Open General discussion - Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[bouee]

Of course, no one knew about the specific "treatment" Murray was using and HOW wrongly he was doing it, but in this point I agree with Weiztman in the video Qbee has posted, it is not that AEG knew or could foresee what Murray would be doing, but that they "didn't control him enough" or sthg to that effect...

Thank you. I agree 250% with this.

 

[bouee]

You are right, what personally struck me was that Payne admitted under cross examination that he and others knew or assumed that CM's role had to do with his sleeping issues, and then later in the re-direct said completely the opposite
.

Ok i saw this.

re sleeping issues : Tp says that it was widely known in the business, when asked if ortega knew he said yes. Then , according to that site, he is asked if it si possible AEG could NOT know, there are objections , and then he is asked about Gongaware. The problem is the way the question is aked about Gongaware (was the question could he not know, or did he know ? ), TP says no, but no to what ? - I guess that's why there was conflicting info- Then the J lawyer says he changed his testimony and play his depo.

re what murray was doing : he gives 3 answers :1- CM was there to treat Michael for his sleeping issue, Ortega knew that, CM was there for everything related to Michael's health, including nutrition, 3 he didn't know why Murray was there.

his remark about Murray not looking professional was made to Ortega on june 24th.

 

[serendipity]

You are right, what personally struck me was that Payne admitted under cross examination that he and others knew or assumed that CM's role had to do with his sleeping issues, and then later in the re-direct said completely the opposite

Of course, no one knew about the specific "treatment" Murray was using and HOW wrongly he was doing it, but in this point I agree with Weiztman in the video Qbee has posted, it is not that AEG knew or could foresee what Murray would be doing, but that they "didn't control him enough" or sthg to that effect...

But I don't understand how were they supposed to control him? To me negligent hiring would be them being able to foresee that Murray would be bad news.

 

[ivy]

Michael's sleep problems : People that are close to Michael - such as Karen Faye - could know Michael had sleep issues during tours due to adrenaline and he needed time to be able to sleep. However this does not mean that they knew an everyday sleep issues that nothing worked and he needed medical help.

What I'm trying to say is that why would anyone expect Michael to get Propofol for 6 weeks during rehearsals if they thought or knew his sleep issues were limited to touring ? Even the people that knew his sleep problems did not know the severity of it. Refer back to the opening statements, AEG stating Michael asking other doctors between tours to give him Propofol? If true this shows that Michael's sleep problems wasn't adrenaline related.

also let's not forget that that by the law of the case Murray is an independent contractor. I tend to believe - although did not check CA laws - there should be a difference between an employee and independent contractor in regards to supervision

 

[Korgnex]

I must say: so far I have not seen anything from the plaintiffs that would make me doubt that AEG will win this case.

The only thing that we are witnessing ourselves IMO is that how different various fans are perceiving legal aspects (which require advanced knowledge to fully understand eg whether AEG could be guilty of negligence beyond all reasonable doubt) and factual procedures.

 

[Annita]

http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/05/damaging-emails-in-michael-jackson-trial/
Conflicts and Ethics

Trell maintained that he did not know of any conflict of interest that could have influenced Murray’s judgement.

Even if the court does determine that Murray worked for AEG, not Jackson, it would be a huge breath in ethics to act against the patient’s interests to appease the promoter, a personal injury lawyer points out. “There are many ethical conflicts presented in the Jackson trial — in terms of who Jackson’s doctor actually worked for,” says Jonathan Rosenfeld, an attorney with Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers in Chicago.

Jonathan Rosenfeld

“From what I understand, the promotional company paid the doctor’s salary for treating Jackson,” Rosenfeld says. “Even though the physician’s salary was paid by a company, there is no doubt that the physician had an ethical responsibility to provide care to Jackson that was in his best interest — not that of the company. To suggest that a physician’s ‘interest’ can be purchased goes against all considerations of quality care and flies in the face of medical ethics.”

The trial continues this week, when AEG CEO Paul Gongaware is expected to testify. It was recently revealed in the trial that Gongaware received an email from a stage manager a week before Jackson’s death that read, “I have watched him deteriorate in front of my eyes over the last 8 weeks . . . He was able to do multiple 360 spins back in April. He’d fall on his ass if he tried now.”

AEG executives have denied that they had any way of knowing of the singer’s precarious state before his overdose.

 

[LastTear]

Murray was probably not the only one who gave him propofol, but he was the only one who gave it that way (not controlling the dose, not monitoring his patient)

Both sides are claiming the addict story, AEG's story will proably be much worse. Michael will be the drug addict and the liar, who was so eager to take propofol he did not even fire Murray in spite of all these symptoms.
AEG will not be saying Murray lied to them. If they only wanted to help, that's what AEG would say.
Gongaware is a mess on the stand, he can't keep a plausible story, he is lost himself sometimes.

If it was any doctor, I don't think the Jacksons would have a point. They have one because AEG lawyers made a mistake (indep.contractor contract instead of advance) + it was obvious Murray was not a good doctor + Michael was declining right before their eyes, under the care of the doctor they hired.

The info that is coming out of this trial is very disturbing. My mind too is all over the place, that's why I spend so much time here. A month ago when it started, I would never have imagined writing what I'm writing today.

Lets just say that Murray is the only one who we know for a fact abandoned his patient, with the other doctors we can only assume they monitored Michael, we don't know.

Yes both sides are claiming this addict story, AEG are stating they only knew to a point and mostly know now in hindsight, the Jacksons are stating they have always known, and I guess they think if they knew then everybody should know.

I do find it upsetting that Michael was deteriorating in front of them, but I can't help but feel that they did act on it but both Michael and Murray successfully reassured them. I don't know what AEG would have done if they hasn't been convinced, would they cancel/postpone? I don't know.

It is all disturbing, and certainly doesn't paint Michael in a light that I would like to remember him in.

You are right they did most definitely make a mistake and I feel that they shouldn't be involved in any way with the hiring for doctors for anybody. I wouldnt want to do it, to effectively hire someone and then not be privy to how that doctor is carrying out his services, when I could be held accountable for any adverse outcome.

The Jacksons are claiming that AEG were negligent in their supervision of Murray, I don't understand how, with patient/doctor confidentiality, they could supervise him. Unless he reported back to them with health updates and lists the treatments given, how could they supervise him?

 

[LastTear]

Michael's sleep problems : People that are close to Michael - such as Karen Faye - could know Michael had sleep issues during tours due to adrenaline and he needed time to be able to sleep. However this does not mean that they knew an everyday sleep issues that nothing worked and he needed medical help.

What I'm trying to say is that why would anyone expect Michael to get Propofol for 6 weeks during rehearsals if they thought or knew his sleep issues were limited to touring ? Even the people that knew his sleep problems did not know the severity of it. Refer back to the opening statements, AEG stating Michael asking other doctors between tours to give him Propofol? If true this shows that Michael's sleep problems wasn't adrenaline related.

also let's not forget that that by the law of the case Murray is an independent contractor. I tend to believe - although did not check CA laws - there should be a difference between an employee and independent contractor in regards to supervision

I am hoping that at some point in this trial the term independent contractor will be explained, one would think that the jury would need to understand it at least. The unsigned contract states the 'AEG will not be held liable for Murray's negligence' - that doesn't appear to mean much now, or would that clause perhaps have been so Michael couldn't sue AEG if he had been harmed by Murray?

 

[bouee]

Serendipity & Ivy : you seem to think that to prove negligence/supervision, the Jacksons need to prove AEG knew about propofol or medication abuse.
I don't think so , I think that's one of the reasons why the judge sent this to trial : it would be impossible to prove, the Jacksons can not have elements that show AEG knew about that, or what Murray was exactly doing.

I think the jacskons "only" need to prove AEG knew Murray was a bad doctor, and hired him, or did not fire him in spite of that.

Knowing about sleep issues and /or that Murray was there to treat sleep issues and / or working at night are 3 more red flags.

BUT, I also think they could be on their way to prove that though, we'll have to wait.

I said 10 000 times I can't understand Phillips decision to back Murray "against" Ortega. That could be an explanation that fits we the info we have so far : Phillips asking Murray to do whatever it takes to put Michael on stage, knowing drugs are involved.
That wouldn't be knowing Murray gave propofol, that would be knowingly encouraging a shitty doctor to go ahead and take it further, encouraging medication abuse. Of course Phillips didn't mean to kill Michael, on the contrary, but that would mean knowingly chosing the riskiest path, hoping it will work somehow.

it also fits with Murray telling the police he changed his treatment on 23rd and 24th, to "wean" Michael off propofol, or whatever he was doing before. The only thing we know he changed is adding valium during daytime. The rest, we don't know (and will never know anyway).
I really hope the question will be asked from other doctors. I really want to understand what this m*th*rf*u*ck*r did that was different from other doctors who supposedly used propofol with Michael.

 

[Petrarose]

From Michael's statement , what happened is : pain was due to scalp burn/surgery, he was given pain medication , ( strong pain meds are based on morphine and are addictive, so there was probably no choice at the time) , he became dependant, and at a certain time - I'm guessing allegations- started taking too much and/ or used them for anxiety (that medication can have some "high" side effect, which is why certain people use them as a recreational drug). It got out of ocntrol, he had to go to rehab.

IMO.

Bouee the bolded part ^^ is that you talking or what Michael said? Did Michael say he started using too much or used them for anxiety? This is the thing I am talking about, did the addictive nature of the drugs cause the addiction, or was it Michael's behavior that caused the addiction, such as exceeding the dosages.

Bubs about this: Accordingly, we treat all referral lawyers with the utmost respect and promptly pay referral fees upon the resolution of a case.

I guess after the case then Panish will send TMez a check?

 

[bouee]

I do find it upsetting that Michael was deteriorating in front of them, but I can't help but feel that they did act on it but both Michael and Murray successfully reassured them. I don't know what AEG would have done if they hasn't been convinced, would they cancel/postpone? I don't know.

I think to some extent that was true, Murray convinced them. If AEG could use that argument, their defense would be a lot easier : it was more than proven during CM's trial that Murray is a huge liar, they wouldn't need to put Murray on the stand, they could use the material from the trial + his interviews post trial.

But :
wW have Gongaware who can not keep a plausibble story straight , can't remember why he sent that e mail (when he probably only meant he wanted Murray to do his job properly and keep Michael healthy
- AEG's verdict forms leaving Murray out and including Michael,
- their opening statements (Murray is ignored, Michael a drug addict and a liar who fooled his own doctors)
- that series of e mails on june 19th/20th that make it clear Phillips was very close to finding out the truth and eventually backed Murray trying to squeeze Ortega out, after explaining that "time is running out " and the "consequences would be huge".

IMO they can't say anymore Murray lied to them , it wouldn't fly

It is all disturbing, and certainly doesn't paint Michael in a light that I would like to remember him in.

I understand, and Michael would not like it either. But the truth is Michael had this huge health problem, and IMO is not entirely responsible. he was a victim of people exploiting him for money, and that includes his family. If AEG have a share of responsability, then they have to accept it.
Michael fought against injustice, that's an injustice where he is the victim.

I watched TII last night, and couldn't help thinking how strong he was. Ins pite of all the shit that happened to him, he ended up having the last word in a way. He was putting on a great show, had sold nearly 1 million tickets, he lived the way he wanted to, and had 3 lovely kids. He will be remembered as a great entertainer, the cirque show is the best selling touring show in 2012. That says something too.

The Jacksons are claiming that AEG were negligent in their supervision of Murray, I don't understand how, with patient/doctor confidentiality, they could supervise him. Unless he reported back to them with health updates and lists the treatments given, how could they supervise him?

- Fire him (his contract was not signed)
- Impose other healthcare providers to check on what Murray was doing.

 

[bouee]

Bouee the bolded part ^^ is that you talking or what Michael said? Did Michael say he started using too much or used them for anxiety? This is the thing I am talking about, did the addictive nature of the drugs cause the addiction, or was it Michael's behavior that caused the addiction, such as exceeding the dosages.

Bolded part is me talking. He was not so precise. Dependency was caused by pain treatment, definitely. I would say it's unfortunately not surprising at all, it's common. doctors deal with that when the pain med is no longer needed, they start a "detox" program.

I said these drugs can get you high, many people use them for that, that's why there is an illegal traffic with these drugs.

So it's actually not surprising that someone with anxiety would use them for that, not to get high , but because it makes them feel better, and anxiety would certainly cause the physical pain to get worse, the result is that it's difficult to be clear and say which is what. If Michael was sent to rehab, it means his use was excessive. If it was within the limits of normal given his condition, he would not have been sent to rehab, IMO.

I used to work with heroin addicted people a long time ago, in a hopsital. All benzos & pain medication were locked away, patients were treated via injections as much as possible, basically to wen them off and avoid withdrawal syndrome. Benzos and pain meds were locked away (Nurses could not even have them in their pockets, they could only have the exact dose for one patient on them), otherwise some patients would steal them .
Of course heroin is a far fetched example from Michael, but it's an opiate too, so this example is just to give an idea of how it works.

 

[serendipity]

Serendipity & Ivy : you seem to think that to prove negligence/supervision, the Jacksons need to prove AEG knew about propofol or medication abuse.
I don't think so , I think that's one of the reasons why the judge sent this to trial : it would be impossible to prove, the Jacksons can not have elements that show AEG knew about that, or what Murray was exactly doing.

I think the jacskons "only" need to prove AEG knew Murray was a bad doctor, and hired him, or did not fire him in spite of that.

Not knew about propofol, but knew that MJ would use drugs on tour and doctors would give him drugs. Isn't that why they are bringing up previous tours? If that's what they are saying, then by that logic AEG shouldn't have done any business with MJ in the first place, because they should've known that tour = drugs. That's the direction I feel the Jacksons are going in.

 

[LastTear]

@bouee, by you meaning 'Phillips was close to finding out the truth', do you mean about propofol or about how bad the situation really was?

Gonaware still has a lot of testimony to give, unfortunately I'm not sure that we are getting the full picture from the media, Duke is certainly only giving a very biased report, IMO.

Again, I'm not entirely sure about firing Murray. It's that doctor/patient relationship that I am very uncomfortable with. I don't even know if other health care providers would have worked out what Murray was doing, not without being told. And I don't know how much AEG could have dictated to Michael and would it be right if they did.

 

[bouee]

Not knew about propofol, but knew that MJ would use drugs on tour and doctors would give him drugs. Isn't that why they are bringing up previous tours? If that's what they are saying, then by that logic AEG shouldn't have done any business with MJ in the first place, because they should've known that tour = drugs. That's the direction I feel the Jacksons are going in.

I feel it's just one of their arguments, not the only one, to show that based on this knowledge, it was even easier to suspect Murray. Jacksons are not far from the truth, because if you look at those june 20th e mails, Phillips and Branca did suspect drugs.

 

[serendipity]

I feel it's just one of their arguments, not the only one, to show that based on this knowledge, it was even easier to suspect Murray. Jacksons are not far from the truth, because if you look at those june 20th e mails, Phillips and Branca did suspect drugs.

Well like I said by that logic AEG are more guilty of signing MJ in the first place. They should've known he can't tour without drugs and more importantly The Jacksons definitely should've known that, yet we know what they were doing.

 

[Petrarose]

Bouee your comment: E mails insulting or making fun of Michael, more or less kindly, came from too many people IMO (Trell, that person whose name I don't remeber who called him a freak, Gongaware, Hougdahl), over a long period of time (january to mid june).

I think that in some of the e-mails you mention, it is your subjective understanding that he was made fun of and I think many fans share your feelings. I don't think Mikey in the way Gonga used it was disrespectful, unkind, or shows he is making fun of him. I don't see the color coded idea in the context it was given as making fun or being unkind. I don't think the comment about the brats and food in the context it was made were disrespectful or unkind either. The only people who so far were unkind & made fun of Michael were Treel & Freck--Treel saying the situation of going to the house is creepy & Treel calling Michael a freak. I expect we will soon hear Randy's about the toilet paper etc. Further when you say "over a long period of time," you give the impression that there was a constant stream of insulting & making fun of e-mails about Michael for a long time, and I don't see that.

Then again this case is not about "nasty people" should be punished. I am wondering if some fans are losing sight of what this case is really about. Are those who are unhappy in the way AEG treated Michael, deciding that they should be punished by having to pay for Michael's death, or are people really looking to see if the evidence shows negligent hiring & therefore AEG should pay.

I think the judge sent this to trial because of the implied oral contract between Muarry & AEG, although I saw you wrote something else up there. What do you mean when you say that "Michael had this huge health problem." According to the coroner, he did not have a huge health problem. Do you mean that his insomnia was a huge health problem?

I think we tend to write what we think as though that is exactly what the person said or meant, and this case is already all over the place, so when we do that we cause more confusion than ever.

 

[ivy]

Serendipity & Ivy : you seem to think that to prove negligence/supervision, the Jacksons need to prove AEG knew about propofol or medication abuse.
I don't think so , I think that's one of the reasons why the judge sent this to trial : it would be impossible to prove, the Jacksons can not have elements that show AEG knew about that, or what Murray was exactly doing.

I think the jacskons "only" need to prove AEG knew Murray was a bad doctor, and hired him, or did not fire him in spite of that.

bouee, I feel like we are going in circles in this regard. It's not what I "think" , it's how the law defines negligent hiring.

Let me try once more in legal definitions

"Negligent hiring is a claim made by an injured party against an employer based on the theory that the employer knew or should have known about the employee's background which, if known, indicates a dangerous or untrustworthy character."

"A negligent hiring claim is made when the filer believes that the employer should have known about the employee’s background. In these claims, the filer attempts to prove that the injurious behavior was to be expected based on past behavior that demonstrated that the employee was dangerous, untrustworthy, a sexual predator, or a thief, to name a few possible claims."


"As with all negligence claims, the claimant must prove:
- That the defendant (in this case, the employer) owed them a duty of care;
- That this duty was breached; and
- That the claimant was injured as a result of the breach.

In order for such a duty to exist, the injury to the claimant must be "reasonably foreseeable", meaning, for example, that the type of employment must be one in which an unfit employee could cause harm of the type which occurred, and the claimant is the type of person to whom such harm would be a "reasonably foreseeable consequence"."

"Negligent hiring may be found where the employee (the tortfeasor) had a reputation or record that showed his/her propensity to misuse the kind of authority given by the employer, and this record would have been easily discoverable by the employer, had the employer exercised 'due diligence'. For example, a victim of sexual harassment in the workplace may have a cause of action for negligent hiring on the part of her employer if she can show that the employer was aware of the harasser's termination from a previous position for the same behaviour."

So as you can see by the legal definition negligent hiring claim can only happen if the employer knew and should have known the employee's background and if they just did a background check they can easily discover the past problematic behavior which they can conclude reasonably can cause problems in the future as well.

That's what my past example have been about. for example if a person has been fired from their last job for beating a co-worker, I as an employer can call the last employer to check the work history, easily learn that this person has been in a fight before and reasonably conclude that it's possible that he could be violent in the future as well. that's what negligent hiring is all about.

now let me quote from my summary of the summary judgment decision

"Claim 2 - Negligent Hiring, Supervision and Training

AEG argues they did not hire Murray and could not foresee the risks Murray posed.

Judge states there are triable issues.

Judge states that even though the contract was not signed, a jury must decide if Murray and AEG had a oral or implied in fact contract. Communications, Murray's expenses being budgeted and so on is listed as evidence. Judge makes a note that Michael retaining services of Murray before AEG hired him could be a factor in determining proportional damages and liability.

AEG had argued that Murray was a licensed doctor and was not disciplined and Katherine argued they should have done a more detailed background check. Judge thinks this is a triable issue given that Gongaware had experience and knowledge about "tour doctors" and Michael's previous tours and "tour doctors".

Judge also thinks whether Murray's debt could have been a reason to foresee if such doctor under strong financial pressure may compromise his oath. This is another triable issue."

So as you can see there's still a "known or should have known" issue here and no it's not about Murray being a "bad doctor" because there's simply nothing to suggest that Murray was a bad doctor. the suspensions on his record was minimal about not calling back soon enough or not updating his records fast enough. None of them tells that he would not follow medical standards , none of which says he would give people medicine at their homes and leave them unattended, none of which says he would risk the lives of his patients.

the "known or should have known" here - as I said before - is a little indirect. And the argument is this : Michael had dependency issues and he at least addressed it at 1993, Gongaware had been on tour with Michael before and he knew about the tour doctors. So that means at least Gongaware knew or should have known Michael had dependency issues and had doctors give him drugs during the tours. Does that mean every doctor will do it? No. Then enters Murray's debts and the argument becomes if AEG knew about Murray's debts they could have concluded that he would be willing to do everything for money.

I'll now post a statement from Jackson lawyers which said

"They (AEG) hired an addicted man a drug-pusher to be his tour doctor"

so you get it now? Their argument is that AEG knew or should have known Michael was an "addicted man" (whether it was to propofol or opiates), they hired him a doctor who was a "drug pusher" (which apparently a conclusion they needed to come from looking to his debts).

and you see the difficulty in Jacksons case here?

- okay everyone knew Michael's 93 issues but did they knew any dependency issues in 2009? or should they approach to him as "once an addict always an addict"? (edited to add: the June 20 emails asks about whether it could be chemical or psychological etc, so yeah they show a suspicion but not a certain knowledge)

- murray had debts - majority will turn out to be student loans I believe - can you look to debt and conclude that it would make a doctor turn into a "drug pusher" ? Does it mean every doctor with debts will give people drugs for the right amount of money, what happens to the oath they take?

- and even you can answer as yes to both of the question above (that Murray would supply drugs to Michael) can you foresee that he would do it negligently?

well there's also the issue of who hired Murray to start with.

 

[bouee]

@bouee, by you meaning 'Phillips was close to finding out the truth', do you mean about propofol or about how bad the situation really was?

Phillips and Branca were suspecting drugs. And there was that voicemail from Frank to Murray (but Phillips probably didn't know about it)

Gonaware still has a lot of testimony to give, unfortunately I'm not sure that we are getting the full picture from the media, Duke is certainly only giving a very biased report, IMO.

No we are not getting the full picture, I agree . AP and ABC are not biaised IMO, the only comment from Dukes was about the jurors laughing at PG.

Again, I'm not entirely sure about firing Murray. It's that doctor/patient relationship that I am very uncomfortable with. I don't even know if other health care providers would have worked out what Murray was doing, not without being told. And I don't know how much AEG could have dictated to Michael and would it be right if they did.

Yes I can understand that.
I would have been scared and talked to Michael at least, without Murray being present.
it's very personal, but I know I would have interfered, especially if I was in such a position (Michael had to go through them to pay for Murray).
Hearing about june 19th and how he was cold, and not even able to eat on his own, that would have scared the hell out of me, I would not have listened to Michael if he was insisting on keeping Murray. I would probably have gone for a middle solution with other healthcare providers.
Other healthcare providres would not have guessed, but they would have found the situation very strange, and Murray's behavior unacceptable, so they would have eventually voiced their concern, and maybe they would have taken Murray out of the picture and stopped that mess.
I don't know how Murray would have reacted to that. If he was against it, then that would have been a huge indication to AEG that something was REALLY wrong- he should have welcomed the help.
That would have been supervising Murray.

There was very little time left, so maybe the end result would have been the same, but at least AEG would have done the responsible thing.

 

[Petrarose]

Bouee I understand your reply about what causes addiction, but my thing is you are writing what you think happened as though that is exactly what happened, e.g., him taking the medication given for the scalp for anxiety. This is the problem I have with the thread. We are using our own feelings to explain the liability in this case, and I am wondering if that is the right thing to do.

About you comment that Branca, etc., were suspecting drugs, that is true, but again there is no evidence that they were thinking of Muarry yet or they were relating it to a night time activity involving sleep. Were they thinking that the behaviors could come from getting drugs from Klien? There is no evidence yet that anyone thought Muarry was the one causing the problem.

 

[serendipity]

Bouee your comment: E mails insulting or making fun of Michael, more or less kindly, came from too many people IMO (Trell, that person whose name I don't remeber who called him a freak, Gongaware, Hougdahl), over a long period of time (january to mid june).

I think that in some of the e-mails you mention, it is your subjective understanding that he was made fun of and I think many fans share your feelings. I don't think Mikey in the way Gonga used it was disrespectful, unkind, or shows he is making fun of him. I don't see the color coded idea in the context it was given as making fun or being unkind. I don't think the comment about the brats and food in the context it was made were disrespectful or unkind either. The only people who so far were unkind & made fun of Michael were Treel & Freck--Treel saying the situation of going to the house is creepy & Treel calling Michael a freak. I expect we will soon hear Randy's about the toilet paper etc. Further when you say "over a long period of time," you give the impression that there was a constant stream of insulting & making fun of e-mails about Michael for a long time, and I don't see that.

Then again this case is not about "nasty people" should be punished. I am wondering if some fans are losing sight of what this case is really about. Are those who are unhappy in the way AEG treated Michael, deciding that they should be punished by having to pay for Michael's death, or are people really looking to see if the evidence shows negligent hiring & therefore AEG should pay.

I think the judge sent this to trial because of the implied oral contract between Muarry & AEG, although I saw you wrote something else up there. What do you mean when you say that "Michael had this huge health problem." According to the coroner, he did not have a huge health problem. Do you mean that his insomnia was a huge health problem?

I think we tend to write what we think as though that is exactly what the person said or meant, and this case is already all over the place, so when we do that we cause more confusion than ever.

Even though the case is not about how AEG are nasty people and should be punished. I do feel that's exactly why the Jacksons are showing those type of emails. It's just another tactic to play with the jury.

 

[bouee]

Ivy I get you point re backgrounds checks, I agree, we are going in circles...

Hiring was not complete, was it ? Contract was unsigned , so AEG had a way out.

So it would not be limited to background checks, in this case, that would include everything that happend since he started to work with Michael.
Say, if we go back to Joe and Jack, Joe beating up a customer without any prior criminal record, so you could not know. You hire Joe, and before his contract is signed, he gets very aggresive and threatens clients. Do you keep Joe ? What would be your liability if you keep him, and he ends up beating a client ?

Otherwise, why include that statement that Gongaware knew about past addictions and tour doctors ? Why allow all those emails and testimonies about what happened during Murray's "employment" ? There would only be that e mail "remind him of who's paying his salary" and that would be it.

If you take both sides lines of questionning they both ask about that period of time (Murray's employment with Michael). Why if that is so irrelevant ? Why would AEG lawyers do that and waste juror's time ?

 

[ivy]

Also let me point out why pain issues & opiates versus sleep issues & propofol will be an important defense point for AEG.

As you can see the negligent hiring legal definition has a direct relationship between past and future behavior. such as " For example, a victim of sexual harassment in the workplace may have a cause of action for negligent hiring on the part of her employer if she can show that the employer was aware of the harasser's termination from a previous position for the same behaviour."

a person with a violent history becoming violent in the future is easily foreseeable.

Now there have been also instances when past behavior weren't the same with the future behavior and negligent hiring claims / lawsuits were lost. In other words for example you can't reasonably conclude that a person with sexual harassment history will drive drunk and cause an accident.

This is the reason why you'll see AEG differentiating with Michael's pain issues and use of painkillers with sleep issues and use of Propofol. Expect them to argue even if they knew opiate use they could not reasonably conclude that Michael would be using Propofol at his home for sleep.

Now will jury differentiate between the two, we don't know. but that's an expected defense line from AEG.

 

[bouee]

Bouee I understand your reply about what causes addiction, but my thing is you are writing what you think happened as though that is exactly what happened, e.g., him taking the medication given for the scalp for anxiety. This is the problem I have with the thread. We are using our own feelings to explain the liability in this case, and I am wondering if that is the right thing to do.

About you comment that Branca, etc., were suspecting drugs, that is true, but again there is no evidence that they were thinking of Muarry yet or they were relating it to a night time activity involving sleep. Were they thinking that the behaviors could come from getting drugs from Klien? There is no evidence yet that anyone thought Muarry was the one causing the problem.

yes, and i hope I made it clear in my answers about what I thought happened vs what we know.

So far, I am positive Phillips had enough info to suspect Murray, i have doubts bout Gongaware, why can't he give clear and honest answers ?
Travis clearly said he did voice his concern to ortega, directly suspecting Murray (not about drugs, he said he thought Murray was a weird doctor).
As Smoothlugar says, Travis' testimony could be worth to look into, he's giving information that could lead to that (suspecting drugs and Murray).

 

[LastTear]

Phillips and Branca were suspecting drugs. And there was that voicemail from Frank to Murray (but Phillips probably didn't know about it)



No we are not getting the full picture, I agree . AP and ABC are not biaised IMO, the only comment from Dukes was about the jurors laughing at PG.


Yes I can understand that.
I would have been scared and talked to Michael at least, without Murray being present.
it's very personal, but I know I would have interfered, especially if I was in such a position (Michael had to go through them to pay for Murray).
Hearing about june 19th and how he was cold, and not even able to eat on his own, that would have scared the hell out of me, I would not have listened to Michael if he was insisting on keeping Murray. I would probably have gone for a middle solution with other healthcare providers.
Other healthcare providres would not have guessed, but they would have found the situation very strange, and Murray's behavior unacceptable, so they would have eventually voiced their concern, and maybe they would have taken Murray out of the picture and stopped that mess.
I don't know how Murray would have reacted to that. If he was against it, then that would have been a huge indication to AEG that something was REALLY wrong- he should have welcomed the help.
That would have been supervising Murray.

There was very little time left, so maybe the end result would have been the same, but at least AEG would have done the responsible thing.

The problem is if we only look at individual events many can be innocently explained ie Michael being cold, if you are not aware of anything else one could think he might have the flu, another time he could just be having an off day. I think it's only when the pieces start falling into place (Kenny's persistence) did AEG realise they needed to take some action. I'm just trying to be fair, we have the benefit of seeing this all together and we have hindsight.

I really don't know about other health care providers, don't forget when he needed to Michael had good days. (sorry Mike). But even if Michael and or Murray were against others being brought in - what could they do? Cancel? I doubt if their contact with Michael states they can cancel based on a suspicion of inappropriate drug use. I'm probably talking nonsense, I don't even know if MJ could have sued them.

 

[ivy]

Ivy I get you point re backgrounds checks, I agree, we are going in circles...

Hiring was not complete, was it ? Contract was unsigned , so AEG had a way out.

So it would not be limited to background checks, in this case, that would include everything that happend since he started to work with Michael.
Say, if we go back to Joe and Jack, Joe beating up a customer without any prior criminal record, so you could not know. You hire Joe, and before his contract is signed, he gets very aggresive and threatens clients. Do you keep Joe ? What would be your liability if you keep him, and he ends up beating a client ?

Otherwise, why include that statement that Gongaware knew about past addictions and tour doctors ? Why allow all those emails and testimonies about what happened during Murray's "employment" ? There would only be that e mail "remind him of who's paying his salary" and that would be it.

If you take both sides lines of questionning they both ask about that period of time (Murray's employment with Michael). Why if that is so irrelevant ? Why would AEG lawyers do that and waste juror's time ?

the claim is about negligent hiring and supervision and retention . my posts only address hiring part because without it the rest won't matter.

why the emails are being shown?

Simple it's Jacksons "here are the warnings sent so they should have known and they did not do enough" argument. What they expected to do can range from supervising Murray, firing Murray, getting other help for Michael and to delay / cancel the tour.

AEG is using the emails to show that the warnings weren't about drugs or Propofol, it was about Michael's weight and mental health and they did what they could which was immediately arranging a meeting and discussing what they can do to help. As they don't agree that they hired Murray , supervising or retaining murray is not something they would do.

 

[serendipity]

bouee, I feel like we are going in circles in this regard. It's not what I "think" , it's how the law defines negligent hiring.

Let me try once more in legal definitions

"Negligent hiring is a claim made by an injured party against an employer based on the theory that the employer knew or should have known about the employee's background which, if known, indicates a dangerous or untrustworthy character."

"A negligent hiring claim is made when the filer believes that the employer should have known about the employee’s background. In these claims, the filer attempts to prove that the injurious behavior was to be expected based on past behavior that demonstrated that the employee was dangerous, untrustworthy, a sexual predator, or a thief, to name a few possible claims."

Thanks Ivy for this info. So since they know there's nothing suspicious in Murray's past behavior, they have moved it on Michael's past behavior - ie. AEG knew what MJ was doing on previous tours. And therefore should've known that a doctor on tour (any doctor) would be giving him drugs. And like you mentioned, also bringing Murray's debts to show he would be a "drug pusher". To me it seems the Jacksons are doing all kinds os twisting here and it just doesn't make sense IMO.

AEG had argued that Murray was a licensed doctor and was not disciplined and Katherine argued they should have done a more detailed background check. Judge thinks this is a triable issue given that Gongaware had experience and knowledge about "tour doctors" and Michael's previous tours and "tour doctors".

I personally don't see the connection between doing more detailed background check on Murray and other doctors on previous tours. That's lumping all doctors together and I don't think it's right.

 

[bouee]

Bouee your comment: E mails insulting or making fun of Michael, more or less kindly, came from too many people IMO (Trell, that person whose name I don't remeber who called him a freak, Gongaware, Hougdahl), over a long period of time (january to mid june).

I think that in some of the e-mails you mention, it is your subjective understanding that he was made fun of and I think many fans share your feelings. I don't think Mikey in the way Gonga used it was disrespectful, unkind, or shows he is making fun of him. I don't see the color coded idea in the context it was given as making fun or being unkind. I don't think the comment about the brats and food in the context it was made were disrespectful or unkind either. The only people who so far were unkind & made fun of Michael were Treel & Freck--Treel saying the situation of going to the house is creepy & Treel calling Michael a freak. I expect we will soon hear Randy's about the toilet paper etc. Further when you say "over a long period of time," you give the impression that there was a constant stream of insulting & making fun of e-mails about Michael for a long time, and I don't see that.

Then again this case is not about "nasty people" should be punished. I am wondering if some fans are losing sight of what this case is really about. Are those who are unhappy in the way AEG treated Michael, deciding that they should be punished by having to pay for Michael's death, or are people really looking to see if the evidence shows negligent hiring & therefore AEG should pay.

I think the judge sent this to trial because of the implied oral contract between Muarry & AEG, although I saw you wrote something else up there. What do you mean when you say that "Michael had this huge health problem." According to the coroner, he did not have a huge health problem. Do you mean that his insomnia was a huge health problem?

I think we tend to write what we think as though that is exactly what the person said or meant, and this case is already all over the place, so when we do that we cause more confusion than ever.

yes it's true that it 's difficult to be objective- that will work both ways. what I think is objective will be different from what you think is objective.

Pg colors artwork was designed to fool Michael, nothing else, he was treating him as if he was retarded. To me, such a behavior is serious enough, but it doesn't really matter, because it didn't work anyway.

it's not one isolated incident (insults/making fun) , in that sense I agree it's not that imortant in the contaxt of the trial. For ex, at first, I did not include them in my e mail recap.
My problem is when you put them all together.

Making fun of Michael = not taking him seriously = leading to downplaying health problems.

Hougdahl's mail is very interesting if you see that only 4 days after the Wisconsin sausages he writes aboout Michael degrading in 8 weeks , and not being able to do the 360° spins that he was doing in april. How was Michael 4 days before ? How does that fit with the 8 weeks ? Was he able to do 360° spins on 15th june. Why was it not important on June 15th ?

More generally, why make such a fuss for Michael missing 5/6 reharsals out of 40 or 50 days , when Pg says it ws usual in previous tours ? How does that end up in a planned intervetion ? There was something going on.

What I call a health problem is what Hougdahl describes : loss of weight, Michael generally degrading, culminating in June 19th, when he was not even able to eat on his own.

It was due to the drugs, so it's normal that the coroner said he was good health.

I'm not expecting anyone on both sides, and especially AEG, to be abundantly clear about what happened. It will be how the lawyers and the jurors connect the dots at the end, so it will be based on interpretation anyway.

Again, if it was easy, AEG would only have to say : we did not have acess to background checks, we trusted the doctor, we had no reason to think he could do harm, he fooled everyone.

 

[bouee]

the claim is about negligent hiring and supervision and retention . my posts only address hiring part because without it the rest won't matter.

why the emails are being shown?

Simple it's Jacksons "here are the warnings sent so they should have known and they did not do enough" argument. What they expected to do can range from supervising Murray, firing Murray, getting other help for Michael and to delay / cancel the tour.

AEG is using the emails to show that the warnings weren't about drugs or Propofol, it was about Michael's weight and mental health and they did what they could which was immediately arranging a meeting and discussing what they can do to help. As they don't agree that they hired Murray , supervising or retaining murray is not something they would do.

We agree.

I just don't agree with AEG's point of view.

 

[ivy]

I would have been scared and talked to Michael at least, without Murray being present.
it's very personal, but I know I would have interfered, especially if I was in such a position (Michael had to go through them to pay for Murray).
Hearing about june 19th and how he was cold, and not even able to eat on his own, that would have scared the hell out of me, I would not have listened to Michael if he was insisting on keeping Murray. I would probably have gone for a middle solution with other healthcare providers.
Other healthcare providres would not have guessed, but they would have found the situation very strange, and Murray's behavior unacceptable, so they would have eventually voiced their concern, and maybe they would have taken Murray out of the picture and stopped that mess.
I don't know how Murray would have reacted to that. If he was against it, then that would have been a huge indication to AEG that something was REALLY wrong- he should have welcomed the help.
That would have been supervising Murray.

There was very little time left, so maybe the end result would have been the same, but at least AEG would have done the responsible thing.

see the thing you are saying is actually controlling Michael's medical care and this is the inconsistency here. On one hand people argue that AEG shouldn't be involved in Murray's hiring / contract/ payment on the other hand you expect them to bring and force Michael to see other doctors.

The best they could do if they suspected Murray was to say to Michael "we aren't paying for him" and end negotiations. that doesn't mean Michael would stop seeing him. He could see Murray and pay on his own. AEG cannot force other health providers on Michael or anyone for that matter. Apparently he denied seeing a physical therapist according to Payne. Similarly you can't really force a person go into rehab or get medical care.