Latest on MJJC

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.
shelly_webster said:
I hope he or she stays.
Click to expand...

i hope juror27 doesnt stay. she/he knew coming here would be insensitive for some people and frankly her/his bias is obvious. they way juror27 goes out to defend aeg is very telling.

i cant put juror27 on ignore because posters keep on quoting her/him so ill still see what he/she writes.
 
Last edited:
bluesky said:
Then, why MJ didn't do anything about it? He is the one who knew best about his own health?
Click to expand...

I think it is because some fans have different view of what Michael was.
To them, this is their Michael:

puppet-on-a-string.gif


That Michael had no free will, no his own opinion, not responsible of his doings as someone else pulling his strings, etc.......

Whereas some other fans sees Michael with warts and all, capable of making mistakes, CM being one of his mistakes.
 
twinklEE said:
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".
Click to expand...

Juror 27 doesn't know what is the meaning of cubs and where did it came from
 
crillon said:
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.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to co sign the above.

Thrill said:
so juror27 is gonna be a permanent member or are we having him/her for a short visit? :)
Click to expand...

Well that would be entirely up to Juror#27.

@Tygger I hope we can finally put the hiring and firing point to bed, it's like the same arguments but a change in participants.

@Juror#27 I apologise if this has already been asked, I'm in a different time zone so I play catch up but I do try to read everything. In your opinion did Randy Jacksons deposition help the defence or the Plantiffs?
 
Thrill said:
i hope juror27 doesnt stay. she/he knew coming here would be insensitive for some people and frankly her/his bias is obvious. they way juror27 goes out to defend aeg is very telling.

i cant put juror27 on ignore because posters keep on quoting her/him so ill still see what he/she writes.
Click to expand...


"goes out to defend AEG": Isn't YOUR choice of words very telling instead? Isn't that called bias?
AEG, AEG, AEG. "AEG must fall", "AEG, the evil bad company", full of "creeps"...
slap = hurting MJ, "creepy" = hating/ridiculing MJ, "walls trembling" = pig rude to MJ
Do you realize that this is just biased interpretation and pure speculation when assuming MJ as nothing but a "victim" of everyone, not acknowledging MJ's own human flaws like we all have ours?
Has it ever crossed your mind that none of the above implies they wanted MJ to deteriorate and eventually die?
Was the "slap" meant to HURT MJ? Wasn't it rather to bring MJ to senses that he couldn't simply ignore the press conference?
Was the "creep" reply an approval of the "freak" reference? Wasn't it rather a neutral reference to how unreal you feel when suddenly meeting one of the world's most popular figures?
Was the "walls trembling" pure rudeness towards MJ? Wasn't it rather an attempt to get through to MJ who lost his confidence and self-trust?
I'd be interested to know how YOU can assume to KNOW these were all signs that AEG was up to no good and wanted MJ to suffer.


This juror proved their decision was not emotionally driven but guided by facts.
The jurors formed their individual opinions based on all the evidence presented to them.
You are mistaking "bias" with "opinion making". The jurors were not convinced by the plaintiffs that had the burden of proof.
The jurors are now free to explain their thoughts, it is absolutely not "bias" when they disagree with you.


You don't want to read the juror's postings, you don't want to read people's quotes of him. You have demonstrated you don't want to read anything that doesn't fit with you claiming "how on earth can anyone dare to say Murray was fit and competent."

Isn't it ironical that people here came to exactly the same result regarding question 2 prior to the verdict, yet when a juror joins us, you accuse the juror of being biased?
Are all humans on this planet that say Murray was fit and competent for the work he was hired for "defendants of AEG"?


Was this also on your ignore list? Do you think I am "defending AEG"? Can you realize I am taking a stand for reasoning and reasoning has nothing to do with "defending" one side?

Korgnex said:
you don't understand the term "competent", I'll try to explain it again:

By your logic every doctor causing involuntary manslaughter of his patient would be "incompetent" and that's quite untrue!

"Competence" is NOT determined by the end result or unethical choices/negligent actions (in this case: improperly conducted propofol infusion).
To determine "incompetent" it does NOT matter whether the patient is detoriating or dying at all!
Colloquially you'd often say that someone is "incompetent" if he's failing at what he's supposed to do. But that is NOT the legal term "incompetent".

"unfit" means Murray was not skilled for the particular work he was hired (eg technical knowledge)
"incompetent" means Murray was missing a legal prerequisite for the particular work he was hired (a qualification)

Legally, he was fit and competent to provide general medical care (he was not for the propofol infusion).
And all that matters here is the law and its legal terms.

It is actually the term "unfit" that you are arguing about, not "incompetent".


  • If a doctor is screwing up his work, does that automatically mean the doctor was not skilled for the work, thus "unfit"?
    • It does NOT because there are 6 possible scenarios:
      • a) the doctor was indeed not skilled
      • b) the doctor was skilled but made a crucial mistake for whatever reason (be it some unethical choice/negligent action eg.)
      • c) the doctor screwed up his work intentionally
      • d) the doctor was threatened to screw up his work
      • e) the doctor screwed up his work because he was misled about the specifics of his work
      • f) higher powers (=forces of nature, NOT AEG Live^^) caused the doctor to screw up his work
    • Murray was fit (and competent) to provide general medical care. As we all know he screwed it up, however scenario a) was NOT the cause.






Do you understand it now?


Kenny suspecting the doctor would be relevant for question 3, NOT 2.
And for that question, the jury has to consider that AEG Live can only rely on the following (limited) information:
There were people that claimed to have seen him deteriorate and complained.
There were people that talked to the person in question (=Michael) plus his doctor (=Murray) and both of them affirmed everything was fine.

Only with constantly recurring complaints or some actual proof they could evaluate that both Michael and Murray weren't speaking the truth.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Juror 27 Thank you for answering my questions. Personally, I am very grateful for the insight you've given about the decision process in reaching your verdict. I'm not a fan of AEG nor was I supportive of this trial in the first place. My personal opinion is that Conrad Murray is responsible for Michael's death because I share his profession and know exactly what he was bound to do by Oath and license and how miserably he failed. In that bedroom, with a helpless patient, Conrad walked away and regardless of a patient's life choices, and sometimes because of them, the practitioner must put personal pressures aside and put his/her patient first. Decisions of life and death rest in the physician's hands...and Conrad knew that.

And again, thank you for your input.
 
Thanks again Juror 27 for you input on this thread :clapping:

Hats off for the common sense and logical thinking :bow:



@Korgnex, you too make to much sense:)
 
Last edited:
Korgnex said:
"goes out to defend AEG": Isn't YOUR choice of words very telling instead? Isn't that called bias?
AEG, AEG, AEG. "AEG must fall", "AEG, the evil bad company", full of "creeps"...
slap = hurting MJ, "creepy" = hating/ridiculing MJ, "walls trembling" = pig rude to MJ
Do you realize that this is just biased interpretation and pure speculation when assuming MJ as nothing but a "victim" of everyone, not acknowledging MJ's own human flaws like we all have ours?
Has it ever crossed your mind that none of the above implies they wanted MJ to deteriorate and eventually die?
Was the "slap" meant to HURT MJ? Wasn't it rather to bring MJ to senses that he couldn't simply ignore the press conference?
Was the "creep" reply an approval of the "freak" reference? Wasn't it rather a neutral reference to how unreal you feel when suddenly meeting one of the world's most popular figures?
Was the "walls trembling" pure rudeness towards MJ? Wasn't it rather an attempt to get through to MJ who lost his confidence and self-trust?
I'd be interested to know how YOU can assume to KNOW these were all signs that AEG was up to no good and wanted MJ to suffer.


This juror proved their decision was not emotionally driven but guided by facts.
The jurors formed their individual opinions based on all the evidence presented to them.
You are mistaking "bias" with "opinion making". The jurors were not convinced by the plaintiffs that had the burden of proof.
The jurors are now free to explain their thoughts, it is absolutely not "bias" when they disagree with you.


You don't want to read the juror's postings, you don't want to read people's quotes of him. You have demonstrated you don't want to read anything that doesn't fit with you claiming "how on earth can anyone dare to say Murray was fit and competent."

Isn't it ironical that people here came to exactly the same result regarding question 2 prior to the verdict, yet when a juror joins us, you accuse the juror of being biased?
Are all humans on this planet that say Murray was fit and competent for the work he was hired for "defendants of AEG"?


Was this also on your ignore list? Do you think I am "defending AEG"? Can you realize I am taking a stand for reasoning and reasoning has nothing to do with "defending" one side?
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
I would like to thank you Juror #27 for your answers and patience with us.

I really hope you’ll stay here and will be a part of MJFam !!!

I also want to apologize for some of us being rude.

Most of us are in the fighting mode since 1993. I don’t know how to explain it, but we all love Michael and what you’ve learned about Him just now, was well known to us since always. You took part in one Trial but we’ve just got ourselves together after Murray’s Trial. You’ve sad a lot of good things about Michael, but would you know anything if not the Trial? I think, NO.
That is “injustice” that breaks our hearts and what we try to change EVERYDAY.
We want people to understand Him better, to appreciate His heart, talent and of course His message.
A lot of best things about Him are ridiculed beyond recognition.
With all lies and hate around we are emotionally exhausted and I’m afraid overprotective to the Man we admire and call to protect. And the fact that we lost Him doesn’t make it easier.
Of course we are angry at AEG, the Jacksons ... It is hard to find peace.
As someone has said here we are community in pain.

So I deeply apologize if this forum is not always going to be a comfortable place.
 
Hi Juror #27. Thank you for sharing and commenting for us here.

When will you be meeting with Mrs. Jackson?
 
Korgnex said:
This juror proved their decision was not emotionally driven but guided by facts.
The jurors formed their individual opinions based on all the evidence presented to them.
You are mistaking "bias" with "opinion making". The jurors were not convinced by the plaintiffs that had the burden of proof.
Click to expand...

The emotional impact not factoring into their decision making is even more evident as the person who
Juror27 emotionally felt a strong reaction (or connection) to was Katherine. I'm sure those videos of MJ with his kids was like a symphony pulling on their heart strings, too. If there was some bias, I'd think it would have gone to the plaintiffs because of that emotional pull, like we fans have. Instead, they did what they were required to do, weigh five months of facts and arguments, and came to an objective decision.
 
Last edited:
I want to add too that no way Am I a supporter of AEG and not in any way did I support the lawsuit Jackson filled against AEG. As so many before me has said. I only support Michael.
 
Last edited:
There is also the Allgood fiasco that occurred simultaneously with AEG negotiations and rehearsals.
 
agree sadly kj is not the woman many thought she was. pre 09 most had nothing but love for her. but since june 09 she has done nothing but involve mjs children in money making schemes with the most questionable ppl. the family have done nothing but try to use mjs death as a chance to make money by either trying to take over his estate or by selling stories about him. If only u knew randy jacksons history but thats another thread! its a shame the judge protected the family so u didnt know about their history with mj as it would show their motive for this lawsuit

twinklEE said:
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".
Click to expand...
 
Another question for u. . if you had to award damages did or have u ever thought about what sort of figure you would go for and how it would be split amongst kj and the kids or have u never even thought
 
^^ LOL Admin let me copy that..

Katherine Jackson to meet with wrongful death jurors as she mulls appeal
Oct. 7, 2013, 8:09 PM EST
WENN
Michael Jackson's mother Katherine is meeting with jurors who cleared AEG Live executives in the King of Pop's wrongful death lawsuit to determine if she should launch an appeal.


A 12-person jury decided last week that although the concert promoters had hired Dr. Conrad Murray to serve as the singer's personal physician ahead of his doomed "This Is It" gigs, they were not liable for damages following the King of Pop's death as the medic was ruled not "unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired."


Bing: Conrad Murray speaks out on 'justice' in verdict


The ruling means AEG Live bosses do not have to pay millions in compensation to Katherine Jackson and the superstar's three children, who claimed the promoters acted negligently by hiring Murray, who is currently serving time behind bars for involuntary manslaughter after he was convicted of administering the fatal dose of anestheticpropofol that cost Jackson his life in 2009.


The Jackson family matriarch's lead lawyer, Brian Panish, has now spoken out about his client's plans to pursue the case further, revealing he and Katherine are hoping to talk to members of the Los Angeles jury in a bid to understand their actions for dismissing the wrongful death accusations.


They will then make a decision about filing a possible appeal within the next month. Panish tells the New York Daily News, "She (Katherine) isn't throwing in the towel ... We can't give up until we gather all the information. Today is another chapter."
Click to expand...
 
Katherine Jackson to meet with wrongful death jurors as she mulls appeal
Oct. 7, 2013, 8:09 PM EST
WENN
Michael Jackson's mother Katherine is meeting with jurors who cleared AEG Live executives in the King of Pop's wrongful death lawsuit to determine if she should launch an appeal.


A 12-person jury decided last week that although the concert promoters had hired Dr. Conrad Murray to serve as the singer's personal physician ahead of his doomed "This Is It" gigs, they were not liable for damages following the King of Pop's death as the medic was ruled not "unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired."


Bing: Conrad Murray speaks out on 'justice' in verdict


The ruling means AEG Live bosses do not have to pay millions in compensation to Katherine Jackson and the superstar's three children, who claimed the promoters acted negligently by hiring Murray, who is currently serving time behind bars for involuntary manslaughter after he was convicted of administering the fatal dose of anestheticpropofol that cost Jackson his life in 2009.


The Jackson family matriarch's lead lawyer, Brian Panish, has now spoken out about his client's plans to pursue the case further, revealing he and Katherine are hoping to talk to members of the Los Angeles jury in a bid to understand their actions for dismissing the wrongful death accusations.


They will then make a decision about filing a possible appeal within the next month. Panish tells the New York Daily News, "She (Katherine) isn't throwing in the towel ... We can't give up until we gather all the information. Today is another chapter."
Click to expand...



You would think they learned by now. Ugh, smh.
 
I want to thank you Juror#27 once again for coming to our forum and graciously answering the questions. This was a unique experience as normally we don't hear this much detail from the jurors. It was really helpful to understand the reasoning. I realize for some people - the ones who waited for an AEG is liable verdict - some stuff is hard to accept but for others I think most of the stuff makes sense.

Over the last few days I learned some of plaintiff's strategies failed. Such as Debt signaling unethical behavior or debt making people unsuitable for hire : I'm not surprised to be honest. At this forum we discussed how an average American has debts and how the recent economic crisis has resulted in many Americans being unemployed and not being able to make payments on their debts. At least for me that strategy of Jacksons lawyers were kind of offensive. There are several other strategies that did not work.

Two other things I realized is that first of all fans aren't always clear about what is hindsight. I'm seeing a lot of circular logic that "Murray killed Michael therefore he's unfit" arguments but fans failing to realize this is hindsight and a negligent hiring is about foreseeability. I kept giving the very basic example of negligent hiring : a company hiring a guy with a history of violence. in such instance the company can easily foresee the risk that this person could engage in the same behavior in the future. I know some disagree but I don't think we had that foreseebility in this instance and I believe all the evidence made it clear. Michael's family and people that live with him (Katherine, Prince, Kai Chase) did not suspect Murray, majority of the emails thought it was a psychological issue and when they suspected something they suspected Klein. Even Karen Faye called MJ's bodyguards to ask them about his visits to Klein, she did not ask questions about Murray. so I don't think anyone knew and the ones that asked questions were fooled by Murray.

Finally now that we have seen comments from 3 jurors in the media and on our forum, I almost feel like question 2 or no question 2, it wouldn't have made a difference in the verdict. Question 3 - which is the standard negligent hiring question - looks like would be "no" as this jury panel seems to think that there was no evidence to show that AEG knew or should have known.
 
That news about Katherine meeting with jurors is originated NY Daily News article, other tabloids just copied it. As far as I can understand what I'm reading, if talk between KJ and jurors is true, it already happened.

"Michael Jackson’s mom was heartened by a private conversation with the jury that rejected her billion dollar wrongful death lawsuit and told her lawyer late Thursday that she supports his research into an appeal.
“She isn’t throwing in the towel,” Katherine Jackson's lead trial lawyer Brian Panish told the Daily News Friday after his meeting with the matriarch.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...-lawsuit-loss-article-1.1477148#ixzz2h8pYoPiD
 
@bubs

Lawyers meet with the jurors right after the verdict for a short time. at that time they also ask jurors if they are okay with the lawyers contacting them further - to have more detailed discussions about the verdict & their deliberations. Lawyers cannot contact the jurors further if they jurors do not consent to it.

@pminton - only Katherine's lawyers and the jurors would know that. It won't be public information.
 
qbee said:
^^ let me copy that..Katherine Jackson to meet with wrongful death jurors as she mulls appeal
Oct. 7, 2013, 8:09 PM EST
WENN
Michael Jackson's mother Katherine is meeting with jurors who cleared AEG Live executives in the King of Pop's wrongful death lawsuit to determine if she should launch an appeal.


A 12-person jury decided last week that although the concert promoters had hired Dr. Conrad Murray to serve as the singer's personal physician ahead of his doomed "This Is It" gigs, they were not liable for damages following the King of Pop's death as the medic was ruled not "unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired."


Bing: Conrad Murray speaks out on 'justice' in verdict


The ruling means AEG Live bosses do not have to pay millions in compensation to Katherine Jackson and the superstar's three children, who claimed the promoters acted negligently by hiring Murray, who is currently serving time behind bars for involuntary manslaughter after he was convicted of administering the fatal dose of anestheticpropofol that cost Jackson his life in 2009.


The Jackson family matriarch's lead lawyer, Brian Panish, has now spoken out about his client's plans to pursue the case further, revealing he and Katherine are hoping to talk to members of the Los Angeles jury in a bid to understand their actions for dismissing the wrongful death accusations.


They will then make a decision about filing a possible appeal within the next month. Panish tells the New York Daily News, "She (Katherine) isn't throwing in the towel ... We can't give up until we gather all the information. Today is another chapter."
Click to expand...

​

​

I think if it hasn't yet happened, this "meeting with the jurors" is a sad ploy by Panish et al. Why would the jurors even agree to do it when they have rendered a "unanimous" decision and this meeting request is primarily about using them to glean information to challenge their verdict.

Appeals are based on correcting legal error that was prejudicial during the trial. No evidence is even presented and the appeal is decided by a panel of three judges (Source:californiaappeals.com) For Panish to keep floating this ludicrous idea that an appeal is about "gathering more information" and "finding the truth" belies the obvious motivation: it's STILL about the money.

I hope the jurors decline any future invitations to meet with Katherine's legal team and refuse to be used as pawns in this Jackson money game. And, I'd hoped Katherine would give up this pitiful attempt to extort money from a corporation that did nothing wrong. The man who killed her son was convicted, AEG isn't negligent, and it's time to move on and live out the rest of her days with dignity and honor her late son.
 
Last edited:
So Katherine lawyer is going after a appeal?

Why?

We need to be focsing on Michael legacy that is what is important. This has pass we must move on.
There is nothing else Katherine can do. Michael's brothers and sisters will be okay. Katherine has gotting the true out of this trial of what has happen to her son now it is time to let it go it is time to stop right here. If their don't do it for themselves do it for Michael's kids let them move on and live their life.
 
Last edited:
This is hypothetical question to Juror 27.
This is about the verdict form and if jury was to find AEG liable, what percentage would have been put on Michael.

Plaintiffs agreed that Michael was 20% responsible as per their pie chart
pie-chart.jpg


If the verdict would have been AEG liable, what percentage would you have put for Michael?



Ivy, what is the purpose of KJ talking to jurors? If there are planning an appeal, what can jurors say to help their appeal?
 
crillon said:
Appeals are based on correcting legal error that was prejudicial during the trial. No evidence is even presented and the appeal is decided by a panel of three judges (Source:californiaappeals.com) For Panish to keep floating this ludicrous idea that this is about "gathering more information" and "finding the truth" belies the obvious motivation: it's STILL about the money.
Click to expand...

Jacksons already have an active appeal about the summary judgment. they filed it in April before the trial started.

edited to add

Here's the link to the appeal of summary judgment : http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca....reen.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=2044484&doc_no=B248420

Jacksons first asked for a stay and when it was denied they asked for an extension. I would assume that they are indeed evaluating the situation to decide what to do.
 
crillon said:

​

​

I think this "meeting with the jurors" is a sad ploy by Panish et al. Why would the jurors even agree to do it when they have rendered a "unanimous" decision and this meeting request is primarily about using them to glean information to challenge their verdict.

Appeals are based on correcting legal error that was prejudicial during the trial. No evidence is even presented and the appeal is decided by a panel of three judges (Source:californiaappeals.com) For Panish to keep floating this ludicrous idea that this is about "gathering more information" and "finding the truth" belies the obvious motivation: it's STILL about the money.

I hope the jurors decline the invitaton to meet with Katherine's legal team and refuse to be used as pawns in this Jackson money game. And, I'd hoped Katherine would give up this pitiful attempt to extort money from a corporation that did nothing wrong. The man who killed her son was convicted, AEG isn't negligent, and it's time to move on and live out the rest of her days with dignity and honor her late son.
Click to expand...


Very well said it is time to let it go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top