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

Final verdict

  • AEG liable

    Votes: 78 48.4%
  • AEG not liable

    Votes: 83 51.6%

  • Total voters
    161
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wondering what 27 thinks about the family dropping restitution inturn for going for the jackpot against aeg and what that says about the families motives for filing the suit as this is probably the one thing that has caused the biggest anger and outrage amongst the fan community although not the biggest surprise considering the jacksons actions to mj over the years
I beleive he said he doesn't recall Katherine 'explanation' of why she didn't go after Murray,. I truly hope Katherine is awarded a lifetime Academy Award before her time is up on earth, she truly deserves one as she is the epitome of an actor/actress.


It seems that unless Michael was touring, when he was out of LA or visiting other families, he slept better, like with the Cascios, in Ireland, ....

I guess the fact that he wasn't pressurized by those people had a lot to do with it. I truly hope there was a time when he didn't feel like a commodity in his life.
 
Wondering what 27 thinks about the family dropping restitution inturn for going for the jackpot against aeg and what that says about the families motives for filing the suit as this is probably the one thing that has caused the biggest anger and outrage amongst the fan community although not the biggest surprise considering the jacksons actions to mj over the years
I was unaware that the family dropped restitution against CM to go after AEG until earlier today when I read it here. On the surface it does seem to imply that they were setting their sights on a target with deeper pockets, but I don't wish to speculate as to Ms. Jackson or the family's motives when deciding their legal actions. I am not privy to their discussions and I think for me to question their motives is inappropriate.
 
Katherine saying she didn't accept restitution because Murray had to feed his kids was ridiculous IMO. I believe she made that answer otherwise she would have to admit she didn't bother going after him because he has no money and it would have greatly reduced damages from AEG.

Now he'll be out there profiting freely from killing her son.

Juror#27, you are making way too much sense with your explanations. It's clear to me that the jurors discussed and considered all points and didn't rush the verdict. I find their reasoning logical.

MJ deteriorating didn't make Murray unfit for what he was hired. He was still hired for general care. No one knew MJ was like that because of him and you had Karen sending emails to Dileo telling him MJ was self-sabotaging as this was how he was operating according to her, so why would anyone suspect Murray?
 
Panish actually admitted outright that Katherine sued AEG and didn't sue Murray for financial reasons:

During arguments, the question arose of why Katherine Jackson did not sue Murray. Attorneys disclosed that Jackson's son Prince and his daughter, Paris, testified in depositions that they believed Murray was "a good person" and didn't want him sued. But Katherine Jackson, who had the decision, testified it was financial, they said.
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-sets-rules-suit-over-144028519.html

So there is nothing to question here, they basically admitted that they dropped complaints againgst Murray in order to be able to go after AEG because AEG had money and Murray didn't.
 
I beleive he said he doesn't recall Katherine 'explanation' of why she didn't go after Murray,. I truly hope Katherine is awarded a lifetime Academy Award before her time is up on earth, she truly deserves one as she is the epitome of an actor/actress.
As a complete outsider to the whole Jackson saga, it is killing me to read this kind of stuff about Ms. Jackson all over the place. All I saw was a very sweet lady who reminded me of my grandmother. Obviously that does not mean that she is incapable of questionable decisions or actions. And I know that plaintiffs presented the nicest, sweetest picture of her to us that they possibly could.

I think on this one I'm going to bury my head in the sand. :ph34r:
 
Ha of my goodness, this is a good one. Thanks.
Well, I've been thinking about it today and I realize I have been tryng to understand his recent behavior like I tried to understand that interview with Quincy Jones that made me so enraged. Michael started going to him as a teenager and continued for the rest of his life-he was a reputable doctor at one time-and because of that I didn't put him in the same category as the obvious ones who associated with Michael for fame and money like Bashir, Uri Geller, Rabbi Scmooley (sp)and well, I could list a couple of hundred people here that I loathe and despise-but I was reading another thread talking about the stories he and that Jason guy came up with for some fast bucks, so maybe that's what's driving him as well. Just pathetically sad.
 
Oh and I forgot to add about Juror"27's point that AEG tried to help - it's true. In the emails they offered to get the best therapist for MJ as they had access due to dealing with sports teams.

And they also got a food person taking ccare of MJ's eating when they were told he wasn't eating much. So it ain't like they completely turned a blind eye. The problem was they were in the dark as to what the real issue was.
 
Juror27, there is nothing illegal, unethical, or highly dangerous about the use of propofol. There is nothing illegal or unethical about the administration of propofol even in a home setting. The administration of propofol is highly dangerous and was ultimately fatal when done by a negligent, conflicted, cardiologist. Michael passed from the negligent administration of propofol by the doctor not from simply the substance itself.

It was unnecessary for the jurors to know when the doctor would be released from prison. Senneff testified to the state that Michael was found in on the day he passed. The "trustworthy" Detective Martinez and Detective Smith determined the doctor was suspicious in the death of his patient because they believed he was conflicted enough to put his patient second to the $150K fee.

It was also unnecessary that the jurors knew that a plaintiff previously rejected restitution because jurors are not to rely on or express biases to any party. Certain Jackson family members can sue the doctor civilly as AEG could have also sued the doctor civilly. One may feel a plaintiff was "targeting a deeper pocket" however, AEG was made whole by the estate and profited from TII as testified to in court.

It seems clear to me that the reason he would be terminated by producer is because the agreement is between the producer and CM. How would Michael have any legal authority to void a contract between Murray and AEG? That's why they have that provision in there in the first place, because he is only being hired at the request of the artist.

Are you saying that if MJ said he wanted Murray gone, that AEG would have held this contract up to him and forced CM to keep treating him?

It did not seem clear to another juror who spoke to the media and stated the children would be cared for by the doctor when they were not listed in the contract. Another juror did not characterize Michael as a junkie however, the juror did characterize Michael as addict who no one would say no to.

Jurors are instructed to ask any questions they may have during deliberations. Any concerns about AEG possibly forcing a doctor to continue to care for Michael were to be addressed at that time.
 
Propofol is not to be given outside hospital and certainly not to be given as a sleep aid.

And AEG being made whole still doesn't explain the Jacksons dropping restitution unless they were after money and nothing else.
 
As a complete outsider to the whole Jackson saga, it is killing me to read this kind of stuff about Ms. Jackson all over the place. All I saw was a very sweet lady who reminded me of my grandmother. Obviously that does not mean that she is incapable of questionable decisions or actions. And I know that plaintiffs presented the nicest, sweetest picture of her to us that they possibly could.

I think on this one I'm going to bury my head in the sand. :ph34r:
I can understand your sentiments as you are not privy to the the information we are, since you don't have any background information, nor have you spend the last couple of years researching and keeping up with with her/their antics/actions. She is not half of the image she is is portrayed to be. I'm just glad you along with the the other jurors didn't award her any money, which I'm sure must be killing her and her "cubs".
 
Last edited:
The more I read Juror#27's rationale and grasp of the facts & details of the case, the more impressed I am with him. Serving as a juror is such a difficult job, especially on a trial that lasts for 5 months, and I've never before seen this kind of post-trial analysis done so well. Clearly, Juror#27 and other members of the jury intelligently weighed all the evidence carefully, separated out all the emotionalism and arrived at a fair and just verdict.

I hope Juror#27 stays active here, too, in spite of the rude and disrespectful comments, which are way out of line. I think Juror#27 and the other jurors deserve our applause and gratitude, not insults.
 
Last edited:
Juror#27;3915548 said:
As a complete outsider to the whole Jackson saga, it is killing me to read this kind of stuff about Ms. Jackson all over the place. All I saw was a very sweet lady who reminded me of my grandmother. Obviously that does not mean that she is incapable of questionable decisions or actions. And I know that plaintiffs presented the nicest, sweetest picture of her to us that they possibly could.

I think on this one I'm going to bury my head in the sand. :ph34r:

Katherine may be the sweetest person as a person (and really I've never seen anyone who met her and would say otherwise). But she is a typical mother protective of her offspring and she has 5 other sons most of whom don't know how to work and have lived their lives feeding off of Michael and memories of their childhood fame. The whole family used Katherine as a conduit to pump funds out of Michael for decades. (Michael himself talked about this in private conversations that were later made public, and people who dealt with Jackson family wrote about it in various books.) Now Michael is gone and she has to keep her other children afloat. Michael was and still is their main source of income - they just don't know any other.

Katherine is also an old lady, and it's hard for her to see two steps ahead or a layer deeper sometimes. With this trial she was a puppet in the hands of her son Randy (who also repeatedly tried to overthrow Michael Jackson Estate and get his hands on Michael’s assets). He persuaded Katherine to file this lawsuit - he boasted about it himself on Twitter and it was reported in the media more than once. So Katherine’s testimony that she didn’t discuss this lawsuit with her children is just not true.

Plus - and this is my personal opinion which I don’t impose on anyone, – Jackson family starting from Katherine and including most of her children simply lacks culture to understand what you can say and do publicly, and what you should keep private in the family. Michael was the only one in his family with impeccable sense of class and tact, and it really stands out in a stark contrast when you look at what his family has been doing these 4 years. I honestly can’t remember: apart from Jermaine’s book, did they do anything that was respectful of his memory and good for his legacy? It was disaster after disaster.
 
Last edited:
tumblr_mh9a4jdtm71rhk2w1o2_250.gif
r3mJf.gif






Oh God..... :bored2:
tumblr_mdxt67va7v1qh7ov5o2_r1_250.gif
 
Those children are/will be completely brainwashed by the time they are 18. I highly doubt they still consider him to be "such a good person" when he is the one who killed their father. And if if they still do, I wanna wanna know who is responsible for filling their heads with so much stupidity.
 
Last edited:
@morinen, Not just that but their sense of entitlement and resentment is mind boggling. I've stated this before and I will say it again, their entire living was built on the tiny shoulders of Michael Jackson right from the time when Katherine made Joseph replace Jermaine with Michael because she realized Jermaine didn't have what it takes to get them out of the ghetto. And to this day they exist because of Michael, I'm not talking about the tabloid interviews Jermaine, Tito, Marlon, Latoya gave three days after his death to make money, but the fact that the media only remembered they still existed after Michaels death. Malicious tabloid interviews, vile tv interviews, faux tribute shows, boring reality shows, small theater tours, and horrific performances- all that happened because Michael died, they would have never been given these opportunities otherwise, proof are the last 25 years of their "career graphs". Whereas Michael died selling out an unprecedented 50 shows in a matter of hours setting up another world record that yet has to be broken.
 
Last edited:
Juror27, there is nothing illegal, unethical, or highly dangerous about the use of propofol. There is nothing illegal or unethical about the administration of propofol even in a home setting. The administration of propofol is highly dangerous and was ultimately fatal when done by a negligent, conflicted, cardiologist. Michael passed from the negligent administration of propofol by the doctor not from simply the substance itself.

@Tigger, sometimes i wonder whether you even read what you write.

propofol can cause respiratory problems including cardiac arrest. That is extremely dangerous. hence constant monitoring is required. it's like fire. fire can burn you to death. so it's extremely dangerous.

propofol is a drug use for anesthesia purpose. any other use is unethical. I'm not sure if it's even legal to use outside a hospital setting.

lastly, MJ died of cardiac arrest, a direct consequence of popofol intoxication. That is what kiiled MJ. that's been made pretty clear in his autopsy report and dead certificate. Murray failed to monitor him, allowing propofol to stop his breathing and thereby kill him.
 
Juror27, there is nothing illegal, unethical, or highly dangerous about the use of propofol. There is nothing illegal or unethical about the administration of propofol even in a home setting. The administration of propofol is highly dangerous and was ultimately fatal when done by a negligent, conflicted, cardiologist. Michael passed from the negligent administration of propofol by the doctor not from simply the substance itself.

It was unnecessary for the jurors to know when the doctor would be released from prison. Senneff testified to the state that Michael was found in on the day he passed. The "trustworthy" Detective Martinez and Detective Smith determined the doctor was suspicious in the death of his patient because they believed he was conflicted enough to put his patient second to the $150K fee.

It was also unnecessary that the jurors knew that a plaintiff previously rejected restitution because jurors are not to rely on or express biases to any party. Certain Jackson family members can sue the doctor civilly as AEG could have also sued the doctor civilly. One may feel a plaintiff was "targeting a deeper pocket" however, AEG was made whole by the estate and profited from TII as testified to in court.



It did not seem clear to another juror who spoke to the media and stated the children would be cared for by the doctor when they were not listed in the contract. Another juror did not characterize Michael as a junkie however, the juror did characterize Michael as addict who no one would say no to.

Jurors are instructed to ask any questions they may have during deliberations. Any concerns about AEG possibly forcing a doctor to continue to care for Michael were to be addressed at that time.

I'm only gonna address the first paragraph--as I was quite surprised to read something like that. What makes giving propofol (a medicine that's supposed to be used in a hospital setting) ethical? Well, of course it's highly dangerous, hints why it's not for home use. The same thing that happened to Michael could happen to anybody, that's why it's so dangerous. I wonder if you even know what you're writing..
 
Last edited:
Katherine saying she didn't accept restitution because Murray had to feed his kids was ridiculous IMO. I believe she made that answer otherwise she would have to admit she didn't bother going after him because he has no money and it would have greatly reduced damages from AEG.

Now he'll be out there profiting freely from killing her son.
That is a questionable reason to drop restitution for sure. I have a hard time swallowing that explanation.

Juror#27, you are making way too much sense with your explanations. It's clear to me that the jurors discussed and considered all points and didn't rush the verdict. I find their reasoning logical.

MJ deteriorating didn't make Murray unfit for what he was hired. He was still hired for general care. No one knew MJ was like that because of him and you had Karen sending emails to Dileo telling him MJ was self-sabotaging as this was how he was operating according to her, so why would anyone suspect Murray?
Agreed.

Panish actually admitted outright that Katherine sued AEG and didn't sue Murray for financial reasons:


http://news.yahoo.com/judge-sets-rules-suit-over-144028519.html

So there is nothing to question here, they basically admitted that they dropped complaints againgst Murray in order to be able to go after AEG because AEG had money and Murray didn't.
Hmm. Seems pretty cut and dry from where I'm sitting.

Oh and I forgot to add about Juror"27's point that AEG tried to help - it's true. In the emails they offered to get the best therapist for MJ as they had access due to dealing with sports teams.

And they also got a food person taking ccare of MJ's eating when they were told he wasn't eating much. So it ain't like they completely turned a blind eye. The problem was they were in the dark as to what the real issue was.
Yes. I think Mr. Phillips and Mr. Gongaware could have shown more compassion towards MJ, but that is a matter of my personal morality and what I think I would have done in their situation. At the same time they did make efforts to help him and they certainly wanted him healthy and ready to do the shows. So while I might wag my finger in disapproval at them for not being as caring as I like to think I would have been, I do not agree with holding them liable for MJ's death or forcing them to pay billions of dollars to anyone.

Juror27, there is nothing illegal, unethical, or highly dangerous about the use of propofol.
If you are ordering propofol under false pretenses and administering to someone in a non-medical setting without the proper skills or monitoring equipment, I think that qualifies as being illegal, unethical, and highly dangerous. How can you possibly dispute this?!?

There is nothing illegal or unethical about the administration of propofol even in a home setting. The administration of propofol is highly dangerous and was ultimately fatal when done by a negligent, conflicted, cardiologist. Michael passed from the negligent administration of propofol by the doctor not from simply the substance itself.
You seem to be implying that Michael's choice for curing his insomnia was not dangerous had it been done by a qualified anesthetist. This is counter to what the experts testified at trial, where they showed that being in an induced coma is not restful sleep, and that to continue to use propofol to treat insomnia was an extreme deviation of standard medical care. There was not one expert who testified that it is OK to use propofol to sleep, regardless of whether it was in a home setting, hospital room, or administered by an anesthetist or a layperson. The use of the drug to 'sleep' is highly dangerous FULL STOP.

It was unnecessary for the jurors to know when the doctor would be released from prison. Senneff testified to the state that Michael was found in on the day he passed. The "trustworthy" Detective Martinez and Detective Smith determined the doctor was suspicious in the death of his patient because they believed he was conflicted enough to put his patient second to the $150K fee.
I agree it was not crucial for us to know when CM was getting out of prison. Like I said, it was revealed in an offhand comment towards the very end of the trial. No time was spent discussing it in testimony.

Yes, it is detectives' jobs to be suspicious about things. They were investigating a death. Their post facto suspicion does nothing to convince me that AEG should have been expected to run a check on CM's finances prior to hiring him.

It was also unnecessary that the jurors knew that a plaintiff previously rejected restitution because jurors are not to rely on or express biases to any party. Certain Jackson family members can sue the doctor civilly as AEG could have also sued the doctor civilly. One may feel a plaintiff was "targeting a deeper pocket" however, AEG was made whole by the estate and profited from TII as testified to in court.
I agree, I understand why that information was kept from us.

It did not seem clear to another juror who spoke to the media and stated the children would be cared for by the doctor when they were not listed in the contract. Another juror did not characterize Michael as a junkie however, the juror did characterize Michael as addict who no one would say no to.
You are reading far too much into that comment by the juror. There is no question that MJ was dependent on Demerol and an addict for a period of his life. He checked himself into rehab in case you forgot. And yeah, there was ample testimony that showed that MJ had no shortage of doctors throwing whatever drugs he wanted at him. And there was plenty of testimony that when MJ was challenged or stood up to by someone, he would often cut that person out of his life.

This is evidence we were shown in court. If you want to take that juror's comments as slanderous or malicious in spirit you are free to do so, but Mr. Smith was just as fond of Michael as the rest of us. I know for a fact that he was not intending to disparage MJ.

Jurors are instructed to ask any questions they may have during deliberations. Any concerns about AEG possibly forcing a doctor to continue to care for Michael were to be addressed at that time.
Interesting. So rather than follow your implications to their logical end, you would rather deflect with a meaningless statement. We had no reason to discuss the termination clause because it was a red herring. I was asking YOU to explain your assertion, and your answer speaks volumes.
 
I can understand your sentiments as you are not privy to the the information we are, since you don't have any background information, nor have you spend the last couple of years researching and keeping up with with her/their antics/actions. She is not half of the image she is is portrayed to be.
I'm just glad you along with the the other jurors didn't award her any money, which I'm sure must be killing her and her "cubs".
I feel the same way and have for many, many years, but even though she is not the person she seems to be, I'd like Juror 27 to know that Michael really did adore her and was totally devoted to her.
 
Serendipity, Passy001, xosweetseducingsighsxo, may I remind each of you that administering propofol in a home setting as a sleep aid is not illegal which is why the doctor was not charged with such. Juror27, doctors are allowed to order propofol which is why the doctor was not charged with such. Again, Michael passed from the negligent administration of propofol and that is why the doctor was charged with involuntary manslaughter which highlighted his negligence.

Juror#27;3915564 said:
The use of the drug to 'sleep' is highly dangerous FULL STOP.

It was also testified to that Michael trusted doctors by the “trustworthy” Rowe. As Lee testified to in the criminal trial and the civil trial, Michael believed it was safe as long as he was monitored.

If you want to take that juror's comments as slanderous or malicious in spirit you are free to do so, but Mr. Smith was just as fond of Michael as the rest of us. I know for a fact that he was not intending to disparage MJ.

No one is qualified to speak to that juror’s feelings or views except that juror. It was also testified to that Michael was an addict however; he was not a participant in his addiction in 2009. An ethical doctor would say no to Michael and not be concerned about not being able to participate in Michael’s celebrity lifestyle.

Interesting. So rather than follow your implications to their logical end, you would rather deflect with a meaningless statement. We had no reason to discuss the termination clause because it was a red herring. I was asking YOU to explain your assertion, and your answer speaks volumes.

And your response again is extremely familiar. I previously stated I am neutral on the validity of your identity. I also stated I would not pose any questions to you as that discussion will not change the verdict I do not agree with. The question you posed was asked of me previously in this thread by another poster and I answered it.

Juror#27;3915548 said:
As a complete outsider to the whole Jackson saga, it is killing me to read this kind of stuff about Ms. Jackson all over the place. All I saw was a very sweet lady who reminded me of my grandmother. Obviously that does not mean that she is incapable of questionable decisions or actions. And I know that plaintiffs presented the nicest, sweetest picture of her to us that they possibly could.

I think on this one I'm going to bury my head in the sand. :ph34r:

There is no proof anything being said about Katherine or any Jackson to you in this thread or wherever else you are "reading this kind of stuff" is fact yet you readily and eagerly believe these negative views. Interesting indeed.
 
Last edited:
Tygger;3915580 said:
Serendipity, Passy001, xosweetseducingsighsxo, may I remind each of you that administering propofol in a home setting as a sleep aid is not illegal which is why the doctor was not charged with such. Juror27, doctors are allowed to order propofol which is why the doctor was not charged with such. Again, Michael passed from the negligent administration of propofol and that is why the doctor was charged with involuntary manslaughter which highlighted his negligence.



It was also testified to that Michael trusted doctors by the “trustworthy” Rowe. As Lee testified to in the criminal trial and the civil trial, Michael believed it was safe as long as he was monitored.



No one is qualified to speak to that juror’s feelings or views except that juror. It was also testified to that Michael was an addict however; he was not a participant in his addiction in 2009. An ethical doctor would say no to Michael and not be concerned about not being able to participate in Michael’s celebrity lifestyle.



And your response again is extremely familiar. I previously stated I am neutral on the validity of your identity. I also stated I would not pose any questions to you as that discussion will not change the verdict I do not agree with. The question you posed was asked of me previously in this thread by another poster and I answered it.



There is no proof anything being said about Katherine or any Jackson to you in this thread is fact yet you readily and eagerly believe these negative views. Interesting indeed.

It's not illegal so it makes it ethical? Are you serious? Yes, doctors are supposed to administer it..in a hospital. It's not supposed to be administered at home--illegal or not. Just because he wasn't charged doesn't make what he did the right thing.

^ Where have you been? Some of us here don't really care for the Jacksons other than MJ and PPB..so the juror's opinion wasn't just an assumption.
 
Last edited:
Tygger;3915580 said:
It was also testified to that Michael trusted doctors by the “trustworthy” Rowe. As Lee testified to in the criminal trial and the civil trial, Michael believed it was safe as long as he was monitored.
Ms. Lee testified that when Michael asked her if she could get propofol, the first thing she did was check the Physician's Desk Reference to see what it was used for and what the side effects were.

She then brought the book back to Michael and explained to him that it was not intended for sleep and that a possible side effect is death.

Michael also had tried to get propofol from Dr. Quinn back in 1999, and she refused and told him of the very same dangers.

When Michael was given propofol in the mid '90s at the order of Dr. Metzger, the 2 anesthesiologists who administered it told him that it was highly dangerous and that they would not administer it to him again.

So no, I'm sorry but I don't believe you when you say "Michael believed it was safe". If he trusted doctors so much, why would he disregard all these warnings?

Tygger;3915580 said:
No one is qualified to speak to that juror’s feelings or views except that juror. It was also testified to that Michael was an addict however; he was not a participant in his addiction in 2009. An ethical doctor would say no to Michael and not be concerned about not being able to participate in Michael’s celebrity lifestyle.
Yes, I agree Dr. Murray was highly unethical and negligent in his care of MJ.

Tygger;3915580 said:
And your response again is extremely familiar. I previously stated I am neutral on the validity of your identity. I also said I would not pose any questions to you as that discussion will not change the verdict I do not agree with.
What does my identity have to do with anything? I asked you a simple question based on the contract we were talking about and an assertion you made, and the best you can do is deflect and question my identity?

Tygger;3915580 said:
There is no proof anything being said about Katherine or any Jackson to you in this thread is fact yet you readily and eagerly believe these negative views. Interesting indeed.
Oh? So that link to quoted trial testimony is fabricated? Have you any evidence of this? Interesting indeed.
 
It's not illegal so it makes it ethical? Are you serious? Yes, doctors are supposed to administer it..in a hospital. It's not supposed to be administered at home--illegal or not. Just because he wasn't charged doesn't make what he did the right thing.

Apologies, where in my post did I say it was ethical?

^ Where have you been? Some of us here don't really care for the Jacksons other than MJ and PPB..so the juror's opinion wasn't just an assumption.

I noticed.

So no, I'm sorry but I don't believe you when you say "Michael believed it was safe". If he trusted doctors so much, why would he disregard all these warnings?

No need to believe me, I did not state it. I repeated testimony.

Yes, I agree Dr. Murray was highly unethical and negligent in his care of MJ.

Still he was fit and competent.

What does my identity have to do with anything? I asked you a simple question based on the contract we were talking about and an assertion you made, and the best you can do is deflect and question my identity?

Seems you skip the last sentence in that paragraph.

Oh? So that link to quoted trial testimony is fabricated? Have you any evidence of this? Interesting indeed.

You formed an opinion of Katherine in your response to Elusive Moonwalker which was before Morinen's post. What Morinen quoted was not trial testimony; that quote was pre-trial.
 
You formed an opinion of Katherine in your response to Elusive Moonwalker
Oh, I did? Let's take a look at what I said in response to Elusive Moonwalker:

I was unaware that the family dropped restitution against CM to go after AEG until earlier today when I read it here. On the surface it does seem to imply that they were setting their sights on a target with deeper pockets, but I don't wish to speculate as to Ms. Jackson or the family's motives when deciding their legal actions. I am not privy to their discussions and I think for me to question their motives is inappropriate.
1. I didn't know about restitution being dropped against CM by Katherine.
2. On the surface it does seem to appear that the plaintiffs are looking for deep pockets.
3. I don't think it is my place to question or speculate as to Ms. Jackson's motives.

Under what kind of twisted and tortured logic can you read that and say that I have formed an opinion of Katherine? As I sit here right now I don't hold an opinion of her other than that I really liked her testimony.

What Morinen quoted was not trial testimony; that quote was pre-trial.
Yes, the quote was pre-trial but it was a quote from a deposition which is considered the same as testimony. Can you kindly provide any evidence for why I should not believe the article to be accurate in its reporting of sworn testimony?
 
1. I didn't know about restitution being dropped against CM by Katherine.
2. On the surface it does seem to appear that the plaintiffs are looking for deep pockets.
3. I don't think it is my place to question or speculate as to Ms. Jackson's motives.

I believe the opinionated statement is clearer now.

Yes, the quote was pre-trial but it was a quote from a deposition which is considered the same as testimony. Can you kindly provide any evidence for why I should not believe the article to be accurate in its reporting of sworn testimony?

Jurors were only to rely on testimony presented to them in court. Katherine Jackson testified personally in court so jurors would not have seen her video deposition. Her response: "it was financial" in her deposition pre-trial is left up to personal interpretation of the listener as she did not expand on that statement. If she did, it was not reported.

With encouragement, you quickly erred to the negative view and that is interesting indeed.
 
3. I don't think it is my place to question or speculate as to Ms. Jackson's motives.

However, you did...

Katherine saying she didn't accept restitution because Murray had to feed his kids was ridiculous IMO. I believe she made that answer otherwise she would have to admit she didn't bother going after him because he has no money and it would have greatly reduced damages from AEG.

Now he'll be out there profiting freely from killing her son.

That is a questionable reason to drop restitution for sure. I have a hard time swallowing that explanation.

So while I might wag my finger in disapproval at them for not being as caring as I like to think I would have been, I do not agree with holding them liable for MJ's death or forcing them to pay billions of dollars to anyone.

So there is nothing to question here, they basically admitted that they dropped complaints againgst Murray in order to be able to go after AEG because AEG had money and Murray didn't.

Hmm. Seems pretty cut and dry from where I'm sitting.

We are done. Cheers.

It has been fun.
 
Thanks Juror # 27 for your 'insightful' replies and standing your ground :cheeky:

It put a lot of 'perspective' in for me to hear the 'other' side too. It taught me to form an opinion ONLY when you have learnt the 'facts' and 'truths' behind a decision. So therefore, I understand the 'outcome' now more clear!

Thanks for taking the time to 'discuss' these 'touchy and heartfelt' events here with respect and objectivity. :agree:
 
I don't make comments here often since I really can't debate and the tone from many is really hostile. I can't understand how you can be so rude to one of the jurors who took his time to come here. You are twisting everything he explains. Why? Am I reading something different than a few of you? It's kind of crystal clear what this juror say.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top