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

Заголовок Объявления
Поздравляем
deannispemi
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

#1041  Сообщение Белая роза » 04 окт 2013, 18:04

Суд в США вдруг объявил врача Майкла Джексона невиновным в смерти певца
http://ru.euronews.com/2013/10/03/micha ... promoters/

Неожиданное решение по делу о смерти Майкла Джексона принял суд Лос-Анджелеса.Компания-организатор последних гастролей певца выиграла тяжбу у семьи покойного. Вердикт, объявленный в зале судебных заседаний, полностью противоречит выводам суда 2009 года, который признал виновным в смерти Джексона его врача Конрада Мюррея.

Вердикт суда гласил:
“Первый вопрос: действительно ли компания AEG Live наняла доктора Конрада Мюррея?
Ответ: да.
Вопрос второй: был ли доктор Мюррей нечестен или некомпетентен в исполнении своих должностных обязанностей?
Ответ: нет”.

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Белая роза поблагодарили (всего 7):
Lina (07 окт 2013, 07:42) • Olenca (05 окт 2013, 13:53) • Trueamore (04 окт 2013, 22:59) • Hista (04 окт 2013, 19:16) • Liberian Girl (04 окт 2013, 18:27) • MagicalLove (04 окт 2013, 18:08) • Admin (04 окт 2013, 18:07)
Рейтинг: 63.64%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

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

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1042  Сообщение TAIS » 04 окт 2013, 18:39

Белая роза писал(а):Суд в США вдруг объявил врача Майкла Джексона невиновным в смерти певца
http://ru.euronews.com/2013/10/03/micha ... promoters/

Неожиданное решение по делу о смерти Майкла Джексона принял суд Лос-Анджелеса.Компания-организатор последних гастролей певца выиграла тяжбу у семьи покойного. Вердикт, объявленный в зале судебных заседаний, полностью противоречит выводам суда 2009 года, который признал виновным в смерти Джексона его врача Конрада Мюррея.

Вердикт суда гласил:
“Первый вопрос: действительно ли компания AEG Live наняла доктора Конрада Мюррея?
Ответ: да.
Вопрос второй: был ли доктор Мюррей нечестен или некомпетентен в исполнении своих должностных обязанностей?
Ответ: нет”.

похоже движемся к финалу сказки со счастливым концом.. icon_wtf

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора TAIS поблагодарили (всего 3):
Lina (07 окт 2013, 07:42) • Белая роза (04 окт 2013, 18:48) • Admin (04 окт 2013, 18:40)
Рейтинг: 27.27%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

TAIS
Благодарил (а): 9490 раз.
Поблагодарили: 3136 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1043  Сообщение Trueamore » 04 окт 2013, 23:03

http://www.contactmusic.com/in-depth/mi ... ng_3890860

Jury Rules AEG Wasn't Negligent In Hiring Doctor Who Administered Michael Jackson's Overdose

A jury ruled in favour of concert promoter AEG Live LLC, determining that the company was not liable in the death of singer Michael Jackson in 2009. The court case had been filed by Katherine Jackson, Michael's mother, and his three children - Prince, Paris, Blanket- were also listed as plaintiffs. The concert promoters were responsible for arranging Jackson's comeback tour in 2009, the case against them claimed they were negligent in hiring Dr Conrad Murray as Jackson's doctor.

Murray was charged with involuntary manslaughter in 2011 as it was ruled he had administered a fatal dose of propofol which led to Jackson's death. The drug propofol is usually used as an anaesthetic in surgical operations; however Murray administered the drug to Jackson in July 2009 as a sleeping aid, with fatal results. Despite being a difficult drug to administer, Jackson's lawyers argued,"Propofol might not be the best idea. But if you have a competent doctor, you're not going to die."

The proceedings have been underway since April 2013 and ended on Wednesday 2 October when the jury came back with their decision. The jury of six men and six women returned their verdict on the third day of this court session, as reported by USA Today.

The jury ruled that AEG was not negligent as, although they did hire Murray, he was not considered unfit or incompetent. Furthermore, according to jurors, Jackson can hardly be portrayed as a victim as he was forthright and determined. Juror Kevin Smith, speaking to USA Today, stated, "Michael Jackson was used to getting his way. He could pretty much get what he wanted. Anybody that said 'no', they were out of the mix and he'd find somebody else."

Although this does imply Murray may have been in a difficult position it seems unlikely the 2011 involuntary manslaughter verdict will be evaluated, a factor of this court case AEG's lawyer Marvin Putnam was eager to emphasise. Putnam claimed what truly happened regarding Murray and Jackson could not be known, saying, "What really happened behind those locked doors? That was between Michael Jackson and his physician.''

As always, it appears the major issue in the Jackson family pushing for this court case was money. One of Jackson's legal team, Brian Panish, discussed what sort of settlement the family, had they won, were looking for. This was around $85 million in personal damages to each of Michael Jackson's three children, and $35 million to Katherine Jackson. However, Putnam argued the figure should have been closer to $21 million. AEG decided to continue the court case rather than settling as Putnam stated "they weren't going to allow themselves to be shaken down."

Ironically, the Jackson's lawyers wanted to paint AEG as being money obsessed and without concern for their employee's welfare. As Putnam pointed out, "AEG Live did not have a crystal ball. Dr Murray and Mr Jackson fooled everyone. They want to blame AEG for something no one saw... AEG would have never agreed to finance this tour if they knew Mr Jackson was playing Russian roulette in his bedroom every night."

AEG's legal team are obviously pleased to see the back of this trial, yet it may not be the last they hear from the Jackson family. Another member of Jackson's legal team stated, "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."


Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Trueamore поблагодарили (всего 3):
Lina (07 окт 2013, 07:42) • Admin (05 окт 2013, 10:35) • TAIS (04 окт 2013, 23:05)
Рейтинг: 27.27%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

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

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1044  Сообщение Trueamore » 04 окт 2013, 23:06

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trialandhei ... g-for-aeg/

Was The Michael Jackson Jury Wrong In Ruling For AEG?

This week’s jury verdict sent shock waves through Michael Jackson fans who were hoping to see concert promoter AEG Live held at least partially responsible for Michael Jackson’s death. Many expressed outrage at the verdict. At first blush, the jury verdict does seem odd.

The jury was charged with answering 16 questions, in order, given to them on a jury verdict form. If they answered any one of the first few questions in the negative, then AEG Live would prevail and there would be no need to answer the remaining questions.

The jury unanimously answered the first question in favor of the Michael Jackson heirs: AEG Live did hire Dr. Conrad Murray, the jury determined. This was a hotly disputed issue, with AEG Live arguing that Michael Jackson had hired the doctor himself. Michael Jackson’s legal team cleared that first hurdle.

Question two pertained to whether Dr. Murray was “unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired.” Based on the criminal conviction and the fact that Dr. Murray administered propofol to Michael Jackson in an unmonitored setting, contrary to medical and ethical guidelines for its use, it would seem that this question would have been an easy one for the jury to answer in the affirmative.

Instead, the jury voted 10-2 that Dr. Murray was not “unfit or incompetent” when he was hired. After the trial, the jury foreman said that if the verdict form had used the word “ethical”, the vote may have been different. Instead, he said, the jury believed that because Dr. Murray was licensed and graduated from an accredited college, he was not unfit or incompetent.

This takes a very narrow reading of the words “unfit or incompetent.” Being a properly educated and licensed doctor does not make one “fit,” at least in the minds of most people. Certainly, ethics can and should play a part in it.

So does this mean the jury got it wrong? Not so fast. While the attention has been placed on that particular question because it was the one that triggered the verdict for AEG Live, the next few questions would have made a verdict in favor of Michael Jackson’s mother and children unlikely, based on how the jury viewed the evidence.

Even if Dr. Murray had been found to be “unfit or incompetent,” the next questions addressed whether AEG Live knew or should have known about his unfitness and whether AEG Live’s conduct was a “substantial factor” in causing Michael Jackson’s death. Based on statements made to the media, it seems clear that the jury likely never would answered these questions in favor of Katherine Jackson and her grandchildren, even if they did answer the second question differently.

One of the juror’s pointed out how Michael Jackson was used to getting his own way, and if Dr. Murray had not done what he wanted, Jackson would have replaced him with another doctor who would have. Further, as AEG Live attorneys pointed out throughout trial, the company did not know the specifics of what was going on behind closed doors, between Jackson and Dr. Murray.

This isn’t to suggest that AEG Live was entirely free of any blame — especially if the e-mails that surfaced before trial were indicative of how the company behaved. Select internal company e-mails were leaked to the media before the trial started, detailing how AEG Live executives e-mailed each other about concerns over Michael Jackson’s health, the immense financial harm that would come if Michael Jackson didn’t perform, and the great respect that at least some at the company had for Dr. Murray. In other words, concerns were raised, but the company wanted the show to go on.

However, at trial, there were compelling arguments and evidence presented from both sides. The jury had to balance Michael Jackson’s dangerous choices versus the financial pressure from a corporation who wanted him to perform. In the end, Michael Jackson’s own behavior convinced the jury that AEG Live’s conduct wasn’t enough to create legal responsibility for his death.

It’s hard to say that this wasn’t a reasonable decision by the jury, in terms of how the law looks at it. Our legal system has to trust juries to make tough decisions like this, and then to accept their decisions (unless there was a legal error committed along the way).

And for that very reason, chances are good that the verdict will stand up if challenged. The Michael Jackson legal team can attack it, both by asking the trial judge to overturn the jury verdict, and by appealing and seeking a new trial. Neither approach will likely work.

Our legal system is built on the concept of letting a jury of our peers resolve disputes after reviewing the evidence and listening to the testimony and lawyers’ arguments. If enough was presented by both sides so that a reasonable person could decide in either direction, then the jury verdict should stand.

That’s why litigation can be so costly and risky. No one ever knows what a jury will decide. It all depends on who is on that particular jury, and what those jury members believe. This leads most people and companies involved in court battles to settle, rather than take the risk. AEG Live said it never considered settling, because it always believed the jury would rule in its favor.

AEG’s position was very risky, however, and the jury easily could have decided differently. And, certainly, AEG spent many millions of dollars in legal fees defending the case. Most people going through litigation — from estate feuds to wrongful death claims — should think carefully about settling and not taking on the risk and expense of a trial. No one ever has a crystal ball to accurately predict the outcome.

In this case, AEG Live was proven correct. Ultimately, the majority of the jury members were not prepared to find AEG Live legally responsible in light of Michael Jackson’s own decisions. Regardless of how the jury verdict questions were worded, nothing likely would have changed this outcome based on how this particular jury felt about the evidence. And there was enough evidence presented by AEG’s attorneys to justify the verdict.

So, legally, the jury was not “wrong”. Even if Michael Jackson’s fans think the verdict was not right.


Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Trueamore поблагодарили (всего 4):
Lina (07 окт 2013, 07:43) • Admin (05 окт 2013, 10:36) • TAIS (05 окт 2013, 08:36) • Белая роза (05 окт 2013, 01:17)
Рейтинг: 36.36%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

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

Re: Разные интересные статьи

#1045  Сообщение Trueamore » 04 окт 2013, 23:12

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopher ... ek-anyway/

Phil Anschutz Is Off The Hook For Michael Jackson Death, But Thanks To Washington Shutdown, He's Still Having A Bad Week

The Denver billionaire’s AEG Live was absolved from fault in Jacko’s demise, yet his Xanterra Parks & Resorts is losing millions from the federal shutdown.

The jury in the Michael Jackson’s wrongful death case absolved concert promoter AEG Live from any responsibility for the King of Pop’s demise. This had to be a relief for Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz (who owns AEG Live, part of his giant Anschutz Entertainment Group).

It was Anschutz who five years ago made the decision to risk tens of millions of dollars on Jacko’s “This Is It” comeback tour. He only did it after sitting down with the King of Pop to talk with him, take his measure, and be convinced that Jackson could not only do the job, but do a great job. Anschutz wasn’t about to become friends with Jacko like he has over the years with another AEG Live artist Jon Bon Jovi. But he trusted the star enough to agree to put up scores of millions to back “This Is It.”

It’s not that he was at risk for losing big money to the Jackson family — it’s FORBES’ understanding that Anschutz had ample legal risk insurance in place to cover any potential damages. What’s more, Anschutz is believed to have more or less broken even off the Jackson saga — recouping some $40 million risked on the concert tour by selling rehearsal footage to Sony for $60 million and getting 10% of the proceeds from the “This Is It” movie (Jackson’s estate got 90%).

Rather, this whole tragic ordeal has been a sad distraction for the tycoon, who earlier this year called off his plans to sell the company. Now it’s finally over.

So after that relief, how come this week is a bad one for Anschutz? One of the tycoon’s other big holdings is Xanterra Parks & Resorts. The company operates more than 30 hotels and lodges with more than 5,000 guest rooms and 1,800 campsites. Its best properties are located in eight national parks — including Yellowstone’s Old Faithful Inn and the El Tovar Hotel perched on the rim of the Grand Canyon.

With the federal government shutdown this week, all those parks have been closed, and Xanterra has had to turn its guests away. In a statement, Xanterra says:

"We remain optimistic that Congress will reach a resolution soon and that the national parks will reopen shortly. If this government shutdown impacts your stay at the national parks and you are unable to use our facilities or services that you have previously paid for, you will be refunded the unused portion of your trip. We will cancel the reservations and refund the applicable deposits for those reserved services/stays and notify you via email."

Thankfully the peak tourist season is over; yet the shutdown is costing millions for Xanterra (which has annual revenues estimated at around $400 million).

Xanterra has other options for determined vacationers turned away from the national parks. It’s fall foliage time at the Salt Fork Lodge in Ohio’s largest state park. And furloughed federal workers in Washington, D.C. might even consider taking a shutdown vacation to Xanterra’s Kingsmill Resort in Williamsburg, Va.

And then there’s Anschutz’s jewel: The Broadmoor Resort. Having acquired the one-of-a-kind Colorado Springs destination for several hundred million dollars a couple years ago, Anschutz has set about upgrading the Broadmoor with more than $100 million in improvements.

The Colorado Aspens are gold this time of year.


Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Trueamore поблагодарили (всего 6):
Lina (07 окт 2013, 08:01) • franklin5569 (05 окт 2013, 23:15) • Dream (05 окт 2013, 18:04) • Admin (05 окт 2013, 10:38) • Белая роза (05 окт 2013, 01:16) • TAIS (04 окт 2013, 23:48)
Рейтинг: 54.55%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

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

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1046  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 05 окт 2013, 02:59

Why AEG Live Won the Michael Jackson Lawsuit

'This jury was most persuaded by the personal-responsibility narrative," an expert says

Изображение
Brian Panish, attorney for the Michael Jackson family, delivers his closing argument in Los Angeles, California.

Michael Jackson's final concert promoter, AEG Live, won't have to pay as much as $1.5 billion to the late superstar's mother and children, a Los Angeles jury ruled Wednesday. The jury found the promoter not liable in the wrongful-death case after a trial that lasted more than five months and made public many disturbing facts about Jackson – from his alleged desperation to obtain powerful sleep medication to AEG's chief executive officer slapping the "despondent" star on his rear-end to psych him up.

In three days of deliberations that foreman Gregg Barden called "extremely stressful," according to the Los Angeles Times, the jury debated the question of whether Jackson or AEG hired Dr. Conrad Murray, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter after giving Jackson a deadly dose of propofol in June 2009. The jury found that AEG did, in fact, hire Murray, but answered "no" to the next crucial question, which was whether Murray was unfit or incompetent at the time to be Jackson's doctor.

"We didn't really expect the jury to find against us on that question," says Kevin Boyle, one of the Jackson family attorneys, suggesting the jury may have been "confused" about the phrasing of the question. "I don't know if anyone would predict that."

But Shawn Trell, AEG Live's senior vice president and general counsel, argues Jackson's lawyers made contradictory points throughout the trial. "The jury heard what poor condition Michael Jackson was in, how he had deteriorated, he was frail, underweight, he wasn't going to be able to do the 50 shows," he says. "Then when it came to damages, somehow he was going to tour more from age 50 to 66 than he did at any point in his life. The jury could pick up on that. They couldn't have it both ways."

At the time of his death, Jackson was preparing for a series of London concerts and was having trouble sleeping at night after rehearsals. The trial came down to whether AEG pressured Dr. Murray into propping up Jackson so he could complete the shows. Jackson's lawyers argued AEG's pressure created "excessive risk," says Jody David Armour, a University of Southern California law professor who followed the case. "There were two strong narratives here, and this jury was most persuaded by the personal-responsibility narrative," he says. "There was evidence that Michael Jackson wanted Dr. Murray – personal choice. He's a big boy."

After the verdict, the opposing lawyers continued to trade barbs in separate interviews with Rolling Stone. "I heard Katherine Jackson get on the witness stand and say that the filing of this lawsuit was about a search for the truth," AEG's Trell says. "I think it was obvious to everybody this had nothing to do with the truth. It had everything to do with money." Boyle called Trell's statement "outrageous" and added: "The only thing the law provides in this country is money damages. So why would he be outraged that Mrs. Jackson and the Jackson children would be entitled to the same thing that anybody else would be entitled to?"

Boyle said her team will make a decision "shortly," after studying its options. Experts differ on whether an appeal is worth it. Stan Goldman, a Loyola Law School professor, wonders why the jury didn't consider a third question -- whether AEG was competent in supervising Murray. "With all this money involved, why not appeal?" he says. USC's Armour counters: "I can't imagine a successful appeal. I can't remember any kind of evidence that should have been submitted."

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 2):
Admin (05 окт 2013, 10:36) • TAIS (05 окт 2013, 08:36)
Рейтинг: 18.18%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

Liberian Girl
Благодарил (а): 2485 раз.
Поблагодарили: 13664 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1047  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 05 окт 2013, 12:08

Jackson lawyers see grounds for appeal after jury vindicates AEG Live because Murray was licensed and competent

Изображение

A Los Angeles jury decided Wednesday that AEG Live hired Dr. Conrad Murray, but also concluded that the concert promoter was not liable for Michael Jackson’s drug overdose death. The jury decided that Murray was competent, so even though AEG Live hired him, it was not liable for Michael’s death and didn’t owe the Jackson family millions of dollars in compensation.

“I counted Michael Jackson a creative partner and a friend,” the company’s CEO Randy Phillips said. “We lost one of the world’s greatest musical geniuses, but I am relieved and deeply grateful that the jury recognized that neither I, nor anyone else at AEG Live, played any part in Michael’s tragic death.”

The verdict brings the five-month-long trial to a close.

“We have said from the beginning that this case was a search for the truth. We found the truth. AEG hired Dr. Conrad Murray, the man who is in jail for killing Michael Jackson,” according to a statement from family matriarch Katherine Jackson and her lawyers. “All options regarding the balance of the jury verdict are being considered.”

The jury accepted AEG Live lawyers’ arguments that the company was not negligent because its executives had no way of knowing that Murray — licensed to practice in four states and never sued for malpractice — was a risk to Michael Jackson. Michael was a secretive drug addict who kept even his closest relatives in the dark about his use of propofol to sleep, they contended.

Michael’s mother and his three children sued AEG Live in 2010, arguing that the company’s negligence in hiring, retaining or supervising Murray was a factor in Michael’s June 25, 2009, death.

Michael died of an overdose of the surgical anesthetic propofol, which Murray told investigators he was using to treat Michael’s insomnia so he could rest for rehearsals. Murray is set to be released from jail later this month after serving two years for involuntary manslaughter.

Michael died just days before his comeback tour — promoted and produced by AEG Live — was set to debut in London in the summer of 2009. “We felt Murray was competent” to be Michael’s general practitioner, said juror Greg Barden. “That doesn’t mean we felt he was ethical.”

Barden said jurors thought the second question — which said, “Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?” — was confusing and took some time, and several votes, to work out. In the end, they voted 10-2 to answer “No.” He said one of the key pieces of evidence was the contract between Murray and AEG.

“The jury’s decision completely vindicates AEG Live, confirming what we have known from the start — that although Michael Jackson’s death was a terrible tragedy, it was not a tragedy of AEG Live’s making,” attorney Marvin Putnam said in a written statement.

Murray’s lawyer, Valerie Wass, let out a gasp when she heard the decision and was visibly shaken. Because jurors concluded that AEG Live was not liable, they did not consider other questions on the verdict form that would have determined how much in damages the promoter would have paid Katherine, Prince, Paris and Blanket Jackson.

Jackson lead lawyer Brian Panish suggested a range between $1 billion and $2 billion to replace the earnings lost by Michael’s death at age 50 and the non-economic — or personal — damages from the loss of a father and son.

The damage award, however, would have been reduced by the percentage of blame jurors decided Michael Jackson shared in his death. The Jacksons lawyer suggested in closing arguments that they assign 20% of the liability to Michael.

AEG’s lawyers had contended Michel chose Murray, who had treated him for three years as a family physician, but Jackson lawyers had argued the promoters chose to negotiate their own contract with the doctor so they could control him.

The case is unlikely to end with the jury’s verdict because Jackson lawyers have said they have grounds for an appeal, which could take years to decide.

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 2):
Lina (07 окт 2013, 07:43) • Admin (05 окт 2013, 12:54)
Рейтинг: 18.18%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

Liberian Girl
Благодарил (а): 2485 раз.
Поблагодарили: 13664 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1048  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 05 окт 2013, 13:23

Katherine Jackson's Lawyer Warns, "This Ain't Over Yet"

Katherine Jackson isn't going down without a fight. Another fight.

Изображение
Katherine Jackson - World premiere of 'Michael Jackson One' at Mandalay Bay Hotel & Casino - Arrivals - Las Vegas, Nevada, United States - Saturday...

Katherine Jackson's lawyer Brian Panish has acknowledged that his client is "obviously disappointed" at losing the $1.5 billion damages case against concert promoter AEG, though told the New York Daily News, "There's going to more to this story."

"She's obviously disappointed, but she's a very strong woman," lead plaintiff's lawyer Brian Panish said on Thursday, "She's been through a lot in life, and she's doing the best she can. She only wants what is best for Michael's children, who are her No. 1 priority," he added.

He called the five-month trial "a search for the truth" that likely didn't end with Wednesday's verdict, which acknowledged that AEG Live did in fact hire Dr Conrad Murray as Michael Jackson's doctor, though that they were not responsible for his death.

"AEG denied it all along, but the truth was that AEG hired the doctor who killed Michael Jackson," he noted.

"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," said jury foreman Gregg Barden, suggesting that AEG were not negligent in hiring Murray, "Now that doesn't mean that we thought he was ethical. Had the word 'ethical' been in the question, it could have been a different outcome."

Though the thought of a retrial appears unthinkable, Panish hinted that the jury's findings would encourage Katherine Jackson to fight on.

"There's going to be more to this story. I don't think it's over yet," he said.

Katherine's personal lawyer Perry Sanders called the lawsuit "a shakedown," adding, "Such a statement is a slap in the face of the entire judicial system that allowed this case to get to a jury."

Изображение

Изображение

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 4):
Lina (07 окт 2013, 07:44) • TAIS (05 окт 2013, 16:29) • Admin (05 окт 2013, 15:28) • Белая роза (05 окт 2013, 14:20)
Рейтинг: 36.36%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

Liberian Girl
Благодарил (а): 2485 раз.
Поблагодарили: 13664 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1049  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 06 окт 2013, 05:15

http://forum.myjackson.ru/
Remember_The_Time

Ответ присяжного на один из комментариев относительно фанатских эмоций, вызванных вынесенным вердиктом

Коммент:

Меня всё больше и больше тревожит то, как много людей, похоже, теряют способность анализировать факты. Удивительно: стоит только подбросить людям какую-нибудь теорию заговора, как тут же они начинают верить в неё, совершенно не обращая внимания на факты. Рэнди и Джексоны хорошо поработали, заставив фанатов Майкла, съехать с катушек.


Ответ присяжного: (правда, я не могу на 100% быть уверена в том, что писал мужчина, потому что на MJJ community чел зарегистрировался по номером 27, хотя присяжных всего 12 было, и проверить я не смогла, кто это. По умолчанию переводила, как будто мужчина говорил, так что, пардон, за сексизм, если чё - прим. пер.)

Не могу не согласиться с тем, что выделено жирным. На мой взгляд, это уже похоже на какую-то эпидемию.

Я был в жюри присяжных. Из всех мест, в которых я побывал, где обсуждают всё это, данное МД-сообщество кажется мне определённо наиболее уравновешенным, где можно вести конструктивный диалог. Приятно видеть, что здесь так много фанатов обсуждают вердикт без агрессии, что, на мой взгляд, и делает данное место достойным того, чтобы оставить здесь небольшой комментарий по данному вопросу.

Сначала, когда суд закончился, мне хотелось игнорировать все эти обсуждения касательно вердикта и не ввязываться. Потому что как только мы ответили «нет» на вопрос №2 в комнате присяжных, так я нисколько не сомневался в том, что это будет истолковано совершенно неверно . (ДЕБИЛЬНЫЕ ПРИСЯЖНЫЕ! КАК КОНРАДА МЮРРЕЯ МОЖНО СЧИТАТЬ ПОДХОДЯЩИМ И КОМПЕТЕНТНЫМ, КОГДА ОН СИДИТ В ТЮРЯГЕ ПО ОБВИНЕНИЮ В УБИЙСТВЕ МД? НУ, НЕ ДЕБИЛЫ, А?) Ну, и , конечно, как только мы вышли на улицу из здания суда, то первым вопросом, который нам задали представители прессы, был вопрос: «Как вы могли счесть Мюррея компетентным?» Ну, и без оголтелых фанатов МД, конечно же, не обошлось, которые орали на нас, обзывая тупыми, бестолковыми и так далее. Поэтому я и решил для себя, что лучше просто игнорировать этот поток агрессии, в ходе которой нас стали считать такими болванами такими, что аж тошнит.

Так прошёл день, и моё любопытство взяло надо мной верх. Я решил походить по сайтам и поглядеть, что говорят люди. Мне было интересно, действительно ли все только и делали , что обсуждали то, какие мы идиоты. К счастью, большинство людей, которые комментируют вердикт, исходят из того, как нас проинструктировали принимать решение, и согласны с нашим решением. С самого первого дня мы знали, что независимо от того, какое решение мы примем в итоге, найдутся как довольные так и недовольные этим решением. Так что я признателен, что присяжные не стали заморачиваться из-за того, что скажут или подумают о нас люди, а соблюли все наставления и вынесли вердикт на основании предоставленных доказательств и свидетельств в данном деле.

Так же как и наш старшина присяжных, я пришёл в этот суд настолько беспристрастным в отношении Майкла Джексона, насколько это было возможно. Мне было 7 лет, когда вышел «Триллер», так что я рос на его музыке и любил её, но я очень мало знал о его жизни, разве что только то, о чём говорилось в прессе, так что, если честно, у меня не было к нему никаких чувств как к человеку. После этого суда я окончательно понял, почему у него так много фанатов, которые практически боготворят его. Они неравнодушны к его его доброй душе, огромному сердцу, мягкой натуре, к его любви к детям и матери.. Теперь я понимаю, в чём дело!

Каждый свидетель, которого спрашивали на суде о том, считали ли они МД хорошим отцом, (а этот вопрос задавали почти всем свидетелям, близко знавшим его) восхваляли его отцовские качества. Если послушать показания Принса, то МД был потрясающим отцом. Мальчик очень смышлёный, умный, чуткий, он хороший парень. Я уверен, что МД проделал феноменальную воспитательную работу, раз мальчик вырос в такого человека! Если честно, то все до единого присяжные покинули этот суд, испытывая к МД положительные чувства и как к человеку, и как к отцу.

Я знаю, что многие переживают из-за того, что этот суд нанёс урон имиджу Майкла, потому что в ходе суда всплыли неприятные детали из личной жизни. Но что касается нас, присяжных, то, чем дольше мы сидели в этом зале суда, тем больше становилась наша симпатия к Майклу по ходу разбирательства.

Я бы хотел выразить благодарность всем людям, которые поддерживают здесь наше решение. Это действительно очень много значит. Я буду рад ответить на любые ваши вопросы об этом суде, если вы захотите меня спросить и если я смогу ответить.
Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 3):
Lina (07 окт 2013, 07:44) • TAIS (06 окт 2013, 16:58) • Admin (06 окт 2013, 06:11)
Рейтинг: 27.27%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

Liberian Girl
Благодарил (а): 2485 раз.
Поблагодарили: 13664 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1050  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 06 окт 2013, 11:54

Jacko's mom Katherine Jackson isn't giving up after lawsuit loss, looking at appeal  

The jurors felt Murray was competent when he was hired and there was no reason for AEG to think he would start employing surgery-style anesthesiology.

Изображение
Michael Jackson's mother Katherine Jackson “isn’t throwing in the towel,” says Jackson's lead trial lawyer Brian Panish.

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.

“She feels that the jurors ended the trial really liking Michael,” he said, confirming that Katherine was inside the judge’s locked courtroom when both sides spoke with the six men and six women immediately after their verdict was read.

“One question asked of the jury was, ‘What was your impression of Michael?’ And they said it was way better after hearing what a great father he was and how much he did for humanity,” Panish said. “They understood he struggled but that he really did his best.”

The Los Angeles jury that sat through the five-month trial decided Wednesday that defendant AEG Live – the promoter of Michael’s doomed “This Is It” comeback concerts – did in fact hire Dr. Conrad Murray but shouldn’t be held liable for the physician’s actions because he was neither “unfit” nor “incompetent.”

Jurors said in media interviews that they were aware many wouldn’t understand their decision, but they believed Murray was competent at the time of his hiring – with a valid license and no malpractice claims – and that AEG had no reason to suspect he’d go rogue with surgery-style anesthesiology.

Panish said Michael’s oldest son Prince, 16, was mystified by that portion of the verdict.

“Prince is doing okay,” Panish said, recounting a conversation with him Thursday. “He said he felt good about the jury finding that AEG hired Dr. Murray but didn’t understand their answer to the second question – as many of us don’t.”

Изображение
Dr. Conrad Murray is currently in prison for administering a lethal dose of propofol to Michael Jackson.

Panish said his team is now setting up individual interviews with the jurors and planning to meet with outside appellate lawyers to make a decision on a possible appeal in the next 30 days.

“We can’t give up until we gather all the information. Today is another chapter,” Panish said Friday.

AEG’s lead lawyer said Wednesday that the jury’s verdict “completely vindicates” his client.

“Although Michael Jackson’s death was a terrible tragedy, it was not a tragedy of AEG Live’s making,” lawyer Marvin Putnam said.

He said outside court that he hoped Katherine would forgo an appeal.

“Sadly, the children have been through a lot,” he said. “In many measures, I hope for their sake that there isn’t an appeal.”

He said AEG “loved and cared for” Michael.

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 3):
Lina (07 окт 2013, 07:45) • TAIS (06 окт 2013, 16:57) • Admin (06 окт 2013, 14:09)
Рейтинг: 27.27%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

Liberian Girl
Благодарил (а): 2485 раз.
Поблагодарили: 13664 раз.

Пред.След.

Вернуться в СУД / COURT

cron