Latest on MJJC

Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last Tear, in her original post Ivy linked the jurors to public perception. This is fine because the defense has been deemed falsely victorious over the plaintiffs by the public - this is known by Ivy without charts, graphs, or surveys of the public - and hopefully, in turn, the jurors. No issues and no surprise for me.

I have no issue with anyone ridiculing Robson or Gongaware; neither has earned my respect.

Why would Michael hire the doctor exclusively through a third party? The doctor would not be beholden to him exclusively in a three-party contract. However, the doctor would be exclusive to him through an advance. If Michael was not waking up refreshed from anesthesia, the doctor was doing something incorrectly and as we see negligently. This means Michael was aware something was wrong with his health as well. AEG employees like Phillips were reluctant to Michael's decline while independent contractors like Ortega sounded alarms. As for Phillips, many work quite well with people they are not particularly fond of.
 
Last edited:
Tygger said:
Last Tear, in her original post Ivy linked the jurors to public perception. This is fine because the defense has been deemed falsely victorious over the plaintiffs by the public - this is known by Ivy without charts, graphs, or surveys of the public - and hopefully, in turn, the jurors.

I have no issue with anyone ridiculing Robson or Gongaware; neither has earned my respect.

Why would Michael hire the doctor exclusively through a third party? The doctor would not be beholden to him exclusively in a three-party contract. However, the doctor would be exclusive to him through an advance. If Michael was not waking up refreshed from anesthesia, the doctor was doing something incorrectly and as we see negligently. This means Michael was aware something was wrong with his health as well. AEG employees like Phillips were reluctant to Michael's decline while independent contractors like Ortega sounded alarms. As for Phillips, many work quite well with people they are not particularly fond of.
Click to expand...

Do you mean here?

there's also the issue with public perception. any news of dismissal seems as a win from the lay person's perspective - regardless of if it is truly a win or not. And it also gives the perception that the claims were baseless. For example for an average person that did not follow the case at all but knew the basics that katherine sued Phillips and Gongaware but now hearing that the judge dismissed them as defendants it would mean like they were falsely accused or katherine's claims were baseless. this is the reason why it's not wise to overcharge or make claims that you cannot prove. the more they are dismissed , the weaker your case look.
Click to expand...

This is only in response to the question whether it was in fact such a big blow to the Plantiffs. We were seeing such headlines but were questioning whether it actually was such a blow. It was not about how public opinion could influence the outcome.

I don't care for Robson, Gongaware or Phillips - but I still think that particularly the Judge should act in a professional manner regards of the witness, they are supposed to be fair and unbiased after all.

We have gone over and over your last paragraph...... Lets not ok? :) Your last sentence I agree wholeheartedly with, especially in the business they are in, I mean even the Jackson brothers have been connected to AEG recently.
 
Alan Duke ?@AlanDukeCNN 57m

Michael Jackson's mom will be called back to testify by AEG Live as their last witness in their defense of the wrongful death lawsuit.
 
Mneme said:
Jamba
in my opinion too the AllGood re-union thing with all the pressure from his birth family was the reason for Michael's sleepless and his decision for Murray's sleep help!
But I think: L. Rowe, Michael's parents, his brothers/sisters they all are telling NOT the truth. Not in their many interviews, not in their books, not in court on the witness chair. All tell their OWN story and all are different. Maybe that is intentional so that we never know what was really happened.

I want not torment you. But you are wrong if you take this L. Rowe book 1:1 for your timeline because obvious he is -at leat in parts- telling lies:
It is not right when you states "the AllGood show (s) were supposed to be later on--2010 or later, and Rowe states that he wanted MJ to go into rehab before he did any shows with AllGood."
Allocco in person claims in his complaint: "...Jackson Family concert on a date to be determined, but to be scheduled sometime IN THE SUMMER 2009..." (attachment 2-090610134309; June 09., 2009)

So there is no rehab 'before' and AllGood shos 'after rehab'! Unless....Michael goes to rehab in the morning and do the show in the evening...
No!, both at the same time is impossible.
From what also is Rowe telling in his book.

And once more: It is obvious L. Rowe (and Michael's father) were trying to get KJ to intervene in 07 AND 09 not about drugs but only to do convincing work for a re-union.

And what's this: "He claims in his book that he was very concerned about MJ's dependence on narcotics (that's his word). He also claims Randy and Joe were too."
Interesting about 'narcotics' and 'Randy + Joe'...
Now, who is lieing???
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info re the suit AllGood filed against AEG. (Do you have a link for that?)

Re "what is obvious" and what is not obvious--since I was not there, I do not feel comfortable saying definitively what happened. To me, it is all a question of evidence and sifting through what different people say. I agree it is highly possibly that the ultimate reason for wanting KJ to stay with MJ was due to wanting the AllGood concert reunion to actually happen. On the other hand, to me, if new evidence emerges that shows otherwise, I would like to be able to have an open mind.

I really feel very bad that I brought up Leonard Rowe and his book. I did it for the reasons I gave--which was to find out what was going on around April 18th when Lee said MJ was especially stressed. But as I read more, I then made a summary, thinking in a discussion it might he helpful, which obviously it was not as people have their minds made up.

The whole thing has really turned me off to making any future comments on this forum. I am willing to look at what people say and make my own opinions without other people telling me what to think, etc. I appreciate your giving me concrete info re the complaint that refutes the idea that AllGood planned the reunion concerts in 2010 (at least in their complaint where they wanted 300M dollars in damages they claim their reunion was to be in summer of 09). It makes sense to me that in the complaint they argue a conflict between their own concert and the TII tour--that makes their damage claim more realistic than stating it was to happen a year or so later. However, is this the last word on that? Just for the sake of argument, it possible that at the time they were meeting in April 09, that was not literally the case that they actually planning reunion concerts in summer 09. I mean on the face of it, it is ridiculous to think that they were that far along in their planning that they were ready in summer of 09 for this pay per view, when neither MJ nor the brothers were on board or had started rehearsals.


I still think it's possible that Rowe, Joe, Randy, and even Mrs. J. were concerned about MJ's health, even though they kept up the pressure on him for the reunion and the reunion was ultimately more important to them than his health.

What I do not like is when people jump all over other people's opinion or comments in a snide and hostile way when all they need to do is present their point of view in a more neutral, respectful manner.
 
Last edited:
Annita said:
Alan Duke ?@AlanDukeCNN 57m

Michael Jackson's mom will be called back to testify by AEG Live as their last witness in their defense of the wrongful death lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Well is it Katherine or Katherine and Prince. Depending on who is reporting you get different answers.

Marebare and Lasttear I see what you mean about it could go either way. I was thinking the instructions and verdict forms might narrow it down more. I also know that the jury could think or see things differently. Anyway I would like to take a guess as to who would win this when I see those forms.


It is going to be who this jury believes. Do they accept the conflict expert from AEG or the one from the plaintiffs? or Do they accept part of the testimony from both conflict experts? or Does one expert's information cancel out the other expert's information.

Of course they are going to first find out if Muarry was hired. I think their question will be YES.
Then did AEG hire Muarry? This piece I don't know if they are going to say since contract not signed, since Michael wanted him, since was already working for Michael the answer is NO. or if they will say since AEG did paperwork with their name, since he was including in that meeting, since Randy wrote that e-mail, the answer is YES.

If they say YES then AEG is in big, big trouble. We will have appeals for years because AEG has the resources. Then, if Katherine dies, her heirs in desperation might ask AEG to settle for a fraction of the amount, like 5 million. By then, the case would have cost Panish's firm 20 million.
 
LastTear said:
We have gone over and over your last paragraph...... Lets not ok? :) Your last sentence I agree wholeheartedly with, especially in the business they are in, I mean even the Jackson brothers have been connected to AEG recently.
Click to expand...

I understood what Ivy wrote. Again, no issue and no surprise for me.

Judges, as well as each set of lawyers are human and are prone to error. The jurors could have very well seen that as a comment directly to Gongaware as he was very forgetful about his own actions regarding Michael and the TII tour four years ago.

Why would we not discuss my last paragraph? Negligent hiring is the only claim in this case. The jurors will discuss this in deliberations.
 
Jamba about your comment: The whole thing has really turned me off to making any future comments on this forum. I had a discussion with you months & months ago when you had similar feelings in another thread. I think it was last year? Anyway, don't run away. All of us will have some point or information that others will see as valuable or reject it. It is not YOU they are critiquing but the information, the source, the credibility, etc.

Next, the more you post here, is the more likely your information will be evaluated, which makes sense. You are putting a large amount of information out. Therefore, expect getting lots of thumbs up one day, and a "I don't think so Jamba," another day. These discussions are really healthy. People are not going to see it your way all the time, so don't let that prevent you from posting in the forum.

I don't agree with some of the points you make or some of your conclusions at times, but the majority of the time I agree with you. Also, I may disagree with you here, and agree with you half an hour later in another thread. Now imagine if you had left the forum last year, we wouldn't have all the great information you provided from then to now.

So chin up & continue Michaeling.
 
Tygger said:
Last Tear, Ivy posted that it does matter what the public perception is since the customary removal of Phillips/Gongaware can be skewed so that the defense may be seen falsely as victorious over the plaintiffs. Ivy has likened the jurors to the public perception although they can ask the judge for clarification if they do not understand the removal.

Ivy, nice attempt however, you have contradicted yourself.
Click to expand...

Tygger said:
Last Tear, in her original post Ivy linked the jurors to public perception.
Click to expand...

No I did not likened jurors to the public perception and I in no way made definitive or sounding like facts statements about the jurors like you do.

let's go over what I wrote in regards to the jurors

finally it might affect the jurors. they will probably be told or realize that Phillips and Gongaware are dismissed as defendants. It might make them think again that they weren't liable / falsely accused and question the rest of the claims. But this depends on how they will be told this information or even if they would realize it.

so as far as the jurors go my post clearly included "might" and "depend" meaning that's a possibility but I never made it sound like an absolute or factual thing that would happen. As "might" will explain to you, it might not happen as well.

As for the general public what I wrote had nothing to do with AEG or Jacksons. I simply stated for a layperson if they just heard "judge dismissed the defendant" for any case, a reasonable conclusion they would come would be that there was no basis or evidence for the claims against the defendant because no guilty party gets dismissed if there's legal basis or enough evidence to convict them. and I stand by this generalization. I think it's common sense.
 
@Tygger
Why would we not discuss my last paragraph? Negligent hiring is the only claim in this case. The jurors will discuss this in deliberations.
Click to expand...

Its about third party contracts.
 
Last Tear, the jurors will discuss three-party contracts as that is the only contract the doctor signed. No way to avoid that.

Ivy, you again liken the jurors to the general public's false perception in your view. Although you feel the false victory perception is reasonable and/or common sense (common sense in reality is not common), you have not provided one chart, graph, or survey to support that the general public believes anything of the sort.

Do not fret, I am the only poster to voice an opposing view. This will most likely not turn into a group activity parading as a discussion that lasts for days and derails a thread.
 
Tygger said:
you have not provided one chart, graph, or survey to support that the general public believes anything of the sort.
Click to expand...

quite rich coming from the one user who not only doesn't provide one source but refuses to do it. so let's try something, you show me your sources and I'll check to see if there's any research done about this topic

LastTear said:
I highly doubt Ivy will spend one moment fretting.
Click to expand...

I won't but if it helps tygger we can pretend that I will.
 
September 10 Update

Katherine Jackson / Plaintiff's proposed verdict form


1. Was Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?
Yes / No

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

2. Did defendants know or should have known that Conrad Murray was unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence caused a particular risk to Michael Jackson?

Yes / No

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


3. Did Murray's unfitness or incompetence harm Michael Jackson and the Jackson plaintiffs?

Yes / No

If you answered Yes then answer question 4. If you answered No stop here answer no further questions.

4. Was defendants negligence in hiring supervising and retaining Murray a substantial factor in causing Michael Jackson and Jackson plaintiffs harm?

Yes / No

If you answered Yes then answer question 5. If you answered No stop here answer no further questions.

5. What are plaintiff KJ 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) __________________

Answer question 6

6 What are plaintiff Prince 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) __________________

Answer question 7

7 What are plaintiff Paris 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) __________________

Answer question 8

8 What are plaintiff 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) __________________

Answer question 9

9. Was Michael Jackson negligent in matters related to his death?

Yes / No

If you answered Yes then answer question 10. If you answered No stop here answer no further questions.

10. Was Michael Jackson's negligence a substantial factor in the cause of his death?

Yes / No

If you answered Yes then answer question 11. If you answered No stop here answer no further questions.

11. What percentage of fault for Michael Jackson's death is attributable to

Michael Jackson __________
AEG Live ________________
 
ivy said:
I got proposed jury instructions from jacksons side as well. If I can find time from my pretend fretting, I'll do some updates tonight.
Click to expand...

Oh stop you are killing me. Funny

Does the judge make a final decision on the instructions and verdict forms. Do the lawyers present her with their drafts and then she fixes it. You know like the boss.
 
Thank you Ivy for working tirelessly on this for the past months. I always come here and to the news only section to read about the case. Thanx for making it easy to go through all the news. I dont comment on here a lot but i just wanted to let you know that i appriciat what you do here. Tnx.


l.o.v.e.
romi
 
Thanx Ivy. Predictably the Jacksons don't want to separate the damages to each plaintiff. I hope the judge separates it, because it's not fair.
 
1. Was Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?
Yes / No
^^Does the jury know what he was hired for? This is what I was saying last night. Did Muarry do something he was not hired to do based on his contract?

2. Did defendants know or should have known that Conrad Murray was unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence caused a particular risk to Michael Jackson?
Yes / No

^^Shouldn’t that be would cause rather than caused.

3 Were any defendants (AEG Live, Gongaware, Phillips) negligent in hiring, retaining or supervising Conrad Murray?
Yes / No

Gonga and Phillips are gone, so I guess now it is AEG.

4. Was defendants negligence in hiring supervising and retaining Murray a substantial factor in causing Michael Jackson and Jackson plaintiffs harm?
Yes / No

I guess for the judge, Yes will be based on no credit check, having debt, want big salary,
conflict.

5. Was Michael Jackson negligent in matters related to his death?
Yes / No

I think all jury will say yes here. It is placed after the jury check Yes/NO for AEG, is this because AEG is the defendants and not Michael, although the trial makes you think it is Michael.

6. Was Michael Jackson's negligence a substantial factor in the cause of his death?
Yes / No
I think they will say yes here, especially if they see those notes about practice and hire muarry, plus Michael using it before and knowing the risks.

11. What percentage of fault for Michael Jackson's death is attributable to
Michael Jackson __________
AEG Live ________________

Does that mean that they are making sure that even if you think Michael is responsible, you can still find AEG is responsible, which will allow the plaintiffs to get some money from AEG?

Juries usually give people big awards if a corporation is involved.
 
serendipity said:
Thanx Ivy. Predictably the Jacksons don't want to separate the damages to each plaintiff. I hope the judge separates it, because it's not fair.
Click to expand...

I guess that is why they have a note that says Mother do you need money; why AEG wanted to see her accounting, which I don't know if they got; why AEG wants to question her again on Monday. It seems plaintiffs want to show Michael is forever taking care of Katherine, which is true, and AEG wants to know exactly how much was she getting. Separation means less for Katherine and the majority for the children. Most likely AEG will separate it.
 
I'm sure there'll be an appeal from the losing side, but I'd like to know what are the chances that AEG might decide to settle due to all the money they had already put on this trial?
 
Aquarius said:
I'm sure there'll be an appeal from the losing side, but I'd like to know what are the chances that AEG might decide to settle due to all the money they had already put on this trial?
Click to expand...

I don't think they will. I was thinking that AEG will tie the case up in appeals if they lose. They have the money to do it, and meanwhile the REAL plaintiffs will be waiting for the money and growing beards. If Katherine is alive, they will force her to go to AEG to settle for a fraction of the award. The only how I see AEG doing that is if the amount the family will settle for is the amount AEG would pay if they keep it in court one more year, or something like that. They really do not want to give these people any money.

Do you see any mistakes in law so far, that will help AEG win an appeal.
 
Petrarose said:
Here is the same thing from the judge in more detail:

"A jury may logically infer from the evidence that (Jackson) died because Dr. Murray, who was adversely affected by a conflict of interest created by his contractual arrangement with AEG, treated a deteriorating insomniac who was not ready to perform, causing Dr. Murray to make bad medical decisions that caused (Jackson's) death," the judge wrote.
Click to expand...

It seems as the judge has made up her mind. No really, if this is one of the scenarios the judge is thinking of then it shall be really interesting to see what the jury believes. Ive seen ppl here and on other forums debunking any claim that there were a conflict of interest and here is the judge clearly saying its a possible scenario and that its a valid claim to find AEG guilty. Yikes. I mean, imo the Jackson lawyers have done a good job imo to show MJ was pressured by AEG to make this right and therefore Murray was also pressured by AEG to make sure their partner (MJ) was in excellent health.... which clearly leads to a conflict of interest.
 
Last edited:
Petrarose said:
Does the judge make a final decision on the instructions and verdict forms. Do the lawyers present her with their drafts and then she fixes it. You know like the boss.
Click to expand...

yes she does. hence the reason why these are called proposed

serendipity said:
Thanx Ivy. Predictably the Jacksons don't want to separate the damages to each plaintiff. I hope the judge separates it, because it's not fair.
Click to expand...

oh they want separate damages for each plaintiff. I just did not write it separately and thought 5.6.7.8 would be self explanatory.

it's Q5 for Katherine, Q6 for Prince, Q7 - for Paris and Q-8 for Blanket

Let me change that if it is confusing.


important note: I also realized I made a mistake. I was editing the first verdict form I posted - so that I don't type much- I mistakenly left 2 questions in there. I now corrected it. sorry for that, apparently I'm tired from work.
 
ivy said:
September 10 Update

Katherine Jackson / Plaintiff's proposed verdict form


1. Was Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?
Yes / No

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

2. Did defendants know or should have known that Conrad Murray was unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence caused a particular risk to Michael Jackson?

Yes / No
Click to expand...


Its really late where I am so forgive me at the moment if I dont recall certain things that have been shared in trial before.

I cant remember if the jury have heard about all the mistakes Murray did like the 17 deviation of care, leaving the bedroom, chatting on his phone, not performing correct cpr, not calling 911, not having any equipments etc, lying to doctors at hospital, withholding information to the paramedics.

Have the jurors heard what a terrible doctor murray was, especially regarding his care for MJ?? I know the criminal trial obviously covered that a lot but cant recall it have been shared in the civil trial.

On what terms are they gonna define Murray being incompetent? They know he's in jail for giving MJ propofol but are they aware of his actions (or lack of care) that resulted in MJs death?
 
Last edited:
Jackson side has filed a motion asking judge to prevent AEG from mentioning the dismissal of the defendants as it could "confuse the jury" and they want a jury instruction that tells the jurors not to speculate why a person is no longer involved in the case.


@tygger I guess Jacksons do agree with my generalization that speculation of why a person is dismissed could be negative thing for their case. so does an action by the wonderful Panish be enough of source to prove my point?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top