Murray won't be asked to pay restitution

[jaydom7]

Randy sees the outrage so as normal he tweets that it had nothing to do with him. when in reality its prob the total opposite. he doth protest to much!

yep he sees the outrage and he responds that he had nothing to do with it

How is it that Judge Pastor and Walgren were more outraged by Murray's conduct and treatment of MJ, than Katherine is?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp-bZfuy43w&feature=BFa&list=SP3BD08AD296F0AE5B&lf=list_related

 

[missred07]

The only one who could legally make the decision is katherine - she and PPB are the only one listed as recepient Along with the estate. She was the one who contacted Walgren along with "her" attorney. Its very probable the Jackson siblings were not informed or aware of her actions. She doesnt need to consult them - she has her own consultants beyond her children. Or maybe latoya was wispering in her ear she is closest

Im not defending ther own actions just stating they are not responsible for every thing Katherine does.
so to say they knew or didnt know is all ussumption - Randy says they were not imformed of this decision
I cant stand him but I believe this statement is true.

Yes, you might be right that Katherine did that base on her own judgement. The whole situation is even worse than before. Thinking about this gives your more chilled. If this is true, I feel so sorry for MJ. What kind of mother would do that to her own son? I really don't understand it. This is the son loved you so much. This is the son that devoted so much to this family and help his own brother raising all those grandchildren. This is really shocking that any mother would willing to do this. Yes, I know she is old and someone would whisper to her ear. However, the whole thing is just so so wrong.

 

[marebear]

I am sorry I don't believe the Jacksons anymore on anything. They have failed Michael in so many ways it's unbelievable to me. They would have nothing if it wasn't for Michael taking care of them. Now they are allowing the man who killed him to profit off what he did. You know I can still remember I think Dr. Shafer said that if Murray was watching Michael and noticed something wrong that maybe all he had to do was lift his head up or chin to breathe or something like that. Something simple that anyone could do and he didn't do it. Anything Murray does after he gets out to hurt Michael, his own family is responsible for that. Shameful.

 

[twinklEE]

I despise Steven Randall, everytime a pic of his bald head comes up, I have to go and regurgitate, guess I just can't stand violent thieves.

 

[twinklEE]

yep he sees the outrage and he responds that he had nothing to do with it

How is it that Judge Pastor and Walgren were more outraged by Murray's conduct and treatment of MJ, than Katherine is?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp-bZfuy43w&feature=BFa&list=SP3BD08AD296F0AE5B&lf=list_related

Throughout the trial I've seen Walgreen express more disgust and outrage toward Murray's actions than the entire Jackson family in almost 3 years. Same goes for the judge, in the 20 mins he spoke, he said everything that needs to be said about Michael's death. It's a shame to see strangers care more about the circumstances of his death than so called family.

 

[Ashtanga]

randyjackson8 Randy Jackson
My siblings & I were never informed the restitution bid against Murray was being dropped. We DO NOT support that action. NOT our decision.
13 minutes ago

http://twitter.com/randyjackson8


-----------------

Then who's damn decision is it? I dont get how it always gets complicated when it comes to the Jacksons!! ughhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bla bla bla.........

 

[Rhilo]

randyjackson8 Randy Jackson
My siblings & I were never informed the restitution bid against Murray was being dropped. We DO NOT support that action. NOT our decision.
13 minutes ago

http://twitter.com/randyjackson8


-----------------

Then who's damn decision is it? I dont get how it always gets complicated when it comes to the Jacksons!! ughhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Randy needs to STFU. He's adding insult to injury by playing the clueless victim game.

 

[Ramona122003]

Randy needs to STFU. He's adding insult to injury by playing the clueless victim game.

He would actually be more believable if he said that he knew, tried to change his parents' mind, but failed. That would make most fans give him the benefit of a doubt. Saying he doesn't know when he had his finger in everything else regarding Michael after he died is just too much.

 

[Justthefacts]

Him saying had no clue what was going on where money was concerned is not only a great big joke but a great big bunch of BS

 

[bluetopez]

So he is saying that he and the rest of his bros and sisters don't agree with what his Mother did here! Hmmm...okay!

 

[Annita]

that's the other part of it. In the criminal trial anything Murray was ordered to pay would most probably gone to the Estate. The civil ones will go to whomever filed it. So you also have that.

But I'm personally thinking that the restitution idea was Walgren's, he wanted to figuratively prison Murray for the rest of his life with that high amount. He asked Estate for losses from TII and they gave him $100M number. then Jackson's realized that Pastor would most probably will give him the maximum - as we have seen before- and that would have given AEG the chance to argue "but they are already compensated / Murray is ordered to pay" and significantly reduce their financial responsibility. So the Jackson's said to Walgren stop his request and they'll handle it on civil cases. Estate and children's ad litem looks from business perspective and as probably they all knew that Murray couldn't pay to start with,they didn't have a financial reason to push for it.

I think this high restitution was Walgren's idea to literally screw Murray over , he didn't care about collecting it, he just wanted to put him in huge debt. But now there's a calculation going on who they can collect big amounts of money from. That's what I'm thinking.

Is there any possiblity for Murray to earn money with Michael Jackson when he comes out of prison or house-arrest? Can he give interviews, publishing books or a documentation and make money with this things. If this is the case, then I can`t understand the position of the Estate and the attorney of the childreen to give permission to stop the request.

Can you please clarify this please?

 

[bouee]

I've been away for a few days, so I'm catching up.

I have the same question as Annita. I "understand" the "logic" behind this decision if it comes from Katherine, for herself and as the kids' guardian, trying to protect whatever can be won in the AEG lawsuit. But does the estate have a role to play ? Can they ask for a restitution?

Coming from Katherine, wether or not other family members were aware of it , it's especially disgusting. She is Michael's mother, he loved her, she is supposed to protect the kids, and she leaves the door open to Murray (and other possible Murrays in the future) to profit from this, and tell "his" side of the story, when Michael can't. And we all know what his side of the story is. And as I write this, another question comes to my mind : if Murray writes a book, or does another "documentary", will they or the estate have the possibility to stop it ?? Will they be able to do anything about it ?

Not to mention that the kids still have to deal with the fact that there are a lot of unanswered questions about Michael's death. Instead of helping them move forward, she's just adding more questions, probably leading them into more confusion.

Someone wrote here that Murray didn't use AEG for his defense, and didn't try to use the conspiracy theory for his own defense. Well he did try a bit, but he is stuck : AEG will always say they were not aware of what was really going on, and anyway, when they had little suspicions, they would inform Murray, the doctor, and Murray told them Michael was fine. So as a criminal defense, it was hopeless. Now, if his lawyers are helping Joe and Katherine, then maybe he , or his lawyers, saw it coming and worked in this direction : help Katherine and Joe, so that in the end , the restitution will be dropped to protect the AEG lawsuit. After all, it's "only" involuntary manslaughter, so after he has served his sentence he can start a new life.

I definitely hope she will lose against AEG.

 

[Rhilo]

So he is saying that he and the rest of his bros and sisters don't agree with what his Mother did here! Hmmm...okay!

I doubt that, with them it's always someone else's fault. If asked to elaborate further, I'm sure he'd blame Katherine's legal advisor or something, even though we aren't stupid and can see clear as daylight that only the Jackson's themselves are at fault.

I don't know the extent to which Michael's siblings were involved in the decision, but they can't be clueless as Randy implies. They are the main reason why Katherine gets herself into such situations. All through her shady deals, and blunders she's trying to earn as much for her unemployed offspring and their children before she exits this world. That's what she's doing. So I can't buy Randy's claim.

 

[Ben]

"WE do not support that decision"? Who's that "we"? Is he talking about all the siblings this time? Or will there be other tweets from some saying they approve, or dont know, or (classic) that no one understands how hard it is to be a Jackson?...

 

[gerryevans]

Very annoying that this restitution dropping has put me squarely on the side of AEG. I don’t want them to have to give up a single cent to the Jacksons. By the same token, I HATE wanting AEG to be the victor in anything. I don’t hold Phillps or the AEG gang responsible for MJ’s death. That was nutcase Murray’s direct doing, and he should pay in any shape, form, or fashion for the rest of his life. But I totally believe Phillips said just what Murray said he did. That he “owned” MJ. I think MJ clearly felt Phillips’ attitude, and it was very belittling and demeaning for him, adding to his already debilitated, battered and bruised psyche. So while I want the Jacksons to come out empty handed, I want Phillips to personally feel some angst. I don’t see AEG losing the suit, but if it is posing as a pain in Phillip's butt, good.

I really hope they don't settle. Plus, I don’t think anything worse is going to come out in this trial than Murray's taped conversation of MJ and the DA’s photo of him on that gurney. After hearing and seeing those two things, I can take anything that may come out in another courtroom.

 

[bouee]

I haven't been following the AEG lawsuit very closely, so I hope what I'm saying makes sense. At first I thought it was interesting, because of the "human" aspect of it. I mean, generally speaking, not especially AEG, money and immediate profit is becoming increasingly more and more important than the human factor. I live in France, and have been working for over 20 years, and I can see working conditions, mine and others, getting worse and worse, because of that. There have been cases here where companies have been held legally responsible for suicides or nervous breakdowns, because of too much pressure on employees. It doesn't mean that they are directly responsible for the deaths or illnesses, it means that they created situations that were deemed unbearable.

In that sense, at first , I thought that it could be interesting. Murray is directly responsible, that's clear to me, and I don't think AEG could have guessed what was going on, and it was Murray's responsibility to stop that.Not even Michael knew that Murray was not monitoring him.
But the question was, were there warning signs, and should they have interfered and make the decision to postpone concerts, did they put too much pressure and ignore certain facts, and not necessarily willingly, contributed to complicate the situation ? From that point of view, I thought this could have been interesting, and if the lawsuit showed that they actually pushed too far, then holding them liable would help create a standard.

But from what I read, the question now seems to rely on technically if AEG was Murray's employer, and failing to control him properly. It's not the same, and especially since we know that Michael wanted him, after all Murray had been treating him and the kids for over 2 years, he had no reason not to trust him, why would AEG ?

For me, it's really 2 different things, Murray's restitution should not have been mixed with AEG's lawsuit. The fact that at least Katherine stopped the restitution shows that her only interest is money, not justice, not protecting Michael and his kids. Just money.

 

[Autumn II]

Is there any possiblity for Murray to earn money with Michael Jackson when he comes out of prison or house-arrest? Can he give interviews, publishing books or a documentation and make money with this things. If this is the case, then I can`t understand the position of the Estate and the attorney of the childreen to give permission to stop the request.

Can you please clarify this please?

California has no "Son of Sam" law that would prohibit Murray from profiting from his crime. So the answer is YES, he can earn money. What the restitution would have done, would have made it pointless for him to do so, as that money would have gone to the children, and to Michael's parents. Now, he is free to do talk shows, write books, do further documentaries. . . whatever he wants. There is nothing now that prohibits him making money by slandering Michael, for the rest of his life.

 

[ivy]

Is there any possiblity for Murray to earn money with Michael Jackson when he comes out of prison or house-arrest? Can he give interviews, publishing books or a documentation and make money with this things. If this is the case, then I can`t understand the position of the Estate and the attorney of the childreen to give permission to stop the request.

Can you please clarify this please?

I've been away for a few days, so I'm catching up.

I have the same question as Annita. I "understand" the "logic" behind this decision if it comes from Katherine, for herself and as the kids' guardian, trying to protect whatever can be won in the AEG lawsuit. But does the estate have a role to play ? Can they ask for a restitution?

California has no "Son of Sam" law that would prohibit Murray from profiting from his crime. So the answer is YES, he can earn money. What the restitution would have done, would have made it pointless for him to do so, as that money would have gone to the children, and to Michael's parents. Now, he is free to do talk shows, write books, do further documentaries. . . whatever he wants. There is nothing now that prohibits him making money by slandering Michael, for the rest of his life.

Autumn is right, yes Murray can do whatever he wants after he's released. There's nothing stopping him.

As for the Estate (and ad litem) you need to understand that they are a business, they don't have emotions, they look to this from financial perspective. It's hard for them to ask for restitution solely on financial basis (they might have lost $100M from TII but made close to $300M from the movie) when the family of the victim - who also has the emotional aspect- doesn't want to.

 

[Ramona122003]

Autumn is right, yes Murray can do whatever he wants after he's released. There's nothing stopping him.

As for the Estate (and ad litem) you need to understand that they are a business, they don't have emotions, they look to this from financial perspective. It's hard for them to ask for restitution solely on financial basis (they might have lost $100M from TII but made close to $300M from the movie) when the family of the victim - who also has the emotional aspect- doesn't want to.

I really don't understand why there isn't a law by default that would prevent someone like Murray from making money off his crime. I guess that's what restitution is for, but I feel that is something that should happened by default and not an extra court process. I actually wonder if the Jacksons even realize what they have done since they tend to get their law advise from the gumball machine. They don't seem to have any understanding how laws works given how they structured the AEG lawsuit and the will challenge.

 

[twinklEE]

Murray is going to laugh all the way to the bank once he gets out, and it's solely Katherine and the JAckson's fault. I've lost the last ounce of respect I had for this woman, now I just couldn't care less anymore. Whatever evil there, I hope it comes their way. They deserve it.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Even if murray had to pay comp wouldnt he have just signed money from a book or interviews over to nicole anyway? in the uk u cant profit but theres a famous case of a man that faked his own death for the insurance money. got caught did his time and now hes written a book but any money made he signed over to a friend. ie signed the royalties over. so unlesd murray works again would no money be handed over as comp anyway?

 

[Ramona122003]

Murray is going to laugh all the way to the bank once he gets out, and it's solely Katherine and the JAckson's fault. I've lost the last ounce of respect I had for this woman, now I just couldn't care less anymore. Whatever evil there, I hope comes there way. They deserve it.

I am not actually sure how much Murray can make. That doc he released the week after he was convicted bomb badly and it made Murray look terrible even by people who may not like or care about Michael. Murray just does not come off as likable. He, frankly, comes off as a self-center asshole and since he is pretty much a known liar at this point, it is not like anyone is going to believe him anyway. Yeah, there will be people who will interview him, but I don't think anyone will bother to listen.

Also, from what I saw, most of the news media is disgusted by this man. When he was convicted and during some parts of the trial, you could hear the contempt for Murray from some media people.

 

[Ramona122003]

Even if murray had to pay comp wouldnt he have just signed money from a book or interviews over to nicole anyway? in the uk u cant profit but theres a famous case of a man that faked his own death for the insurance money. got caught did his time and now hes written a book but any money made he signed over to a friend. ie signed the royalties over. so unlesd murray works again would no money be handed over as comp anyway?

Yes, there are work around which several posters talked about when the DA asked for restitution. He could use a third-party to write his book and the money goes to a friend or associate. The family can still sue, but it gets complicated in a hurry.

But, as Ivy said, the restitution was more meant to be a mental prison so Murray would never forget his crime and know that he was fully responsible. Now, he can easily tell himself and others that if he did anything wrong, he paid for the crime and even the 'family' let him off because the real enemy is AEG who used him and Michael, which is the main thing that disgust me.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Yeah totally agree with your bottom paragraph

 

[mjjmsc]

I think I agree. I don't know and didn't check the legal rules but I think the damages they can get is pretty much set - such as the TII income loss for $100 Million - and if the judge put that responsibility on Murray they would have had hard time getting anything from AEG.

I seriously wish to be wrong on this because it's so disappointing if that's the case.

I truly agrre with you, Murray should have paid because this was the right thing...they let him get away because they can make more money from AEG...shameful...

 

[Autumn II]

I really don't understand why there isn't a law by default that would prevent someone like Murray from making money off his crime. I guess that's what restitution is for, but I feel that is something that should happened by default and not an extra court process. I actually wonder if the Jacksons even realize what they have done since they tend to get their law advise from the gumball machine. They don't seem to have any understanding how laws works given how they structured the AEG lawsuit and the will challenge.

The first "Son of Sam" law was in New York state, to prevent criminals from profiting from their crimes. This is a state-by-state law, not federal. A federal law would apply to ALL states, evenly. As it stands now, states may choose to have such a law, or not. California does not. Ethically, this is a no-brainer, but under the law, Murray will be completely free to profit from any lurid stories he wants to tell about Michael. Whether or not the public will be interested in stories coming from a documented liar, is another matter.

 

[Severus Snape]

I am not actually sure how much Murray can make. That doc he released the week after he was convicted bomb badly and it made Murray look terrible even by people who may not like or care about Michael. Murray just does not come off as likable. He, frankly, comes off as a self-center asshole and since he is pretty much a known liar at this point, it is not like anyone is going to believe him anyway. Yeah, there will be people who will interview him, but I don't think anyone will bother to listen.

Also, from what I saw, most of the news media is disgusted by this man. When he was convicted and during some parts of the trial, you could hear the contempt for Murray from some media people.

I honestly doubt there'll be much interest in what he has to say after he gets out of prison. He's said it all in that failed mockumentary, and the only thing left to talk about is his time in prison eating them grilled cheese sandwiches and how stupid his defence team was [we could see a whole yarn about 'The Lawyers I Called My Friends and How Their Petty In-Fighting Prevented Me From Testifying And Telling Da Troot'], stories no one really gives a damn about, in other words. If he had anything damning to say about Michael, it would have come out in the MSNBC documentary, and we've seen what he's said thus far, and how nobody really cares.

So I'm not sure there will be an open market for whatever he has to say. The tape he had was so valuable because it was, well, a tape. It wasn't some random story pulled out of his ass--the voice on the tape is clearly Michael's, and with that, he could have done whatever he wanted. But now that opportunity is gone, Michael is dead, the trial is done with, and public interest has largely migrated to other matters. His well has run dry.

 

[Annita]

Autumn is right, yes Murray can do whatever he wants after he's released. There's nothing stopping him.

As for the Estate (and ad litem) you need to understand that they are a business, they don't have emotions, they look to this from financial perspective. It's hard for them to ask for restitution solely on financial basis (they might have lost $100M from TII but made close to $300M from the movie) when the family of the victim - who also has the emotional aspect- doesn't want to.

Thanks for the answer. But I disagree that the Estate and the attorney fot the childreen has to see it only from a buisness standpoint. The Estate has also to protect the legacy from MJ and so even if you see it from the buisiness standpoint they have to prevent damage from MJ and his legacy.
The same for the attorney of the childreen. To prevent damage for the legacy of MJ includes also a protection for the brand Michael Jackson.

I agree it may be a little taugh to request restitution when the familiy doesn`t want it. But I`m sure Walgran has found a way to make it clear in the court.

 

[jaydom7]

I still can't fathom a mother not fighting for her son and wanting his killer to pay for his death which was so unncessary. In the almost 3 years since MJ died, his Mother has not fought for him. She has shown no outrage or anything. It is just sad. In those 3 years Katherine has done everything in her power to get more money from the estate, get money from shady deals with shady people and she threw MJ under the bus going on Oprah talking about his 'toothpick' nose. I've never seen anything like this in my life. What mother does that?

 

[Autumn II]

I've never seen anything like this in my life. What mother does that?

The kind of mother who saw her young son thrown up against a wall, and did NOTHING? Who let the abuse go on, and on? An "unnatural" mother? One who puts her own wants and needs above those of her children, and now her grandchildren? At least she's been CONSISTENT!