I was very happy to read your words, Jury No.27. that you have joined the band of followers of MJ. Maybe the trial has had a positive outcome after all. However, one or two points are bothering me. If AEG had checked Conrad Murray out, they would have discovered that his medical licences/board certifications in Nevada and Texas had expired in December, 2008. so indicating they were negligent in hiring him knowing that. Perhaps it didn't matter. But something else, I read that CM asked AEG for resuscitation equipment but failed to get it. Surely AEG would have wondered if he was carrying out a risky procedure, and was he competent? Over four years some information may have been forgotten. I don't remember hearing any of that in the civil trial.
I honestly don't see how letting a license lapse means that someone is negligent. Doctors let licenses lapse all the time when they are not going to practice in a particular state any more. What we were looking for was disciplinary action against Murray in the form of malpractice suits or complaints, something that would give a reasonable person cause to find Murray unfit or incompetent
at the time they hired him.
Kathy Jorrie's "10 minute google search" of Murray was talked about at length at trial, but I am of the opinion that that is a reasonable amount of due diligence for someone who you are bringing onboard as a favor to someone else. If AEG had found out about CM's financial troubles and told MJ "We can't hire your doctor for you, because we have seen that he is in financial straits and is therefore likely to be unethical or unfit", I can't imagine that going over very well, either with MJ or in the media if the story were to get out.
I understand the reasoning behind saying NO to question number 2 because of its wording! But, because the jurors did find that Murray was Hired by AEG, for some anything he did wrong later should fall on their responsibility, regardless! And I can understand that too because they did hire him. I will always be split with this case and the verdict, both sides made good arguments IMO!
Think of it like this. A doctor works at a hospital and is caught stealing meds and performing unauthorized procedures in secret. When the hospital hired the doctor, there was nothing in his record that showed this kind of behavior. The doctor in this example should be held responsible, not the hospital.
The decision to deviate from the standard of care and to ignore his Hippocratic Oath was CM's, not AEG's.
Technically that was what the next question was about (3). And there I would agree with you. But q. 2 was about simple fact - was he competent or not to do the job. My logic is: the job required first aid skills, he didn't have them, hence - not fit.
It is a skill, because when you are taught first aid, you are taught that call 911 is the first thing you should do, before you start CPR. He didn't do it, and his excuse later was the he didn't call because he started doing CPR first. This technically means he didn't have the proper skill.
But that again is taking what we learned in hindsight and applying it to an earlier time frame. When you go to see your general practitioner, are you absolutely certain they can perform CPR? Don't you think it is reasonable to assume that a licensed doctor who is practicing medicine would know that? Is it really reasonable to say that AEG should have quizzed CM about how to perform CPR and whether calling 911 immediately in case of an emergency is the best course of action? I have never asked a doctor who is treating me these things and I doubt I ever will.
Want to thank Juror #27 for posting her thoughts on the trial verdict and on Michael. The last 5 months have been very painful as we watched Michael's privacy be so grossly invaded and his personal business broadcast across all forms of media. A media that salivates over salacious details about this lovely man. Based on what this juror explained and a bit of common sense, I agree with the verdict. Personally, I believe that Conrad Murray holds the majority, if not all, the responsibility for his patient's death. And to think his burden of guilt would be diminished in the slightest is totally unacceptable. Rather than the deep pockets of AEG, perhaps justice would have been served by not waiving restitution and hounding that man for every dime he attempts to pocket from what he did.
The fact that this juror and others were able to see the kindness, gentleness and caring that is at the core of Michael Jackson,certainly is a wonderful gift and a reason to finally smile. Thank you for sharing that with us.
You are very welcome. I just thought it was important to let you guys know that we did not come away with any negative feelings toward MJ. Quite the opposite, actually.
If I was to ask questions to the jurors, I would be curious about
- What did they think about the witnesses? Who did they believe to be honest and who did they believe to be not honest?
- and if they discussed it or considered it, what did they think about the other questions on the verdict form? or in other words of we assume question 2 wasn't on the form would the verdict change? (it looked like 2 jurors believed AEG didn't and couldn't know what was going on in regards to Propofol. I wonder if this was a widely shared belief)
1. We thought that most people were genuinely trying to be honest, but the way they were boxed in by the attorneys' questions often led to witnesses trying to clarify, avoid answering, or just answering something that wasn't asked, and that could sometimes come across as trying to hide something or being less than truthful. I thought Kenny Ortega was the most forthright out of everyone, and his testimony was a refreshing change because there was no dodging of questions or anything like that. His emails expressed sincere care and concern for MJ and his testimony in person just solidified and strengthened that feeling. He very obviously cared for and loved MJ. I didn't applaud when he left the witness stand because I thought that was inappropriate, but I understand the other jurors doing it. It was spontaneous and the result of the conclusion of a lot of heartfelt, riveting testimony.
2. I don't think if question 2 was gone the verdict would have changed. We did not discuss question 3 much once we reached a 'no' on question 2, but the impression I got is that there is no way we would have said that AEG knew or should have known that CM was unfit or incompetent and that his unfitness or incompetence would pose a particular risk to others. There was simply no evidence presented which would prove that AEG should have known that.
I hope the juror tells nothing about this, Ivy!
He would get into trouble if he would answer of such Question. All witnesses were put under the oath and if the juror would say "i believe Mr./Mrs. XYZ was not honest"... now, he could be sued for slandering. (IMO!)
But maybe in US it isn't so????
Actually in the jury instructions it explicitly said we are free to believe a witness or not, but I would never slander or disparage any of the witnesses I saw. The stress of being on that stand is unbelievable and I can't fault someone for their answers while in that hot seat unless I thought they were flat out lying, and I very rarely got that impression during this case.
Ivy you asked the question I wanted to ask too - about question #3 and how the jurors would have answered it, if it was discussed.
And just wanted to add a Thank you to Juror#27 for posting this really nice message. Know that a lot of MJ fans do think you made a reasonable and logical decision with that verdict.
A lot of us who answered the questions from the verdict form, answered with "no" the second question (and the third too).
Don't pay attention to the disrespectful people out there.
Thank you for the kind words. After hearing about MJ so much for the last 5 months and reading a bit more the last few days, I understand why some fans are so protective and emotional about MJ, so I know not to take their anger at the verdict personally.
Thank you so much for taking the time to post here juror#27, it is defintely appreciated don't let a few people's opinions bother you.
You are quite welcome.
"But his not calling 911 wasn't about skill or professional know how. A kid knows to call 911. Murray's was about covering himself and covering up. MJ was already dead when Murray started making any calls. And that he DID know."
Juror 27. Though I am not part of the majority here that supports the verdict, I do honestly commend you for having the courage to come here to explain the jury's decision (which I now better understand) and share your feelings but most importantly to acknowledge your softening of heart towards Michael. I always loved Michael's music and had a soft spot for him when the media began their 25 year attack mode but regretfully didn't become a passionate fan until after he died and I read everything I could get my hands on about him. Then I fell in love with the MAN and his goodness of heart. Please understand that Michael's fans have been in battle mode for years, some for decades. It has produced very protective and passionate advocates as we saw the human being behind the genius shredded and ridiculed. For all the joy that Michael gave us - which is immense - we are often a community in pain. Sometimes that bubbles over into overzealousness and anger and we suffer errors in judgment. However, if nothing good came out of this trial except that more people like you came to see the decent and loving and brilliant person that he was, then for that I am thankful. Thank you for caring enough to "talk" to us.
Yes, this is the impression I get from his fans. I promise that I won't hold the actions of a few against everyone. I'm very relieved to see that so many MJ fans are willing to discuss the case with reason and logic rather than get emotion. I understand being emotional but when dealing with law and facts I think logic and evidence should reign supreme.
