yes everyone has brains but no one is free of bias - whatever it might be - and no one is free from the effect of being a fan. As far as I know no one here is a lawyer or a jury expert.
Do you consider yourself being free of bias ?
Looking to one side and saying they are weak or strong, or a witness has been perfect or useless. Yes that's your own interpretation but how do you know that the jurors - non MJ fans that doesn't have the biases we have - will feel the same way? Jury verdicts are notoriously hard to predict and even if you happen to be right , you won't know it until the verdict. .
They are just people's opinions, and again, not necessarily always related to the jury of what the jury will think
But yes, from a non fan perspective, and probably also from a jury's perspactive, their defense is just not logical. I understand why they would logically put SOME of the blame on Michael, or try to, but there's a whole part missing , the most important one : Murray.
AEG is accused of negligently hiring, supervising & retaining Murray, and they talk about everything Michael related- not so successfully so far- and seem to forget about Murray.
I personally never claimed it was baseless lawsuit. go check the old discussion thread in the trials and tribulations. I always said the hiring part : written contract versus an oral contract was 50-50 as an oral contract is perfectly valid in USA. Even in my recent posts you will see that I say "was Murray hired" question would most probably be answered as a yes due to the fact that oral contracts were established with everyone. I also wrote "who hired Murray" to be a 50-50 between AEG and Michael.
LOL, I never said AEG are the angels, I said if you corner an animal to a corner you should expect them to attack to free themselves. Their attack would obviously be vicious and dirty - hence no angels- but the only reason they would be attacking in that dirty manner would be because they were cornered.
Yes they ARE cornered, that's what I've been saying : they wouldn't be cornered if they hadn't done a certain number of things they should never have done. They wouldn't be cornered if what they did was easily explainanble.
You said that's it's the Jacksons's fault if they are defending themeselves this way : again, I'm not a Jacksons fan, but I don't see how they could be blamed for AEG's mistakes. Or it means that we should blindly accept whatever AEG did, or is doing now.
I'm not "supporting" AEG or their choice of defense. As I said before (yeah) I hate it actually. I didn't want this trial to happen because I knew how dirty it would get and how Michael would be the party that is hurt most. What I am saying and apparently is misunderstood, I'm not surprised to see that AEG go with such defense. they are the animal that is cornered by this multi billion lawsuit and to get out of it they are attacking anyone and everyone on their path.
To me saying stuff like "well they could have not said this or not done this" sounds like a fan looking behind rose colored glasses. Again that's the fan's biased opinion of how AEG should act in their defense and I'm trying to say they don't care about anyone but themselves.
Misundertsanding- rose colored glasses.... No, not really , it's a different opinion than yours, that's all, an
d using you own arguments.
I couldn't be any clear in regards to Disney and how it is based to my personal experience and opinions. I never once claimed it to be fact or truth, I acknowledged other possibilities and said "we will never know". . You disagree and it is fine. The only thing that I rejected was the argument that "if there was no pills around, it can't be drugs" based on the fact that Michael did not pop pills, he preferred injections. so even if there are no pills present , there could still be the possibility of an injection. I would think that any objective person would agree to this.
You kept insisting that it had to be drug related, until you had no other choice.
As far as the Demerol goes, if you go back to discussion threads back from Murray's trial you will find me saying that Klein's demerol levels were within the highest allowed amounts but still too high. You will find me writing I don't get giving those amount of Demerol to a person who had formed an addiction before. You will find examples written by me. So for a long time for me Klein and his use of Demerol has been fishy for me. It hasn't changed and it won't change.
yes it was argued during Murray's proceedings, and it was clear at the time, wasn't it ?
A lot of people here were following Murray's trial and know about this. Even the new info that has come out about this in this trial is confirming it. So why bother ?
actually we don't know. the last was they were thinking about it. perhaps they did because the jacksons did not put experts about how Michael died.
No we don't know if they have accepted it now. Didn't they refuse to stipulate that Murray killed Michael ? Didn't they issue a verdict form naming everyone but Murray ?
don't blame Michael for his death. He died because Murray failed to properly monitor him. For example AEG might have pressured Michael and he might have asked for Propofol but that did not kill him. If it was given properly he would have been alive. Michael died because Murray gave the drug improperly and he failed to monitor Michael properly and he failed to call for help as soon as possible. That's who I blame for Michael's death. That's also why I'm angry about restitution. That's why I think the person I blame - Murray - isn't being punished enough.
However one important thing was the criminal trial established Murray being an important factor in Michael's death but not necessarily the only reason. So that added with this trial brings in the question of what - if any - responsibility Michael had. I refuse to be in denial or wear pink colored glasses when it comes to Michael's history of problems with drugs and I explained it before, no I don't think he was an addict seeking a high. He had legit medical problems and got legit medicines for those problems and at times got dependent on those. I'm not going to deny this. Heck even Jacksons state this.
So that's what I'm wondering right now. It is more like Michael asked for Propofol and unfortunately was at the hands of a negligent doctor. so the question becomes does Michael have any responsibility for asking for the Propofol. I can't say I made up my mind yet but that's what I have been wondering for a while. And you might remember an article I quoted here which said Katherine blamed everyone but Michael and when do we put responsibility on Michael. Don't get me wrong, I still blame Murray, blame Klein, blame all the doctors that had questionable treatments or did not do the right thing.
How is that even relevant to the Jacksons claim ? Are they saying AEG know about propofol ? Are they saying that Michael has no responsibility at all ?
They are saying that AEG saw Michael's health deteriorating under Murray's care. Propofol is AEG's strategy, because they have no other way of dealing with that claim, because this is true, unfortunately.
yes I answered this before and actually you might want to ask Tygger for that other site and go read the transcripts. Very recently they argued that Jacksons portrayed it like AEG had power on in hiring and firing of Michael's staff and they used Kai's testimony of "Michael wouldn't have fired Grace who was like a mother to the kids". They used Paris's deposition to show he fired her before. They are also trying to play Randy Jackson's deposition that he fired Grace before. So from that it is obvious that AEG sees Jacksons use of Gongaware firing Grace as an evidence of AEG hiring & firing people and they are trying to debunk it by using Paris and Randy and who knows who else.
I don't think this got anything to do with the kids, Paris's suicide or portraying Michael in a bad light and so on. Sometimes you need to wait for the whole trial to end for some things to make sense.
They did not use Paris video during Gongaware's testimony, did they ? They used it after Paris tried to kill herself, when Grace came back into the picture. Now you say thay have Randy's deposition saying that Michael fired Grace many times before. Great, so why not use Randy's depo instead of Paris's ? Sorry, IMO it was just a vicious thing to do.
see I disagree with this,I clearly showed you other possible angles Jacksons go to put the blame of Murray on AEG but conveniently you refuse to even acknowledge the possibility.
and this is the part we keep disagreeing. You totally ignore the other possibilities and come up with a defense that might be totally like shooting themselves in the foot and you are angry that they don't follow your recommended defense. See the thing is law is not that easy and there are a million laws we don't know.
I read the law and cases that you posted, and I thought we agreed at the time, anyway it was clear, in both the judge's ruling and the legal stuff you posted that it should be easy for AEG to aim at Murray's negligence. He is already convicted because of that.
Again, they can't do that, because they saw he was not a great doctor, not because of the Jacksons.
And I'm not angry that they are not following my "recommended defense", I wouldn't "recommend" them anything, and as I said, I think they are stuck in tat line of defense. I just think that with what we know now, things are getting very clear. It's the other way round, i'm trying to understand based on their defense.
