I'm not to sure what to think about this, can AEG really be held responsible. It's a business and Michael was an adult and he seemed in control but there are other people saying he wasn't. If AEG knew murray was no good and that there was some kind of problem then i can see them getting some blame but this all seems like speculation. Does oxman have proof that they were dictating michael's medical treatment?
Quite hard to hold them legally responsible in my opinion.
AEG knew Michael's issues with drug? - AEG can easily debunk this by showing the insurance policy physical. there was no evidence of drugs and Michael was healthy. They can say that they had no reason to believe or even suspect that he had drug related issues.
You can also see Michael functioning, coherent etc at TII rehearsals so they might not suspect anything. Or even if they did they might have thought it could be something else. For example you can see somebody under the influence, but it could be drugs, it could be alcohol etc. It's hard to say for sure what the reason is and know it for certain.
By all means we know that Michael knew Murray even before his deal with AEG and even before he was hired to be his personal doctor during TII concerts- Michael's bodyguards said that they knew Murray during Michael's time at Las Vegas. So it looks like Murray wasn't a doctor that AEG found and hired, Michael knew him before and reportedly he asked for him.
Was that negligent of them to hire Murray? No, Murray is an actual doctor. His credentials check out. It's not like they hired a man from the street without looking to his background and left Michael's health in his hands. Murray is a legit doctor.
Were they dictating Michael's medical treatment? Well that looks more like conspiracy theory. One thing as far as we know there's no money link between them - Murray's contract was never signed , he was never paid, even if he asked money later AEG refused to pay him. So what would give them power to dictate to Murray?
Also if Murray felt pressured (for whatever reason) , you'll think that he'll mention it to reduce or remove his blame.
You can come up with theories, scenarios etc, but in a court of law you need to prove it.