ivy;3934380 said:
Tygger : I guess you can agree that Estate or Jacksons they only sought to keep the medical records under the protective order until the trial started. Short of a closed courtroom and an ongoing seal order - which no one ever asked for - there was no way to keep any of documents private. And all of the documents including the medical records would and did get public record during the trial.
So IMO everyone here is arguing semantics. At the end of the day a big chunk of the medical records become public during Murray criminal and AEG civil trial.
Ivy, it should not surprise you that I do not agree and this clearly is not a case of semantics.
Other posters have erroneously and confusingly referred to Randy writing a letter to the estate, Randy’s deposition, the civil trial’s purpose being Michael’s health, and the usual, “Jacksons are blameworthy for [insert here]” as examples of the plaintiffs wanting Michael’s records to be made public.
Randy’s letter referred to the estate trying to protect
ALL of AEG’s documents through a seal which included Michael/AEG’s contract, Michael’s medical records, financials, and mostly AEG’s
EMAILS.
Randy’s deposition did not include one mention of his brother’s medical records because he had no knowledge of them. He only spoke to his experiences with his brother.
Michael’s medical records would not have even become a part of the trial except AEG used the records the killer doctor retrieved for insurance purposes to portray Michael as a secretive addict as their defense to negligent hiring which is what the trial was truly about. The plaintiffs correctly conceded Michael had an issue.
Had the trial been televised as the plaintiffs wanted
and the judge wanted to do the extra work necessary to keep those records sealed, they would have remained sealed despite the trial being televised.
None of these instances are remotely connected to Panish petitioning the judge to keep Michael’s medical records sealed. It is
NOT semantics.
Ivy, I do agree with you that Michael's medical records did become public through both trials. This makes it fairly easy to see if this letter from the estate has actual weight or is simply a threat. Anyone can see for themselves if the killer doctor did indeed violate doctor-patient confidentiality or repeated (with embellishments) what was public knowledge.
I personally cannot speak to it as I only read the DM article and was utterly disgusted. I do not remember anything I would consider a violation however, I would have to review it again. I did not view or read the transcripts from the other two televised interviews.
Maybe someone can speak to how these interviews had an instance(s) that can be considered a violation(s). I personally would prefer legal action and not a threat being used for gain in the public arena.
