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

[jamba]

Welcome back, Juror #27--I thought we'd lost you so it's a nice surprise to see your replies!

I have a slight disagreement with this comment, though.

Originally Posted by krikzil
From my vantage point, it's clear Murray was more influenced by the pressure applied by MJ rather than AEG. Conrad knew it wasn't AEG that wanted him there. Look at events: Michael's getting sick, AEG is trying to figure out what's going on, Conrad obviously knows what's causing it and yet, despite the confrontation with AEG execs, he doesn't stop because Murray knew MJ would replace him if he said "no" to the Propofol. Regardless though, Murray is the one who CHOSE to violate his oath as a doctor and that's solely on HIM no matter who or what was pressuring him. (Many individuals have found themselves in far dire circumstances than Conrad's situation and they didn't resort to unethical and/or criminal behavior.)

"Just want to say that this is an excellent summary of the events as I see them."

MJ tried to replace CM a number of times--with Dr. Adams in Las Vegas, by asking Metzger and Cherilyn Lee if they could find someone to give him 'IV sleep medicine' (aka propofol, we assume, although Metzger says this specific anesthetic was not mentioned in their discussion), and was not able to find someone else. I think he tried and decided that he had to go ahead with CM, as he was the only one willing to do it (although we know Dr. Adams agreed also but CM blocked MJ from knowing that).

My opinion is that originally MJ was planning to stockpile the propofol for the actual shows--not the rehearsals. Thus, CM ordered the first batch April 6th, way before MJ started asking Metzger, Cherilyn Lee, and Dr. Adams if they would do it or find someone qualified (an anesthesiologist) around the latter part of April. Somehow he shifted to a plan to use it during the rehearsal period. Lee said he was 'not himself' and 'stressed' on the 18th/19th of April. He was getting desperate re not sleeping enough.

I ask myself what happened to get him so stressed, and there were many factors, including family pressure to do a reunion show with his siblings, pressure that started back in 07/08 but got heavy around April 14th. These shows were encouraged by MJ's parents and there were meetings about it which included AEG. This info was not presented at the trial, which was too bad but maybe a wise decision as it would have cast a negative light on his mother, who was such a sympathetic figure as an elderly, grieving mother, and so the defense didn't go there.

However, there was a lot of pressure on him to agree to these shows (started out as a pay per view) and it later resulted in Allgood, the promoter of these shows, filing a lawsuit against AEG for (I think) 30 million b/c AllGood claimed they had MJ locked into a contract via his manager Frank DiLeo. Also a family friend and concert promoter Leonard Rowe, had gotten MJ to sign a statement that he was his manager (although MJ later revoked this). Both Rowe and Dileo and Joe and Katherine Jackson were involved in trying to arrange these AllGood concerts, which were supposed to involve MJ's brothers and Janet (and $1 million each for his parents).

So back to CM. I think he felt pretty confident that he had it sewn up to be MJ's dr. He knew there was no one else available. If anything, I think after 60 days he was over not under confident. He had gotten away with it up to then, and he got lax and failed to monitor his patient. I agree with a recent comment by the D.A. of L.A. that CM lacks proper 'judgment skills." There is something wrong with his head. Did you know that he sang a song to Anderson Cooper during the trial--'The Little Boy That Santa Forgot." It was all about his sad life. He has a narcissistic personality disorder (at least) IMO. At his trial he tried to blame MJ--he tried to present himself as the victim.

 

[krikzil]

State court civil appeal reversal rates -- CA

In the most recent for which statistics are available — the California Court of Appeal affirmed in full 68% of civil cases it decided. A further 9% were affirmed with modification. The percentage of cases that were reversed was 19%. A further 3% were dismissed for some reason without being considered on the merits (this would include things like late or premature filings, attempted appeals of nonappealable orders, and failure to file briefs). (Numbers are rounded to the nearest percentage, which is why they add up to 99%.)

In other words, almost one in five of civil appeals succeeds in California, with about half that number achieving some modification of the trial court outcome (although such modifications are often on technical grounds offering little, if any, meaningful relief to the appellant.)

"2010 Court Statistics Report" published by the Judicial Council of California

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, I was not aware that in a discussion board on MJJC, every poster had to agree. Nowhere did I seek to change you view or anyone else’s, I only spoke my view which is opposing to the majority. I do not accept the verdict and it is my right to voice my stance here. No different than posters like yourself who voice their non-acceptance of the Jacksons' rejection of restitution almost two years after the fact. If I see a post and want to comment on it, either yea or nea, it is my right unless you are telling me otherwise. Anytime you would prefer someone with an opposing view to the majority to not post in this subforum, feel free to let me know.

I did not misrepresent what the judge order meant or said because if I truly did, you would post her order immediately. I simply repeated events and what jurors said after the verdict. Another weird attempt in a long line of attempts to reprimand me simply because I do not agree with you.

P.S. Comparing the doctor’s negligent and fatal actions for a $150K monthly fee to Michael’s mother and her legal team pursuing a wrongful death trial with no promise of monies is baffling for me. It is also interesting that for “some people” any monies the doctor may generate - which Michael Jackson fans have control over - due to his fatal crime is acceptable for Michael’s parents and children to have however, it is unacceptable for Michael’s mother and children to have monies AEG generated from Michael’s passing. For those with an opposing view, there were three parties to Michael's passing; one has yet to pay.

Paraphrasing Michael: “truth runs marathons.” If the plaintiffs are granted an appeal, I have no issue with the length if it will mean truth and justice will prevail.

 

[krikzil]

Welcome back, Juror #27--I thought we'd lost you so it's a nice surprise to see your replies!

I have a slight disagreement with this comment, though.

Originally Posted by krikzil
From my vantage point, it's clear Murray was more influenced by the pressure applied by MJ rather than AEG. Conrad knew it wasn't AEG that wanted him there. Look at events: Michael's getting sick, AEG is trying to figure out what's going on, Conrad obviously knows what's causing it and yet, despite the confrontation with AEG execs, he doesn't stop because Murray knew MJ would replace him if he said "no" to the Propofol. Regardless though, Murray is the one who CHOSE to violate his oath as a doctor and that's solely on HIM no matter who or what was pressuring him. (Many individuals have found themselves in far dire circumstances than Conrad's situation and they didn't resort to unethical and/or criminal behavior.)

"Just want to say that this is an excellent summary of the events as I see them."

MJ tried to replace CM a number of times--with Dr. Adams in Las Vegas, by asking Metzger and Cherilyn Lee if they could find someone to give him 'IV sleep medicine' (aka propofol, we assume, although Metzger says this specific anesthetic was not mentioned in their discussion), and was not able to find someone else. I think he tried and decided that he had to go ahead with CM, as he was the only one willing to do it (although we know Dr. Adams agreed also but CM blocked MJ from knowing that).

.....

So back to CM. I think he felt pretty confident that he had it sewn up to be MJ's dr. He knew there was no one else available.

All of which affirms my statement. Murray was there solely because he would give MJ the Propofol. If he decided to say "no" he'd be of no use to Michael and be shown the door, kissing his potential paydays goodbye.


Your post also reminds me.... Mike contacted Lee and she refused to help him stating the danger but do we know for certain CM blocked the anesthesiologist? MJ had no cash flow of his own to directly hire doctors as he did previously and that's why he had to utilize AEG to arrange to pay Murray against future advances. I'm sorry but there's no way AEG wouldn't see MJ wanting to hire an anesthesiologist as a ginormous red flag -- your own GP is one thing, but quite another to try and explain that. So, I'm not convinced MJ didn't realize this and as such just settle with Murray...so long as dear Conrad kept playing ball.

 

[marebear]

If only the family had put this much energy against Murray.

 

[krikzil]

There is no evidence Michael did knew the doctor was unethical; quite the opposite. Testimony showed Michael trusted doctors and he received propofol outside of a hospital setting during the History tour and there was no danger.

MJ was the only person who knew exactly how unethical Conrad Murray was -- a doctor willing to administer Propofol not only without any medical necessity but in a complete perversion of the drug's intended use, in a bedroom in secret, without the proper equipment or training in the specialty, because a celebrity was paying him to do so. As to the previous tour, according to testimony those doctors told MJ it was dangerous (and then went ahead and did it anyway). It's also on record how dangerous Ratner was as a doctor. Michael wasn't a stupid man; he knew the dangers but unfortunately felt he needed the Propofol more and so rationalized the risk.

. It is also interesting that for “some people” any monies the doctor may generate - which Michael Jackson fans have control over - due to his fatal crime is acceptable for Michael’s parents and children to have however, it is unacceptable for Michael’s mother and children to have monies AEG generated from Michael’s passing. For those with an opposing view, there were three parties to Michael's passing; one has yet to pay.

It's unacceptable to "some people" (???) like me because it appears the motivation stems from very different places, the amounts in question on opposite ends of the spectrum. The purpose of the criminal restitution was to dissuade, prevent or at least make it difficult for Murray to profit from his crime; to make the attempt to prevent him from victimizing Michael and his kids again. If it truly was "truth, not money" she was after, why refuse something that required no effort on her part (or discomfort to the kids) and might accomplish that? The conclusion I come to is that every penny of that $1.5 billion civil suit mattered. The criminal restitution would come off the civil judgment and clearly Conrad would never come close to earning the $100M to make up that shortfall. That, coupled with fact that KJ and the kids already have more money than they will ever need, therefore smacks of greed and an underlying motivation -- money for the cubs that were left out.

 

[jamba]

All of which affirms my statement. Murray was there solely because he would give MJ the Propofol. If he decided to say "no" he'd be of no use to Michael and be shown the door, kissing his potential paydays goodbye.


Your post also reminds me.... Mike contacted Lee and she refused to help him stating the danger but do we know for certain CM blocked the anesthesiologist? MJ had no cash flow of his own to directly hire doctors as he did previously and that's why he had to utilize AEG to arrange to pay Murray against future advances. I'm sorry but there's no way AEG wouldn't see MJ wanting to hire an anesthesiologist as a ginormous red flag -- your own GP is one thing, but quite another to try and explain that. So, I'm not convinced MJ didn't realize this and as such just settle with Murray...so long as dear Conrad kept playing ball.

What I was getting at is that MJ needed CM (as long as he wanted propofol) as much as CM needed MJ (if he wanted to keep his job)--there was no way MJ was going to show CM the door (b/c he had no other options for propofol), and there was no way CM was going to say NO. What I am saying is CM knew he had MJ where he wanted him--MJ had no other option. This made him think he had power over MJ, that he, CM, was in control. He got arrogant and sloppy. Murray was holding all the cards. In terms of who had power over whom, I think it was CM who had power over MJ, not the other way round.

Dr. Adams testified he told CM 'yes, I'm in' but got no reply.It was arranged he would contact CM re his decision. He sent a second time--what up--I'm in and again no reply. CM's contract I believe had a provision for an assistant. Maybe there would have been a way to finagle Adams, but basically CM wanted MJ to himself and blocked the one person from joining who could have saved MJ's life (Adams, an anesthesiologist who at least would have known what to do and would have brought knowledge and competence to the situation).

 

[gerryevans]

Gerryevans, it is also a fact the doctor did not administer propofol until after AEG hired him. If he was not to receive $150K from AEG and AEG refused to give Michael another advance, how was the doctor to be paid? The doctor was not going to remain without payment.

And what was Murray going to do with the propofol he had purchased? Donate it to charity? Just walk away with an oh well? Murray had the propofol and MJ felt he needed it. I tend to think if AEG refused to provide him the cash, MJ would have found some other way to do so. Besides, there was no reason for AEG to refuse to pay for MJ's requested physician. As Kenny said, AEG complied to practically everything MJ requested.

There is no evidence Michael did knew the doctor was unethical; quite the opposite. Testimony showed Michael trusted doctors and he received propofol outside of a hospital setting during the History tour and there was no danger.

Of course MJ knew he was unethical. MJ had been told since those other unethical doctors gave it to him for sleep, that it was not a sleep remedy and was dangerous to be used for that purpose. Doctors had refused to give it to him for those reasons. MJ just seemed to think Murray was being unethical specifically for him because he believed or trusted Murray genuinely cared about him.

 

[marebear]

I think the only thing Michael didn't know was what Murray was doing when he was suppose to be watching him.

 

[Juror#27]

Welcome back, Juror #27--I thought we'd lost you so it's a nice surprise to see your replies!

MJ tried to replace CM a number of times--with Dr. Adams in Las Vegas, by asking Metzger and Cherilyn Lee if they could find someone to give him 'IV sleep medicine' (aka propofol, we assume, although Metzger says this specific anesthetic was not mentioned in their discussion), and was not able to find someone else. I think he tried and decided that he had to go ahead with CM, as he was the only one willing to do it (although we know Dr. Adams agreed also but CM blocked MJ from knowing that).

Thanks for the kind welcome back, jamba. I've been meaning to stop by lately, just been a bit busy.

I don't think MJ wanted to replace Murray with Adams (or anyone else). I think it is more likely that MJ wanted a second set of hands and eyes to help him 'sleep', and who better to bring in than an actual anesthesiologist?

When MJ was administered propofol in Germany, there were 2 medical personnel present. Ms. Rowe testified about how they told her and MJ that protocol required at least 2 qualified persons present when administering anesthesia. They explained that it is very possible that a single person could have something unexpected happen to them while the patient is under, which would then put the patient in serious danger. I believe MJ had enough experience with legitimate administration of anesthesia that he knew there should always be backup personnel present, and I think that was his reason for seeking out an additional person via Adams, Lee and Metzger.

I also believe that Murray was worried that bringing someone else aboard would cut into his paycheck, and that is why he appeared angry at the meeting with Adams and why he later stonewalled him when he finally decided that he was willing to go on tour with them.

 

[Victory22]

the specific grounds cannot be known until they file the opening brief in the appeal. It could be anything the judge made a decision about, things she allowed or did not allow /dismissed. As I said there's one active appeal about the summary judgment and the claims / defendants she dismissed. Media reports seems to suggest they might appeal based on the verdict form as well. There are hundreds of other possibilities as all of the judge's decisions technically can be appealed.

As for "going anywhere", if they file an appeal it would go on for sometime. There would be multiple briefs, perhaps oral arguments from sides. Parties commonly ask for extensions to be able to file proper responses and it would take the appeal court several months to make a decision. 2-3 years on average for an appeal is common. For example Murray, HTWF and Raymone Bain appeals are still ongoing and around 2 year mark from the notice of appeal is filed.

The odds of winning an appeal isn't that good though as I said only 20-25% of the appeals are successful. In an appeal you don't retry the case, it's all about the law and to make sure there weren't any errors of law.



You know that judge's duty is to consider all the possibilities and jurors might or might not agree with the judge right? For example judge's ruling was about there was enough to ask a jury to determine if Murray was hired or not, judge herself did not make a determination in that regard. Similarly to the foreseeability when AEG argued they did not know Propofol, judge considered the possibility that the jurors can look to the totality of the situation ( MJ with drug history, Murray with debt, possible conflict and so on) and determine there could be enough forseeability. Judge's ruling allowed both sides to be able to present their version - AEG focusing on Propofol and Jacksons focusing on totality of the situation. So she did not rule out "knowing about Propofol", she ruled there were other ways to foresee the risk. Comments from the jurors suggest that they did not believe it was foreseeable.



You totally misunderstood what I was saying. If I need to spell it out, I was saying as the Jacksons wanted $1.5 to $2 billion and as the lawyers were supposed to get a nice chunk (30% or so) of this billion dollar payout, I'm thinking it's a high probability that they would pursue any and all options for an appeal. The amount of money they can get is too big to let this go. So I'm thinking decision to pursue an appeal might not necessarily be based on if they have grounds or good chance to win the appeal but it could be merely based on the possibility of not wanting to give up on a possible big payday.

Could it be the Jackson's are still holding out the hope that AEG will offer a settlement and they can walk away with 10 or 15 million to give to the cubs?

 

[Juror#27]

Juror#27...first thank you so much for coming back. We are a feisty bunch here, but I think everyone does appreciate your providing us insight into the thought processes of the jury, even if their is disagreement with the verdict.

Second, would MJ's debt have factored into the damages amount if you had gotten that far?

That's an interesting question. My initial reaction is that his debt seems irrelevant to the matter of damages, but then I remember that we were supposed to be arriving at a figure which would represent what Michael would have reasonably been expected to provide to his mother and children had he lived. In that light, his personal spending and debt do need to factor in.

We were shown extensive testimony about how much MJ had spent on his mother and children in the past, and also a lot about his personal spending and debts which obviously would affect how much he actually had available to provide to them. So there would certainly need to be some discussion about his spending habits and debt when trying to arrive at a figure which would represent what he would have actually provided to them, but how much of a factor it would have been is not something I can speculate to. Especially without all those figures and exhibits in front of me or knowing the other jurors' opinions on this subject.

 

[jamba]

Thanks for the kind welcome back, jamba. I've been meaning to stop by lately, just been a bit busy.

I don't think MJ wanted to replace Murray with Adams (or anyone else). I think it is more likely that MJ wanted a second set of hands and eyes to help him 'sleep', and who better to bring in than an actual anesthesiologist?

When MJ was administered propofol in Germany, there were 2 medical personnel present. Ms. Rowe testified about how they told her and MJ that protocol required at least 2 qualified persons present when administering anesthesia. They explained that it is very possible that a single person could have something unexpected happen to them while the patient is under, which would then put the patient in serious danger. I believe MJ had enough experience with legitimate administration of anesthesia that he knew there should always be backup personnel present, and I think that was his reason for seeking out an additional person via Adams, Lee and Metzger.

I also believe that Murray was worried that bringing someone else aboard would cut into his paycheck, and that is why he appeared angry at the meeting with Adams and why he later stonewalled him when he finally decided that he was willing to go on tour with them.

Yes, I agree with this. What I meant by 'replace' is that he wanted to replace Murray as the primary person who gave him the propofol. I think he would have kept Murray on--just as you said--but not to administer propofol, which he knew Murray was not qualified to do. So Murray could have been the general practictioner, the second pair of hands, and so on, but not the main person to act as what he wasn't--an anesthesiologist. But b/c no one else was available (as far as he knew), he went--reluctantly--with Murray.

He was obviously looking for an anesthesiologist b/c he went to Adams and before that he asked Lee and Metzger to recommend one as well. It would have been easier if he had found someone in L.A. but eventually, he went back to Vegas to talk to the one guy he knew who had given him propofol before.

edit: after writing this, I am thinking maybe initially he did not want Murray for the tour?? I mean it wasn't til late April that he told Gongaware he wanted Murray. Why wait so long? He first hired Lee to try and solve his sleep issues--from late Feb to mid-April. When that didn't work, he asked Lee and Metzger to find him an anesthesiologist on April 18/19. He went to visit Adams late April or early May (probably the last Sunday in April). Just wondering why, if the plan was to bring CM on board from the getgo, why wait so long to inform AEG and why try and get help from Lee, Metzger--all this before asking AEG for Murray?

 

[Juror#27]

Yes, I agree with this. What I meant by 'replace' is that he wanted to replace Murray as the primary person who gave him the propofol. I think he would have kept Murray on--just as you said--but not to administer propofol, which he knew Murray was not qualified to do. So Murray could have been the general practictioner, the second pair of hands, and so on, but not the main person to act as what he wasn't--an anesthesiologist. But b/c no one else was available (as far as he knew), he went--reluctantly--with Murray.

He was obviously looking for an anesthesiologist b/c he went to Adams and before that he asked Lee and Metzger to recommend one as well. It would have been easier if he had found someone in L.A. but eventually, he went back to Vegas to talk to the one guy he knew who had given him propofol before.

This seems reasonable to me.

But back to the original quote from krikzil, I do believe that Murray would have been ejected from the picture if he refused to give MJ propofol. There was just too much testimony about how MJ would cut someone off at the drop of a hat when he was unable to get what he was looking for from them (and in other cases for no apparent reason at all). I also agree with krikzil that Murray was more conflicted/pressured by MJ than by AEG, but once again the decision to ignore his oath was his alone.

 

[Tygger]

Krikzil, Gerryevans, I did not see any evidence or testimony that stated Michael knew these doctors to be unethical. Yes, he was told it was dangerous to administer propofol as a sleep aid and his response was it was only dangerous if he was not monitored. He trusted those doctors to help him sleep.

Krikzil, I only repeated the phrase “some people” from Ivy’s post. Restitution does require effort and can be uncomfortable task; it is not automatic. As far as the damages, a portion was non-economic and the second portion was economic. That latter portion was to be based on Michael’s future earnings. Had the jurors answered the four questions with a yes, they would then start to assign damages. Panish gave a guide during the closing/rebuttal with Michael being 20% responsible which would discount the damage payout if that guide was followed. He also suggested damages being split 10% for Katherine and 90% for the children. Katherine and Michael’s children would only receive an award in the billions with a successful verdict, the jurors awarding that amount AND the judge accepting that decision. The plaintiffs can request an amount however; it does not mean the plaintiffs would have received that amount with a successful verdict.

Gerryevans, yes, the doctor did seem to stockpile propofol in April however, the doctor did not administer any propofol until after he was hired by AEG in May with the promise of a $150K fee. Remember, Phillips and Gongaware both testified they did not recall if the doctor was there to treat Michael’s sleep issues while Payne testified otherwise.

Yes, I agree with this. What I meant by 'replace' is that he wanted to replace Murray as the primary person who gave him the propofol. I think he would have kept Murray on--just as you said--but not to administer propofol, which he knew Murray was not qualified to do. So Murray could have been the general practictioner, the second pair of hands, and so on, but not the main person to act as what he wasn't--an anesthesiologist. But b/c no one else was available (as far as he knew), he went--reluctantly--with Murray.

He was obviously looking for an anesthesiologist b/c he went to Adams and before that he asked Lee and Metzger to recommend one as well. It would have been easier if he had found someone in L.A. but eventually, he went back to Vegas to talk to the one guy he knew who had given him propofol before.

edit: after writing this, I am thinking maybe initially he did not want Murray for the tour?? I mean it wasn't til late April that he told Gongaware he wanted Murray. Why wait so long? He first hired Lee to try and solve his sleep issues--from late Feb to mid-April. When that didn't work, he asked Lee and Metzger to find him an anesthesiologist on April 18/19. He went to visit Adams late April or early May (probably the last Sunday in April). Just wondering why, if the plan was to bring CM on board from the getgo, why wait so long to inform AEG and why try and get help from Lee, Metzger--all this before asking AEG for Murray?

Good post.

 

[krikzil]

What I was getting at is that MJ needed CM (as long as he wanted propofol) as much as CM needed MJ (if he wanted to keep his job)--there was no way MJ was going to show CM the door (b/c he had no other options for propofol), and there was no way CM was going to say NO. What I am saying is CM knew he had MJ where he wanted him--MJ had no other option. This made him think he had power over MJ, that he, CM, was in control. He got arrogant and sloppy. Murray was holding all the cards. In terms of who had power over whom, I think it was CM who had power over MJ, not the other way round.

Ok, I see what you meant. I agree that Murray was never going to say no but I still believe MJ had the upper hand because sadly, I think MJ could have found another doctor if need be. These 2 trials have shown me there are doctors willing to toss ethics out the door for money or the chance to bask in MJ's reflected glory. I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept that ONE doctor agreed to such insanity, let alone more than one and anesthesiologists to boot. Madness.

I am with you on the "arrogant & sloppy." WTF????!!! Who walks out and leaves a human being on a Propofol drip? I think for both MJ and Murray, each day where something miraculously didn't go wrong, reinforced an utterly false sense of reality.

Dr. Adams testified he told CM 'yes, I'm in' but got no reply.It was arranged he would contact CM re his decision. He sent a second time--what up--I'm in and again no reply. CM's contract I believe had a provision for an assistant. Maybe there would have been a way to finagle Adams, but basically CM wanted MJ to himself and blocked the one person from joining who could have saved MJ's life (Adams, an anesthesiologist who at least would have known what to do and would have brought knowledge and competence to the situation).

You know, that makes my head spin. Another doctor, an anesthesiologist who knows better than anyone about Propofol, agreeing to this. But as I mentioned, I can't see a world where AEG would have gone along with MJ wanting an anesthesiologist hired for a tour, in any capacity. (CM wanting all the $$ to himself doesn't shock me.)

Ultimately though, I must say that I'm pretty rigid in my view on the Propofol. I refuse to walk down the path of "how the Propofol could have been safer." No one should have been administering it. THAT would have saved his life. It's tragic to me that MJ somehow came to believe that this was a viable option.

 

[passy001]

P.S. Comparing the doctor’s negligent and fatal actions for a $150K monthly fee to Michael’s mother and her legal team pursuing a wrongful death trial with no promise of monies is baffling for me. It is also interesting that for “some people” any monies the doctor may generate - which Michael Jackson fans have control over - due to his fatal crime is acceptable for Michael’s parents and children to have however, it is unacceptable for Michael’s mother and children to have monies AEG generated from Michael’s passing. For those with an opposing view, there were three parties to Michael's passing; one has yet to pay.

last time I checked, it was Conrad Murray who killed MJ. Not AEG. so the idea that AEG has to pay billions while Conrad Murray roams around milking off of MJ is disturbing and unacceptable. you can spin it however you like, but it is categorically wrong in every sense of the term.

Also, your rant about AEG making money from MJ passing is completely unjustified. it was a legitimate business deal AEG stroke with the MJ estate and which was subsequently approved by the court. maybe the jacksons should sue the government for approving that deal.

Paraphrasing Michael: “truth runs marathons.”

The truth is that Conrad Murray killed MJ. so all these spins and extortion attempts won't work. trying to pin this on AEG so the jacksons can get billions they don't deserve is wrong. it's called extortion. if they want money they most go and work like their fellow Americans.

If the plaintiffs are granted an appeal, I have no issue with the length if it will mean truth and justice will prevail.

everybody can appeal a court decision. but winning an appeal is a completely different story.

The plaintiff (i.e KJ) will never succeed in an appeal. the chances are extremely slim.

 

[passy001]

Could it be the Jackson's are still holding out the hope that AEG will offer a settlement and they can walk away with 10 or 15 million to give to the cubs?

That will never happen. that i can assure you.

 

[Tygger]

Passy001, you will have to show me where in my post I said AEG “has to pay billions while Conrad Murray roams around milking off of MJ.” I never said AEG killed Michael. I said there were three parties to Michael's passing.

Do you remember Phillips’ email after Michael passed? "Michael Jackson's death was a tragedy. Life must go on. AEG will make a fortune from merchandise sales, ticket retention, the touring exhibition and the film/DVD. I still wish he was here."

Please be aware: fans controlled how much monies AEG generated after Michael’s passing with TII and fans can control how much monies the doctor MAY generate from his fatal crime. Some posters have expressed concerns that lawyer fees for this trial and any pending appeal may come from the estate. Believe it or not, fans can also control that as well.

As I have always said, if you have distaste for the Jackson family, it is your choice and I have no issue with that. It is simply not my view.

A reminder: there are four plaintiffs.

 

[krikzil]

Krikzil, Gerryevans, I did not see any evidence or testimony that stated Michael knew these doctors to be unethical. Yes, he was told it was dangerous to administer propofol as a sleep aid and his response was it was only dangerous if he was not monitored. He trusted those doctors to help him sleep.

He's told it's dangerous by doctors who then proceed anyway and you don't think MJ knew this was unethical behavior on their part? And how do MJ's later statements to others minimizing/rationalizing the risk negate that direct knowledge?

Krikzil, I only repeated the phrase “some people” from Ivy’s post. Restitution does require effort and can be uncomfortable task; it is not automatic.

As far as the damages, a portion was non-economic and the second portion was economic. That latter portion was to be based on Michael’s future earnings. Had the jurors answered the four questions with a yes, they would then start to assign damages. Panish gave a guide during the closing/rebuttal with Michael being 20% responsible which would discount the damage payout if that guide was followed. He also suggested damages being split 10% for Katherine and 90% for the children. Katherine and Michael’s children would only receive an award in the billions with a successful verdict, the jurors awarding that amount AND the judge accepting that decision. The plaintiffs can request an amount however; it does not mean the plaintiffs would have received that amount with a successful verdict.

I'm aware of what Panish suggested and understand how damages work but my response to your original post discussed the rejection of the criminal restitution. How does the above address that? (You had stated that you don't understand why some find one acceptable -- the criminal restitution aimed at Murray's earnings, but not the other -- KJ's civil suit aimed at AEG's billions.)

The criminal restitution could have been secured without effort on KJ's part since the People are required to request it in criminal cases, if appropriate. Of course, there's no way to know what amount Judge Pastor would have settled on but the $100 million figure proposed by Prosecutor Walgren, derived from Estate's estimates for TII, was far more realistic that the billions Panish's expert came up with in the civil trial.

No doubt collecting on that judgment would have required effort and been an uncomfortable task -- Murray would have been a schemer much like OJ Simpson. But then, a lengthy civil trial where your child's personal life is raked over the coals and the subsequent appeals process that takes years when you've lost require effort and aren't comfortable tasks either.

So it comes down to the conclusion that Katherine chose principal over principle in the rejection of the criminal restitution.

A reminder: there are four plaintiffs.

Yes, but by KJ's own testimony though, only ONE made the choice to pursue the AEG lawsuit.

 

[krikzil]

Just want to say that this is an excellent summary of the events as I see them.

Thanks. And thanks for chiming in here on this forum. It's always interesting to hear from jurors after a trial.

In this case, AEG had no information that Conrad Murray was an unethical and dangerous doctor. That was purposefully kept secret from them by Michael himself. His medical background qualified him to give basic medical care, so they were not hiring a gardener to work on a roof. They were hiring a doctor to be a doctor.

This.

 

[gerryevans]

Gerryevans, yes, the doctor did seem to stockpile propofol in April however, the doctor did not administer any propofol until after he was hired by AEG in May with the promise of a $150K fee. Remember, Phillips and Gongaware both testified they did not recall if the doctor was there to treat Michael’s sleep issues while Payne testified otherwise.

The bold further demonstrates the kind of scum Murray actually was. In April, MJ was asking for propofol. Murray stockpiles it, but doesn't start administering it to him until May, when he confirms he is going to get his $150K a month bounty. This means MJ was already getting a clue as to what kind of self serving person Murray actually was. Murray was actually holding back giving him what he wanted until he had a deal being worked out for himself. AEG didn't know any of this. MJ did, and he still was asking them to hire him.

I think this just further shows if AEG didn't agree to pay Murray, MJ would have figured out another way to do so. He had a chronic sleep disorder and here was Murray dangling his carrot of a cure before him if he got the money he wanted. MJ was certainly seeing the kind of ethics Murray had. He just didn't realize or didn't allow himself to completely accept he had NO ethics at all.

 

[Victory22]

And on top of all the other unethical, low-down actions on Murray’s part he took out an insurance policy against Michael terminating him at any point during the tour. He secretly recorded MJ while drugged to use as his job security. If MJ tried to fire him Murray was going to pull out the tape. I’m sure Murray was praying Michael would say something really incriminating but all he said was how hurt he was and how he wanted to help other hurting kids. That must have frustrated Murray but he knew the tape was damaging enough to blackmail Michael into submission and that’s all he really cared about.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

I don't know the judge's personal opinions, but I doubt very highly that she allowed her alleged "bias against MJ" to color her judgment in the case, especially if she supposedly let any and everything in the case for the plaintiffs. If she let everything in the case for the plaintiffs, wouldn't that be bias in favor of MJ?

I think it is far more likely that she did her best to keep things neutral.
===================================

nice to see you back. yeah you could say she was biased in favour of the jacksons. I wouldnt say that would make her biast towards mj. to me I dont see the jacksons and mj as one because the family had no problem allowing all mjs medical records and history to be put in the public domain in order to win the big bucks. the jacksons werent on mjs side so to speak. because if they were they would have gone after murray and not even gone down this track. they would have done anything to protect mj and the kids and not put them through all of this. so in that sense the judge allowing in so much based on her comments about mj being a typical druggie rockstar was good for the jacksons case. it wasnt good for michael.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

As far as the videos and handwritten notes, I was really touched by those. I honestly had no impression of MJ as a father before the trial so I didn't even have a perception that could be changed. I do have an impression of him as a father now and it is overwhelmingly positive. The thing that stood out to me the most about Michael as a father is how well he kept them grounded and instilled in them good character traits like caring for others, being helpful, being disciplined, being grateful for what they have, etc. Just imbuing them with good, old-fashioned values that are unfortunately going by the wayside more and more every day. And you see this manifested in the letters that they wrote to their father and how they treated everyone around them. They just seem like great kids and I think they are that way because they had a great father.

They showed the clip of Paris crying at Michael's funeral a bunch of times, and it hit me like a truck every time. Even now I just feel so much sorrow for her that this amazing, positive force in her life was taken away so early. I truly hope she manages to find peace and harmony in her life after all she has been through at such a young age. I hope for that for all of them.
======================================================


can i just say to see a non fan joe public say the above is heart warming. if anything good came out of this lawsuit then this is it. for people to see the truth rather than the medias agenda ridden hate is a blessing out of all this

 

[AliCat]

They need to leave this alone and not appeal... If Katherine was this persistent in getting her son some help and watching over his health and safety then maybe he would be alive today and all of this nonsense would've been avoided. Her persistent behavior in this money grab of a lawsuit speaks volumes doesn't it? yet she was clueless and had her head in the sand when it came to MJ's issues with pain, insomnia and emotional turmoil.

Isn't this what is making us nuts. Michael dies and after he signed up to go back on stage. Michael's debt was so high, the only way out was to go back to work.

Katherine Jackson enjoyed the money that Michael had been bringing in. That's why she looked the other way when Michael was young, whether it was Joe beating Michael into submission or whether Michael was working in strip club's for money.

By all appearances, Katherine looked supportive, but she wasn't. That's what the May 15, 2009, meeting at the Beverly Hills Hotel bungalow represented. Michael Jackson stood shoulder to shoulder with Randy Phillips, head of AEG Live against Katherine and Joe Jackson and Leonard Rowe. Michael had had enough with shady business dealings that his parent's kept him involved with!

 

[AliCat]

I agree with all you've said and I'll add another reason for Mesereau's POV: he recommended Panish to the Jacksons and as part of that referral he likely stood to gain financially if the plaintiffs prevailed.



Panish is grasping at straws here. Had the competency question been worded as he suggested--to include the words "at any time"--I still don't see how jurors could consider him incompetent. Murray was negligent, reckless and unethical--but not incompetent as a general physician and cardiologist. The medical boards who licensed him confirm that and are the ultimate authority on that matter. Had Murray honored his Hippocratic Oath, he would have walked away from performing anesthesiologist duties, but his lack of character prevailed.

Randy Phillips, Karen Faye, even Debbie Rowe looked at Arnold Klein being involved with Michael's demise. Nobody suspected Conrad Murray and his nightly infusion's of propofol. Judge Pastor ruled out Arnold Klein as a Witness because of the autopsy report, no demerol was found in Michael's system at time of death.

Conrad Murray was so negligent that Michael had overdosed on Propofol. There was way too much Propofol in Michael's body at time of death.

The meeting held at Michael's house, the last Saturday that Michael was alive, where Kenny Ortega might have proved something. Michael's symptom's had greatly improved from the day before, in fact the week before, where Michael's health had looked to be deteriorating.

Michael didn't rehearse on that Saturday, nor Sunday, nor Monday. Then come Tuesday and Wednesday, Michael was doing well. If there was an inkling of doubt about Michael's declining health, by then, red flags would have been raised. Not even Kenny Ortega, who was suspect and why the meeting was held on the last Saturday, before Michael died, did not see anything to cause him concern.

 

[Tygger]

Krikzil, Gerryevans, there is no testimony or evidence that stated Michael knew these doctors were unethical. There is testimony that stated Michael was told it was dangerous and he replied it was safe if he was monitored. There is also testimony that stated Michael trusted these doctors.

Krikzil, I explained damages because there is nothing in that explanation that states if the plaintiffs were successful they were guaranteed billions. Again, those “billions” were estimated future earnings. Restitution was based on possible TII earnings that would have to be substantiated as well. In the civil trial, AEG suggested Michael would earn $20-30M on TII, if I remember correctly, which is far less than $100M. Is it clearer now that whatever amount is suggested is not guaranteed?

So it comes down to the conclusion that Katherine chose principal over principle in the rejection of the criminal restitution.

That is your view of what Katherine has done and I simply do not agree. Yes, information was publicized about her son that in my view was not “dark and dirty secrets” to paraphrase AEG. It could very well be that Katherine thought more to expose AEG as the third party in her son’s passing. What was exposed about her son was simply a man who struggled with addiction to painkillers (not propofol as AEG tried to suggest) and in my view succeeded. He was not participating in his addiction in 2009 AND he did not pass from a painkiller addiction. If others see Michael as a “secretive addict” that no one said no to and all of the negativity that accompanies that, AEG is grateful because it deflected from their liability as the doctor's employer and allowed them to be found not liable.

Yes, but by KJ's own testimony though, only ONE made the choice to pursue the AEG lawsuit.

All four plaintiffs were, are, and will be effected by the civil trial and possible appeal against AEG.

Gerryevans, I simply disagree. I agree with Jamba in that the doctor was not Michael's primary choice to administer propofol; the doctor was who he was left with.

 

[LastTear]

@Tygger I disagree (surprise, surprise) the amount of money Murray makes on Michael is not in the power of Michael's fans, for example: I have no power to stop Murray being paid an advance for a book etc. IMO the general public are engrossed in digging for dirt on celebrities and they love nothing more than a good old fashioned melt down or tragedy - you think they would not be interested to hear all that Murray has to say?

 

[Tygger]

Last Tear, there should be no surprise in my response. laughs

If the general public is not concerned with Michael, they are surely not concerned with the thoughts and feelings of his killer. They were not concerned the doctor served time for involuntary manslaughter either. Some of Michael’s fans are concerned with the doctor’s thoughts and feelings particularly if it is a negative thought or feeling about Michael’s family. The media knows that some fans will pay attention to Michael’s killer for whatever reason and have generated profits from it.

What is baffling is it does not seem to matter that this same man did not show an iota of concern for Michael and this lack of concern killed Michael. Some fans will still listen to him which supports him and it is utterly illogical to me.

Sullivan experienced support from some fans when excerpts from his book appeared in Vanity Fair. Some fans support his negative portrayal of Michael’s family. When the book was released, some fans discovered the negative portrayal of Michael outweighed the negative portrayal of Michael’s family. Some of those same fans who supported Sullivan then launched a successful campaign which denounced his book and hindered sales.

Michael always thanked his fans for their support and generosity to him. Fans have power.