Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[ivy]

This Thread is an open discussion thread for members who wish to continue to rehash / discuss / debate the AEG Trial and Verdict. Please keep this thread on topic. Constructive criticism is allowed that relates to trial issues but don't use this thread as your personal bashing of the Jacksons thread. Keep the verdict and AEG trial discussions in this forum / thread ONLY and don't derail other threads in the T & T forum off topic with this discussion. ~ Admin /Team MJJC

updates

most recent update is posted first

October 2

Verdict reached. Jury found AEG not liable. Jury voted yes to question 1 "Did AEG Live hire Murray?". Jury voted no to question 2 "Was Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?". Jury found that AEG hired Dr. Murray but that the doctor was not unfit or incompetent for the job he was hired to do.

Jury foreman explained jury's reasoning as follows


The jury foreman just explained the logic behind the verdict. They felt Murray was competent to do the job for which he was hired -- to be a good general practitioner. Jurors felt Murray had gone to a good school and was qualified. The juror added, "That doesn't mean we felt he was ethical. Had that question been in there, it could have been a different outcome.

Jury worked from 9:36 am until 12:03 pm without break. Almost 2h30. Jurors back in deliberating. They started at 1:23 pm PT. At 1:49 pm PT, two very distinct buzzes were heard in the courtroom. Jurors indicated they had reached a verdict. TOTAL DELIBERATION: 13 hours and 44 minutes . Today was Day 4 of deliberation, Day 90 of trial.


October 1

Jurors have began day 3 of deliberations. Deliberation today was from 9:45 am until 11:30 am, took unch break, deliberated between 1:04 - 3:00 PM. Took another break. They started at 3:22 pm PT. Not one question/request today. Jury has gone home for the day!!! So far, they have deliberated for 10 hours and 32 minutes. They return tomorrow at 9:30 am PT.

September 27

The jurors started working at 9:30 am PT today.
This morning the jurors buzzed once asking for a Coke. Then they had another note, asking for 8 legal pads for writing and a ruler.
Jury has gone home for the day. NO VERDICT yet. They deliberated for 4 hours and a half today. Total of 6 and a half hours so far. One of the jurors requested next Monday off. So deliberation resumes on Tuesday at 9:30 am PT.

September 26:

Jury chose the presiding juror and sent Note 1.

At 3:05 pm PT , jurors sent Note 1 asking:
- 12 copies of the jury instruction
- A large supply of post it notes
- 12 highlighters
- 12 red pens
- 12 black pens
- video player
- This Is It documentary
- 12 copies independent contractor agreement

Jury has left for the day. They deliberated for 2 hours today. They are back tomorrow morning for full day of deliberations.


------------------------


Trial Testimony Summary

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...son-vs-AEG-Live-Daily-Trial-Testimony-Summary

Jackson vs. AEG Live Final Jury Instructions


http://www.scribd.com/doc/170454633/Jackson-vs-AEG-Live-Final-Jury-Instructions


Jackson vs. AEG Live Verdict form (as reported by CNN)

Jurors will have a verdict form with 16 questions to answer during their deliberations. A "no" answer to any of the first five would end their deliberations and the trial immediately.

Question No. 1
Did AEG Live hire Murray?

Yes / No

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

Question No. 2
Was Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?

Yes / No

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

Question No. 3
Did AEG Live know or should it have known that Murray was unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk to others?

Yes / No

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

Question No. 4
Did Murray's unfitness or incompetence harm Michael Jackson and the Jackson plaintiffs?

Yes / No

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

Question No. 5
Was AEG Live's negligence in hiring, supervising or retaining Murray a substantial factor in causing Michael Jackson and the Jackson plaintiffs' harm?

Yes / No

If you answered Yes then the remaining questions. If you answered No stop here answer no further questions.

Questions No. 6-13
If jurors get to question six, it means they've decided AEG Live is liable in Jackson's death. The next eight questions would decide a dollar figure for the economic and noneconomic damages suffered by his mother and children.

Questions No. 14-16
The amount of damages calculated by the jury could be significantly reduced when they reach the last three questions on their verdict form. These ask them to decide how much, if any, Michael Jackson's own negligence was a factor in his death.

 

[bluesky]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Maybe a poll is needed for question 1!

You cannot go on to other questions unless you say yes to 1?

 

[Petrarose]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I am watching..

 

[Korgnex]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

How about a (non-public) poll for what people are expecting the (final) verdict to be?

 

[LastTear]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I wouldn't like to guess how the jury would vote, could go either way - but a poll asking our verdicts would be interesting.

 

[ivy]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

added a poll

Poll: Final verdict

AEG liable
AEG not liable

let me know if this is what you want or if you want me to change anything

 

[Vici]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

You cannot go on to other questions unless you say yes to 1?

Im wondering about this one as well.

 

[ivy]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

You cannot go on to other questions unless you say yes to 1?

Im wondering about this one as well.

yes. it's a step by step process. the jury fist needs to determine Murray was hired by AEG, he was incompetent, AEG knew or should have known and this harmed Michael. If they say "no" to any of the first 5 questions, it ends there. If they say yes to 5 questions, they then determine damages and % of responsibility.

 

[Petrarose]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Did AGE hire Muarry? If I go by what the law says, then I will say the plaintiffs have not proved it. I think Muarry knew he was hired, and that is why he asked AEG for his money. When he asked AEG for his money he claimed he was already working. This tells me he felt he was hired from the time he began to work for Michael. Since AEG was not involved when he began working for Michael, it seems Michael hired him first. I think eventually AEG would then hire him officially. I feel when they were speaking to Muarry, they were talking to him as Michael's dr, who was hired by Michael as his dr., but not as a dr. hired for the tour. I think there is a difference in being hired as Michael's dr. in the US and hired for the tour.

I feel when you put the evidence from both parties side by side you get a better picture. I feel the defense depicted Michael's problem behavior/weight loss correctly. However, I don't see where they prove that anyone knew Muarry's behavior was causing it. I know after being asked on the stand Ortega mentioned that at the end he thought of Muarry, but he never said to anyone that Muarry was making Michael sick, so I don't know if he is saying this in hindsight.

I think if the jury thinks someone is hired once they are involved in the negotiation process, then they will vote Yes. If they think that when he began working with Michael, he was hired, and the contract was a formality only, then they may vote yes.

Somehow I don't think they will think the e-mail about paying the salary shows he was hired, but you never know. I am just thinking they would put it in the context in which it was written. They know Muarry was never paid and that the money was being paid on Michael's behalf.

 

[Vici]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Since AEG was not involved when he began working for Michael, it seems Michael hired him first. I think eventually AEG would then hire him officially.

So there was just a technicality? I mean, im kinda confident that AEG would have signed Murrays contract but MJ passed before they had time to do it. Just like Kenny Ortega and Travis Payne continued to work without a fully executed contract, they eventually got their contracts done and was paid... Im pretty sure that would've happened with Murray as well. So what do you mean 'hire him officially'? Are you thinking of a fully executed contract or something else?

I feel when they were speaking to Muarry, they were talking to him as Michael's dr, who was hired by Michael as his dr., but not as a dr. hired for the tour. I think there is a difference in being hired as Michael's dr. in the US and hired for the tour.

Obviously they wanted MJ to be well and perform good and had to talk with the man in direct charge of his health. At the same time, AEG put Murray in charge of rehearsals - which was not what he was hired to do I guess . AEG could also fire the doctor anytime they wanted. I mean, doesnt that kinda indicate they had at least some control over Murray? If Murray was solely hired by Michael, how come AEG could fire a person that was not hired by them? "We did not hire him, but we can fire him anytime we want"! In what world does that make sense?

 

[ivy]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

September 26: ABC7Courts Jury has left for the day. They deliberated for 2 hours today. They are back tomorrow morning for full day of deliberations.

 

[marebear]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I think it could go either way.

 

[smoothlugar]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I think the jury will answer YES to question 1, hired by an implied contract by conduct of both parties, Murray and AEG. (exchange of emails, starting day of work in contract 1st May, negotiations, even the CEO's statement saying they hired him...).

 

[Petrarose]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Viki unlike you I don't see evidence that AEG could fire muarry anytime they wanted. There were specific reasons why they could terminate him like if the tour ended. Panish was the only one who said this about fire when they wanted, so it is best to look at the contract. Both Putnam and Panish may tend to show part of a document or part of someone's statement, so it is best to look at the whole thing in its context, which is what I am hoping the jury will do.

Yes, I do see this as a technicality. To me, Michael asked a company to get someone on board for him. The person screwed up and the company is being sued because they have money. I will never see it differently. This is my own personal feelings about this. It is like someone asking you to use their pool. You let them, and they use it and hurt themselves. The person sues you and get some money. Another is like a bus driver who sees someone running to the bus in pouring rain. He stops for you before the bus stop is reached. As you climb in you trip on the sidewalk. You sue and you get money because the driver stopped in the wrong place. These types of cases are all the same to me.

Can we make the text darker in the new forum look?

 

[Vici]

Viki unlike you I don't see evidence that AEG could fire muarry anytime they wanted. There were specific reasons why they could terminate him like if the tour ended. Panish was the only one who said this about fire when they wanted, so it is best to look at the contract. Both Putnam and Panish may tend to show part of a document or part of someone's statement, so it is best to look at the whole thing in its context, which is what I am hoping the jury will do.

Panish asking Kathy Jorrie about Michael not having a say on Murrays termination.

"Q. I’m talking about producer. There were terms where the producer had several ways to terminate Dr. Murray’s agreement that did not require Mr. Jackson’s consent, correct?

A.(Jorrie): Consent wasn’t written into this document; so yes, I think that’s correct".

Found this information below on a blog.

The Murray-AEG contract says:

7. The Term of this Agreement and this Agreement may be terminated as follows:
7.3. Immediately by Producer if the Artist decides for any reason that the Artist no longer wants or needs the services of Dr. Murray.

Per Jackson lawsuit (I know this might be biased).
"111. The written Agreement delivered to Murray on June 18, 2009, at 11;11 p.m. provided the “term” of Murray’s services was May 1, 2009, through completion of the concert series. In addition to the housing, insurance, travel, equipment, and premises where Murray would perform services, AEG was the only one who could fire Murray. Michael Jackson had not right to terminate the Agreement. It was AEG who directed, controlled, oversaw, and supervised Murray’s services".

Yes, I do see this as a technicality.

Okay, so Murray would be officially hired by AEG when contract was signed. Lets say that would have happened, would you then say AEG hired him? For all that we know, AEG was maybe planning on signing the contract on June 25th or later...

 

[Victory22]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Jury will say NO Murray was not hired and not guilty on all counts in favor of AEG.

 

[Petrarose]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Vici there is more in the contract. The jury is not going to focus on only what this woman said, but look at the evidence in the contract that supports What the instructions ask. They have the actual document.

Guys is the jury working from 9-5? I wonder how far they got with deliberations today?

 

[Vici]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

^^ I know that. Sine you asked for it, I just wanted to present what the termination clause said in the contract. Im aware its just a part of the whole picture but I still see its a legit question to ask why AEG could fire Murray -without MJs consent - if they did not hire him.

Oh well, I gotta say Im really conflicted. Have no idea how this can go or what I believe. Im glad in not in the jurors shoes right now. Im happy this will be over soon.

 

[Petrarose]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

^^Vici Yeah I got you. Well this is just the purpose of the thread for us to mull over things. We all know the jury could go either way, but it is still interesting to say what we think could happen.

I guess both Panish and Putnam are both trying to think of other things right now. I wonder if they will sleep well tonight?

I wonder if the insurance company for AEG sent any of their lawyers to watch part of the proceedings or the closing arguments? I mean if AEG loses and loses the appeals, the insurance company will have to pay eventually, so do they keep an eye on the case?

Ivy on the main page of the forum is a tweet from MJJCommunity saying the organization does not support AEG and does not want them to win. Is that from this forum, and the "we" in that tweet, who does it refer to? Does it refer to the owner?

 

[xosweetseducingsighsxo]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

I say they are liable--but at this point I'm drained, sad, and upset. Either way this verdict goes..Paris, Prince and Blanket aren't getting Michael back. And we aren't getting him back either. >>>The anger is real

 

[Selling_Out_Souls]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Even if the jury says yes to question 1...a "NO" to any of the other questions will still let AEG off the hook.

So if the jury decides AEG DID hire Murray....there's still 4 other questions that have to have yes answers for the jury to deliberate on damages.

For me, the question I think that could let AEG off the hook is question 3.

Question No. 3
Did AEG Live know or should it have known that Murray was unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk to others?

Panish tried to make Propofol seem like an unimportant factor for question 3, but IMO, without Propofol, you have NO 'murder weapon'. Without the Propofol, its more likely than not that we'd still have Michael.

Panish did NOTHING to prove AEG knew or should've known what Murray was doing behind closed doors to Michael. He came off very weak on this point and I think that could lead the jury to answer NO to this question.

Michael was the common denominator with the Propofol...not AEG and not Murray, sadly.

 

[xosweetseducingsighsxo]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Excuse me, this is just a 14 year old's curiosity..but I was watching KTLA 5 news, and Cher Calvin said there was a contract that AEG drew up to have Murray sign but they didn't get to do it. Will this mean any good for Katherine's side?

 

[ivy]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Ivy on the main page of the forum is a tweet from MJJCommunity saying the organization does not support AEG and does not want them to win. Is that from this forum, and the "we" in that tweet, who does it refer to? Does it refer to the owner?

It means MJJC doesn't have an official position and everyone has their own personal opinions. I'm pretty sure that was a tweet in response to some negative criticism towards MJJC

 

[jamba]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Question No. 1
Did AEG Live hire Murray?

Yes / No

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

Question No. 2
Was Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?

The problem with these questions is there is no time frame--no "when."

Is the date June 25th, 2009? If so, then that frames the answers. If it was May 1st, 2009, that's another question. My question is WHEN did Murray become incompetent? When was he hired, if he was in fact hired.

What I see is that there was a process of hiring him, but was it complete by June 25th, or was it still in process? I know that verbal negotions and conduct have a role, but were the verbal negotiations complete by June 25th? If I want to hire someone for a job and I negotiate about what, where, when, how much, when is the person hired? When I start negotiations or when all parts of the negotiation are complete? I would say the latter b/c otherwise just talking to a person--say, getting an estimate--could be construed as a hiring.

When was Murray incompetent? From Day One or on June 25th?

These questions are deceptively simple and really not clear enough to guide the jurors IMO.

edit: The other big, unanswered issue (as far as I know) is when did CM start staying overnight at Carolwood and giving MJ propofol? Also--was it a combination of propofol, lorazepam, and midalozam (sp) or propofol alone--b/c we don't know that either.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Conrat and AEG (in a minor porcentage) are both responsible for Michael's death. AEG for pressuring him to do the tour without assuring themselves his health was taken care of properly. All of them saw Michael was sick and no one did anything to stop it or finding him a more competent doctor. However, Katherine doesn't deserve to win beacause that lawsuit was filed out of greed without looking for any justice for her son, there's no amount of money that could compensate the lost of a son, father, hugely talented, beautiful human being and artist, NONE!

 

[earthlyme]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

We'll have to wait and see...

 

[jamba]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Question No. 3
Did AEG Live know or should it have known that Murray was unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk to others?

This is another seemingly simple but deceptive question IMO. What does it mean "a particular risk to others"? This is very vague. Why not say a potentially life-threatening risk? What does 'particular' mean? Does it mean a special risk, a serious risk?

Who are the "others"--why not say Michael Jackson? Was Murray going to harm anyone else? MJ's kids? AEG personnel? Who?

Who wrote these questions? The Judge?

edit: The way the questions are worded are v. important for the jury to reach a verdict. 'a particular risk" is too vague--we are not talking about a broken leg, after all.

 

[Ashtanga]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Jury will say NO Murray was not hired and not guilty on all counts in favor of AEG.

This trial denigrated both the image of Michael I do not even know what to say which the result I hope of this shit. *big sigh*

 

[Lena Lucy]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

The jury will make this decision, not me!!

 

[bluetopez]

Re: Verdict Watch - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

Question No. 3
Did AEG Live know or should it have known that Murray was unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk to others?

YES! IMO! And I hope the Jury says the same! Those e-mails, those e-mails! Kenny Ortega's concern about Murray! RP lying that he checked Murray when he knew he was lying! That's all! Good Night!