally found out. FORUM MEMBER: I don’t think that Michael was ‘suffering greatly’ he wanted some sleep, that’s all. JUROR: I think not being able to sleep for days on end would qualify as suffering greatly. We saw weeks of testimony from sleep experts and I have no doubt that MJ’s inability to get restful sleep caused him immeasurable suffering. I was staggered when I heard about how much trouble he had getting sleep. FORUM MEMBER: I know the jury foreman mentioned it a little, but can you give us a little more info about the whole deliberation process? the specific evidence you looked, the voting, what went on in the deliberation room and so on. JUROR: Sure. First thing we did was vote on our foreman. Some of us did not want the position, and so we voted on the jurors who were willing to accept. I voted for juror #1, a very intelligent and sweet lady who IMO was the best choice to represent us. We looked at what supplies we might need and we asked for them, plus a copy of the jury instructions and AEG/CM contract. Was much easier for everyone to just have their own copy of those. Someone mentioned T.I.I. and we all agreed we should watch it so we asked for that plus a tv/blu-ray player. After that, as our foreman said we wanted to finally blow off steam and vent to each other, and we did do that, but I thought we got down to business just a little too quickly. There were SO many witnesses, SO much evidence, SO much to discuss, I thought we should spend a full day or even two just kind of gossiping and going over the whole trial to kind of get it all settled in our minds. There was so much to the trial that it was a bit overwhelming to try and make sense of it all at the end. I thought that just kind of generally discussing the whole ordeal would be good for us but we never really did that in depth. Our foreman was one of the jurors who was itching to get it over with so we followed his lead and just got right to the verdict form. We took a quick poll to see where we all stood on question 1, Did AEG hire Murray? First result was 6 unsure, 4 no, 2 yes. This question was such a grey area for us to deal with. Clearly there wasn’t a fully executed written contract, so we took that off the table. But there was a lot of email communication and actions between AEG and Murray. So we left day 2 with that up in the air, but when we came in on day 3 we talked for a bit about it and took another vote. It was a unanimous 12-0 to answer yes. So then we moved to question 2, and again we took a vote. I am ashamed to admit that in our initial vote, I ignored the “for which he was hired” portion of the question and I voted “yes”. As we read the results we realized we didn’t go over the question thoroughly enough and we scrapped the results of the vote. We then discussed the question at length and examined what we thought was relevant to the question. What did they actually hire him to do? Did anything stand out which would alert AEG that CM was not fit to provide basic medical care? We didn’t see anything. Was MJ’s condition during this time evidence that CM was not fit or competent? No, we did not believe so. We watched the majority of This Is It on the afternoon of day 3 and the rest on the morning of day 4. Day 4 we finished watching This Is It, talked about the question some more, and went to lunch. We were going to lunch earlier than usual during deliberations because we were partially sequestered and it was easier for the court attendants to get us to and from lunch that way. After lunch we decided to vote on question 2 and the result was 10-2. We talked about it a bit more since we wanted to have a unanimous decision, but when it became clear that the vote would stand we decided to hit the buzzer twice and get on with it. The deliberation process was at times chaotic and intense, and at times very productive and enlightening. It was tough to keep everyone on the same page, keep small side discussions from happening, and generally keep ourselves on task. There was a knock on the door every 10 minutes it seemed like. We couldn’t talk at all unless every member was in the room at the same time. Which was tough in itself since so many of the jurors had to use the restroom so often. It was definitely a bit of a pressure cooker situation, especially since on those last days we were so cooped up and guarded. FORUM MEMBER: My question for you is how did you/other jurors seem to feel specifically about Randy Phillips stating in an email that he had slapped MJ and screamed so loud at him that the “walls shook” before the announcement of the TII concerts? I’m not saying it should have had any impact on the final outcome of the trial, but just in general how did it make you feel (or the other jurors if it was brought up in deliberations)? JUROR: We did not discuss that incident in deliberations, but I know that a few other jurors and myself cringed pretty hard when hearing about it. It’s pretty damning testimony and I remember a lot of heads shaking and disapproving looks when we heard it. I felt really bad for MJ because it seemed pretty clear that he was in a bad place mentally at that moment and was crippled by fear and doubt about the reception to his announcement. Mr. Phillips screaming at him and slapping him is obviously not cool, but at the same time I have to remember the stress he was under since they were already late and MJ was so out of it. That absolutely does not excuse him for slapping and screaming at MJ, but I think it is important to remember that this was an isolated incident and happened during a moment of incredible stress and pressure for both of them. FORUM MEMBER: Allow me to preface this post by stating I am neutral on the validity of Juror27. Juror27, jurors are not qualified to speak for other jurors regarding personal biases possibly being relied on against either party. I can only hope biases were not expressed. In reviewing your posts however, almost every concept and view that was voiced by those who preferred AEG be found not liable as far past as the pre-trial discussions has been repeated. JUROR: And that proves what, exactly? FORUM MEMBER: The ethics of a mother who lost her son and three children who lost their father would have been an unknown to the jurors and most others so I agree it would not be relevant or factor into those decisions. Although the amount of monies Michael Jackson could command may seem outrageous to some, he simply could command those and similar sums due to his outrageous, extraordinary, and unparalleled talents. An expert’s testimony and supporting documents were used to quantify the amount of monies requested for potential damages had jurors reached that point to agree/disagree with. Those figures were not chosen at random as was the $5M request or the eventually accepted $150K fee. Interesting indeed that damages would characterized as “outrageous” and “unethical.” Ivy, this has been a busy time howerver, I hope you have had a chance to review the article(s) about the Jacksons being able to sue the doctor civilly in the article thread despite the rejection of restitution. JUROR: You can’t trick me here, sir. I never called the damages claim unethical. I said that if I used the logic presented by plaintiffs that asking for large sums of money raises red flags about a person’s ethical character, that would be quite ironic since they themselves were asking for quite a large sum. FORUM MEMBER: I updated my post slightly however, the view has not changed. It is NOT ironic. It is an illogical comparison as the damage request was quantified with supporting documents by an expert and were amounts Michael Jackson could command. The defense had their own figures they felt Michael Jackson could generate albeit those figures were lower than the plaintiffs’ figures. Again, the damage request was not not a random request as was the $5M by the doctor so there is no comparison. JUROR: The plaintiffs did not once mention the word “random” when referring to CM’s initial request of $5M. Whether Murray arrived at his figure by random chance or through some figures he concocted was not once presented as a reason why we should see it as unethical. They said it was an outrageous sum of money and that the size alone should send up red flags. FORUM MEMBER: AEG’s Meglen and Gongaware said it was an excessive amount as well. JUROR: Yes they did. Gongaware also said that when it came to MJ, people thought he had more money than God. That it was very common for people to ask for excessive fees all the time in connection with working for MJ. I don’t find that hard to believe, and if they were used to having people ask for excessive amounts of money when it came to MJ, I can’t fault them for not viewing the initial $5M request as a red flag. About Randy Jackson – His testimony mostly revolved around the mid 2000′s when he and his family were trying to stage interventions for Michael. The story about Randy flying to Neverland with another sibling by helicopter and Michael refusing to see them was corroborated by another witness who was there, Michael’s security at the time Mr. LaPerruque (I’m sure I spelled that wrong). Now whether Michael refused to see them because he didn’t want to confront his substance problem or because of some personal issues he had with Randy was not for us to consider. FORUM MEMBER: I’m confused as to what you looked at, as it seems contradictory to what you said earlier. Was you def of incompetence breaking the hippocratic oath as in the above post. Or was it whether he was qualified to do general medical work as in your other posts. 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. I’ll explain why. Murray was brought to AEG by Michael. They would have had nothing to do with him if not for MJ’s insistence. So when they were entering into an agreement with him they did a check, he checked out fine, and they (in the weakest sense possible, in my opinion) ‘hired’ him. OK, he’s hired. So time goes on, and there are some concerns raised to AEG about MJ’s health. We know AEG are aware because of the emails where Mr. Phillips says “is it chemical or physiological”, “getting him (to rehearsal) is not the problem, it is something deeper”, etc. But again, none of these concerns link MJ’s condition to what CM was doing with him. I think the hindsight is what causes the problem in understanding here. It is easy to look back with all we know now and lump everything together and say “They should have known ______.” I don’t buy that. I think it is important to put yourselves in the AEG executives shoes at that time and ask if it is reasonable for them to remove MJ’s personal physician because of a few concerns. In my opinion that would completely overstep their boundary as promoter. Michael would be the best person to know whether the medical care he was getting was adequate or not, NOT AEG. Why is Michael treated as if he was unable to voice these concerns himself or fire Murray himself? He had that ability. If Michael was a minor under AEG’s guardianship, I think the negligence angle becomes a lot stronger. But Michael wasn’t a child, he was a grown man receiving the specific care that he asked for. AEG made a horrible mistake in getting involved with CM, but I don’t think it rises to the level of liability because they checked CM out at the time of hiring, and the concerns raised over the 2 months were not enough to reasonably conclude that MJ’s declining health was due to the actions of his own doctor. For me it takes too large a mental leap to say that AEG should have known that based on what they saw at the time. As for why AEG denied hiring CM so vigorously, I think it should be obvious. If they are found to have hired CM, then a huge hurdle has been crossed and the possibility of them being liable for damages opens up. It makes sense to me to try to say that they never hired him in the first place to block that path to damages. FORUM MEMBER: I’d love to know this too. there were many ”i dont recall/i dont remember/i dont know” from aeg. I have a few more questions if you’d like to answer. 1) what did you think of aegs witness eric briggs when he testified that mj would not have earned a dime because it was all too ‘speculative’? what did you think when eric said ‘mj would not even had survived the first show’ and what was your overall reaction when you was informed that mjs assets were greater than his debt and he could have easily erased the debt if he sold his share in sony/atv catalogue. your overall impression of eric briggs? 2) how did you react to when aeg exces tried to downplay mjs success with the ticketsales? you agreed with their opinion or not? 3) do you believe that THIS IS IT was going to be a worldtour or not. JUROR: 1. Mr. Briggs never said that MJ would not earn a dime. He said that any projections of earnings would be speculative. (which drove me up the wall since it was so self-evident. it was like bringing him in to say something as obvious as “we are sitting in a courtroom”). Mr. Briggs was relying on another witness’s testimony when he said MJ’s life expectancy was so short. He didn’t come up with that himself. The size of MJ’s debt and the value of the Sony/ATV catalog were just astonishing to me. It didn’t really factor in to what we looked at, but it was such a crazy amount I definitely did a double take. Mr. Briggs was not a popular witness among the jury because he steadfastly refused to answer Mr. Panish’s questions which were very pointed and direct (which made his testimony drag on forever), and some thought he came across as arrogant. I didn’t really get that vibe, I just got the feeling this is a guy who is out of his depth when trading with the likes of Mr. Panish. 2. Both sides manipulated ticket sales. Plaintiffs projected way too many, and the defense tried to downplay his success as well. 3. I really don’t know. I think 50 shows is a huge number, and I have a hard time believing that MJ would do a grueling 50 shows, and then go on to do another 200+ or whatever it was around the world. We heard about how much MJ hated flying and traveling for tours and I am really skeptical that it would have played out anything like what Mr. Erk testified to had MJ lived. The number just seems way, way too excessive. FORUM MEMBER: I wonder how he felt over the testimony of Gongaware and Phillips, did they seem truthfull or were they hiding info and not being totally honest with all their “I dont remember”? JUROR: When they were direct examined by plaintiffs, they were painted into all kinds of corners with loaded questions and asked about 4 year old emails and conversations. So there was definitely a lot of squirming by those guys but I believe also that it is reasonable to not remember specific emails from 4 years ago. Especially considering the volume of emails these guys were exchanging daily. Hundreds of emails a day. If I had to rank the main AEG execs based on how forthcoming and honest they were under direct examination, I would say from most honest to least it was: Meglen Gongaware Phillips Leiwicke FORUM MEMBER: Did evidence point out that aeg were planning to make a worldtour???? (not asking if you believe mj would actually go on). aeg denied this fiercly but then we heard other testimonies that This IS IT was a 2 year project JUROR: There was a little evidence for a world tour being contemplated but it was all very flimsy. It came in the form of very early tour production emails, comments made in T.I.I., hearsay, etc. Nothing definitive whatsoever. FORUM MEMBER: hanks for the reply,i guess i wd have thought if mj was declining, his $5k a day doc wd be the guy in the crosshairs. I accept that in the jury’s view the decline in mj didn’t warrant a def of incompetence, and i’m actually glad that this aspect was discussed as it wd have ticked me off if all that happened was if you looked to see if murray was qualified to be a doctor. I do entirely accept your argument about what options were open to aeg at this point. My own personal view wd be to stop/postpone tii, but as you rightly imply this isn’t what aeg are being accused of not doing. It’s not a negligence lawsuit so aeg don’t own a duty of care to mj, it’s only a case on negligent hiring/supervising/retention of murray. Not sure if you’re aware but the jacksons had multiple claims against aeg, and it was only this one claim that was allowed to go through. JUROR: I agree with you that the correct course of action given what AEG knew at the time should have been to cancel or postpone the shows. But that is very easy to say for a person who has not invested over $30Million in the project. I would have liked to see some more compassion from the AEG side, but they are in a ruthless business and there is not a lot of room to fit compassion and caring into a for-profit venture. And I should point out that there were a lot of emails that did show care and concern for MJ coming from the AEG folks. They are not the heartless, soulless evil suits that so many want to paint them as. I just don’t think it’s fair to ignore that they did try to help and accommodate MJ and then turn around and say “well you should have done more, and it’s your fault he’s dead”. FORUM MEMBER: Yes i remember that aeg expert saying that. I’m not sure how it can be seen that mj’s being healthy and performing was compatible and therefore one would be in conflict with the other. Clearly if mj had to be put in a drug induced coma every night just to manage rehearsals, never mind for the 50 show tour, then this is a danger to his health, this wd be blindingly apparent to murray. Mj was feeling ill and knew his weight loss and insomnia were huge problems for performing yet was financially and career wise ‘locked into’ tii and felt he had no choice, and as far as aeg was concerned, they admitted mj was on a decline in the lead up to tii and saw the state he had got in just for doing the press conf, so not sure how mj’s health, physical or mental, was much of a priority for them as opposed to doing the shows. JUROR: MJ’s health was definitely a priority for them because without a healthy Michael there are no shows at all. Now you can say that they should have done more to keep him healthy, and my instincts tell me to agree with that, but how much more? At what point do AEG go from being a business partner to a parent? And why is it their duty to keep Michael healthy and not Michael’s? It’s just my feeling that AEG was in a no-win situation. Were they supposed to force MJ into a hospital? For what ailment? They should have forcibly removed CM from MJ? How could they even do that? MJ and CM were a package deal and AEG had no authority or ability to remove CM from MJ’s life. FORUM MEMBER: I think it was interesting, and for me relevant, that randy phillips clearly regarded there being a conflict of interest going on with murray. When he was trying to convince kenny ortega on 20 june that mj should go ahead with this is it, he told kenny that murray felt it was best for mj to perform, and seeing that murray was successful and didn’t need the gig, this judgment was unbiassed and ethical. Clearly aeg felt murray’s financial reliance or otherwise on the tour going ahead would affect his judgement as mj’s doctor JUROR: To me this was one of the stronger parts of plaintiffs case. What it comes down to, is that AEG was going on the information provided to Kathy Jorrie by Conrad Murray. He said he was bringing in $1M a month from his various practices, he did pass a quick check to show that he actually did have practices, and for them that was enough to bring him into the fold. Mr. Phillips acknowledges that there is a potential conflict of interest, but as far as he was aware, CM was successful so he would not be conflicted by the promise of money. This is why plaintiffs spent so much time saying that AEG should have checked out CM’s finances. Because it would have revealed that he was in financial trouble, and that potential conflict of interest was a lot stronger than Mr. Phillips thought. That makes sense to me, except that I don’t believe that most people do credit checks on their doctors. There was a lot of testimony from two Human Resources ladies, and even the plaintiffs expert had to concede that when companies are hiring personnel, they only perform credit checks something like 3% of the time. And usually credit checks are performed only when the job entails sensitive financial information. This is AEG’s policy as well, we were shown that in court multiple times. And on top of that, the HR ladies said that you are only supposed to do background checks that fit with what the job you are hiring for, otherwise you open yourself up to lawsuits for discrimination. So with all that considered, it is my opinion that AEG should not be held liable for failing to perform a credit check on Dr. Murray. FORUM MEMBER: The jury instructions i think made clear that AEG didn’t need to be the only cause of what happened. There could be multiple contributory causes to murray’s actions. JUROR: Correct, and I should have not used the word “alone”. I meant to say that AEG’s pressure did not appear to me to be the main cause of CM’s unethical actions. FORUM MEMBER: They could remove him because thats what the contract said. kathy jorrie also testified on stand that aeg could remove the doctor without mjs consent. whether that was overstepping or not, thats what the contract said (which imo strengthen that aeg hired murray). JUROR: I’m talking about removing him from MJ’s side. Even if AEG banned him from their facilities and severed all contact with him on their end, he would still have been free to visit MJ at night and give him propofol. FORUM MEMBER: How did the jury feel about katherine not asking for a penny from murray ? Did you really buy her excuse ? Very good question. I would love to hear what juror 27 thought Katherine’s excuse/explanation for not taking restitution from her son’s killer Conrad Murray? JUROR: I’m drawing a blank here. Was this something she said in her testimony? All I remember was that she said they brought AEG to trial to search for the truth about what happened to her son. I don’t remember hearing about why she chose not to seek restitution from Murray. FORUM MEMBER: I asked you about your definitions a few days ago but didn’t find you answered my question. Why are you implying that your legal defs of incompetent and unfit are the only definitions that matter? Are they in the jury instructions? If not, then the jury is free to use their own definition. Jurors are not lawyers, they are there to bring their own life experience, common sense to the deliberations. You yourself say that there are different defs, legal and colloquial. JUROR: Just to clarify this a little bit, we were explicitly told that we could not reference a dictionary for these terms, and that we were to use our common sense to guide us. We heard a lot of testimony regarding fitness and competence, so we absolutely understood the precise meaning of both of those terms. FORUM MEMBER: k but as times pass and mjs health is detoriating, was he fit and competent???? they see mj detoriating and what do they think??? what made kenny to believe it was dr murrays treatment that affected mjs health? kenny alerts aeg but they tell him the doctor is a good guy. im sorry but if i have a personal doctor with me who is suppose to help me but im getting weaker and weaker, isnt that an alarm that something is wrong and that its the DOCTOR causing it???? JUROR: I’m sorry but if that is the case would you wait around for someone else to come around and remove the harmful doctor, or would you act in your own best interest and get rid of him yourself???? FORUM MEMBER: mj is detoriating for 8 weeks, has a meeting with aeg and murray where they basically tell mj to get it together and are concerned about whats going on. im sure oth mj and murray knew they needed to improve or they would cancel the shows which leads to mj being pressured and murray being afraid he will lose his $150,000. so mj comes back in great shape for TWO days only and all is good??? JUROR: So MJ comes back in great shape for two days, tells AEG he is fine and ready to go, and they should respond by removing his personal doctor???? FORUM MEMBER: Which emails? can you be more specific??? I guess you are not talking about the emails where they called michael ‘the freak’… JUROR: That ‘freak’ email came from an office in London, not from anyone directly involved with Michael, and Mr. Trell in his response to that email was clearly not in agreement with calling MJ a freak. I can’t point you to a specific email since I don’t have access to the evidence, but I absolutely remember a lot of language in various emails where Mr. Phillips and Mr. Gongaware showed genuine care for Michael. I’m not saying they were saints, but I don’t believe that they were malicious or evil either. FORUM MEMBER: i’m not asking that, im not asking why didnt aeg remove murray. im asking how can you claim murray was fit and competent when ppl are alarmed for 8 weeks but two days are good and thats all that matters for you??? those two last days were the dealbraker???? Unreal JUROR: Like someone said earlier, it is not like Michael was on death’s door every day for those 8 weeks. The way you are painting it is that MJ came to rehearsals every day looking like a dead person. I don’t think that is accurate. You have to go on what you see at the time. MJ’s health is in decline, people are getting concerned, they go to see him and he is fine. He comes to rehearsals and looks great. He says he is fine to continue. Is it not a fact that sometimes people are sick and then they get better? Is it not the case that people go in funks and depressive episodes sometimes and then pull themselves out? FORUM MEMBER: oh really?????? Trell responded to the email with: “Apparently. Not sure how I feel about that. Interesting for sure, but kind of creepy.” JUROR: Yes, and I don’t take that as Trell calling MJ a freak. The counsel from London called him that. Creepy is such a vague and overused term that it just doesn’t register for me as a major offense, I’m sorry. FORUM MEMBER: u should know better. trell agrees that he is not comfortable to meet with MJ ”the freak”. he calls the meeting creepy (he is gonna meet the freak and its creepy). this is not an offense to you?????? ohh i forgot im talking with a person that understood why randy phillips screamed and slapped michael. its never acceptable to scream and slap a partner inspite how stressed out the situation is. im sorry for your sake that you cant see that trell saying he is gonna meet a future client is creepy is offensive. a FREAK and a CREEP they are gonna make millions off. why are you defending their behaviour????? can you please explain? JUROR: I’m not defending calling MJ a freak. I find that comment disgusting and reprehensible. I’m saying that Trell’s response is not on the same level as the initial email. I had a coworker who was prone to calling large women ‘whales’. He’d say stuff like “Hey did that whale pick up her order yet?”, and I would answer yes or no or whatever, but the fact that I didn’t correct him doesn’t mean that I agree with what he called them. Furthermore, this has nothing at all to do with whether CM was negligently hired/retained/supervised by AEG, so is this just an appeal to emotion? FORUM MEMBER: Testimony from Jorrie showed no one at AEG vetted the doctor. The defense was wise enough to not suggest Jorrie’s Google search was a vetting process so it interesting that it is being suggested the jury would see it as such. Panish would destroy that suggestion if the defense attempted it simply because the search did not discover the doctor’s two faux offices that he fabricated. JUROR: And why exactly should AEG be expected to conduct this extensive vetting process for a doctor that was being brought to them by their star performer, especially since they were in essence doing nothing more than giving MJ a loan to pay him? “Hey guys I want to bring my doctor aboard the team. He’s been my family physician for years and I insist on him.” “Yeah well we don’t trust you or your doctor MJ so we are going to perform a thorough background check of this doctor including his financial status” Yeah I can’t swallow that response LikeLike
  105. January 3, 2014 10:21 am

    “Katherine Jackson issuing refunds for ‘I remember Michael’ documentary. http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1564939– Susanne

    Susanne, very interesting, thank you. This news clarifies the matter and will hopefully put a stop to this controversy. There will probably be no music in the film as the Estate is no part of it (and didn’t approve of the idea of fund-raising), but Katherine is still planning to make a documentary, and she has the full right to – why not? Everyone who distantly knew Michael goes on TV to say that they were Michael’s best friends and tell all sort of stories about him, while his mother cannot make a film and tell the truth about her son? This is ridiculous.

    Thomas Mesereau also spoke of something of the kind in his interview. By the way he recommended David Guest’s documentary about MJ of which I haven’t heard before – “Michael Jackson: The Life of an Icon”. The documentary must indeed be something special as Guest speaks about all the good and bad in Michael’s life. A short interview about it:

    Michael Jackson: The Life of an Icon Interview – David Gest

    A review of it:

    And here is the above-mentioned article saying that Katherine is refunding money to the fans who already contributed to her documentary:

    1.2.2014, 07:27 PM
    EXCLUSIVE: Katherine Jackson issuing refunds for ‘Remembering Michael’ documentary
    GUS RUELAS/REUTERS

    Katherine Jackson, mother of late singer Michael Jackson, will refund crowdsourced funding for documentary film, ‘Remembering Michael.’ She will look for funds overseas and not from fans.

    Michael Jackson’s mom has issued full refunds to scores of fans who helped raise money online for her proposed two-hour documentary “Remembering Michael,” a rep for the film told the Daily News.

    The rep provided exclusive documents showing more than 60 completed credit card refunds and said Katherine Jackson pulled the plug on her Fundanything.com website Dec. 20 because “she felt this financing route sent the wrong message to fans.”

    A redacted PayPal statement provided to The News on Thursday showed refunds worth more than $2,000 had already processed.

    A lead producer said the documentary remains in the works, and he and Katherine are relying on alternative financing secured overseas.

    “Mrs. Jackson’s motive for this project is to present a side of Michael Jackson no one has ever seen. She put a stop to the crowdsourcing financing plan the moment she saw Michael’s fans felt it was misguided,” producer Kirk Schenck told The News.

    The proposed two-hour documentary film, ‘Remembering Michael,’ will feature the late singer (pictured here before his 2009 death) and his children.

    “She has plenty of other options from international distributors and U.S. television networks,” Schenck said.

    Katherine’s crowd-funding effort started with a bang Dec. 16 with an announcement on ABC’s “Good Morning America” and video showing rare sit-down interviews with all three of the King of Pop’s kids.

    Video of youngest son Blanket, 11, garnered the most attention since the tyke has been shielded from the spotlight since his dad’s 2009 overdose death.

    “I’m just trying to help, like Africa, because that’s a very poor continent,” Blanket said in one of the clips.

    “There’s a lot of animals being killed from, like, poachers and stuff, so I want to help, like, endangered species of animals,” he said.

    With a personal plea from Katherine and stated goal of $3.2 million, the online fundraising effort racked up the majority of its 70-plus donations in its first two days of operation, documentation provided to The News states.

    The last donation came in Dec. 20, the day producers shut it down.

    A trailer posted on Fundanything.com included video of 15-year-old Paris with the long hair she had prior to her suicide attempt over the summer.

    The fund-raising got a big lift after a Dec. 16 appearance by Katherine Jackson on ABC’s ‘Good Morning America.’

    “He promised me he would teach me how to moonwalk. Never got around to it,” Paris said. “I will definitely never forget him, ever. He was amazing.”

    She and her siblings talked about growing up at Neverland Ranch in the years before Michael’s criminal trial and his ill-fated attempt at a comeback with his “This Is It” concert series.

    “We didn’t know a lot of kids, like, our age. We were more secluded. We never really left the ranch that often,” Paris said.

    “We had kind of like a zoo basically,” recalled Blanket. “Giraffes, lions. You probably heard of it, but yeah, a chimp named Bubbles.”

    Dozens of fans donated to Katherine Jackson’s documentary project, but other fans felt it was an inappropriate way for money to be raised.

    Dozens of fans donated to Katherine Jackson’s documentary project, but other fans felt it was an inappropriate way for money to be raised.

    “It took me till I was like 6 years old to learn that his name was Michael Jackson, because he was always daddy to me,” Prince, 16, told the camera. “He wanted us to always be, like, what we wanted to be, just be greater at it than anybody else has ever been.”

    The video excerpts included intimate family photos but none of Michael’s blockbuster music.

    Michael’s estate owns the late singer’s intellectual property and trademarks and must authorize any use for commercial gain.

    A pre-Christmas statement on behalf of the estate’s executors said the estate had no involvement in the “Remembering Michael” movie.

    “The estate would never ask Michael’s fans to contribute their money to finance any speculative project,” the statement obtained by The News said.

    It warned the merchandise originally offered on the fundraising website lacked licensing, and that the estate had no control over quality, as it did with the “This Is It” film and its two Cirque du Soleil shows.

    Author:
    NANCY DILLON

    http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1564939

    Like

  106. January 3, 2014 4:09 am

    Hi All, This is the link to Tom Mesereau’s interview to King Jordan radio. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jordan-king/2014/01/03/tom-mesereau-returns-to-king-jordan-radio

    Like

  107. Susanne permalink
    January 2, 2014 10:30 pm

    Katherine Jackson issuing refunds for ‘I remember Michael’ documentary.

    http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1564939

    Like

  108. jolie permalink
    January 2, 2014 9:49 pm

    Tom Mesereau on Blog Talk radio in about ten minutes!!! 7pm Pacific time. 9pm Central. That would be 10 pm Eastern. This according to website: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jordan-king

    Like

  109. January 2, 2014 7:31 pm

    The juror who was a doctor was not involved with clinical work neither in autopsies. What patologists do is study tissue samples .looking for microscopic pathology such as cancercells. They do not have direct contact with patients but report to surgeons or other doctors who make clinical decisions.I am sure all of them do the best they can otherwise doctors in clinical work would not use them.The couch-juror strikes me as somebody who has to have a certain authority and command over a group.and to coordinate action.

    Like

  110. Sina permalink
    January 2, 2014 7:05 pm

    ‘I will never understand why a company worth billions can give $85 million to non-profit groups but would regard as a complete tragedy the possible loss of $30mln dollars spent on Michael’s show in case he was taken to hospital (especially if it was backed up by Michael’s assets). – Helena

    It was not only about the amount , it was also about control, power and prestige. This interview of Randy Philips only seven days after Michaels death sums it up. It is a classic.
    http://www.thisisrnb.com/2009/07/aegs-ceo-randy-phillips-talks-michael-jackson-fallout/

    >>The footage includes(!! ) the Tuesday and Wednesday night rehearsals from the week of Jackson’s death. “On Tuesday night he performed and gave me goose bumps,” Phillips says. “It made me realize, jaded entertainment executive that I am, why I do this in the first place. I was asked if I would do this again and the answer is, ‘Hell yes.’ How many times in one’s career are you able to touch greatness?”<>>Had Jackson performed these shows, AEG would have made significant revenue on food and beverage sales, a percentage of merchandise sales that could have totaled up to $15 million and the rental fee that AEG Live would account for to its corporate parent. Phillips declines to release terms of the deal with Jackson, but he says it was better for AEG than the 95%-5% split most superstars receive.<<

    Like

  111. January 2, 2014 7:01 pm

    Helena please, as soon as you know the time for the replay of the radiotalk with T. Mesereau put it on the blog. 5 am is a hard time for us on the eastern side of the Atlantic ocean. It´s time to hear a voice of reason.
    Murray writing a book on the AEG trial,will be a time to cry and laugh.In his PR film he stated he was visited By the Holy Ghost.That vid came back and bit him,it was such a ridiculous piece.

    Like

  112. January 2, 2014 6:36 pm

    That juror is speaking from both sides of his mouth.- Bye,bye justice in US of A. The word ethical was purposfully left out. For an M.D. it is always part of the job description. It was left out on purpose, SIGNALING TO THE JURY NOT TO BOTHER ABOUT MURRAYS ATROCIOS DOINGS. It is taken for granted that a medical doctor is ethical.

    Like

  113. Sina permalink
    January 2, 2014 5:59 pm

    Helena thanks for the quote and the logical analyses to identify or rule out who this juror might be.

    I cant help noticing:

    FORUM MEMBER:
    ” It is increasingly alarming to me how many people seem to be losing the ability to analyze facts critically. It’s scary how any illogical theory or conspiracy theory can be thrown up and people will believe it without paying any attention to the facts.
    >>>Randy and the Jackson’s have done a good job of messing with the minds of MJ’s fans.<<< "

    Juror 27:
    "So many passionate MJ fans rationally discussing the verdict rather than lashing out in anger is very nice to see, and makes me think this is probably the best place for me to make a SMALL statement."

    The irony is lost on this forum member, talking about conspiracy and at the same time accusing others of having their minds messed up by someone who is not even a factor in the whole discussion, except maybe in his/her own mind.
    And the juror for finding that a rational discussion.
    The Juror talking about a SMALL statement and then doing a Q&A says enough of his ego.
    What was this Q&A all about ?

    Like

  114. January 2, 2014 5:25 pm

    I posted these links abourt AEGs involvement with the city counsel, in many political decisions and bills and even their influence on elections of schoolboard members. – Sina

    There was one more article where even the headline said that it is impossible to win from AEG Live in a city (Los Angeles) which is practically owned by this company. Now that article is no longer available. The article that remained touches upon it in a very mild way:

    “AEG officials “have learned to use entertainment, the thing that they’re best at, for lobbying as well,” Toebben said.

    Toebben praised Leiweke for involving his company in an array of civic activities, such as cancer research and the push for a new downtown streetcar. AEG and its foundations have given more than $85 million to nonprofit groups and charitable initiatives, according to a company spokeswoman.

    Still, the company’s outsized influence has prompted complaints from taxpayer watchdogs, who question whether the city has negotiated the best deals with the company. AEG also has been criticized by activists who fear its stadium will hurt working-class renters nearby.

    Larry Gross, executive director of the nonprofit Coalition for Economic Survival, said AEG’s political donations have enabled Leiweke to get “whatever he wanted.” “The City Hall power structure really bent over backwards to accommodate” the company, he said.’

    http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/14/local/la-me-leiweke-city-hall-20130315

    I will never understand why a company worth billions can give $85 million to non-profit groups but would regard as a complete tragedy the possible loss of $30mln dollars spent on Michael’s show in case he was taken to hospital (especially if it was backed up by Michael’s assets).

    Even if they indeed had had losses, for a company worth billions this sum is not that substantial, it can be easily regarded as charity or an investment in promotion of their own name as the “saviors” of MJ, the “noble knight” that came to his rescue in his time of trouble and “gave a helping hand to the declining genius”, etc. They could have turned that noble card into a great publicity campaign for themselves which would have brought them enormous reputational dividends.

    And I am not even saying that the opportunity of turning the rehearsal footage into a lucrative film covering all costs still remained.

    But instead they chose the role of a despicable miser for themselves. I really don’t understand it. What greed does to people.

    Like

  115. January 2, 2014 5:08 pm

    “Could he be juror x? Though this juror was quite negative about Michael and does not seem to be our man, unless he really saw the light about Michael.” – Sina

    Sina, from the discussion on the MJJC site I gathered that this juror had been paid by his company for the time he spent in court – so as a very minimum he is not self-employed (and is not retired). It seems that Panish met this juror’s boss at a social event and made a joke about this juror being a sort of a trouble-maker for the group (this is only a very general idea of that conversation). For details please look up the links to the MJJC thread given in the post.

    “What exactly drove juror 27 to that particular site? He said it was because he saw Michael differently after the trial. How truthful was he even about that?”

    Not truthful at all. All of it looked very staged and very unnatural. The reason why he went there was most probably the need to do damage control for AEG.

    They saw the public reaction which was shocked and incredulous even in the media, and something had to be urgently done to correct the impression and “explain” those answers. So the juror went to a place where he would be a welcome guest and explained how they had come to the decision that Murray was fit and competent – they looked at the time of hire only (never minding that the time of hire was so extended that AEG could perfectly see Murray in action).

    At that time this explanation was necessary to AEG in order to give at least some logic to the jurors’ answers. However later the policy changed and it was no longer in their interests to admit “the time of hire only”, and the juror’s revelations began to stand in the way.

    This was inconvenient evidence, so the revelations were made private and now everyone acts as if the juror had never come there at all. None of them even mention him any more.

    The juror’s own explanation why he came there was this:

    FORUM MEMBER:
    It is increasingly alarming to me how many people seem to be losing the ability to analyze facts critically. It’s scary how any illogical theory or conspiracy theory can be thrown up and people will believe it without paying any attention to the facts. Randy and the Jackson’s have done a good job of messing with the minds of MJ’s fans.

    JUROR: I couldn’t agree more with the bolded. It’s practically an epidemic as far as I’m concerned.
    I was on this jury, and of all the places I’ve seen where this is being talked about, this community seems by far to be the most level-headed and approachable. So many passionate MJ fans rationally discussing the verdict rather than lashing out in anger is very nice to see, and makes me think this is probably the best place for me to make a small statement.
    Initially I planned to avoid and ignore all the comments about the verdict after the trial ended. Because as soon as we answered ‘no’ to question 2 in the jury room, I knew how it would be reported and misunderstood (“DURR STUPID JURY HOW CAN CONRAD MURRAY BE FIT AND COMPETENT WHEN HE IS IN JAIL FOR KILLING MJ??? DURRR”). And sure enough, the very first question asked by the media when we got outside was “How could you find Conrad Murray competent?” And of course a bunch of hardcore MJ supporters outside were yelling, calling us stupid and confused, etc. So I figured rather than getting annoyed at misinformation being spread or seeing us called morons ad nauseam, it’d be better to just ignore it all.
    Well that lasted about a day before my curiosity got the better of me, and I had to peek around to see what people were saying. I had to see if that version of us as idiots was the main narrative going on. Thankfully most people commenting on the verdict are actually looking at what we were instructed to consider, and agree with our decision. We knew from day 1 that no matter the outcome we would have people agreeing and disagreeing with the verdict, and I’m thankful that this jury did not concern itself with what people would say or think about us and decided to follow the instructions and base our verdict on the evidence in the case.
    Just like our jury foreman, I went into this trial about as neutral as one could be towards Michael Jackson. I was 7 when Thriller came out so I grew up with his music and loved it, but I knew very little about his life other than what I’d seen in the media, and I honestly had no strong feelings about him as a person either way. I walk out of this trial completely understanding why he has so many fans who practically deify him. Who are so strongly attracted to his kind spirit, huge heart, gentle nature, love of his children and mother, etc. I totally get it now.
    Every single witness who was questioned about whether they thought MJ was a good father (and almost every one who knew him closely was asked) sang endless praises about his love of his kids. If Prince’s testimony is any indication, MJ was definitely a great father. The kid is bright, intelligent, caring, has great character and a great personality, and I truly believe MJ did a phenomenal job raising him in the few years he was able to. Honestly, every single juror came away feeling very positive about Michael Jackson as a person and father.
    I know there was concern about MJ’s image being hurt because of this trial, and maybe to outside viewers it was because of some of the details that came out. But for us in the jury in that courtroom for all these months, we just grew more and more fond of him during the course of the trial.
    I’d like to say thank you to all the people I’ve seen here supporting us jurors in our decision, it really means a lot. I will be happy to answer anything I can about the trial if you’d like to ask and if I am able.
    I will answer as many questions as I can, as well as post my jury certificate with my screen name here to prove myself as soon as I get home. I understand being skeptical and don’t have any problem showing proof.
    Thx for your patience.
    I have sent pics of the last two months of service certificates to ivy.
    I really wish I had held off posting initially until later. I didn’t mean to drop a post and not be around to respond, but since it had to be approved and I didn’t know how long that might take I posted right before I went to bed. Then had plans for all day today. So I apologize for my delay in responding.

    Like

  116. January 2, 2014 4:33 pm

    “For those that were not aware, Thomas Mesereau returns to King Jordan Radio TODAY.” – OnlyJustice4MJ

    Oh my God, I almost forgot though I sent some questions to him myself. Onlyjustice4MJ, thank you for the reminder.

    Here is the link to the blogtalk radio program: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jordan-king/2014/01/03/tom-mesereau-returns-to-king-jordan-radio

    There will be a replay for those who won’t be able to listen to it live.

    TOM MESEREAU RETURN’S TO KING JORDAN RADIO- JAN 2ND. 2014

    Michael Jackson’s Attorney Tom Mesereau return’s to King Jordan Radio. August 20th was last time Tom was on the show a lot of the fans would like to set the record straight with respect to the 93 accuser Jordie Chandler. Tom has agreed to answer everything about that and he will also give an update on he feels about Wade getting a Court to hear about the allegations. He will be discussing Dr.Murray and the 93 case

    the book Dr. Murray plans to write and the Aeg trial.

    Follow Me Twitter @Mr.KingJordan

    Facebook.com/KingJordanRadio

    Showtime 10 pm est, 7pm (West Coast Time)

    3am UK

    You may use this link to hear the replay as much as you want

    Like

  117. Sina permalink
    January 2, 2014 4:14 pm

    “The entertainment business is very powerful in Los Angeles..You never know who is funding whose political careers and judges , I believe , have to run for office in Ca.”- Nan

    As an ordinary citizen It is like David against Goliath to find justice in an LA court. In a previous comment I posted these links abourt AEGs involvement with the city counsel, in many political decisions and bills and even their influence on elections of schoolboard members.
    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

    MJJC are cowards to run in hiding after whoring out juror 27s narrative of the verdict to justify their collective stance . Which by the way was that AEG did not hire Murray. So they were wrong anyway, but that is trivial, as long as KJ is not granted justice.
    They can proclaim to be the ‘official ‘site all they want, but fact of the matter is that Michael never ever interfered with any fan forum , site or blog. He might have visited sites anonymously but never favored one site over another . Do these people really think that Michael would condone the atmosphere and rethoric there under his name ?

    It will be interesting to know the who is who of the jurors.
    Here is a link to Team MJs site with an introduction of the jurors http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/8175

    Juror 9 had been on a case before that was ruled a mistrial because of a juror who went beyond what the judge instructed and brought in a dictionary to the deliberating room confusing all the rest. He learned a good lesson he said , not to go beyond jury instruction and would never do it again.
    Could he be juror x? Though this juror was quite negative about Michael and does not seem to be our man, unless he really saw the light about Michael.
    What exactly drove juror 27 to that particular site ? He said it was because he saw Michael differently after the trial. How truthful was he even about that? .

    Like

  118. January 2, 2014 3:54 pm

    “Happy Hew year Helena and thank you for your dedication in seeking the truth and preserving Michaels legacy.”- Helen-Marie

    Happy New Year too, and thank you, thank you for your support…

    How is it that we can see through the ‘individual statements’ made by the jurors and yet we are being fed information to the contrary? Do they think we are brainless and we wouldn’t spot the duplication, or is it that they simply do not care? And if we can see it why can’t a judge see it? It makes me want to pull my hair out in frustration.

    To the brainless they’ll say that the affidavits were in the form of questionnaires where the jurors simply had to tick the correct variant. To those with brains they will say nothing as they don’t care what they think. And to the majority of all others they’ll throw through the media a couple of salacious fictional stories sending everyone after the “sensational” news about MJ which will be simply a distraction.

    This is unfortunately a universal method for making the caravan go on while a few dogs bark. At some point they did pretend that the barking mattered, but now even this pretence is discarded and they simply go on doing what they intended to do all along, not paying attention.

    The whole process is awful, but we need to find something positive even in these horrible situations, and the only positive thing I see is that it is an eye-opening process which slowly, very slowly helps people to discard illusion and teaches them to see through all these lies, hypocrisy and shallow words that don’t matter when they are not backed up by deeds.

    To me it looks like an educational process. What this education will give us and what to do with it I don’t know, but even knowing things the way they really are is already an advantage. Remember what many of us were like when Michael died. I for one was groping in the dark and was like a blind kitten that could be easily brainwashed by any media lie. Four and a half years have passed and we are completely new people now.

    When you compare the result with the time it took, the progress doesn’t even look that slow after all.

    Unfortunately, we are only spectators in this mess and have to contend with sitting on the side-lines patiently waiting for an outcome and I’m afraid that it wont be a favourable one due to the same judge looking into the complaint. One has to hope that she will be transparent in her decision making process, but again I don’t hold much hope for this round and hope that Katherine has the courage to carry on the fight for justice.

    I don’t have much trust in this judge either, but I hear that this is only an intermediate step in the appeal process.

    Of course it is frustrating when you feel helpless. But we have done our part and told the Plaintiffs what we know of this juror #27. Now it is their turn to act. Whether they will use it or not I don’t know, but we have at least tried. Everyone should do what he is meant to do.

    I think it was Mariam and Susannerb that spoke about Michaels fans being divided and what had happened to the communities unity and I can only agree. I watched in wonder at the outpouring of grief and love projected towards Michael and to one another after June 2009. Then I’ve watched in horror as month by month the same people changed their minds or directed their anger at a fellow fan or even Michaels own flesh and blood. The enormity of some peoples egos have been laid bare for all to see and it has been a truly ugly sight indeed.

    You and Susannerb are right. The fan community is lost, divided and tired. But how many more supporters has Michael won among the general public by now? I think much more than the fans he had before. The support is still there, only it is spread more evenly now – not in some squad of super-active fans, but among the general population.

    Some fans are still fighting for their “priority rights” but what does it matter who was the first and who was last? Even Jesus said “there are last who will be first, and there are first who will be last.” The only thing that matters is justice to Michael and cleaning his name of all dirt, and who does it first does not matter.

    I have hopes and dreams that once again the community will stand tall, leave their differences and egos at the door and unite in Michaels name..Wishing you and everyone here good health and a peaceful year to come.

    I wish the same to the fan community, but I also wish that ordinary people come to appreciate Michael in no less measure than his fans. Michael was a beautiful soul. He graced us with his presence and we simply didn’t understand what a marvel he was. I cannot even imagine what music, dance and life in general would have been without him. His impact was incredible.

    Like

  119. OnlyJustice4MJ permalink
    January 2, 2014 3:03 pm

    For those that were not aware, Thomas Mesereau returns to King Jordan Radio TODAY
    An opportunity for anybody that wishes to phone in or contact King Jordan directly to request Thomas Mesereau’s opinion on the affidavits and on juror #27
    And of course any other matter…

    Here are the details…

    http://home.mj-upbeat.com/2014/01/02/mesereau-returns-to-king-jordan-radio-jan-2-2014/

    Like

  120. Helen-Marie permalink
    January 2, 2014 9:35 am

    Happy Hew year Helena and thank you for your dedication in seeking the truth and preserving Michaels legacy. Your hard work, perseverance and commitment to researching is inspirational and may you gather strength to carry your mission throughout the coming year.

    How is it that we can see through the ‘individual statements’ made by the jurors and yet we are being fed information to the contrary? Do they think we are brainless and we wouldn’t spot the duplication, or is it that they simply do not care? And if we can see it why can’t a judge see it? It makes me want to pull my hair out in frustration.

    Unfortunately, we are only spectators in this mess and have to contend with sitting on the side-lines patiently waiting for an outcome and I’m afraid that it wont be a favourable one due to the same judge looking into the complaint. One has to hope that she will be transparent in her decision making process, but again I don’t hold much hope for this round and hope that Katherine has the courage to carry on the fight for justice.

    I think it was Mariam and Susannerb that spoke about Michaels fans being divided and what had happened to the communities unity and I can only agree. I watched in wonder at the out pouring of grief and love projected towards Michael and to one another after June 2009. Then I’ve watched in horror as month by month the same people changed their minds or directed their anger at a fellow fan or even Michaels own flesh and blood. The enormity of some peoples egos have been laid bare for all to see and it has been a truly ugly sight indeed. I have lost the feeling that people need to unite for Michael and feel sad that the huge support that was evident in 2009 has been lost.

    The new year always brings me renewed hope and although I don’t make resolutions I have hopes and dreams that once again the community will stand tall, leave their differences and egos at the door and unite in Michaels name. It is a duty that comes with being a true loyal fan and I for one take that seriously and have done for the 40+ years I have followed Michaels journey.

    Wishing you and everyone here good health and a peaceful year to come.

    Like

  121. January 2, 2014 6:15 am

    Here’s wishing everyone and Happy and fruitful New Year. Helena, I have emailed Brian Panish advising him of the discrepancy in the statement of the jurors. I have also advised him of MJJ Community and Juror number 27 and how an affidavit should be sought from him on this matter. Thanks for bringing out the discrepancy. Awesome work as usual.

    Like

  122. Nan permalink
    January 2, 2014 12:06 am

    The entertainment business is very powerful in Los Angeles..You never know who is funding whose political careers and judges , I believe , have to run for office in Ca.
    Even the fact , that Murray killed MJ in 2009 and it took 2 years to get to trial , lucky for him, by the time his trial rolled around , they made some law where he wouldnt end up in state prison and his sentence would be cut in half..
    It was like he had a press agent working for him , giving TMZ stories about him saving lives on a plane etc.
    I cant believe that forum , made the thing with the juror private , that is really something.
    On Oct 7th , I believe , I sent links to that thing and also your blog , here , so that they could see what the juror said, and the rebuttal over here, so hopefully they saw it.
    You are right Helena, it is the greed that surrounded him , that made people go to such insane lengths for money .
    The more I look into his life , the more respect I have for him .
    He was a diamond living in a dumpster..
    He deserved so much better.

    Like

  123. nessielittle permalink
    January 1, 2014 11:21 pm

    ONE DAY WE ALL WILL BE FREE….
    HAPPY NEW YEAR HELENA, AND THANKS FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK, IT NEVER GOES UNNOTICE……

    Like

  124. January 1, 2014 10:57 pm

    AEG is trying all tricks in their and(I that lawfirn M´s) bag to extricate itself from it´s complicity with that sleaze dr Murray in the death and murder of Michael Jackson.The AEG trial and it´s
    aftermath is good material for a comedy.A biased judge,AEG officials suddenly affected by an unknown epidemy of amnesia.The peculiar and twisted, even leading insrtuctions to the jurors.And the abrubt stop to jury discussing.following a complicated 5-6 month trial. Then 4 genuine ,personal letters complaining over this fact and that there was no time for them to contemplate and give their votes.The 2 most implicated witnesses,PG and RP suddenly released.+ many other factors not given any weight.And the latest a form letter by another bunch of 7 jurors signing a formletter that no proplems existed, their wording being identical and including what would have been their answser to questiom 3 that was not even discussed. They must be telapathic knowing each other¨s minds.And all referring to a MRx,Then we have juror *27.
    So far he has emphatized the lack of the word ethic, I guess as an explanation for Murrays total ignorance and carelessness..And also the timeline”to the time of hire.” Thereby cutting the whole business of the trial to tíme before murraywas even hired and did his thing on Michael and mágigally moved the whole tral to consider that time only.
    It is not over before it is over.-susannerby, 7 was michaels favorite number.
    In old posts I have written about the foreman, groupthik,a kind of peerpressure.,the example of the thieving doctor and the resposibiliies of the chefdoctor.

    Like

  125. January 1, 2014 10:32 pm

    I know it was suggested to backup the site but we should also start making copies of interviews and court documentation. Its unfortunate that some things can not be found at this pivotal moment.

    Like

  126. Wannabe Legal Eagle permalink
    January 1, 2014 6:55 pm

    YANA LOL!

    MJJC has been suspicious for sometime IMO. I’m studying law now. I lurked in the trial thread because MJJC is the official forum right? SO, I lurked there all the time! Everyone supported AEG and only a few didn’t. Everyone ganged up on the few that didn’t. Anything against the Jacksons was good and anything for the Jacksons was bad which is kinda dumb because Michael is a Jackson LOL.

    The trial is over and the whole trial thing is private! They had links for all of these documents but, when it’s the Jacksons’ reply to AEG, they wrote up a summary instead of just posting the document. Now that I read it, I know why! They should’ve just posted it in the beginning because alot of the posters there were ignoring the facts anyway LOL.

    I think the Jacksons got a shot and I hope they get the new trial. If the judge says no, I think it’s because of her ego. Here’s to Friday! Now that the trial thing is private, I’ll just see what happens on Twitter or read Duke LOL!

    27 LOL! They said on Twitter the trial thing is private because people call them AEG plants but, they’ve been called that for months LOL! They know they are in trouble! That’s why it’s private!!! If 27 is fake they’ll be proven AEG plants to the whole fanbase! If 27 is fake, why pick a fake juror who supports AEG and put him on a MJ forum?! You do if you don’t support the Jacksons and they don’t!

    If he’s real, you’re right! They can’t help Boyle, Chang, Panish because it supports the Jacksons and we know that’s a no-no over there!

    They’re in hot water! Let’s see how they get out!

    Like

  127. January 1, 2014 12:19 pm

    “I hope KJ lawyers has all the document and videos of Juror#27 that was recorded by fan forum so that they can bring it as evidence.” – Mariam

    This Juror #27 story has a funny continuation. Now that I (finally) noticed the email addresses of Panish/Boyle/Chang on the court documents I also sent a note to them about the revelations of Juror #27 and wanted to provide the link to the original Question & Answer session, and you know what I found? That the Q&A session is no longer on the MJJCommunity forum – all of a sudden it was made “private”:
    http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/130676-For-easy-reference-Juror-27-s-answers-to-fans-questions-(No-Discussion)/page4

    So when the MJJC wanted to promote the views of that juror they turned it into the main hit of their forum, but when it no longer suited the AEG official version they turned it into a private matter?

    All this maneuvering following the AEG “party line” makes me speechless. Aren’t these “fans” supposed to be interested in learning the truth about this trial and what’s going on around it?

    Okay, even if this person was an imposter why not say it openly and admit that AEG is using even methods like planting some agents among fans in order to propagate their views?

    And if he is not an imposter why not say it all the more so? Isn’t MJJC interested in exposing AEG’s lies like we do?

    Why cover up for this juror?

    Like

  128. January 1, 2014 5:22 am

    I just was made aware that the crossfoot of 2014 is 7. This I found on a FB page, let’s take it as a sign of hope:

    “2014 = 7. The number 7 is the seeker, the thinker, the searcher of Truth (notice the capital “T”). The 7 doesn’t take anything at face value — it is always trying to understand the underlying, hidden truths. The 7 knows that nothing is exactly as it seems and that reality is often hidden behind illusions.” (The People’s Voice)

    Like

  129. Mariam permalink
    December 31, 2013 9:40 pm

    Let’s hope Juror #27 is real and KJ will get a chance to get justice for her son that she looking for. It seems like him is one of the juror because he should be 8th juror for AEG but not, so one is missing and he must be him (Juror#27). I hope KJ lawyers has all the document and videos of Juror#27 that was recorded by fan forum so that they can bring it as evidence.

    “It is indeed bizarre which shows that it wasn’t Michael Jackson who was “bizarre” Helena

    That is a good one Helena, You reminded me what Al Sharpton said to MJ’s kids on the MJ funeral ceremony, he said “Nothing strange about your dad, it was strange your dad had to deal with”. Still strange and bizarre things he/family is dealing even after he died.

    AEG was one of them, the way they conduct a business with MJ & CM was strange/bizarre because the expert said never happened that kind of business before with another artist – promoter business relationship. The contract and the hiring all were strange.

    The trial was also strange; it is strange to me because everything AEG’s lawyer doing/acting inappropriate in the trial, was OK in the court. One of the things I remembered is that the psychics told to other person and that person told to RP and he allowed bringing it up on the court and I think it is recorded too. I know investigators using psychics word sometimes but in court I found it strange. The way treated Prince and Paris Jackson when they did deposition, the thing they did to distract Mr Pannish , flirting with Jurors e.t.c. all strange.

    The most bizarre/shocking things to me in this trial was, dismissal of Randy Phillips & Paul Gongaware from a negligence lawsuit.

    Like

  130. December 31, 2013 7:02 pm

    “Michael’s innocence is very clear, feels, sees, is already found by millions and millions of beings. …respectfully to the spirit Michael’s Love, Love so special, so immense, so true, so pure!!!” Barbra

    Barbra, you are right. Michael is reaching for people’s hearts in his unique childlike, innocent, sincere, powerful way. I think the more people learn about Michael through all these trials (ugly as they are), the more they see the real him and the less they remember the caricature the media painted of him for so long.

    They learn to understand him and the enormity of troubles he had to go through his life is growing on people. The fortitude with which he fought all those circumstances earns him great respect – they thought him to be a weakling while he turned out to be a man of unsurpassable strength. A fighter with angel wings.

    And also a natural father to children. Michael wanted to have his own children and probably saw himself in a fatherly role for all of them. He looked at all children as his own and thought he bore personally responsibility for each of them, especially the most destitute ones. In the same way a doctor feels responsible for all others if he finds himself alone in the center of some epidemic, knowing that no one else but him can help.

    The media is of course still trying to spin, but they did feel the change in public perception of MJ and have adjusted accordingly. Unfortunately now they are developing other, no less dangerous ways of slandering him – after all those AEG’s stories they stigmatize him as an “addict” though his behavior cannot qualify him as one.

    He was an insomniac and part of the blame for his insomnia lies on the media – which is a fact they are extremely unwilling to admit. But I still hope that with time people will realize it by themselves.

    So let it be a happy New Year for Michael, his children, his mother and his legacy too!

    Like

  131. December 31, 2013 6:25 pm

    “A Happy New Year to everyone all around the world! Here it’s 15 minutes to 2014 and people just start with the fireworks. I also raise a glass, Cheers! Helena, and let’s hope for a good start of a better year.” – Susannerb

    YES, HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYONE ALL AROUND THE WORLD! LET IT BRING US REALLY SOMETHING NEW AND CHANGES FOR THE BETTER ONLY!

    Like

  132. December 31, 2013 6:18 pm

    “Everything around MJ takes on strange, bizarre shadowy stuff..nothing is ever clear” – Nan

    It is indeed bizarre which shows that it wasn’t Michael Jackson who was “bizarre” – it was the world around him which was. Michael is gone, but all this weird stuff and craziness continue on the same grand scale.

    As to “nothing is clear” I don’t agree because all these bizarre situations clarify a whole lot. Every new episode increasingly shows the fraudulent methods AEG is using to win from Katherine Jackson. It shows the enormous media potential they have and how they twist the media to their liking (these bastards have gone far enough to claim that TMZ “got it right” while Alan Duke was “woefully misinformative”). They find it possible to voice their disapproval of a journalist and the only one who was reporting from the trial really accurately! I hope CNN will be wise enough not to give in to AEG’s pressure and will stand up for Alan Duke.

    All these “episodes” show that AEG is capable to infiltrate almost any social environment – the media, the jury and fan forums – and are vigorously doing it. They work with the jurors so close that they get seven identical answers (“Even if we had answered…I would have answered NO to Question 3 as well”) though these seven jurors were supposed to write those affidavits on an individual basis, at different places and at a different time.

    These “episodes” increasingly show that some “fans” are no fans or supporters of Michael Jackson at all and are ready to collaborate with AEG and support their every new initiative to propagate their ideas.

    In short each new “incident” uncovers new and new layers of lies and with each of them the situation around MJ and the air in general become clearer.

    Like

  133. December 31, 2013 5:51 pm

    A Happy New Year to everyone all around the world! Here it’s 15 minutes to 2014 and people just start with the fireworks. I also raise a glass, Cheers! Helena, and let’s hope for a good start of a better year.

    You gathered the main point correctly – it would have been a hung jury.

    Like

  134. December 31, 2013 5:51 pm

    “Well, as far as I am concerned , Mr Pannish and Mr Boyle should be aware of the juror on the forum, because I sent the link to their email when they said they were considering putting in an appeal for the verdict” – Nan

    Nan, I would address it to Ms. Chang in the first place because she looks to me more perceptive of the subtleties of this case. With due respect for Mr. Panish and Mr. Boyle I still think that they are less observant than Ms. Chang and once they get stuck on something they don’t see other possibilities. I wouldn’t be surprised if they overlooked the importance of Juror #27’s observations – what does it matter to them what some person says on a fan forum?

    But looking into who this person is and checking his credentials is important from every side you look at it – if he is not an imposter and is indeed a juror who convinced them to look at the time of hire only, then these seven people are not telling the truth. And his superactivity in favor of AEG may indeed suggest that he was their plant on the jury.

    And if he was an imposter then we will surely know that AEG is using their plants on MJ forums for active propaganda of their ideas there.

    So whichever way you look at it, it is a must to find out who this person is and the Plaintiffs have a chance and opportunity to do so.

    Like

  135. December 31, 2013 5:35 pm

    ♥ Love ♥ Hello everybody,
    I will always follow and I want to assure my entire consideration for researching and bringing to light the truth to Michael JJ. You are the real fighters , strong, intelligent like as Michael and this is the reason why I am present here and everywhere I feel this common sense , respect and love to Michael. I can not be researcher in this case, but I feel from the bottom of my heart that Michael is innocent and it is natural to argue his innocence because he is part of my heart and we have a lot in common personality. Still hurts and I can not believe that not over the threshold of the new year 2014 with these horrible lies which looks questionable personality of those devil’s people who make them. But, I found on Youtube that do not show those ugly opinions expressed by anonymous. I watched hundreds of channels of MJ posters on Youtube for some time, even some part of the media and that is why I made this statement. Michael’s innocence is very clear, feels, sees, is already found by millions and millions of beings.
    Fight for truth is long and hard and I want to have the strength to go to accomplishment! So that I wish as to the New Year we all to have God’s blessings of health, courage, much love, peace! New year to bring us the wisdom needed so that dream for truth, justice, a better world for our idol, sweetheart Michael JJ come true! I want to wish to everyone, especially to Helena and other major contributors of this blog much health, power, agility, happiness and fulfillment of all desires!
    I wish you all the staff on this website, the true Michael’s fans a very happy, blessing holidays, Happy New Year 2014! Everyday to be God’s blessing upon us! Happy Birthday everyone!
    I want to wish for New Year long life for amazingly, incomparable preciously Michael’s masterpiece alongside many other awards!!! Happy Birthday! With all the love for the most loved man on earth, the greatest performer, artist of all time Michael J Jackson – the Greatest KING among all the kings of history – most sincere Happy Birthday to a better world, cleaner, healed world, much healthier!
    Happy Birthday, respectfully to the spirit Michael’s Love, Love so special, so immense, so true, so pure!!! <3<3<3
    The sincere love for everyone of everywhere! Happy New Year 2014!!! ♥ Love ♥ Barbra

    Like

  136. December 31, 2013 5:27 pm

    “But dated 1 January 2014 !!!New Year has not yet reached us, but it will all too soon !!!Happy New Year Helena, and thank you so much for all your hard work and dedication to bringing the truth to us all…” -OnlyJustice4MJ

    Happy New Year, dear Onlyjustice4MJ! And thank you and everyone for thanking me – it makes me happy on the one hand, but embarassed too because for some reason I see it as my duty and obligation though cannot even explain why. It just happened that way.

    In the meantime I’ve read the Plaintiffs’ reply. It is highly technical and 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.

    If the law indeed says so, then the declarations of the four jurors should be enough to reconsider the verdict and agree that it was a hung jury. Though I don’t have any hope for this judge either. But I also hear that even if rejected it will be only a start of the appeal process. This information should be verified of course.

    Like

  137. December 31, 2013 5:05 pm

    “If it is really juror #27 whose declaration is missing here, the defendants know about his discussions on MJJC (as well as the plaintiffs probably), and they know they can’t use his declaration because his already publicly declared point of view about how the time of hiring was discussed in the jury deliberations is not in accordance with the 7 jurors, as you explained.” – Susannerb

    Right, the AEG lawyers cannot use the declaration of this juror #27 because he said exactly the opposite of what the seven jurors now say. And this juror #27 also spoke for the rest of them there, which makes the veracity of the jurors’ current statement dubious.

    The AEG lawyers most probably hope that very few people read the revelations of juror #27 and would now be glad to name him an impostor. But this matter should be clarified by all means – if the Plaintiffs don’t look into it and unravel the whole story they will lose a big fat chance. If juror #27 is indeed that central person around whom everything is revolving, his statements on the MJJCommunity forum can prove the falsity of the seven jurors’ affidavits.

    Like

  138. OnlyJustice4MJ permalink
    December 31, 2013 4:42 pm

    Sorry made an error in my post should have read “no”…
    And I have not even had a New Year’s drink LOL
    No hope for me in 2014 !!!

    Like

  139. OnlyJustice4MJ permalink
    December 31, 2013 4:35 pm

    I just popped by to see if there were any updates… And low and behold there was.. But dated 1 January 2014 !!!
    New Year has not yet reached us, but it will all too soon !!!

    Happy New Year Helena, and thank you so much for all your hard work and dedication to bringing the truth to us all…

    Somebody mentioned that Murray had no medical licence to practise in the UK… I too have always wondered how AEG were going to work around that problem…
    It just seems so strange to me that none of this was considered in their rush to get Murray to sign the contract which MJ had no acknowledge of…

    3 January 2014 will be upon us soon, I hope that Panish is successful in getting a new trial… But I have this strange feeling that the Judge will dismiss it… So what next? An appeal against the verdict?

    I will forever remember the “smile” on the judge’s face when the answer “yes” was given by the jury to question #2… It gave me an uncomfortable feeling that was the answer she wanted… I hope I am wrong…

    Anyway, Happy New Year everyone !!!

    Like

  140. December 31, 2013 3:59 pm

    “Helena, you probably meanwhile have seen the answer of the plaintiffs to the defendants‘ opposition, but let me post it here to emphasize one point of it:http://de.scribd.com/doc/194326285/Jacksons-Reply-to-AEGs-opposition” – Susannerb

    Susannerb, thank you very much. I will immediately embed it into the post. No, I haven’t read it yet as the eve of the New Year was a very busy time for me.

    Now it is the first hour of 2014 already here. Happy New Year to everyone! I wish all of us the fulfillment of our wildest dreams and the full triumph of truth over lies, evil and malice.

    Like

  141. December 31, 2013 3:40 pm

    Amazing conformity! And how they all knew their answer to question 3 that was not even discussed would have been the same..Same wording , one brain. Just please sign the form letter and…

    Like

  142. December 31, 2013 8:57 am

    Helena, you probably meanwhile have seen the answer of the plaintiffs to the defendants‘ opposition, but let me post it here to emphasize one point of it:

    http://de.scribd.com/doc/194326285/Jacksons-Reply-to-AEGs-opposition

    These two sentences in part C are essential regarding juror #27:
    „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.”

    This one missing “declaration” can now be the crux of the matter and prove that there was/is manipulation. If it is really juror #27 whose declaration is missing here, the defendants know about his discussions on MJJC (as well as the plaintiffs probably), and they know they can’t use his declaration because his already publicly declared point of view about how the time of hiring was discussed in the jury deliberations is not in accordance with the 7 jurors, as you explained.

    Like

  143. Nan permalink
    December 30, 2013 10:58 pm

    Well, as far as I am concerned , Mr Pannish and Mr Boyle should be aware of the juror on the forum, because I sent the link to their email when they said they were considering putting in an appeal for the verdict , so they would be able to see , according to this juror, number 27, the reason , they didnt agree with the Jacksons., just for their own personal benefit and information.,see if it was worth it for them to bother appealing, if everybody felt this way……. so I know I sent my email, probably other people did too..
    .
    I also told them I didnt understand how he could have abandoned his patients in a matter of weeks and not be licensed in England , and AEG didnt think this should give them pause…
    I know people who agree with the jurors and who disagree with the jurors..so I am not criticizing the fan site,…I just dont understand who this person is, that talks so much on the internet, but seems to be left out of all the affidavits.
    All the lawyers must know who juror 27 is, so I would think Putnam would have included him , and yet it doesnt seem to be the case ………..
    Everything around MJ takes on strange, bizarre shadowy stuff..nothing is ever clear

    Like

  144. December 30, 2013 9:55 pm

    Even if this imaginary doctor had not caused any direct harm, but involved patients without his superiors,h is chief of hospital, information, he would get fired and reported. It is another question had he wanted to do some clean, approved, and informed consent By patients, type of research. There are a lot of formalities regarding that.

    Like

  145. December 30, 2013 9:42 pm

    Nothing about this trial will surprise me anymore. Odd&strange!. I will respond to the piece re
    “juror arguments discussed. and the example there given about” the thieving doctor doing secret experiments”and the hospital not being responsible. The hospital is responsible for all the doings of the doctors it has hired. At all times.

    Suppose there is a doctor engaging in gross malpractice from which the patient then dies. The lawsuit will be against the hospital, the doctor and possibly other staff that has been involved. The chief, the chief doctor will have to abdicate and the hospital and doctor are both held responsible..The example gives it wrong, the hospital is responsible if it has hired that doctor.Otherwise it could hire cheap ,unreliable doctors. A thieving doctor who did not involve any human in his secret experiments would probably be fired and get reported to the appropriate authorities.Had his experiments caused harm to any patient the hospital would again also be sued.

    Like

  146. Sina permalink
    December 30, 2013 8:05 pm

    Helena you nailed it again.
    If this was not about a mans death it would be the most hilarious thing I have ever heard .

    Juror x on his own free will enlisted with the fansite and could not wait to tell his story to get his 15 minutes of fame. Maybe he wanted a taste of what it was to be Michael Jackson .
    And he got a warm welcome there.
    Wouldnt it be great if this juror find himself on the stand scrutinized on his shameful conduct to use a serious matter to entertain a fanforum.
    Of course there is still the possibility that it is an imposter.
    We will find out soon enough.
    The amazing thing with everyone who do Michael injustice , in the end they tie their own rope and hang themself.

    Lies run sprints but the truths runs marathons.

    Like

  147. December 30, 2013 5:36 pm

    What concerns me is that the same judge is to conduct this new trial so how do we know there won’t be the same outcome and verdict? She may be controlled again by the same powerful characters as before. I will still be hanging onto every word though.

    Like

  148. Mariam permalink
    December 30, 2013 2:03 pm

    “This is very far from the neutrality which the Senior Staff of MJJCommunity proclaims” Helena

    I it is very, very far from the neutrality indeed and I don’t like it at all. It seems like your lawyer defending your opponent and giving evidence to your enemy against you in the middle of the battle. It is a nightmare. They are betraying MJ like those friends he had for 20+ yrs, they sold him for the profit and 15 min fame. That is what I feel about those fans right now.

    It does not matter how long your friendship was or you are fan, it does not make sense if you are not loyal, faithful and determined until the end. Especially, this time of period, which is very crucial time that could damage MJ’s legacy and his good name or clear him for once and last.

    I don’t think they fully understand how important this trial for MJ is. MJ’s legacy is on trial now and it is very important and testing time for fans, friends and family to do whatever it takes to save him/his legacy one more time.

    If we really think about it, It is a vital time to make to unfold this mystery (how he died, who killed him, who contribute for his death, what is exactly happened to MJ, what was like his very last time of his life, who was MJ), for me and all who love MJ, it is very important time and we should act appropriately (whatever we said and do is it matter in the eyes of the rest of the world because Michael Jackson is one of the most famous persons in the world). And it is always safe to side with the truth, because truth always wins at the end.

    Most of the people supporting AEG are the haters and the fan should not put them in this situation. With the clear minded, who is honest and truthful person, anyone not necessary a fan, after we know what we know what AEG all about, we shouldn’t, cannot support or side to AEG in any format and shape, it just not possible for that kind of person.

    Probably, does not matter what I feel or my disappointment, but it makes me sad because I had a faith and confidence in them that MJ has very strong bases of support and fan, as result his legacy and reputation will be defended for ever. I did like their effort what they did to promote and keep MJ’s name live. I appreciated everything they did and doing for MJ until now.

    I thought even though he is dead there are a lot of people fighting for him and for his good name, and made me feel to be strong and confident when it comes MJ legacy, but knowing now a huge part of the fan base is becomes the other side of a battle field? Supporting the people who cause so much pain to him, to death? Disappointing, is not express what I feel right know. I remember Prince, testimony that MJ was crying after he spoke over the phone with Randy Philips. The man crying like that could tell you how bad were the pain, very sad. Personally, I cannot ignore that. I cannot be neutral or compromised with this, no, it is too much.

    Helena and everybody, I promise I will never say like this about this community again, this is it. That is not my job, it just because I am disappointed, and after all, everybody has a choice what to do or not to do. God bless them

    Like

  149. December 30, 2013 8:53 am

    Oh my God, I can’t believe what’s going on. Helena, thank you so much for keeping us informed and on track.
    This is an incredible mess, I never heard of such aftereffects after a trial. It’s so typical for everything Michael. Because people never seem to act in a normal, decent way when his name is involved.
    The average people won’t be able to look through all of this, and if it were not for your detailed analysis, even Michael’s supporters wouldn’t see through all these lies and manipulations.

    I also saw how MJJC members talked about Alan Duke, calling him biased, one-sided and even worse things. Meanwhile there seems to be an attitude among “fans” that pro MJ journalists are no longer desired. Now there is the one journalist who reports objectively and with the most details from a trial, someone like we would have needed in 2005 – and fans bash him.
    I feel the fanbase died with Michael together. In the first months after his death there was a common grief, a common feeling to fight for his legacy, for justice, almost to rebel, like a last revolt. But this is gone. It seems the fanbase cannot exist without Michael. Without his leadership and directive the fanbase tears itself apart and is probably manipulated and used by others who want to profit of this situation.
    If you look at it from outside the fanbase you only can shake your head and say “Oh my God, if Michael knew….”

    Like

  150. December 30, 2013 6:13 am

    Speaking about the media Mr. Putnam is happy with all the media outlets and the way they covered the Jackson vs. AEG trial – with one exception though. This exception is Alan Duke of CNN, the one whose articles were found by us to be the most accurate ones after comparing them with the court transcripts and the ABC reports direct from the courtroom.

    What’s interesting is that the forum members of MJJCommunity are also terribly negative towards Alan Duke and call him (and evidently us) “Alan Duke and the gang”.

    They even provide a series of articles from law360 generally available by subscription only where the authors openly side with the AEG people. Most of the text is closed to readers unless you subscribe so the article is quoted by the MJJCommunity page:

    “The O’Melveny team also had to deal with the ongoing trial of public opinion taking place outside the courtroom on the street and in the press and attempt to ensure that AEG was not being unfairly maligned — no easy task when some news outlets were taking unsupported allegations put forth by the plaintiffs as fact, according to Putnam.

    While most news outlets put out accurate coverage, Putnam said CNN’s coverage was woefully misinformative, considering even gossip sites like TMZ and Radar Online were getting it right.

    “You have to monitor these things to make sure real outlets get it right,” he said. “With the 24/7 news cycle now, people are being tried in two very different arenas.”

    http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/130852-KJ-vs-AEG-Trial-outcome-Appeal/page15

    So the TMZ and Radar Online were “getting it right” while Alan Duke’s coverage was “woefully misinformative”? This reminds me of Orwell’s novel “1984”:

    In George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Ministry of Truth is Oceania’s propaganda ministry. As with the other Ministries in the novel, the Ministry of Truth is a misnomer and in reality serves the opposite of its purported namesake: it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events.

    As well as administering truth, the ministry spreads a new language amongst the populace called Newspeak, in which, for example, “truth” is understood to mean statements like 2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants.

    In Newspeak, the ministry is known as Minitrue. It is an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete rising 300 metres into the air, containing over 3000 rooms above ground. On the outside wall are the three slogans of the Party: “WAR IS PEACE,” “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY,” “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth

    Calling the best reporting ever made by Alan Duke of the AEG trial “woefully misinformative” is real Newspeak and is indeed a statement similar to the “new truth” of 2+2=5.

    Like

  151. December 30, 2013 5:47 am

    “Is really Mjj community still a fan of MJ? Are they really care what really had done and happened to MJ? If they do, why they support AEG obviously, after we all know what AEG did to MJ?” – Mariam

    Good questions, Mariam, very good questions.

    “I am offended really, they sound AEG to me. I thought we are all here for common purpose; defending MJ’s legacy and his reputation, I thought we all are speaking the same language/I thought we are all on the same page.”

    Initially I thought so too, but now they also sound like AEG to me. And if they are fans of anyone at all they are AEG’s fans and not of Michael Jackson. On the basis of the opinion poll among the forum members when the majority was for AEG during the trial I already suggested renaming them into the AEGCommunity site.

    And even the fact that Randy Phillips of AEG slapped Michael doesn’t stop these people in their support and devotion for AEG. This is very far from the neutrality which the Senior Staff of MJJCommunity proclaims. They compare themselves to the media and say they provide the information from every angle.

    However “neutrality” and “fans” are the words which somewhat contradict each other – if you are neutral to someone you are not a fan. A fan is a devotee by the very definition of it:

    FAN noun
    an enthusiastic devotee, follower, or admirer of a sport, pastime, celebrity, etc.

    I also like neutrality but I do not even aspire to the word of a “fan”. I support Michael Jackson because I’ve done my research and know that the truth is on his side.

    Like

  152. Mariam permalink
    December 30, 2013 12:15 am

    HWT rehearsal 1997

    Like

  153. Mariam permalink
    December 29, 2013 10:10 pm

    Helena, I wish all MJ’s fans and all people who are involving in the entertement business read this blog, this will help to understand a lot of things. Thank you again for your hard work

    Is really Mjj community still a fan of MJ? Are they really care what really had done and happened to MJ? If they do, why they support AEG obviously, after we all know what AEG did to MJ? A lot of people who is not even fan, condemned AEG’s did but the fan defending AEG? It is very, strange.

    As much as I want to visit the site, even though the comment I read about MJ’s family and his kids make me uncomfortable, I was still visiting the site but now defending AEG firmly like that; make me to decide visit the site no more, because I am offended really, they sound AEG to me. I thought we are all here for common purpose; defending MJ’s legacy and his reputation, I thought we all are speaking the same language/I thought we are all on the same page. I just read their comment today and felt not happy at all.

    Sorry to say this and it is out of the topic I know, but I doubt their purpose and I suspect again if AEG is behind all this if they do, it is a big success for AEG, for taking the fans to their side. I hope not. peoples are changing when the situation changed, It is just my opinion.

    Like

  154. Mjlima permalink
    December 29, 2013 8:39 pm

    This is so amazing
    The truth always comes out at the end.

    Like

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,364 other followers

%d bloggers like this: