Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[ivy]

he didn't necessarily borrow more.

I think we can both agree that no $ 699,032 worth house would increase by close to 1 Million in value in 2 years- that's a 136% value increase... I'm also having hard time thinking a house would increase over 60 % in 2 years ( From $444 K to $699). So I'm thinking he did borrow more over the years.

 

[LastTear]

yes, maybe. Or AEG putting more pressure by not paying him until the contract was signed. that's interesting because that was one of the Jacksons' argument as to how AEG pressured Murray (by "promising" a salary)

It was just a throw away comment but I would be surprised if he was that bothered by it. I have been reading with interest yours and Ivy's posts on this subject they have made it clearer for me what AEG could or should have known.

 

[bouee]

It was just a throw away comment but I would be surprised if he was that bothered by it. I have been reading with interest yours and Ivy's posts on this subject they have made it clearer for me what AEG could or should have known.

OT, but you quoted me and it appeared as "originally posted by LastTear" , and I checked one page earlier when I quoted you and it appeard "originally posted by bouee".

So I'll quote you quoting me to see if i suddenly get teleported to the UK.
Just in case you land at my place, dinner's ready, it's in the fridge.

EDIT : yes, there's a bug when we quote posts. Should I report myself so a moderator can take care of it ?

 

[LastTear]

^^^^ I saw, I thought I just messed up. Lol Looking forward to dinner.

 

[ivy]

you had an extra unclosed quote left in there. I edited them

 

[passy001]

Now that has made me angry. I'm not thre one spinning things here. It's the so called objective "explanation" of the Jacksons arguments that confuses general debts and not paying them back.
There are tens of posts here explaining that most americans have debts, and that it is a very normal situation. It is NOT what the plaintiffs are saying. So presenting things that way IS spinning and definitely not objective, and it doesn't come from me. The Jacksons are saying Murray was not paying his debts back to the point he was about to lose his home and offices and THAT was the red flag. Not his loans. They are saying Murray was desperate for money, if that makes it easier to undertsand.
Whether you agree or not with the idea, it's what they are saying.
And what lawyer would be stupid enough to say "oh he has loans, he's dangerous ? " Who will believe that kind of argument and argue that most people have loans in America ? Seriously ?

There is nothing objective about that explanation. It is based on absolute prejudice. Given what was known then there is absolutely no justification for subjecting Murrray to a credit check. absolutely none. The plaintiffs are arguing for a case of special treatment. AEG constantly embarks on tour with various artists who are accompanied by their own doctors and none of them are subjected to credit check. Asking them to do otherwise to Murray for no obvious reason is not only discriminatory but also goes against their customary practice.

Even if they did and realized Murray was in debt, that alone would not be sufficient to predict that Murray would kill MJ. In fact I strongly argue it means nothing at all because there is no relationship between debt/unpaid debts and incompetence.

Question : WHEN (I specifically talked about WHEN the contract was drafted between june 15th and 23rd ) did Phillips talk about that ? For what reason did he write that the doctor was "great, unethical, didn't need this gig" . Try and answer the question, that will help youunderstand the general idea.

That quote means nothing and i think you're trying too hard to find fault in everything.

That being said, I strongly doubt that at that precise moment Phllips had a reason to believe that Murray would harm MJ or kill him. there was absolutely none.

Would Murray have done that for a regular salary ?
What do you think his reason was ?

Murray made his offer and MJ took it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. This is a question of supply meeting demand. simple law of economics. MJ could have said "no" and walked away but did not. he had the absolute choice. instead he was happy to have him by his side. so i don't see why Murray should take the blame here. he did not put a gun on MJ head. Did he? nor did he blackmail him. did he?

All doctors who have treated MJ with propofol and other drugs did it for huge rewards, including Klein and Hoeffan. so, why should Murray be any different? What's wrong with Murray being ambitious? why should Murray be so prejudiced? because he has unpaid debts? should the rest of us with unpaid debts not be ambitious? should the rest of us with unpaid debts be denied opportunities to earn good money? should i not be able to apply for a job that offers 20 times my current salary if I have unpaid debts? why not? Is it legal?

 

[ivy]

I have been reading with interest yours and Ivy's posts on this subject they have made it clearer for me what AEG could or should have known.

I was curious about what they could have seen. I'm not big on making assumptions when we have the documents we can check for ourselves.

one of the credit score companies refused to give records even when served subpoena - saying they either need a court order or authorization from the person. AEG could not have done a credit check without Murray's approval.

public search - lexis legal search - would uncover unpaid business debts / judgments, unpaid state taxes, student loans and I believe child support.

credit report - with authorization - would uncover mainly unpaid student loans, credit card debts and recent missing mortgage payments.

3 social security numbers were cross referenced to his name and unpaid office rent would not be known before Michael's death.

still before anything else, the question is how can you justify a credit check or lexis legal search. and after that the question becomes finding unpaid debt would show Murray was probably lying about his income but does that mean you could foresee he would harm Michael? The counter argument to that would be if Murray was debt and desperate for money, his best interest would be to keep Michael healthy and alive to tour as long as possible.

 

[Tygger]

Tygger, just a small correction (I had to practice mental calculation recently for an exam, and now I can't help doing it all the time.. You should see me shopping for groceries )

5000/ day is what Murray would have "earned" with 150 000 per month (150/30=5)
1 000 000 /month (supposedly gross income) would have been a little over 33 000 /day.

So according to what he said, he was ready to give up 28 000/day (gross income) to become Michael's physician. And yet he was behind on child support and about to lose his home and 2 of his offices. That doesn't make sense at all.
I guess imaginary offices can't go into forclosure.

EDIT : 150 000 * 10 months = 1 500 000
Murray said his 4 clinics made 1 000 000 per month * 10 = 10 000 000

So he was OK to give up 8 500 000 dollars (gross income) to become Michael's physician for the tourn which is 85% of his "gross income".

Bouee, perfection.

Gerryevans, did AEG ever hire a tour doctor? From what I understand AEG rarely was a producer of a tour as they mostly promoted tours. If they hired a tour doctor in the past, that doctor was most likely vetted even if just through experience with the doctor (example: Gongaware preferring to hire Dr. Finklestein because he had already worked with him and knew him personally).

With Michael, they were allegedly hiring a personal doctor solely for Michael as a third party without any prior knowledge of him. This means that a background check should have been done BEFORE alleged implied employment; i.e. successful vetting could result in hiring.

This concept of Michael was sick in June so a background check needed to be performed is NOT what the plaintiffs are suggesting at all.

Bonnie Blue, Tohme was working for AEG and Michael; a conflict that is evident. Michael terminated Tohme but, AEG did not. I honestly cannot remember Dileo’s position with Michael/AEG at this moment. The trial is rather lengthy and I am beginning to forget the relationship between all of the players.

 

[serendipity]

The South African portion was in the third leg of the tour, 5 shows none of them back to back.

Thanks. That makes it even more interesting if he gave him propofol even tho the shows were not back to back.

Thanks Justthefacts!

I'm having a hard time keeping up with all of the doctors names, I wonder how the jury is handling it.

As a matter of fact, at first I thought some of the names were made up. Starting with Dr. Forecast. Sounds like some thing from the Weather Channel.

:lol: I initially thought it was some alias. I'm still not certain as to who hired/brought this dr. Forecast. Ivy do you know if he was deposed?

 

[bouee]

Still from Panish's website

default judgement againt Murray brought by Capital One bank , 1000 dollars , Nevada 08
http://www.psblaw.com/wp-content/up...ault-Judgment-CapitalOneBank-v-MurrayExhD.pdf

default judgement against Murray, Hica Education Loan, 70 000 dollars, Nevada , march 09
http://www.psblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Exhibit-454-DefaultJudgment-HICA-v-MurrayExhE.pdf

eviction , LV clinic in 2007 : he stopped paying his rent late september 06 (about 5000 / month) , then receives a notice to pay or quit, doesn't pay, the judge orders eviction, and the landlord cancels the eviction (I suppose he paid)
http://www.psblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Exhibit-462-7973-7985LADA.pdf

So by those judgements (130 000 + 210 000 + 60 000 + 1000) = 400 000 dollars

 

[bouee]

That quote means nothing and i think you're trying too hard to find fault in everything.


That being said, I strongly doubt that at that precise moment Phllips had a reason to believe that Murray would harm MJ or kill him. there was absolutely none.

It does mean a lot, but you choose to diregard it. Why ?
He understood Ortega had doubts about Murray.

Murray made his offer and MJ took it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. This is a question of supply meeting demand. simple law of economics. MJ could have said "no" and walked away but did not. he had the absolute choice. instead he was happy to have him by his side. so i don't see why Murray should take the blame here. he did not put a gun on MJ head. Did he? nor did he blackmail him. did he?

All doctors who have treated MJ with propofol and other drugs did it for huge rewards, including Klein and Hoeffan. so, why should Murray be any different? What's wrong with Murray being ambitious? why should Murray be so prejudiced? because he has unpaid debts? should the rest of us with unpaid debts not be ambitious? should the rest of us with unpaid debts be denied opportunities to earn good money? should i not be able to apply for a job that offers 20 times my current salary if I have unpaid debts? why not? Is it legal?

My question was : would Murray have done it for a regular salary ? and why did he accept to give propofol ? Murray asked for 5 millipons, and Michael offered 150 000.

 

[ivy]

If they hired a tour doctor in the past, that doctor was most likely vetted even if just through experience with the doctor (example: Gongaware preferring to hire Dr. Finklestein because he had already worked with him and knew him personally).

so Gongaware's referral is enough but Michael's referral is not enough?

 

[gerryevans]

Bouee, perfection.

Gerryevans, did AEG ever hire a tour doctor? From what I understand AEG rarely was a producer of a tour as they mostly promoted tours. If they hired a tour doctor in the past, that doctor was most likely vetted even if just through experience with the doctor (example: Gongaware preferring to hire Dr. Finklestein because he had already worked with him and knew him personally).

With Michael, they were allegedly hiring a personal doctor solely for Michael as a third party without any prior knowledge of him. This means that a background check should have been done BEFORE alleged implied employment; i.e. successful vetting could result in hiring.

This concept of Michael was sick in June so a background check needed to be performed is NOT what the plaintiffs are suggesting at all.

That's an assumption that any other doctors were already vetted. And again, knowing Finklestein would no more suffice than MJ knowing Murray if Murray had wanted to make a case of it. The point being made is that if they have had a situation with the Stones or whatever artist where they did not do a background check, and they do one on Murray and he is not engaged because of it, they could have a problem because they would be making him the exception.

But I see you and others have been going around and around on this, and I had only did a quick scan before posting, and don't want to add to the merry go round, so I'll agree to disagree here again. Thanks.

 

[LastTear]

I was curious about what they could have seen. I'm not big on making assumptions when we have the documents we can check for ourselves.

one of the credit score companies refused to give records even when served subpoena - saying they either need a court order or authorization from the person. AEG could not have done a credit check without Murray's approval.

public search - lexis legal search - would uncover unpaid business debts / judgments, unpaid state taxes, student loans and I believe child support.

credit report - with authorization - would uncover mainly unpaid student loans, credit card debts and recent missing mortgage payments.

3 social security numbers were cross referenced to his name and unpaid office rent would not be known before Michael's death.

still before anything else, the question is how can you justify a credit check or lexis legal search. and after that the question becomes finding unpaid debt would show Murray was probably lying about his income but does that mean you could foresee he would harm Michael? The counter argument to that would be if Murray was debt and desperate for money, his best interest would be to keep Michael healthy and alive to tour as long as possible.

I totally agree. To be objective we should add that Murray having debts might make him take risks and give Michael whatever Michael's heart desires, but that would also mean that Michael was demanding propofol, and Murray was giving it to him against his better judgement.

 

[crillon]

I totally agree. To be objective we should add that Murray having debts might make him take risks and give Michael whatever Michael's heart desires, but that would also mean that Michael was demanding propofol, and Murray was giving it to him against his better judgement.

Green testified that just because a doctor is in debt (and many of them are..) doesn't mean it's a given that patient care will be impacted. This is why I still don't see the significance of pulling credit reports. What would it have told AEG and would they have done something differently had they seen Murray's credit report? I doubt it.

 

[LastTear]

Green testified that just because a doctor is in debt (and many of them are..) doesn't mean it's a given that patient care will be impacted. This is why I still don't see the significance of pulling credit reports. What would it have told AEG and would they have done something differently had they seen Murray's credit report? I doubt it.

I totally agree with you, I was just trying to see it from a different perspective. Personally I think that if any checks were to be done they would be a medical malpractice type of search, for me that would be far more relevant.

When I think on the dilemma on AEG/Murray I can't get past the fact that Michael already had a professional relationship with Murray, for me that makes a lot of difference in this trial.

 

[ivy]

I totally agree. To be objective we should add that Murray having debts might make him take risks and give Michael whatever Michael's heart desires, but that would also mean that Michael was demanding propofol, and Murray was giving it to him against his better judgement.

yes that's the jackson argument which I saw as obvious therefore I wrote a possible counter explanation.

 

[Petrarose]

-AEG Live's next witness will be human resources consultant Rhoma Young, who it hired to provide expert testimony concerning the Jacksons' contention that the company negligently hired Murray.

Finally we are getting to the hiring, which I was waiting for. I think AEG will really wrap up early September, which is good news to me. I expect Panish to do a very vigorous cross of this witness, so let's see how he handles it.

Aquarius the song was the duet with Judith when she started getting very soulful and Michel gave her a glance like "you can do that?"

 

[ivy]

ABC7 Court News @ABC7Courts
Dr Green said he reviewed testimony Murray was off on Sundays. Apr 19 when MJ asked Lee to find a doctor to give him Propofol was Sunday.

^^

and this was mentioned in this discussion

 

[crillon]

I totally agree with you, I was just trying to see it from a different perspective. Personally I think that if any checks were to be done they would be a medical malpractice type of search, for me that would be far more relevant.

When I think on the dilemma on AEG/Murray I can't get past the fact that Michael already had a professional relationship with Murray, for me that makes a lot of difference in this trial.

ITA--I knew we were on the same page and I see the angle you're coming from. Even if AEG did a malpractice search, all they could do at that point was make Michael aware of it if something turned up, but chances are, Michael would have ignored it knowing how litigious people can be from his own experience. There is nothing AEG could have done in advance that would foretell the risk Murray was to Michael. NOTHING.

That Michael had a 3-year relationship with Murray--who treated his children-- prior to TII is a BIG deal, or at least it should be.

 

[#MJforever57]

Murray was too greedy to call Adams and get him to help.. if anything since Adams was the anesthesiologist he should've been administering the propofol and Murray watching

I agree.

 

[passy001]

It does mean a lot, but you choose to diregard it. Why ?
He understood Ortega had doubts about Murray.

He also believed those doubts were not sufficient enough to suspect the doctor of any wrongdoing. it's just that simple. it certainly does not justify your "credit check" theory.

My question was : would Murray have done it for a regular salary ? and why did he accept to give propofol?

You see, you are making the same mistake again. that question is too obvious given what we know NOW

forget about what you know now about Murray. clear your head entirely. At the point MJ was negotiating, was there any reason to believe that Murray would supply MJ with propofol? was there even a reason to believe that MJ was dependent on propofol or any other drugs? Did people even know about propofol besides MJ and his previous doctors? It is a very simple question. You've been dodging this question for a while. because this is essentially what this case is about. predictability of harm/wrongdoing. hence negligence.

when AEG told MJ to find another doctor, it was never because AEG suspected him of wrongdoing, it was because he was expensive. it is as simple as that.

Murray asked for 5 millipons, and Michael offered 150 000.

Michael offered 150, 000 per month. please be accurate in your statement. Plus, Murray was getting free rent and food and other benefits for free. that adds up to the total costs.

In any event, I see nothing nefarious here other than two people negotiating. I don't understand why you are trying so hard to find fault in everything. I really don't.

 

[passy001]

ABC7 Court News @ABC7Courts
Dr Green said he reviewed testimony Murray was off on Sundays. Apr 19 when MJ asked Lee to find a doctor to give him Propofol was Sunday.

^^

and this was mentioned in this discussion

You are right. This bit was also discussed extensively. This is a very damaging testimony/revelation.

 

[ivy]

Today's summary - http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...ummary/page5?p=3891051&viewfull=1#post3891051

 

[bouee]

He also believed those doubts were not sufficient enough to suspect the doctor of any wrongdoing. it's just that simple. it certainly does not justify your "credit check" theory.

Do you read what i write ? It was HIS credit chheck theory, Phillips', not mine.

Michael offered 150, 000 per month. please be accurate in your statement. Plus, Murray was getting free rent and food and other benefits for free. that adds up to the total costs.

I was answering this below, so next time, please be accurate in your statements.

Murray made his offer and MJ took it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. This is a question of supply meeting demand. simple law of economics. MJ could have said "no" and walked away but did not. he had the absolute choice. instead he was happy to have him by his side. so i don't see why Murray should take the blame here. he did not put a gun on MJ head. Did he? nor did he blackmail him. did he?

Now I'm going to drop this because you keep repeating the same thing and completely ignore what I'm saying, so this is not talking. You have your opinion, I have mine.

It might surprise you, but I never wrote that not paying back debts = malpractice.
I said it would have shown Murray was lying (it's a little different) , I said Phillips himself used this argument to reassure Ortega Murray was ethical- that's a fact, you can't get around that and you refuse to answer saying " it doesn't matter", apparently it did at that moment.

Do you think Murray would have done that for 5000 / month ? I don't think so. Money IS an issue, that was my point.

Did Murray blackmail Michael : at the beginning I don't know, I don't think so. But he had that recording.

 

[Tygger]

Last Tear, Chase was paid with an advance and that is why AEG had no dealings with her and sought to hire a nutritionist when Michael already had a chef. Would it be easier to have a conversation with the current chef and see what Michael was being fed as opposed to hiring a nutritionist to work alongside the current chef? Of course, however, Chase was paid through an advance and that is why it was logical to attempt to hire someone else than to have a complimentary conversation with her.

Jamba, I am repeating myself again: not one of Michael's brothers were convicted of rape. NOT ONE! When TwinklEE decides to write that Jackson males were busy “raping women” without any proof it is done for sport. Michael was acquitted of the same with male minors and some of his fans understand how hurtful and ignorant it was and continues to be that those baseless accusations continue. Did you ever wonder why the author continued to live with Jermaine if she was convinced he was a rapist even though he was never convicted?

As far as connecting the 1984/5 behavior to the pre-tour TII behavior, you need to ask Randy Jackson about that--he is the one linking the 2 by saying that MJ never had any problems sleeping while on tour (his last experience touring with MJ being the 1984 Victory tour) and therefore,according to Randy, it is nonsense to claim he had insomnia in 09.

Jamba, AEG did not clarify their question to Randy so Randy did not clarify the dates he was referring too. He answered based on his memories. I do not know how many jurors are fans of Michael. If they are, they may know the dates Randy is referring too. If not, they will be confused as AEG prefer they remain.

Gerryevans, please notice I said TOUR doctor. Gongaware knew Finkelstein and assisted him in getting the position of tour doctor on the Dangerous tour. If the promoter at the time (not AEG) did any other vetting beyond Gongaware’s vouching for Finkelstein, I do not know. He was not Michael’s personal doctor, he was the tour doctor and treated many on the tour.

If a promoter was to hire a TOUR doctor for the Rolling Stones for example, they will most likely vetted him/her. If a promoter was to hire a PERSONAL doctor on the Stones behalf, they will find themselves in the position AEG is in today if they do not vet the doctor because that is negligent hiring. And yes, I agree about the carousel.

Bouee, again, I enjoyed your calculations. $150K/month is gross as it is before tax and that would be his salary as an employed doctor compare to his exorbitant and fabricated gross as a self-employed doctor.

 

[AliCat]

Dr. Neil Ratner's name has come up because of working with Michael Jackson, while on the HIStory tour, 1996 -1997 and administering propofol to Michael because of insomnia or so it is to be believed.

Here's a nice tidbit about Dr. Neil Ratner, that was a medical personal for Michael at one time -
In 2006, Ratner and his wife Leann were cited for their participation with Dan Leader of Bread Alone in the South African Whole Grain Bread Project, which won an award in the Business in Development Challenge in Holland.

The object of the project was to fight malnutrition and poverty by training South Africans living with HIV/AIDS to run local bakeries and sell nutritionally enhanced bread to their communities. http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2009/07/04/news/doc4a4ed27aefdbd023446008.txt

 

[passy001]

Do you read what i write ? It was HIS credit chheck theory, Phillips', not mine.

weren't you arguing for credit check? wasn't that the main theme of your arguments?
show me the testimony where Phillips suggested to do a credit check.

I was answering this below, so next time, please be accurate in your statements.

don't twist what i said. this is what you wrote "Murray asked for 5 millipons, and Michael offered 150 000". Is that statement accurate?

Now I'm going to drop this because you keep repeating the same thing and completely ignore what I'm saying, so this is not talking. You have your opinion, I have mine.

It might surprise you, but I never wrote that not paying back debts = malpractice.
I said it would have shown Murray was lying (it's a little different) , I said Phillips himself used this argument to reassure Ortega Murray was ethical- that's a fact, you can't get around that and you refuse to answer saying " it doesn't matter", apparently it did at that moment.

You did imply that debts would have predicted wrongdoing. your argument was actually central to that theme.

even if debts would show he was lying, was that enough to show that he was harming a patient, he had known for 3 years with no history of wrongdoing.

Do you think Murray would have done that for 5000 / month ? I don't think so. Money IS an issue, that was my point.

How come the previous doctors who also took huge money managed to administer propopol with the correct equipment? That was my point. Murray showed an extreme lack of care not even greed could justify, even according to experts testimony. his deviation from the basic standard of care was over the top, and therefore unpredictable.

Did Murray blackmail Michael : at the beginning I don't know, I don't think so. But he had that recording.

True he had a recording. But would AEG expects Murray to secretly record him? was that predictable?

the whole point of this merry go around was just to show you that predictability of wrongdoing was not obvious. You can dance around this as long as you like. it does not change that.

 

[Tygger]

Many of you have resisted the concept that the doctor should warrant a background check. So be it.

For the remainder: when a third party hires a personal doctor for another, they are taking on a responsibility to the health of that other person. This is why the doctor has to be vetted. Luckily for many who hold medical insurance, “in network” doctors have been vetted before they are allowed to be considered “in network” doctors that assist you with your health. Luckily the insurance company is not negligent in their responsibility to you.

With Michael, AEG inserted themselves into the doctor-patient relationship by becoming the third party that would allegedly hire the doctor for Michael. It does not matter if Michael knew the doctor and accepted his rendered services for three years. AEG did not know the doctor, was responsible for vetting the doctor, and AEG did not. AEG held the power to deny the doctor’s employment by them and if they decided not to hire him based on any information found in a background check, all Michael could do was grumble or pay the doctor himself. He could not walk away from his TII contract and the doctor was not a part of that TII contract between AEG and Michael.

The items found in the background check by Martinez could have been discovered by AEG if they were so inclined however, they were negligent and did not perform one minus Jorrie’s feeble 10 minute Google search.

I mentioned two items a background check would have discovered that Ivy spent the weekend mulling over: multiple social security numbers and non-payment of rent on his two genuine offices. AEG had the right to deny employment to the doctor if they did not find his response to having multiple social security numbers innocuous and/or satisfactory. AEG had the right to deny employment to the doctor as the non-payment of rent on his two genuine offices showed he was not as successful as he presented himself to AEG when AEG most definitely asked about his background in his effort to gain employment.

so yes there was a pay or quit notice but it was after Michael's death and not on credit record. So it's not something AEG would be able to see it. so "Murray was not paying rent on his offices" is out.

laughs

That information existed and was available before Michael’s passing. How do I know? Simple: it would not be logical for Panish to present Martinez’ findings if all of the evidence was dated past the 25th including said non-payments of rent. If Panish did, then Putnam would have easily and eagerly discredited that during the cross of Martinez and rightfully so; it would be foolish and amateurish in which Panish is not. However, that did not happen.

Below is Ivy’s summary of the cross of Martinez’ regarding the doctor’s debt in full. If anyone would like to assume ABC7 omitted the cross regarding the non-payment of rent Panish discussed during the direct, court transcripts showed ABC7 did not.

Putnam: If I wanted to look up your credit, will I need your permission?
Martinez: I think so (ABC7)

Putnam: there are limits as to what civilians can do in terms of search, like DMV search?
Martinez: I believe so(ABC7)

Putnam asked Martinez if searching someone's credit without consent is a crime
Putnam: it would be a crime?
Martinez: It's a misdemeanor (ABC7)
.....

Putnam: Did Dr. Murray's debts excuse him in anyway for what he did? Martinez: No

Putnam asked Martinez if Dr. Murray being in financial trouble made him a suspect? He said no, it was the totality of the evidence (ABC7)

Is any of this hindsight as Ivy and others fondly refers to it? Of course not. Either one of those items was enough to stall or end the employment contract negotiations and force Michael to decide how he would retain the doctor.

It is actually those who reject this concept of the doctor being vetted who are using hindsight. How can we know the doctor would kill a patient because he has three social security numbers? We do not know however, we can decide if we want to work with someone who has three social security numbers based on their reasons for having more than one as the MAJORITY of Americans only have one. How can we know the doctor would kill a patient because he is not paying rent on his two genuine offices? We do not know however, we can decide if we want to work with someone who fabricated their success and is untruthful about their experience.

As for this argument that other independent contractors did not submit to background checks, they were not personal doctors that were to be hired by a third party for one individual. That is comparing apples and oranges.

 

[bouee]

dude, weren't you arguing for credit check? wasn't that the main theme of your arguments?
show me the testimony where Phillips suggested to do a credit check.

NO, I was NOT exactly arguing for credit check. You don't want to understand, so as I said I'll drop it.

I've quoted Phillips many times. Read my previous posts. He DID argue for credit check. That was one of his arguments. It was simple, I don't know how to explain it better.

dude, don't twist what i said. this is what you wrote "Murray asked for 5 millipons, and Michael offered 150 000". Is that statement accurate?

Yes. It's more accurate then saying "Murray made an offer, Michael took it". Did Michael (or anyone) agree on 5 millions ? You are nitpicking because you feel you need to attack : you can not answer the arguments & questions I asked you.

You did imply that debts would have predicted wrongdoing. your argument was actually central to that theme.

even if debts would show he was lying, was that enough to show that he was harming a patient, he had known for 3 years with no history of wrongdoing.

NO .
3rd time, maybe you will understand : I gave a time frame, when the contract was being drafted & when there were doubts about Murray.

If you don't understand, ask before being rude. Obviously you don't WANT to understand what I'm saying, and have to resort to being agressive.... again.