Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[Mechi]

Well if the pressure is performed by employees of a company signing responsble aside from MJ for the whole project everybody is working on... and if this very same pressure leads to the death of someone... and if they are also saying they want to put this pressure on someone because the killers salery is coming from them so that very company... that company could get into problems.

It's not a bunch of friends who will be judged by another bunch of friends (or fans)... it's indeed business and this is a trial which wasn't put up just for entertainment.

However the evidence on the table is not the strongest... I'm wondering how AEGlive defense will bring.




Btw I would indeed be interested about news about the trial of the insurance company who doesn't wanna pay... somehow I can't make it to find the thread if there is one also... so please I'd be pretty thankful if someone could help me out with a link.

 

[LastTear]

Gosh Ivy's been busy, thanks for the updates.

Dr Finkelstein testified Gongaware called him about two months prior to MJ's death and told him MJ was going to tour in London, wanted a doctor. Dr. Finkelstein said he was excited about it, wanted to be MJ's physician, had 5-10 conversations with Gongaware about it. Dr. Finkelstein said he asked if Gongaware knew whether MJ was clean. The answer was yes. The doctor explained he would not want to go on tour if MJ had drug problems. "I didn't want to be Dr. Nick," Dr. Finkelstein said. Gongaware told him MJ was clean and passed a physical exam for insurance. Dr. Finkelstein said he would charge $40,000/month, $10,000/week. He remembers Dr. Murray asking for a lot of money to go on tour. (ABC7)

Is this where the 'don't be a doctor Nick' comes from, or was that actually said before on the Dangerous tour?

 

[ivy]

Is this where the 'don't be a doctor Nick' comes from, or was that actually said before on the Dangerous tour?

it was said on the Dangerous tour. I posted his deposition transcript.

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

This was discussed a little before.

The criminal trial only required Murray to be a substantial factor in Michael's death.

- Pastor tells that there could be more than one cause of death and it’s required that the actions of Murray must be a substantial factor in causing the death. It doesn’t need to be the only factor.
- Pastor says Michael could have failed to use reasonable care and may have contributed to death. However if Murray’s actions were substantial he’s still responsible for the death.

So the criminal trial never determined the responsibility was on Murray 100%, it only determined Murray was a substantial factor.

In this instance what is happening Jacksons are adding AEG to the mix. I don't think they deny possible Michael's role in this - at least not according to the opening statements. Jacksons argument is that AEG is responsible for Murray's actions as there is an employee - employer relationship and AEG either was a contributing factor and/or did not do enough when there were warning signs. AEG's argument is personal choice , personal responsibility. Just as Jacksons don't deny Michael wanted Murray, AEG argument is that this ( Murray & Propofol) was all Michael's choice and therefore it was his responsibility.


I personally don't get the AEG pressure argument, especially after the timeline. Do we all agree that AEG and everyone else's worrying about missing rehearsals and Michael not being well etc and AEG talking with Murray happened in June?

Murray was buying Propofol in early April and he was buying it before Michael was talking with other people Dr. Adams, Metzger and Nurse Lee. To me this shows Michael was looking to his sleep options and Murray was more than willing to give him Propofol and even stockpiling it to make Michael choose him over other doctors.

so how can anyone claim it was AEG pressuring Murray/ Michael to use propofol in April before any rehearsals started before any worrying and talks have happened?

 

[passy001]

I personally don't get the AEG pressure argument, especially after the timeline. Do we all agree that AEG and everyone else's worrying about missing rehearsals and Michael not being well etc and AEG talking with Murray happened in June?

Murray was buying Propofol in early April and he was buying it before Michael was talking with other people Dr. Adams, Metzger and Nurse Lee. To me this shows Michael was looking to his sleep options and Murray was more than willing to give him Propofol and even stockpiling it to make Michael choose him over other doctors.

Agree completely. I think many here are using the pressure argument to claim that Murray acted so irrationally towards MJ as a result of AEG piling up an excessive amount of pressure despite the warning. So, Murray feeling the heat and in a desperate attempt to save his $150, 000 per month did the unthinkable i.e killed MJ. that's the way i understand their argument. but I don't agree to be true.

The bold part is essentially what AEG will be arguing.

 

[Mechi]

Well pressure might can lead to an OVERDOSE to a careless (or helpless) mixture of medications by someone who doesn't even have an idea obviously but needs and soooo wants a certain effect... also pressure can lead to complete carelessness or even not the reasonable care which would usually be required (especially with ppl suffering narcistic personality disorder always attributing faults to others but yeah we had only amateur psychiatrists there so yeah who knew that Murray guy was just a big mouth)?

Pressure provokes mistakes.

 

[serendipity]

The defendants are shifting the blame for Michael’s passing from the doctor and onto Michael; the plaintiffs are not doing that.

I remember that some of the jurors thought MJ was responsible for his own death before the trial even began. Maybe they saw some the Jacksons' multiple drug addict interviews. And believe me a big part of the public shares what those jurors think and it didn't come from the defendants.

I believe their argument , Phillips pressured Murray to do what he did and took advantage of the fact he was in so much debt to force him to get MJ to rehearsals using any measures possible. In their opening statement they made it look like Murray was also victim of AEG tactics . Prince testimony served that purpose , the doctor was forced by AEG to do what he did .

But Phillips didn't know about Murray's debt. In fact he thought he was a very successful doctor. MJ himself likely didn't know either.

I personally don't get the AEG pressure argument, especially after the timeline. Do we all agree that AEG and everyone else's worrying about missing rehearsals and Michael not being well etc and AEG talking with Murray happened in June?

Murray was buying Propofol in early April and he was buying it before Michael was talking with other people Dr. Adams, Metzger and Nurse Lee. To me this shows Michael was looking to his sleep options and Murray was more than willing to give him Propofol and even stockpiling it to make Michael choose him over other doctors.

so how can anyone claim it was AEG pressuring Murray/ Michael to use propofol in April before any rehearsals started before any worrying and talks have happened?

Ivy, you're making an excellent point. Not only was Murray using the propofol in April, but he (and MJ) seem to have been stocking it and planning on likely using it in London during the tour, pressure or no pressure. Murray could've screwed up in April or in May..... what were the Jacksons going to claim then?

 

[passy001]

Murray could've screwed up in April or in May..... what were the Jacksons going to claim then?

The Jacksons were going to find a way to blame someone else. Trust me, they are quite good at it.

 

[Tygger]

Last Tear, Passy001, Serendipity, the defendants verdict form that I did not author pass responsibility passed from the doctor to Michael and his mother for his passing.

And are you sure she didn't?

Last Tear, I have already said I do not err on the side of Katherine having full knowledge of the dealings Michael had with those who took advantage of him. They in turn, took advantage of her. This my view and maintain this.

Because you asked, and you said please.

Mary Bell was paid handsomely for her input.

Martin, Abingale Spin it as much as you like, he was a convict who profited from his crime

Stephen Reid has profited - you don't write manuscripts and give them away.

Abu-Jamal - I can't say whether he profited directly or indirectly from his numerous projects. Point is, he profited.

Archer - Still a convict.

Nice to know my request did not have a rude tone. I have no evidence Bell was paid for her biographies as it is not customary to be paid for a biography. If this is true, Michael was cheated from payment for ALL of the biographies written about him while he living. I am not spinning Martin at all; quite the contrary. I explained why he has profited from his con-artist past; it is seen as amusing for an American caucasian male to succeed in this manner for some which allowed him to profit. Reid wrote his book while in prison while Abu-Jamal is serving a life sentence and authors documents/books from prison. Prisoners do not profit while in prison. Archer is a convict who paid restitution to the judicial system.

You are referring to the Son of Sam law with that link. It refers to the convict profiting from their crimes directly. Members of family may or may not be covered in California. Nicole Alvarez’ status as the mother of one of the doctor’s children may not be eligible here.

 

[qbee]

Well pressure might can lead to an OVERDOSE to a careless (or helpless) mixture of medications by someone who doesn't even have an idea obviously but needs and soooo wants a certain effect... also pressure can lead to complete carelessness or even not the reasonable care which would usually be required (especially with ppl suffering narcistic personality disorder always attributing faults to others but yeah we had only amateur psychiatrists there so yeah who knew that Murray guy was just a big mouth)?

Pressure provokes mistakes.

Yes it could, but I don't see how pressure to make sure MJ is healthy enough to attend rehearsals would cause the doctor to leave his patient unattended hooked up to a dangerous drug injection, which is the main reason for his death. (abandonment) Had Murry been in the room caring for his patient death could have been avoided. The pressure to have MJ able to attend rehearsals IMO would cause Murray to take more diligent and better care of his patient so that he could attend rehearsals. The doctor was doing these procedures long before MJ even started rehearsing. Murray knew the procedures were dangerous, so even if he was pressured he would have taken even more care to insure MJ was able and not neglect or abandon him while hooked up to propofol. AEG wanting MJ at rehearsals does not = pump him full or propofol to do that or abandon him during the procedures. The request to have MJ healthy and available was a reasonable request. IMO Murray wasn't negligent because of AEG wanting MJ available but because he was more concerned with himself and other things that should have been taken care at another time. He didn't put his patient first which had nothing to do with AEG .. Even Michael pressuring Murray to give him propofol doesn't = cause of Murray's abandonment and neglect which was proven in the trial so how can AEG be held responsible for Murrays dispicable actions ?

 

[passy001]

Last Tear, Passy001, Serendipity, the defendants verdict form that I did not author pass responsibility passed from the doctor to Michael and his mother for his passing.

Murray is not on that verdict form because he's not a party to the lawsuit.

Defendants are asking whether MJ is responsible for the hiring of the man who ended up killing him. That's what the responsibilities are framed into. they are not "shifting the blame from murray onto MJ".

 

[Mechi]

Well qbee you could be right.
I also don't think Murray was a responsible doctor but I'm not sure AEG has nothing to do with that he didn't put his patients health first... he made sure Michael would sleep for sure (the mixture of Lorazepam and other benzos wheeeew)! Did he overreact in the mixture/overdose cuz he wanted to have his peace and quiet to talk with his several girlfriends or is he just more dumb more than anyone could ever imagine and bought that doctor title, or did he want Michael to sleep for sure cuz that would be the only way to make him go to rehearsals ok... I don't know. Considering how the Murray guy pumped Michael with a more than dangerous (we know it was fatal) mix of benzos and propofol and then performed (or even pretended to perform) cpr on Michael, pretty surprising for a cardiologist, it seems he's not able to deal with real pressure and is very likely to do easily mistakes (also pretty typical for narcistic personality btw).
Pressure provokes mistakes, so yeah it's interesting if there was pressure from AEG (and yep of cuz they tell it was for Michaels best health to me it was more about bringing TII to success no matter what... there was even pressure surely for those AEGguys Phillips and Gongaware enough to be successful no matter what. They were running out of time.) and how they handled it. I guess that's why it was brought up.

 

[Aquarius]

Sorry Bubs, I get so involved with this trial that I get all confused.

 

[ivy]

Let's try something.

This upcoming week is supposed to be the last week for Jacksons side main case. So what do you think overall about their case? The testimonies that worked well or against them?

What is your overall evaluation

 

[ivy]

Alan Duke is reporting that Katherine will be the last witness for Jacksons side.

 

[passy001]

Let's try something.

This upcoming week is supposed to be the last week for Jacksons side main case. So what do you think overall about their case? The testimonies that worked well or against them?

What is your overall evaluation

Very good question. feels like some fresh air at long last.

Here is my take: The jacksons have not proved negligent hiring of Murray which is the real meat of their case. They did demonstrate however that MJ was suffering to a great extend. but i am still not convinced that AEG knew the extend to which MJ was suffering let alone having insomnia problems. AEG just like everyone else was guessing what could be wrong with MJ but never were they fully aware of his troubles to make the right call including cancelling the whole TII concerts series.

NB: that's just my take, meaning i could be wrong.

 

[passy001]

Alan Duke is reporting that Katherine will be the last witness for Jacksons side.

Not really surprised. they wanna close their case with a huge emotional impression on the jury.

 

[Mechi]

Think I've stated before that I think
Murray was hired by AEG even if the contract wasn't worked out in every detail.
They were negotiating and everybody was acting accordingly already.

Those mistakes in AEGs books... well well.

Well but the most weakening for AEGlive to me was Gongawares memory loss and Philips drama queen statements.
Also in public just saying that didn't happen what Prince Michael saw happening means meeting between Philips and the Murray guy without Michael around.

The rest... all those experts speculation about Michaels health, sleep issues, dependency, weight loss... all speculation... just read the coroners report everybody there in court if you're interested in the truth.

The family members aside from Prince talking about 'their loss'. Well as a fan I just can't listen to that without getting in the danger of throwing up.

Would I as a juror give AEG partly responsibility for Michaels death... clearly yes.
But more cuz I listened to and read every damn interview Philips gave shortly after Michaels death. I still hear him talking about 'how their insurance covers overdose' and because I read his testimony now and heard about Gongawares memory loss. That to me as a fan just is not enough.
Would I want them or AEG to pay money to the Jacksons for it... clearly still no.


edit.: still I'd like to get to know more about those DiLeo-emails... and also how AEG will present theirs...

 

[bouee]

re pressure on Murray : I don't think the Jacksons lawyers are presenting it this way.

What they say- or at least what I see from what they say is that pressure on Murray indicates they were treating Murray as an employee/indep contractor : AEG asked specifics things from Murray - ie get Michael on stage, when they shouldn't have had that much contact with him. They made it clear during the meetings when he was present, and Murray ended up doing Michael's schedule. As a personnal employee, in theory, AEG should have had zero contact with Murray.

Second thing they say is improper supervision of the doctor : same agrument : they pressurd Murray, when you're not supposed to pressure a doctor.

The judge already ruled that AEG can not be held responsible for Murray's medical actions : so AEG can not be made responsible for the choice of propofol and other medication and/or the way propofol was given. So it means , IMO, that if you think - and I do- that AEG pressured Murray, it is ONLY improper on AEG's part, it doesn't mean they triggered Murray's actions : it was Murray's choice to use propool/benzos, and it was Murray's choice to give it the way he did, and leave Michael unattended to talk on the phone. Pressure might have played a part, I agree with you Mechi, but as far as Murray's actions are concerned, it's irrelevant.

It IS relevant in a way, because pressure might have made Michael's insomnia/health worse, possibly impairing his judgement in the last days. But that's only my opinion, there were no such arguments used, not yet at least, or not directly.

That ruling is very important IMO, because that says that Murray's medical responsability (his medical actions), is not part of the debate, it shouldn't even be an argument.

AEG could use that ruling to blame the doctor : they are not medical profesionals , how could they even understand how bad the problem was, how could they guess the doctor was doing such dangerous things. But that's not what they're doing. At least that's not what they've been doing so far, and the most important witnesses, Phillips and Gongaware have already testified. They stick to amnesia , or having trouble admitting health/sleep issues were discussed with Murray. Why ? There should be no problem admitting that, and it's obvious the meetings were in part about Michael's health. If they were not, what was Murray doing at those meetings ?

The Jacksons in their opening statements are saying that there are 3 responsible parties : Michael, Murray and AEG. Their verdict form says AEG was a factor in Michael's death. I don't understand that as shifting Murray's responsability to AEG. They don't mention propofol in their line of questionning. They stick to Michael's past issues that are relevant : the issues that AEG were aware of, according to them. And they stick to showing that Murray was visibly incompetent. They stick to things AEG should have seen, as non professionals.

That's negligent hiring supervising and retaining : jacksons theory is that AEG knew of past issues, should have been suspicious of Murray, even more so when they saw Michael's health declining under his care. Yet they hired him and pressured him in spite of seeing his incomptence. And it IS murray's incompetence/negligence that killed Michael.

It's AEG who is using the propofol argument. AEG in their verdict form simply ignore Murray. They ask who is repsonsible for Michael's death (as opposed to a factor) and name AEG, Katherine and Michael. Murray's not there, when it would be possible according to the judge's ruling. In their opening statement, and their line of questioning they blame Michael, and hardly mention Murray. I feel they ARE shifting Murray's blame on Michael.
They hired an expert to say Michael was still addicted to demerol (frankly, isn't that desperate ?) to put the blame on Klein, and by using Klein they are acknowledging they were aware of possible drug issues. They use Paris' video at a moment when it's totally irrelevant to discredit Michael (great, discredited by his own daughter when she is in a hopsiptal for a suicide attempt), they keep downplaying/foregtting Michael's health issues under Murray's care , they keep insisting on secrecy.

I don't know what they're going to say when they present their case, but I would say it smells very very bad. For Michael, and also for AEG and Phillips. I'm not sure about Gongaware, we'll see if they call Finkelstein or not, and if others testify to his presence at the mid june meeting.

So my take : Jacksons have proven their case, except for Gongaware, his role is not 100 % clear yet. Difficult road ahead for AEG's defense. I want to stay open, but I don't see how they could change my opinion.

EDIT : I still wouldn't want Katherine to be awarded anything. I know it's wishful thinking, and me in lalaland but I feel that if AEG is found liable, they shouldn't pay more than 50% of what Murray would have been supposed to pay for restitution, because Murray is the utlimate responsible, and that the money should go the kids and/or charities ONLY.

 

[Mechi]

re pressure on Murray : I don't think the Jacksons lawyers are presenting it this way.

What they say- or at least what I see from what they say is that pressure on Murray indicates they were treating Murray as an employee/indep contractor : AEG asked specifics things from Murray - ie get Michael on stage, when they shouldn't have had that much contact with him. They made it clear during the meetings when he was present, and Murray ended up doing Michael's schedule. As a personnal employee, in theory, AEG should have had zero contact with Murray.

Second thing they say is improper supervision of the doctor : same agrument : they pressurd Murray, when you're not supposed to pressure a doctor.

The judge already ruled that AEG can not be held responsible for Murray's medical actions : so AEG can not be made responsible for the choice of propofol and other medication and/or the way propofol was given. So it means , IMO, that if you think - and I do- that AEG pressured Murray, it is ONLY improper on AEG's part, it doesn't mean they triggered Murray's actions : it was Murray's choice to use propool/benzos, and it was Murray's choice to give it the way he did, and leave Michael unattended to talk on the phone. Pressure might have played a part, I agree with you Mechi, but as far as Murray's actions are concerned, it's irrelevant.

oh yep thanks... I forgot about that ruling... but you're right.
So you think they brought the pressure up cuz of improper supervision and or contact to Murray... yeah but could they really prove it? AEGlive surely tries to put always Michael in the middle... wondering what will come from AEGs side to that. I really wonder how they'll respond at all... to put the victim in the middle can work out for them but also can go reeeaally wrong for them.

 

[bouee]

oh yep thanks... I forgot about that ruling... but you're right.
So you think they brought the pressure up cuz of improper supervision and or contact to Murray... yeah but could they really prove it? AEGlive surely tries to put always Michael in the middle... wondering what will come from AEGs side to that. I really wonder how they'll respond at all... to put the victim in the middle can work out for them but also can go reeeaally wrong for them.

I don't know how the jury would respond to that... we'll see. If I was there, and even if it was not Michael, I would not like that, and even less using his own kids to do that. But that's me & and i'm not there...

As for the propofol defense, it would be easy for Panish to remind/inform the jury ... and that would blow a part of AEG's defense.... in 2 minutes.

 

[soulmum]

I still think it could go either way.

 

[qbee]

I see your point that AEG giving Murray instructions could be considered as employee, employer relationship. Plus Kenny Ortega stating He had to now work with Murray for MJ's schedule. It more or less brings Murray into the fold as Kenny worded it. Even though Murray's contract wasn't signed yet, he was being treated as an employee by AEG by their words, actions and instructions that somewhat inferred that he is. But were they just asking Murray to do that out of concern for MJ health or demanding that as his employer.

As far as negligent supervision Kenney testimony of he felt the doctor had to be aware of Michael's condition and should be taking care of MJ shows at least he had some suspicions or concern that MJ wasn't being cared for properly by Murray. But he was closer to MJ daley then Phillips or Gongaware and they may not have seen the things first hand to be able to be suspicious at that time. I think once aware they felt some outside source was causing MJ's actions. They are the ones on trial not kenny so it needs to be proved they were suspicious of Murray and still instructed Murray to be responsible for getting MJ to rehearsals. Murray should have been responsible for Michaels health period .. not anything else. By AEG giving him the duty of getting MJ to rehearsals they are more or less implying he has some responsibility to them to do that. That kind of infers an employer employe relationship

I'm not sure about proving negligent supervision yet .. I guess they have to prove hiring before they prove negligent supervision.

You are right Jackson's can not use that any pressure on MJ or Murray caused Murray to kill Michael .. any more than they could state MJ pressuring Murray to give him propofol cause Murray to kill him. and that is not one of the claims in this trial anyway.

 

[ivy]

was Murray hired? - Yes.

Jackson side did a really good job of showing many people starting to work without a signed contract and negotiations ending later paying them. Based on this it is easy to conclude Murray was hired even though contract wasn't signed.

who hired Murray? - Not clear

The only smoking gun is Gongaware's email of we want to remind Murray. However the contract says Murray is hired at the request and cost of Michael. so who hired Murray is unclear. It is actually unclear for everyone. For example Karen Faye was called by Michael, asked to work by Michael but then signed a contract and paid by AEG who would later get the money from Michael, so who hired her? Michael or AEG? This could go either way.

Was hiring negligent? Not clear

Jacksons HR expert was the weakest link IMO. I would understand the position of recommending every person in close contact & can spend 1 on 1 time with Michael - meaning not only Murray but security, whole household staff and even Karen , Bush and Travis to go through a full and detailed background check. For example it was reported Alberto Alvarez had a DUI charge as well as a domestic violence complaint which might have made him a risk factor. So yeah , if she testified "everyone in close contact with Michael should have been subjected to full background checks", I would have agreed with her.

However her testimony screamed "bought" to me. She testified she stopped background check on Murray when she found his debt. She concluded he wasn't suitable for employment because he had debt. It sounds like discrimination to me. especially she couldn't show any relationship with debt and malpractice. Also I would expect to look to all factors and then determine if a person is suitable for employment or not. Just looking to debt, seems premature.

Michael's health -

Yes another good job to demonstrate that there were some worrying signs in June 14 to 19. But I'm not convinced it was obvious. Doctors have testified the symptoms were generic and a lay person could think it was flu. Murray and Michael saying he was fine. Michael looking a lot better on June 23 - 24. As Ortega testified Michael's improvement made him doubt himself. The same could apply to AEG. So they could have thought : something is wrong, what is wrong, they say nothing is wrong, oh he looks okay, perhaps nothing was wrong.

some interesting testimony

- Finkelstein deposition was played to show Gongaware knew but it had interesting points which were
----- he was hired by the promoter Marcel Avram
----- despite his specialty he was hired as general care physician
----- he told people but no one believed him
----- in 2009 Gongaware told him Michael was clean because he passed a physical

An interesting tidbit from Ortega, "pull the plug" was Ortega and he only discussed the possibility of pulling the plug if things doesn't improve.

and finally conflict of interest. yes I get the point but I'm not sold. even Jackson experts - the doctor who treat concert goers - said he acted ethically. Finkelstein - paid by promoter - sounded alarms that could end the tour and his employment. There have been doctors who refused to give drugs. So I don't get the argument that conflict of interest or money as the determinig factor of improper behavior. Regardless of the situation people - especially doctors who took an oath - can do the right thing

 

[serendipity]

I really don't see how AEG are discrediting Michael with Paris' video. On the contrary - it is the Jacksons that are trying hard to discredit her after the video was played.

 

[bouee]

I really don't see how AEG are discrediting Michael with Paris' video. On the contrary - it is the Jacksons that are trying hard to discredit her after the video was played.

Yes, I suppose they want Grace on the stand at all costs because of that bank account and / or are trying to defend Michael (??? I can't believe i just wrote that ).

Keeping a crazy nanny for so many years, someone who was taking care of the kids on a daily basis does not give a great image, IMO. There has to be more to this, and I don't want to guess.

Grace and also maybe Debbie could testify with better words to the effect that losing Michael had on the kids & specifically Paris.

 

[ivy]

AEG could use that ruling to blame the doctor

I wouldn't expect that.

because from verdict form thread

- AEG's liability is coextensive with Murray's liability (any fault attributable to Murray is attributable to AEG)
- putting AEG and Murray on one line reduces confusion as KJ's lawyers claim AEG's liability and Murray's liability is the same.

Jacksons argue AEG and Murray's liability is one and the same and the verdict form should be "AEG/ Murray". So if Jacksons get their way for AEG blaming Murray would be blaming themselves.

The Jacksons in their opening statements are saying that there are 3 responsible parties : Michael, Murray and AEG. Their verdict form says AEG was a factor in Michael's death. I don't understand that as shifting Murray's responsability to AEG.

see above. it clearly argues any fault by Murray is attributable to AEG.

No they don't say AEG knew the means of Murray's treatment but they are still equally responsible as they hired Murray.
AEG in their verdict form simply ignore Murray. They ask who is repsonsible for Michael's death (as opposed to a factor) and name AEG, Katherine and Michael. Murray's not there, when it would be possible according to the judge's ruling. In their opening statement, and their line of questioning they blame Michael, and hardly mention Murray. I feel they ARE shifting Murray's blame on Michael.

yes but the legal reasoning is explained above. If they place any blame on Murray and the jury agrees with Jacksons that AEG shares the same responsibility as Murray because they hired him, AEG would be in trouble. Defense wise it makes sense to shift the blame on to Michael so that even though jury thinks they were negligent in hiring Murray, they wouldn't put any liability on them and they wont be responsible for any damages.

I still think it could go either way.

we havent even seen the defense case, way to early to speculate about the verdict IMO.

 

[bouee]

I wouldn't expect that.

because from verdict form thread

- AEG's liability is coextensive with Murray's liability (any fault attributable to Murray is attributable to AEG)
- putting AEG and Murray on one line reduces confusion as KJ's lawyers claim AEG's liability and Murray's liability is the same.

Jacksons argue AEG and Murray's liability is one and the same and the verdict form should be "AEG/ Murray". So if Jacksons get their way for AEG blaming Murray would be blaming themselves.



see above. it clearly argues any fault by Murray is attributable to AEG.



yes but the legal reasoning is explained above. If they place any blame on Murray and the jury agrees with Jacksons that AEG shares the same responsibility as Murray because they hired him, AEG would be in trouble. Defense wise it makes sense to shift the blame on to Michael so that even though jury thinks they were negligent in hiring Murray, they wouldn't put any liability on them and they wont be responsible for any damages.




we havent even seen the defense case, way to early to speculate about the verdict IMO.

from trial summary :
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...tory-Summary?p=3786812&viewfull=1#post3786812
http://fr.scribd.com/doc/128772581/aeg-live-final-order-2-27-2013

Claim 5 Respondeat Superior

Judge states that AEG's evidence established that Murray was an independent contractor and not an employee and AEG had no control over "means and manner" of Murray's work. Judge cites case law that doctors are considered independent contractors.

Katherine claims that AEG hired Murray in part to ensure that Michael attended rehearsals. Judge says even this claim might be true, there's no evidence that AEG had any control over how Murray did that.

Judge also mentions secondary factors that AEG Live had nothing to do with medical care, medical work performed by a specialist without supervision, medicines were provided by Murray and the contract and the parties clearly understood that the agreement was for an independent contractor.

Therefore judge states there's no triable issue whether Murray was an employee and determines that Murray was an independent contractor.

As Katherine fails to show any evidence that AEG had any control over how (manner or means) Murray did his job, judge dismisses the respondeat superior claim.

verdict form :
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...tory-Summary?p=3802437&viewfull=1#post3802437

Katherine Jackson / Plaintiff's proposed verdict form

1. Were any defendants (AEG Live, Gongaware, Phillips) negligent in hiring, retaining or supervising Conrad Murray?

Yes / No

If you answered Yes then answer question 2. If you answered No stop here answer no further questions.

2. Was defendants negligence a substantial factor in causing Michael Jackson's death?

Yes / No

If you answered Yes then answer question 3. If you answered No stop here answer no further questions.

3.4.5.6 What are plaintiff (KJ, Prince, Paris, Blanket) total wrongful death damages for the death of Michael Jackson?

economic damages (past support, contribution gifts/benefits) _______________
economic damages (future support, contribution gifts/benefits) _______________
non economic damages (past love, companionship,comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection,society, moral support, training and guidance) __________________
non economic damages (future love, companionship,comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection,society, moral support, training and guidance) __________________

I fail to see where it says AEG = Murray ?

I posted your summary of the judge ruling, it's a direct contradiction IMO. Even if the Jacksons wanted to, they can't use that argument. And that's not what they're saying either, they are strictly speaking of AEG. Not how AEG pushed Murray to do the wrong thing.

 

[ivy]

If I might

Jacksons has several claims in this trial

- murray was hired
- AEG hired him
- AEG was negligent in hiring (background checks, knew or should have known)
- AEG shares responsibility in Michael's death to the point Murray's fault is AEG's fault
- there are extensive damages

A proper defense would try to argue against it all because they would never know what the jury would think. So that's the reason why AEG is saying

- Murray wasn't hired because contract wasn't signed
- Murray was hired by Michael on his dime.
- Murray's hiring was not negligent. A credit check was inappropriate , a referral by Michael was enough and nothing to know.
- AEG doesn't have a responsibility in Michael's death. It was personal choice , personal responsibility (yes they try to distance themselves from Murray)
- The damages aren't as much.

Putting their eggs in one basket and only trying to debunk some or one of these steps would not be a good defense.

 

[jrsfan]

I personally don't get the AEG pressure argument, especially after the timeline. Do we all agree that AEG and everyone else's worrying about missing rehearsals and Michael not being well etc and AEG talking with Murray happened in June?

Murray was buying Propofol in early April and he was buying it before Michael was talking with other people Dr. Adams, Metzger and Nurse Lee. To me this shows Michael was looking to his sleep options and Murray was more than willing to give him Propofol and even stockpiling it to make Michael choose him over other doctors.

so how can anyone claim it was AEG pressuring Murray/ Michael to use propofol in April before any rehearsals started before any worrying and talks have happened?

Regarding the timeline- Dileo's emails could be helpful. In the Larry King Live interview after his death Dileo said he asked him in March if he was doing drugs - I wouldn't think you would ask if there weren't some questions regarding it.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0908/04/lkl.01.html

KING: Did you know about Michael's drug problem?

DILEO: I knew about it in the past. I didn't know if anything was going on now and I still don't. Because you have to remember something, to get the Lloyds of London to give you an insurance policy, you have to pass an exam. It was a four-hour exam with an outside doctor that they picked. They sent the doctor from New York. They examined him.

KING: They did that at the home?

DILEO: They did it somewhere. I wasn't here for that, but they have the results. They're not allowed to give them to anybody. But they said he was in great health. Now, you know, I asked them. I asked them in March, are you doing anything? He got a dig. Why would you ask me that? I said I want to be sure --

KING: What do you make of the doctor in the house full-time, Diprivan, stories like that?

DILEO: I never heard of Diprivan until I heard it on your show, to be honest with you. And I didn't know the doctor was staying overnight. Because at the end of the night, he went to his house, I went to my residence.

KING: Back with more of Frank Delco. We certainly thank him for being with us tonight. Clearing up some things. Back in 60 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back. Were you going to go on the tour?

DILEO: Yes.

KING: As manager, you'd have to go.

DILEO: Absolutely. I was going for eight months.

KING: Do you know if Dr. Murray was going to go?

DILEO: Yes, Michael wanted Dr. Murray to go. When I came in March, he said, Frank, make sure they get a doctor for us.

KING: Didn't you question that?

DILEO: I said, why do you need a doctor? He said because after the shows I want to make sure that I get the right fluids, you know, and I eat right, and I want somebody to help my health.

KING: Do you know Dr. Murray?

DILEO: No, I never met him until one day we had a meeting.

 

[ivy]

verdict form :
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...tory-Summary?p=3802437&viewfull=1#post3802437



I fail to see where it says AEG = Murray ?

I have an update on that thread. That was the first verdict forms filed but both parties and there have been extra discussions, additions and motions. their goal is to combine them in a way that both parties agree. so there have been changes in the verdict forms. there are additional versions. I haven't seen the final one though.

Here's my post dated April 18

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...nd-AEG/page3?p=3809369&viewfull=1#post3809369

Documents on the case are now 6 + days behind. I just got Katherine's objection to AEG's verdict form.

Basically Katherine's side is saying AEG's verdict form is improper and at times leading.

Katherine says there are 4 questions in a negligent hiring claim
1. employee or independent contractor was unfit - incompetent to perform the job they are hired for
2. defendant knew or should have known this
3. employee's incompetence hurt plaintiff
4. defendant's negligence in hiring was substantial factor in causing the harm

They continue to state that jury is not required to answer if there was a written or oral contact (AEG questions 1-4) and judge can just give instructions. similarly they say whether Katherine was dependent on Michael could be addressed in instructions.

Katherine's lawyers argue that some questions AEG had are affirmative defenses (Q6-7 whether AEG knew Murray was unfit and if reasonable person can foresee harm to Michael). Katherine's lawyers call these questions obstacles and imply preference for a particular outcome.

Katherine's lawyers state AEG's form does not include retention and supervision - which are also the claims by Katherine.

This document also shows their disagreements about the allocation of fault section:

Katherine's lawyers state their form has one line for Murray / AEG and another line for Michael Jackson. they state AEG's form does not include Murray and AEG is opposing "Murray / AEG Live" line stating this suggests that AEG is vicariously liable for Murray's actions.


Katherine's lawyers state that
- Murray has to be listed
- AEG's liability is coextensive with Murray's liability (any fault attributable to Murray is attributable to AEG)
- putting AEG and Murray on one line reduces confusion as KJ's lawyers claim AEG's liability and Murray's liability is the same.
- omitting Murray could confuse jury and could make them allocate Murray's fault to someone else
- listing defendants separately should not be done.

AEG and KJ are also having disagreements about
- whether the damages - what is included - should be explained on verdict forms (AEG) or should be explained by judge during instructions (KJ)
- whether to have damages determined all together for all plaintiffs (AEG) or whether they should be determined individually for each plaintiff (KJ)
- KJ's lawyers also state as defendants AEG has no say in how the damages are divided among plaintiffs

I posted your summary of the judge ruling, it's a direct contradiction IMO. Even if the Jacksons wanted to, they can't use that argument. And that's not what they're saying either, they are strictly speaking of AEG. Not how AEG pushed Murray to do the wrong thing.

I'm aware of the judge's ruling but Jacksons still had Murray fault = AEG's fault argument. I can't say what the judge decided or will decide hence why I wrote "If Jacksons get their way". As long as there's the possibility of "Murray's fault = AEG's fault" on a verdict form or listing "AEG / Murray" on the same line, I wouldn't personally expect AEG to put any fault on Murray.