Re: Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG
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.
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.
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 $$
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.
@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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Just want to say that this is an excellent summary of the events as I see them.
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?
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.
