Добро пожаловать в Мир Майкла Джексона, Гость!    Регистрация  Или выполнить  Вход       

Заголовок Объявления
Поздравляем
ThomasBen
Судебные процессы против Конрада Мюррея, иск Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live./The Trial of Conrad Murray, Katherine Jackson AEG Lawsuit

Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1021  Сообщение tamaraki » 03 окт 2013, 20:52

admin писал(а): Майклу Джексону испортили ЖИЗНЬ без всякой причины. Спасибо семье
Michael Jackson’s Life Was Trashed for No Reason Thanks to Family

icon_scared icon_scared
[ Изображение ]

не знаю, эта статейка попахивает откравенной заказухой...... сссори icon_wink
сегодня гароздо больше красноречивей статей в адрес АЕГ и оснавная суть направлена на то, что их репутация по самые уши......
Последний раз редактировалось tamaraki 03 окт 2013, 21:10, всего редактировалось 1 раз.

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора tamaraki поблагодарили (всего 4):
franklin5569 (04 окт 2013, 16:21) • Admin (04 окт 2013, 00:13) • Белая роза (03 окт 2013, 23:27) • Lina (03 окт 2013, 21:04)
Рейтинг: 36.36%
 
RANDOM_AVATAR
offline

tamaraki
Прогресс до нового звания:
0.8%
Благодарил (а): 200 раз.
Поблагодарили: 292 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1022  Сообщение tamaraki » 03 окт 2013, 20:57

мне понравилось, что сказал Томсон о приговоре :) icon_thumbup
https://twitter.com/CEThomson

Чарльз Томсон @CEThomson 12h
@dizzydianajo1 Это истинная победа, однако. The Jacksons были бесспорно выиграл моральную победу.
письма которые они представили в суде были величайшими разоблачение музыкальной индустрии, которую я когда-либо видел.
icon_cool
Письма показывают, что они обманули MJ подписать контракт концерты, вводя в заблуждение его о том, сколько он заработает.
Письма показывают, что они назвали его "уродом", как они планировали сделать сотни миллионов долларов от его спины.
Письма показывают, что концертным промоутером "хлопнул" Майкла Джексона, потому что он не будет делать, как ему сказали.
Это позор. Майкл Джексон был владельцем 50% всего каталога Sony - крупнейшей из музыки активов в мире.

люди рассматривают его как певца со странностями, но он был владельцем совета директоров большой каталог публикаций в мире
И AEG отправлено письмо злорадство о «пощечины», потому что он не будет делать, как ему сказали.
AEG никогда не может вытереть этих писем.
Письма показывают, что AEG Exec "кричал на 'МЮ не делать, как ему велели, а затем бросил его в душе.
Письма показывает AEG Execs знал здоровье Джексона было больным, но замолчать заботливые коллеги, которые подняли тревогу.
Это моральная победа, и то, что Джексоны поместили эти чрезвычайно компрометирующие письма в общественное достояние.
который никогда не может быть отменено. AEG должны работать с этим позором навсегда.
Последний раз редактировалось tamaraki 03 окт 2013, 21:07, всего редактировалось 2 раз(а).

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора tamaraki поблагодарили (всего 6):
franklin5569 (04 окт 2013, 16:22) • Liberian Girl (04 окт 2013, 03:43) • Admin (04 окт 2013, 00:13) • Белая роза (03 окт 2013, 23:28) • TAIS (03 окт 2013, 22:51) • Lina (03 окт 2013, 21:03)
Рейтинг: 54.55%
 
RANDOM_AVATAR
offline

tamaraki
Прогресс до нового звания:
0.8%
Благодарил (а): 200 раз.
Поблагодарили: 292 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1023  Сообщение tamaraki » 03 окт 2013, 21:05

Адвокаты Кэтрин Джексон сделали следующее заявление от ее имени:

"AEG отрицал в течение нескольких лет и продолжает отрицать, что они наняли доктора Конрада Мюррея. Присяжные единогласно признали, что AEG нанял доктора Мюррея. icon_thumbup
AEG повторяет мантру, что этот судебный процесс был shakedown. Такое заявление - это удар по лицу всей судебной системы, которая позволила этому делу добраться до присяжных. Сначала мы сказали, что этот случай был поиском правды. Мы нашли правду - AEG нанял доктора Конрада Мюррея, человека, который находится в тюрьме по обвинению в убийстве Майкла Джексона.
Все варианты относительно баланса/уравновешивания приговора присяжных рассматриваются."

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threa ... mary/page7

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора tamaraki поблагодарили (всего 6):
franklin5569 (04 окт 2013, 16:22) • Liberian Girl (04 окт 2013, 03:46) • Admin (04 окт 2013, 00:13) • Trueamore (03 окт 2013, 23:01) • TAIS (03 окт 2013, 22:50) • Lina (03 окт 2013, 21:10)
Рейтинг: 54.55%
 
RANDOM_AVATAR
offline

tamaraki
Прогресс до нового звания:
0.8%
Благодарил (а): 200 раз.
Поблагодарили: 292 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1024  Сообщение Trueamore » 03 окт 2013, 23:02

Beth Karas interview with Tom Mesereau


Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Trueamore поблагодарили (всего 3):
franklin5569 (04 окт 2013, 16:22) • Admin (04 окт 2013, 00:13) • Белая роза (03 окт 2013, 23:28)
Рейтинг: 27.27%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

Trueamore
Благодарил (а): 6693 раз.
Поблагодарили: 7266 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1025  Сообщение Белая роза » 04 окт 2013, 00:25


Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Белая роза поблагодарили (всего 3):
Trueamore (04 окт 2013, 22:57) • franklin5569 (04 окт 2013, 16:26) • Admin (04 окт 2013, 00:29)
Рейтинг: 27.27%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

Белая роза
Прогресс до нового звания:
75%
Благодарил (а): 1111 раз.
Поблагодарили: 2107 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1026  Сообщение Admin » 04 окт 2013, 01:07

Адвокаты Кэтрин Джексон теряют гонорар в размере 484.000$ в результате провала дела.
Katherine Jackson’s Contingent Fee Lawyers Lose $484M Payday In Failed Michael Jackson Death Trial

Изображение
If Katherine Jackson is the biggest loser in the failed wrongful death lawsuit against concert promoter AEG Live, her team of high-powered and high-priced lawyers are a VERY close second.

Brian Panish and Kevin Boyle had hoped to score a whopping 33 percent of the $1.6 billion in damages they’d asked the jury to award the King of Pop’s family, RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting.

That equates to more than $484 million.

“Panish and Boyle had taken on the case on a contingency, meaning, they wouldn’t charge her, but would have taken a third of any award the jury had given Michael’s mother,” a source close to the case told RadarOnline.com.

PHOTOS: Katherine Jackson Holds Memorial For King Of Pop In His Hometown

“For the jury to not award one penny to Katherine means her lawyers walk away with nothing. Plus, Katherine does not have to pay her lawyers anything.”

Added the legal insider, “It was a huge gamble for Katherine’s lawyers and unfortunately for them, they lost.”

Had the Los Angeles-based lawyers billed the Jackson family matriarch on an hourly basis, the legal bill would have exceeded $15-20 million, the source added.

“This case was filed over three years ago and there were hundreds of depositions taken, expert witnesses to be paid, all which came out of the pocket of Katherine’s lawyers,” the source said.

PHOTOS: Michael Jackson Through The Years

After three days of deliberations, a jury on Wednesday cleared AEG Live of liability in the 2009 death of Michael Jackson, a few weeks before his 50-concert London comeback was to begin.

In the lawsuit, Jackson’s 83-year-old mother and three children — Prince Michael, Paris and Michael — had alleged that AEG was to blame for the King of Pop’s death because it was negligent in the hiring and supervision of the doctor, Conrad Murray, who gave Jackson a fatal dose of the anesthetic proposal.

AEG successfully argued that Jackson had a history of abusing drugs, including the anesthetic. He was responsible for his own death, they claimed.

It’s standard practice in California for lawyers that take cases on a contingency basis to take 33% of any settlement or jury award.


While Katherine is coming to terms with the verdict, “she is already being pressured by youngest son, Randy, to appeal the decision,” a Jackson family insider told Radar.

“But Katherine’s lawyers are now heavily in the red on this case, it would seem unlikely they would continue to represent her if she is persuaded to appeal. The fact the decision was unanimous also doesn’t bode well for Katherine’s chances of mounting a successful appeal.”


http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/ ... ow.twitter
Изображение

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Admin поблагодарили (всего 3):
Trueamore (04 окт 2013, 22:57) • franklin5569 (04 окт 2013, 16:27) • Liberian Girl (04 окт 2013, 04:41)
Рейтинг: 27.27%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

Admin
Благодарил (а): 11977 раз.
Поблагодарили: 14911 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1027  Сообщение Admin » 04 окт 2013, 01:18

Семья Джексонов не рада вердикту и изыскивает другие возможности, так как AEG признали не несущими ответственность.
Michael Jackson's Family "Not Happy" With Wrongful Death Verdict, Exploring Options as AEG Live Is Found Not Liable


Michael Jackson's family is understandably disappointed by what transpired in court today.

"We think this was a very important case to bring for a lot of reasons," Kevin Boyle, an attorney for Katherine Jackson, told reporters after a jury determined that AEG Live was not liable in Jackson's 2009 death of acute propofol intoxication, despite having hired the man who administered the fatal dose, Dr. Conrad Murray.

"We think what we've done with this case is proved some things that are important for the Jackson family and for the concert industry and the sports industry with regard to treatment by doctors," Boyle said. "We, of course, are not happy with the result as it stands now, we will be exploring all options legally and factually and make a decision about anything at a later time."

Maybe if the jury had been asked to determine what was "ethical" and what wasn't when it came to Jackson's final days, today's verdict would have been different.
But they weren't, so the six men and six women who listened to five months of testimony came to the conclusion that concert promoter AEG Live was not negligent in hiring Murray and therefore owed his family no money.

"This was a difficult decision for us to make. It wasn't easy for anyone," jury foreman Gregg Barden told reporters outside the courthouse after the verdict had been read this afternoon.

"Conrad Murray was hired to be a general practitioner," he said. "We thought he was competent to be a general practitioner. That doesn't mean we thought he was ethical. If the word 'ethical' was in the question, then there might have been a different outcome."

Barden said that, while the jurors all agreed that AEG Live hired Murray, on the second day of delibations they only polled 10-2 in favor of Murray having been fit and competent to care fo Jackson.

"Everyone understood the ramifications...Conrad Murray, in the end, he was very unethical," Barden said.

But Juror No. 9, Kevin Smith, said it was evident that "AEG had no idea what was going on behind closed doors.

"If they knew, it would have made a world of difference...All along we saw the same pattern, that no one could go upstairs...How could AEG do anything about it if they didn't know what was going on? No one could say no to Michael Jackson or they would have been out."

AEG Live senior VP Shawn Trell told reporters that they were "very pleased with the result" and attorney Marvin Putnam said that never at any time did they consider trying to settle the case outside of court.

"There was never, ever, ever any chance AEG would ever consider settling this matter because that would have been wrong...No one wins here," he added, "but the unfortunate tragedy wasn't of AEG's making."

Murray's attorney, Valerie Wass, said that she considered today's verdict to be vindication for her client as well. She said that Murray, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2011, is due to be released from prison on Oct. 28.

http://www.eonline.com/news/466168/mich ... not-liable
Изображение

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Admin поблагодарили (всего 4):
Trueamore (04 окт 2013, 22:58) • TAIS (04 окт 2013, 16:49) • Liberian Girl (04 окт 2013, 04:40) • franklin5569 (04 окт 2013, 04:10)
Рейтинг: 36.36%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

Admin
Благодарил (а): 11977 раз.
Поблагодарили: 14911 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1028  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 04 окт 2013, 03:55

Verdict should ease Jackson's court 'appearances'

LOS ANGELES (AP) - A jury's rejection of a long-running lawsuit by Michael Jackson's mother against the promoter of his ill-fated comeback concerts could finally allow Jackson to disappear from a forum he has dominated for years - the courtroom.

For five months, jurors were given an intimate look at Jackson's life, his drive to be the top entertainer of all time, and his devotion to his mother and three children.

Barring the intervention of an appeals court, Katherine Jackson's case against concert promoter AEG Live LLC figures to be the last time a jury is asked to consider the life and death of the King of Pop in such detail.

Several court cases involving Jackson remain, including disputes related to his estate, which erased nearly $500 million in debt after his death and keeps churning out new products. It opened a Las Vegas Cirque-du-Soleil show this year and is likely considering additional releases of Jackson-related material to ensure his mother and children keep living comfortably and fans have new material to see and hear.

The financial well-being of his children wasn't an issue at the trial, but the effects of the family's fight against AEG Live will likely linger for some time. Despite AEG's victory, legal experts expect that entertainment companies will change how they deal with celebrities' requests for specialized staff such as doctors.

"I just think it's a multiple lesson book on ways for companies to mitigate risk," said Marcellus McRae, a former federal prosecutor who now handles white collar defense cases for the Gibson Dunn & Crutcher law firm.

Katherine Jackson sued AEG Live in September 2010, alleging the company negligently hired Jackson's doctor to work on his planned "This Is It" comeback shows. Jurors determined that AEG hired the physician but rejected attempts to link the firm to the death of Jackson.

The lawsuit failed on the jury form's second question: Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit and incompetent to serve as the singer's general practitioner?

The jury decided he was fit and competent, and deliberations ended, even though jury foreman Gregg Barden said the panel did have doubts about the ethics of Murray.

The jury instructions didn't define unfitness or incompetence, although the panel was repeatedly told during the trial that Murray had been convicted of causing Jackson's death.

The instructions also didn't mention ethics, which Barden acknowledged might have changed the outcome if it was included in the question.

"There's a lot of room for interpretation in there," McRae said.

There also was no mention of propofol on the jury form, the powerful anesthetic that killed Jackson. The drug is meant only for use in hospitals, but Murray was administering it on a nightly basis to Jackson as a sleep aid.

The structure of the verdict was crucial and didn't allow the jury to consider all the theories that Katherine Jackson's lawyers raised throughout the trial, said John Nockleby, director of the Civil Justice Program at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles.

Lawyers for Katherine Jackson said they are exploring all possible legal options, which could include asking a judge to set aside the verdict or appealing rulings in the case.

Nockleby said they could have a tough task unless the judge refused to give an instruction that the plaintiffs requested and that altered the outcome of the case.

McRae and Nockleby said they expect corporate lawyers to revise how they deal with requests by celebrities for staff to avoid a lawsuit similar to the AEG Live litigation.

AEG emails were picked apart in court, with lawyers for Katherine Jackson highlighting negative references to her son. As a result, McRae said, lawyers are likely going to instruct clients to change the way they use email for business deals.

Shawn Trell, AEG Live's general counsel, acknowledged after the verdict that his company would be making changes. He was asked whether the promoter would reconsider the use of doctors to help entertainers prepare for tours.

"I think that answer is self-evident," Trell said.

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 2):
TAIS (04 окт 2013, 16:49) • Admin (04 окт 2013, 15:53)
Рейтинг: 18.18%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

Liberian Girl
Благодарил (а): 2485 раз.
Поблагодарили: 13589 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1029  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 04 окт 2013, 04:00

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/
ivy

interview with Jury foreman

Question: Tell me the thought process behind question 2?

Jury foreman: We took an initial vote right away and it was 12 to 0 and then we started looking at the question and we realized that not everybody was on the same page what the question meant. so we started discussing it and as we discussed it people said "wow I got to change my vote on that" so they changed their vote and we started discussing it further and we got down to 8 to 4 type of thing and 8 to 4 would be hung jury and we did not want that, we wanted to discuss it further so we took the night off , came home and we went back this morning and some of the jurors asked questions and other jurors were able to interject things made us all understand it and all on the same page and what we thought was he was fit and competent to do the job for which he was hired which was to be a general practitioner to Michael Jackson. He was not hired to administer Propofol. If he had been hired to administer Propofol he would have been unfit or incompetent. He had a license, he was a doctor, he felt he was fit to be a general practitioner.

Question: let me understand this. so yesterday you voted and it could have gone the other way.

Jury foreman: no it would have gone the same way. It was 12 to 0 going the same way but then we start discussing and some people went the other way so it was back and forth that's what I'm saying.

Question: when did it start going back and forth?

Jury foreman: This morning when we came back in.

Question: so as of this morning it was a hung jury

Jury Foreman: I wouldn't say that because we had agreed to talk about it. I wouldn't say it was hung. We definitely wasn't at majority at that point.

question: talk about the outrage from some people wearing I love MJ tshirts. You said if the question were cut "if Murray was competent" you would answer a different way but you had to include the full question.

Jury Foreman: The big thing we felt was Murray was unethical. Had the word unethical were in there, it may have went the other way. He was definitely unethical. He did something that he and no doctor should ever done. That was the evidence that was presented abundantly for the 5 months. Nobody administers propofol by themselves outside a hospital. So that was incredibly unethical but again he wasn't hired to do that. He was hired to be a general practitioner because he had a licence, because he graduated from an accredited university, because he had no complaints against him, he had no malpractice lawsuits. He was fit at that time to be a general physician.

As far as the outrage to be honest, I haven't seen it and I hope I don't. I hope people .. we realize this is a verdict not everyone will agree with but we hope that people will understand how we reached that verdict.

Question : Some of the fans were calling you not smart, mean words were being said. How do you guys deal with that?

Jury foreman: I did not hear it to be honest but the way we dealt with it we knew it was going to happen in the jury room. After we announced we had a verdict, we almost had 2 hours to sit there , they did not let us leave or go anywhere and we talked and what we said we gotta realize there are people out there that will love us and there are people out there that will hate us. The problem is that the people that hate us will be the ones out here. They will be the most voiced ones but the 12 people in that room were very confident that we did the job we did and we were very comfortable with the verdict we came to.

Question : can you tell about question one?

Jury foreman: question number one we spent more time on that than we did on question number two because question number one was of course "did AEG hire Murray". My goodness you can go back and forth on that forever I think. We all kinda agreed that there was no written contract but there's also a verbal contract and implied in fact contract. Most of us felt that there was certainly one of those two between AEG and Murray. Myself I was kinda leaning toward it was a duo situation hiring, Michael and AEG hired him. The jury instructions said if you believe both hired him say yes so that's why I said yes on that. That one was a unanimous vote 12 to 0.

Question: Going back and thinking what is your thoughts on this whole experience?

Jury foreman: I really haven't, some of the lawyers have asked us that. To me it will be a matter of... I'm a very busy person, I'd like to stay busy.. so it will be a matter of having kind of step back maybe this weekend and look back at it. As far experience this was my first time. I have never been on a jury before. There were times it was very very interesting, there were times it was very very boring. but it's your duty, it's what you are asked to do ans we showed up and we did it. I don't think many of us knew, I know I did not know when I reported for jury duty I didn't know Michael Jackson issue was coming up. I did not know about it until I walked in and sat down. I am thankful for having the opportunity to do it. (skipping some parts) I won't say enjoyable. I'll say and the whole jury agreed on this there's no winners in this. for us to be there someone had to die. He was a father, he was a son and he was a brother to somebody. And for us to be there he had to die. so there's no winners. we did what we had to do.

Question: were you a Michael Jackson fan? Are you?

Jury Foreman: Going in the trial, no. Of course I knew who he was, I listened to his music, I thought he was a good singer. but a fan, no. I never went to any of his concerts, I probably wouldn't have crossed to street to see him, I would not have gone out of my way to see him. I have an album and I listen to it. If it came on the radio, I'll listen to it.

Coming out of the trial, I would say I am. Because there was so much we heard about him. I believe he was a humanitarian. He cared about people, he cared about earth. This is all evidence were given in court. I believe he was a tremendous person. I don't want to get too much into my own unprofessional opinion but he had a problem. A lot of people in the world have problems. It doesn't make them bad people. I truly believed that he had the best interest of most people around him in heart but he had the problem of the drugs , the painkillers I should say. He never took elicit drugs, that was very.. that was brought up in court. The other problem he had was the spending problem which I think a lot of people are focusing on drugs but he had a spending problem. and he probably wouldn't have to go back and tour if he did not have that problem. I am a Michael Jackson fan. I watched the videos now and I really wish I had seen him in concert.

Question: Do you wish that the jury instructions and questions were written in a different way so that you could have awarded something to the Jackson family?

Jury foreman: No. We were there to do the job and those instructions I believe came from , they were written by the two sides and the judge and it's not for me to question them.

Question: Of the testimony whose sticks out of your mind the most?

Jury foreman: oh my god. 60 people. who sticks out the most? Well there was a guy named Kenny Ortega. He was the show director. everybody loved Kenny Ortega. he was just totally honest, man did not have a mean bone in his body. Kenny Ortega was outstanding and awesome , entire jury agreed upon that. There was a detective from LAPD, Detective Martinez. He was incredibly up front and honest. As a jury you appreciate people you know to be upfront and honest. I honestly feel most - I won't say everyone - most people were I think trying to be honest on stand , you know there are tricky questions and things like that. I think for the most part , most people were trying to be honest. I really felt Debbie Rowe, his ex wife is another one. I kinda feel bad because I leave some people out I feel were honest. Debbie Rowe was very real and very honest and gave us insight.

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 2):
TAIS (04 окт 2013, 16:50) • Admin (04 окт 2013, 15:53)
Рейтинг: 18.18%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

Liberian Girl
Благодарил (а): 2485 раз.
Поблагодарили: 13589 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1030  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 04 окт 2013, 04:07

Jury foreman speech outside court.

video link: http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=9271553

Foreman: As for the case this was a difficult decision for us to make, it wasn't easy for anyone. After all it took the tragic passing of tremendous father, son and brother for us to be even here. Of course nobody won at that.

We reached to a verdict that we understand that not everyone is going to agree with but the decision was reached after a very careful consideration of five months of testimony, thousands of documents and of course the guidance of the court. It's been an exhausting 5 months and it's been extremely stressful last 3 or 4 days so we would field a few questions.

Question: What made you think that Conrad Murray was competent?

Foreman: You have to read the question, the full question. The court gave us a series of questions to answer and in each question it did not just stop with "is Conrad Murray competent" , it went, it asked "was Conrad Murray competent for the job he was hired to do?". Okay? Conrad Murray was hired to be a general practitioner. Conrad Murray had a license, he graduated from an accredited college and we felt he was competent to do the job of being a general practitioner. Now that does not mean we felt he was ethical. And maybe the word ethical been in the question, it could have been a different outcome but because it was "for the job he was hired to do" that's what we had to focus on.

Question: How many votes have you taken on question 1 and 2?Tell us a little about the process, how it worked?

Foreman: when we first entered the jury room after 5 months of being around each other and not being able to talk about it at all, we just felt like we had to let out some steam so we spent the first several hours letting out steam just talking about things and I think that was important for us to do. We took a vote on question 1 then we started discussing it and question 1 took us a long time and we did not reach that easily, there were several votes taken, mine was changed more than once, in the end we did agree 12 to 0 , that one was unanimous that we felt like Conrad Murray was hired by AEG, some people thought by both but the instructions were if he was hired by both then we had to say yes. So I would say overall on question 1 maybe we took 3 or 4 votes (jurors reply yes).

Question number 2 , you have to look to the wording of question number 2. we took a vote on that and right away we came out 12 to 0 with a no but we started looking at wording of it and realized everyone was not comfortable with that and it was end of yesterday we felt like we needed to come back this morning and discuss it more and that's what we did. We spent the morning clarifying the question in our minds and to each other and again votes changed, I would say at least 3 or 4 times before we were able to come to the final tally and the tally on that vote was 10 to 2 and it takes 9 to 3 to carry.

Question: Did the amount of attention this case has gotten put any pressure ... on your decision at all?

foreman : I will say no but some of my fellow jurors might want to answer that too.

(jurors agreeing that pressure did not influence them, no , absolutely not etc heard).

Question: (asking about question 2) you said it was 12 - 0 to start, which way?

Foreman: for a no answer

Question: Did the full jury understand not only the full question in number 2 and but also it's full effect on the bearing of this case?

Foreman: One of the jurors here, juror 11, after the vote she was very , she said do we understand the ramifications of this answer and we were very through in that respect. Everyone I believe understood the ramifications, and again that's why we went back and revisited it this morning.

Question: Your opinion not about this case but in general about the job Conrad Murray eventually come to do?

Foreman: In the end he was very unethical. He did something he should not have done but again if you read the question it did not refer to... it refer to the job he had to do- what he was hired for.

Juror 9 : If AEG had known what was going on behind closed doors , it would probably made a world of difference but they didn't. Michael Jackson was pretty used to getting his own way, he was a big star, he had all these doctors who wanted to be his doctor and he could pretty much get what he wanted and if anybody said "no", well they were out of the mix, he'd find somebody else. And all along we saw the same pattern going on, nobody could go up the stairs and see what was going on up there. and this was after Murray became his doctor and was hired by AEG concurrently. And how AEG could have done anything about it when they were kept in the dark?

Question: Was there any fights during deliberations?

Foreman: There were differing opinions but the conversation never got heated or loud but in case of arguments and getting personal nothing like that ever happened, no

Question: Murray's lawyer was in the courtroom and she let out a gasp when she heard no he wasn't unfit and incompetent. She then told me this was vindication of Conrad Murray. Do you see your verdict as a vindication of Conrad Murray and would you ever hire him as your doctor?

Foreman: Absolutely not. I don't see it as a vindication of Murray and no I would not hire him as my doctor. It's not a vindication again it was the way the question was worded , if the wording of that question was different the outcome could have been different but we had to focus on the wording of the question and go with the jury instructions.

Question: So do you say this was not a vindication of AEG Live either?

Foreman: We went by the jury instructions and the questions we were asked to answer and that's the verdict we came up with.

Question: What were the issues that you struggled with?

Foreman: Well the issue in the first question was obvious, who hired him. there were so many things said that Michael hired him, there were so many things said AEG hired him and that was a battle back and forth.

Question: Do you think the jury instructions put the jury in an awkward position?

Foreman: Not at all

Question: What kind of materials you have reviewed during deliberations? We know you asked for a ruler

Foreman: Those were things for individual jurors to use. But the things we reviewed were, we watched videos, sky news video we watched a couple times, we did see the "This is it", we reviewed a lot of emails, and the other exhibits. The contract. The contract was a biggie.

Question: What was the most difficult thing about this whole process?

Foreman: Each and every person had to answer that. For me it was stressful at the end trying to come up with a decision. I said this inside and I'll say it here, there are really no winners in this. As I said in the opening statement somebody had to die for us to be here. So there's really no winners. So we don't walk away thinking it was a victory for one side or another. It was really a tragic situation so that's probably the most difficult thing. I feel we made the correct decision.

Последний раз редактировалось Liberian Girl 04 окт 2013, 04:09, всего редактировалось 1 раз.
Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 2):
TAIS (04 окт 2013, 16:50) • Admin (04 окт 2013, 15:53)
Рейтинг: 18.18%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

Liberian Girl
Благодарил (а): 2485 раз.
Поблагодарили: 13589 раз.

Пред.След.

Вернуться в СУД / COURT