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

#1071  Сообщение MagicalLove » 13 окт 2013, 16:00

Фанаты стоят за Джексонами после вердикта

Изображение
Решение суда в AEG Live искры гнева , больше вопросов

Los Angeles Times (MCT)

Для выделенного фанатов Майкла Джексона , которые пришли на судебное разбирательство день за днем ​​, певица до сих пор мало что могли сделать неправильно. Они были одеты в футболки выразить свою любовь к певице и их поддержку своей престарелой матерью. Один вентилятор даже принес букет красных роз , чтобы дать Кэтрин Джексон и ее адвокатов.

Поэтому, когда судья объявил 2 октября , что присяжные решили AEG Live не был ответственен за смерти Джексона , они не были просто ошеломлены , они были сердиты. Они не понимали, как пятимесячного судебного разбирательства, которое , казалось, подвергать концертного промоутера , как мало заботясь о благосостоянии певца может закончиться таким образом.

"Мое сердце разбито ", сказала Барбара де L' Орм , 42 . " Это был величайший художник, который мы когда-либо имели, и они относились к нему , как это. Доказательства были прямо там. "

Эмоциональная случае

Когда Марвин Патнэм , ведущий юрист AEG Live , остановились перед схватки телекамер , микрофонов и ноутбуков , вентиляторы можно было услышать крики, " Майкл Джексон ! Майкл Джексон ! "

Патнэм сообщил журналистам AEG никогда не считал разрешения дела , которое могло бы стоить это сотни миллионов - если не миллиарды - долларов в качестве возмещения ущерба , еслижюри проголосовали в другую сторону.

" Они не позволяют себе быть сбит ", сказал он .


Decision in AEG Live trial sparks anger, more questions

LOS ANGELES TIMES (MCT)

For the dedicated Michael Jackson fans who came to the trial day after day, the singer still could do little wrong. They wore T-shirts expressing their love for the singer and their support for his aged mother. One fan even brought a bouquet of red roses to give Katherine Jackson and her attorneys.

So when the judge announced on Oct. 2 that jurors had decided AEG Live was not responsible for Jackson’s death, they weren’t just stunned, they were angry. They didn’t understand how a five-month trial that seemed to expose the concert promoter as caring little about the singer’s well-being could end this way.

“My heart is broken,” said Barbara de L’Orme, 42. “This was the greatest artist that we ever had, and they treated him like this. The evidence was right there.”

Emotional case

When Marvin Putnam, AEG Live’s lead attorney, stood in front of the scrum of TV cameras, microphones and notebooks, fans could be heard shouting, “Michael Jackson! Michael Jackson!”

Putnam told reporters AEG never considered settling the case, which could have cost it hundreds of millions — if not billions — of dollars in damages if a jury had voted the other way.

“They wouldn’t allow themselves to be shaken down,” he said.

Read More: http://flcourier.com/2013/10/10/fans-st ... r-verdict/
Изображение

you are in my heart forever icon_colorfulherats

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора MagicalLove поблагодарили (всего 6):
Admin (15 окт 2013, 15:35) • Dream (15 окт 2013, 11:47) • franklin5569 (15 окт 2013, 07:31) • Lina (14 окт 2013, 07:20) • TAIS (13 окт 2013, 23:04) • Белая роза (13 окт 2013, 17:08)
Рейтинг: 54.55%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

MagicalLove
Прогресс до нового звания:
69.9%
Благодарил (а): 3518 раз.
Поблагодарили: 6369 раз.

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1072  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 15 окт 2013, 03:08

http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/air-sp ... 295371949/
Air-space

Black Holliwood Live - комментарии Брайана Пениша относительно вердикта присяжных.

Liberian Girl писал(а):


Мари Фагель (основная ведущая передачи) - здоровается, представляет аудитории себя, свою коллегу Эбони Уильямс, а также гостя студии Брайана Пениша (адвоката семьи Джексонов).

1) Мари: на прошлой неделе, после пяти месяцев суда, был зачитан вердикт, какова была ваша реакция после того, как вердикт был зачитан?

Ответ: это очевидно, что они (фирма Пениша) были разочарованы вердиктом, если говорить об ответе на один из вопросов в форме вердикта, который всех поверг в замешательство, но они уважают присяжных и уважают все, что делают присяжные, поэтому сейчас они ищут варианты решения и будут отталкиваться от того, что имеется на данный момент.

2) Эбони: Брайан, вы сказали о своём разочаровании ответом присяжных на один из вопросов, могли бы вы сказать, какие были даны инструкции присяжным?

Ответ: Конечно. Иск был о пренебрежение к основному вопросу намерений сторон по найму. Если говорить обо всех трёх раздельных частях иска, то это были:

-- во-первых, присяжные должны были решить, нанимали ли АЕГ доктора Мюррея (отдельно) либо вместе с Майклом Джексоном (другими словами был ли Мюррей «довеском» к Майклу или самостоятельной отдельно нанятой АЕГ единицей). На этот вопрос присяжные 12 к 0 ответили, что АЕГ наняли Мюррея (отдельно).

-- следующим был вопрос о компетентности Мюррея для той позиции, для которой он был нанят. Это означает фактически не только компетентность Мюррея на момент найма, но и его компетентность день за днём на всём протяжении времени нахождения его в занимаемой им должности вплоть до его увольнения. То есть соответствовала ли его компетенция ВСЕМУ времени пребывания его личным доктором Майкла. Здесь необходимо было учитывать состояние Майкла, и то, что делал с ним в течении шестидесяти дней Мюррей, а АЕГ, как работодатель Мюррея, проигнорировали факт ухудшения состояния Майкла (т.е. фактически не проконтролировали своего нанятого работника).


3) Мари: насколько нам известно, формулировка второго вопроса в форме вердикта была изменена. Вы боролись за то, чтобы формулировка этого вопроса была другой (более точной)?

Ответ: Да, боролись. Мы постоянно об этом говорили. Но судья вынесла постановление, согласно которому вопрос о компетентности Мюррея на всё время найма был следующим по списку. Т.е. она оставила этот вопрос для определения его компетентности в текущее время найма. И там, на самом деле, было много споров. К сожалению, всё пришло к тому, что с ответом на вопрос был ли Мюррей компетентен (на момент найма), присяжные не смогли перейти к следующему вопросу - был ли он компетентен, пребывая в своей должности, - и о том, наблюдали ли АЕГ за ним во время выполнения им его обязанностей.

4) Эбони: Теперь мы это знаем. На самом деле это был очень-очень важный аспект в том, какие были даны инструкции присяжным. Это и послужило тому, что вы, ребята (имеется в виду фирма Пениша) подали апелляцию?

Ответ: вы всё правильно поняли (прим. Air-space: дальше фраза сжевана/сказана себе под нос, однако я не могу её опустить, хоть и не на 100% уверена, что услышала правильно, поэтому привожу в скобках. Фраза “when we all know (about?) judge's attack dispel loyals” - если дословно “когда мы все знаем о нападках судьи для разгона сторонников”). И, конечно, сейчас мы не можем закрыть иск, потому что в этот иск было много вложено, мы думаем, что это дело правое (“we think that the case is very well”), мы считаем, что нам (фирме, в которой работает Пениш) можно доверять; и мы собираемся доказать правду и собираемся сделать всё, что в наших силах для этого.

5) Мари: просит прокомментировать второе основание для апелляции, заключающееся в том, что были претензии/вопросы в первоначальном иске, которые были ошибочно были отклонены (от рассмотрения в данном процессе).

Ответ: у нас была претензия в данном иске, рассматривали ли АЕГ при найме Мюррея вопрос о том, был ли у него опыт работы как “courses scope employee” - специалиста широкого профиля / имеющего опыт работы в широкой области (а не только узко кардиологом, например, или там "семейным врачом" - прим. Air-space)" , - поскольку АЕГ очевидно упустили это из внимания при найме, но эта претензия была отклонена. Мы включили её в нашу апелляцию, поскольку считаем, что данный вопрос на 100% достоин внимания.

6) Эбони: коротко - вопрос о реакции семьи на такой вердикт и конкретно о состоянии Кэтрин, которая очень эмоционально (естественно) восприняла всё это. Как теперь Пениш общается с Кэтрин и семьёй, поскольку он являлся семейным адвокатом в этом процессе.

Ответ: основной вопрос в том, что они (фирма Пениша) делают всё что могут для своих клиентов. И Кэтрин - превосходный клиент и превосходный человек! Она очень ценила всё, что делалось Пенишем и его коллегами для неё и говорила об этом каждый день. И она была благодарна за сложившуюся ситуацию, при которой присяжные были вынуждены узнать о том, каким был Майкл ЗА сценой, о том, каким он был чудесным отцом. И она была благодарна за то, что мы всё-таки доказали, что это АЕГ наняли доктора, который убил её сына. И публика узнала (в связи с этим процессом) больше о Майкле и о том, каким на самом деле он был человеком.

7) Мари: некоторые комментаторы (например, Ненси Грейс) сделали предположение о том, что этот иск всего лишь очередная попытка вымогательства денег со стороны семьи Джексонов. Каков ваш ответ этим людям?

Ответ: Ненси Грейс далеко не все знает об этом деле - это во-первых. Но на самом деле иск был устроен для того, чтобы докопаться до правды, а также понять разницу между тем, что АЕГ рассказывало людям и тем, что они делали. И когда была раскрыта внутренняя переписка, а также некоторые действия АЕГ, мы получили возможность показать то, что происходило на самом деле. И что на самом деле произошло с Майклом и какое на самом деле у него было состояние тогда и что АЕГ НЕ сделало для того, чтобы помочь Майклу. И то, что на самом деле произошло - АЕГ overrode Michael (заездили, загоняли Майкла). И, к сожалению, Майкл был доведён до отчаяния (депрессии) этой ситуацией давления на него, которое не под силу ни одному нормальному человеку.

8) Эбони: говорит о том, что для очень многих людей такой противоречивый вердикт был большим сюрпризом. Т.е. было очень странно услышать то, что АЕГ наняли Мюррея, но, тем не менее, признать их фактически невиновными. У многих в сознании это не состыкуется никак. Просит Пениша прокомментировать эти противоречия.

Ответ: Пениш просит не путать реальность и закон, потому что между законом и реальностью есть различия. Нет никаких сомнений в том, что доктор Мюррей был абсолютно некомпетентным в том, что он сделал с Майклом, и Пениш считает, что присяжные с этим согласны, но поскольку вопросы были сформулированы именно так, а не иначе, т.е. сначала шёл вопрос о том, был ли Мюррей компетентен на момент найма (была ли у него лицензия и т.д.). Но дело в том, что вопрос этот гораздо глубже. Потому что пока шли репетиции и подготовка к этому шоу, доктор Мюррей всё больше и больше показывал свою некомпетентность. По сути это было конфликтом интересов трёх сторон. Одна сторона (АЕГ) заключила контракт с доктором, а другая сторона (Майкл) была абсолютно измотана / повреждена действиями третьей стороны (Мюррей), с которой этот контракт был заключен.

9) Мари: но присяжные не задали ни одного вопроса, они ответили не раздумывая фактически, не было никакой задержки, чтобы разобраться (в вопросах) - это не смущает?

Ответ: они говорили, что они хотели задать вопросы, но они этого не сделали.

10) Эбони: вопрос о выборе присяжных. Все знают, насколько это серьёзный вопрос - выбора присяжных, которые будут принимать решения. Поскольку Пениш был «внутри процесса» Эбони спрашивает, что могло повлиять на заключение присяжных, которых они (сторона Джексонов, видимо - прим. Air-space) выбрали?

Ответ: Пениш считает, что прижные были совершенно честно выбраны с обоих сторон. Это была очень diverse - разнообразная (разношёрстная) - группа во всех отношениях. В отношении возраста, расы, и занятий. Было 6 мужчин, 6 женщин. Кроме того, они внимательно следили за тем, чтобы в жюри не попали люди, заранее имеющие какие-либо предубеждения о Майкле. Возможно, на их мнение как то повлияла сторона АЕГ, но это уже частности. Пениш считает в любом случае, что судебная система с участием присяжных самая лучшая, которую можно себе представить для суда, и что система присяжных является украшением для этой страны (т.е. для США).

11) Мари: спрашивает, беспокоило ли что-то Пениша в процессе дачи показаний свидетелями? Например, то, что был момент, когда присяжные аплодировали Кенни Ортега. Вызвал ли этот момент беспокойство Пениша?

Ответ: Пениша не беспокоил этот момент, более того, Пениш считает, что Кенни был одним из лучших свидетелей для них (стороны Джексонов, несмотря на то, что Ортега выступал, как свидетель со стороны АЕГ - прим. Air-space). Кенни был очень честным, рассказал всё что мог, более того, он «поднимал красный флаг» по поводу состояния Майкла. Пениш считает, что присяжные так отнеслись к показаниям Кенни потому, что он был одним из первых (основных) свидетелей, который был абсолютно искренним в этом деле (Kenny was one of the first witnesses that was totally honest in the case).

12) Эбони: Кенни Ортега также фигурирует в фильме This is it - документального фильма, являющегося фактически сопровождением для этого процесса. Как вы считаете, было ли это полезным для вашего иска, поскольку в этом фильме Майкл выглядит находящимся во вполне хорошей форме?

Ответ: Сейчас мы определенно можем сказать, что там не было хорошей формы, и Кенни дал показания о том, что основным аспектом фильма This is it был показать Майкла в наиболее лучшей форме, насколько это возможно. Поэтому, по мнению Пениша, данный фильм не может являться документальным доказательством фактического состояния Майкла в то время.

13) Мари: на прошлой программе обсуждались заключительные аргументы и ваша стратегия измерить количество вины / ответственности за случившееся всех сторон. И получилось так, что если Майкл и был виноват сам в случившемся, то это только 20 %. Почему эта стратегия (а конкретно определённое количество вины в случившемся) не было представлено присяжным?

Ответ: это было представлено присяжным. Пениш считает, что в том, что произошло имеет место быть общая вина и соответственно ответственность сторон. Получается так, что Майкл заплатил свою цену (своей жизнью), доктор также заплатил цену - понёс наказание в тюрьме, а АЕГ… И это несправедливо, поскольку в том, что обусловило возникновение синергии этого события, участвовали три стороны.

14) Мари: вспоминает недавний процесс с компанией Тойота (прим. Air-space - в чем там было дело, не уточняется) и задаёт вопрос следующего характера: не считает ли Пениш в сегодняшнем положении экономической среды, с учетом всех проблем в экономике, что присяжные в подобных процессах, где заявлены миллиардные суммы в качестве компенсации, более нерешительны, чтобы принять решение в пользу жертв корпораций?

Ответ: Пениш так не считает. Пениш считает, что присяжные были вполне последовательны в своих решениях относительно таких проектов. Пениш приводит несколько примеров исков с крупными компаниями, которые я в данном случае опущу по причине неактуальности к данной теме. Пениш считает, что на присяжных не влияют внешние факторы в случае принятия ими решений по искам.

15) Эбони: задает вопрос о возможности влияния на мнение присяжных факта того, что по иску рассматривается дело знаменитости.

Ответ: Пениш не считает, что факт того, что рассматривается дело знаменитости, каким-либо образом влияет на присяжных. Более того, абсолютно ВСЕ присяжные после процесса сказали о том, что теперь, когда они услышали о нём, как о личности, как о человеке, им Майкл Джексон нравится гораздо больше. На это повлияли (в хорошем смысле) показания свидетелей о его отношениях с матерью, о его отношениях с детьми. Процесс показал им человека, отделенного от статуса знаменитости. Это была уникальная возможность увидеть реального человека и забыть всё то, что писали о нём таблоиды. Все присяжные поняли насколько прекрасным человеком был Майкл Джексон.

16) Мари: когда Пениш разговаривал после оглашения вердикта с присяжными, было ли что-то, что его удивило?

Ответ: Пениша удивила посещаемость /присутствие на таком долгом суде присяжных. Все они были в полном составе каждый день процесса и слушали всех свидетелей внимательно, не показывали своего волнения / раздражения в некоторых моментах и весь этот суд воспринимали очень серьёзно.

17) Эбони: вопрос об отношениях Пениша с адвокатом противоположной стороны. По мнению Пениша, повлияла ли это на мнение присяжных?

Ответ: Пениш отвечает, что присяжные ему говорили, что им нравятся все адвокаты и считают, что все адвокаты были профессиональны и хорошо представляли своих клиентов.

18) Мари: вы сказали, что прижным понравились все адвокаты, а что насчет экспертов? Мари приводит мнение независимого эксперта (Брегса), который заявил, что Майкл Джексон был выдохшимся (если говорить о его популярности на момент событий) и жил не по средствам, и что раскрытие всей этой правды о том, что происходило тогда, было жестоким.

Ответ: Пениш сказал, что присяжным не понравился мистер Брегс (прим. Air-space - ссори, вообще не поняла о каком Брегсе речь, кто в курсе - прокомментируйте, пожалуйста). Затем перечисляет тех свидетелей и экспертов, которые понравились присяжным: специалист по сну, экономист, Принс, Ортега и многие другие свидетели. Далее Пениш говорит подробнее о том, что присяжные были под большим положительным впечатлением от Принса - тем, как молодой человек хорошо воспитан, как хорошо себя держал, несмотря на стресс. Короче Принс для присяжных был живым свидетельством того, что Майкл был очень хорошим отцом.

19) Мари: вопрос о попытке самоубийства Перис. Если кратко - как это сказалось на Кэтрин и её стратегии в этом процессе?

Ответ: Кратко - конечно это повлияло негативно не только на Кэтрин, но и на всю семью Джексонов. Пениш считает, что Перис сделала это под влиянием стресса от потери отца и повышенного к ней внимания СМИ и желтой прессы. Пениш считает, что Кэтрин поразительная женщина, она хорошо справляется / ладит с детьми, а также считает, что у Пэрис всё будет хорошо - она чудесная, замечательная девушка.

20) Эбони говорит о том, что она - большая поклонница Майкла Джексона, и её, как и многих поклонников заботило перед началом суда то, как этот суд повлияет на наследие Майкла Джексона, на его репутацию. И была приятно удивлена, когда всё было в рамках приличия и человечности, и тому, что суд как раз повлиял в лучшую сторону на репутацию Майкла, показав его с очень хорошей стороны, как личность.

Ответ: Пениш говорит, что для него это не новость, со всех концов света приходили е-мейлы по поводу того, как поклонники ценят то, что узнали о Майкле за время суда. Пениш говорит о себе, что он тоже никогда не встречался с ним лично и был приятно впечатлен тем, что узнал то, что Майкл делал за пределами своего титула суперзвезды, тем, что Майкл был тем человеком, который хотел сделать Вселенную лучшим местом для всех.

21) Мари: вопрос о стратегии Пениша в отношении информации о drug history Майкла и тем, как Майкл с этим справлялся.

Ответ: Пениш говорит о том, что Майкл никогда не употреблял препараты просто так - они были ему нужны для восстановления. Временами у Майкла Джексона были проблемы с опиоидами, но всё это было обусловлено и началось с ожога во время рекламы Пепси, когда Майкл впервые стал употреблять эти препараты. Делает акцент на том, что когда Майкл выписался из больницы, то пожертвовал все деньги от страховки на постройку / организацию Ожогового Центра для детей. Итак, на протяжении жизни, во времена наибольшего стресса и боли (а он постоянно боролся с болью, не только из-за реконструкции скальпа, но и из-за других заболеваний) Майкл вынужден был принимать сильные препараты на опиоидах. Но дело в том, что за пять-шесть лет ДО подготовки к This is It Майкл принимал опиоиды только во время каких-то процедур. И он умер НЕ от опиоидов. Он умер от передозировки пропофола, который он получал в условиях, в каких не должен был его получать. Проблема в том, что Майкл был человеком, который полностью доверял докторам и он верил докторам и, к сожалению, доктор Мюррей этим воспользовался ради денег и славы.

22) Эбони: возвращается к вопросу о несправедливости того положения, в котором АЕГ так и не понесли ответственность за то, что фактически послужили физическим основанием для случившегося - того, что Майкл умер.

Ответ: Периш говорит о том, что жизнь часто несправедлива. Часто люди, нарушающие закон остаются безнаказанными. Он считает, что присяжные серьёзно подошли к этому делу, и они действовали согласно данным им инструкциям. Пениш говорит, что им (стороне Джексонов) нужно, по крайней мере, такое положение принять и действовать дальше согласно сложившейся ситуации.

23) Мари: вопрос о Мюррее. Мюррей заявил о том, что если бы он дал показания на этом суде, то это было бы подобно взрыву ядерной бомбы. Что Пениш думает о таких комментариях?

Ответ: Пениш считает, что Мюррей таким образом пытается привлечь к себе внимание. Далее напоминает о том, что доктор Мюррей до сих пор не считает себя виновным в том, что случилось. Мюррей считает себя жертвой присяжных и судьи и он так и остаётся при таком своём мнении. И то, что Мюррей пытается привлечь к себе внимание - так считали и присяжные и судья. С учетом того, что Мюррей декларирует себя жертвой (что совсем не так, и все нормальные люди это понимают), никто не относился к нему и его заявлениям серьёзно - ни судья, ни присяжные.

-----------------------------------------

Далее Эбони благодарит Пениша и переключается на вопросы о других знаменитостях, которые также требуют консультации юриста. Про суд АЕГ и Майкла дальше больше ничего нет.
Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 6):
Mermaid (15 окт 2013, 21:16) • TAIS (15 окт 2013, 16:03) • Admin (15 окт 2013, 15:35) • MagicalLove (15 окт 2013, 11:59) • Dream (15 окт 2013, 11:46) • franklin5569 (15 окт 2013, 07:18)
Рейтинг: 54.55%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

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

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1073  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 15 окт 2013, 18:26

The jurors’ explanations of verdict at the AEG trial. NOTHING ADDS UP

Nothing adds up in the arguments of the jurors who first answered NO to a question “Was Dr. Murray unfit or incompetent for the work he was hired?” and now give interviews or come to the MJJC forum to explain their decision.

To try and make out what the thought process of the jurors was that brought them to so bizarre a decision, I looked into the statements made by Greg Barden, the jury’s foreman and by “juror #27” who recently spoke on the MJJC.

Изображение
The person speaking on MJJC presented his credentials as “Juror #27″

This juror could be a retired civil engineer who was the second person to speak at the jurors’ press-conference. His name was reported by CNN as Kevin White and by BBC as Kevin Smith – however juror #27 denies that it is him.

Изображение
Juror Kevin White is vehement : “He was pretty used to getting his way”. The black juror is carrying a magazine with Michael Jackson on its cover. While listening to Kevin White the foreman Greg Barden looks especially sad

Or he could be an alternate juror but then he couldn’t take part in the deliberations without a special order of the judge – and there was no such order as far as we know.

Or he could be a third party who is simply using the papers of some juror.

Well, who he is and what his real name does not really matter as long as this person was indeed on the jury, but this is exactly what remains unclear as there are some major inconsistencies between what the foreman and juror #27 say though they were supposed to be working together.

HOW DID THEY VOTE?

In fact they don’t even agree on how they voted while discussing question No.2.

Greg Barden says that the very first vote brought a unanimous reply from all jurors who voted 12:0. And juror #27 says things that make you realize that the initial vote couldn’t be unanimous.

Here is the video and text of the interview of foreman Greg Barden the best I could transcribe it:



Journalist: Question No.2 – tell me of the thought process.

Foreman: We took an initial vote right away and it was twelve to zero, and then we started looking at the question and realized that not everybody was on the same page as to what was the question there. We started discussing it, and when we discussed it people said – “Oh, I got to change my vote on that”. So they changed the vote and then we started discussing it further and we got down to eight to four type of thing and of course eight to four would be […] so we continued discussing it. We took a day off, we came home and then we were back this morning. Some of the jurors asked questions and some of the jurors were able to interject things that made us all understand it and we were all on the same page.

And what we really felt was that he was fit and competent to do the job for which he was hired which was a general practitioner for Michael Jackson. He was not hired to administer propofol. If he had been hired to administer propofol he would have been unfit and incompetent but he had a license, he was a doctor, and we felt he was fit to be a general practitioner.

Journalist: Let me understand it. So you had a verdict and it would have gone the other way?

Foreman: No, it would have gone the same way … it was 12 to 0 going the same way but then we started discussing it some people went the other way, back and forth I guess, this is what I am saying.


The way I understood the foreman, from the very start of it the answer to that crucial question was “No”, so the initial vote was a unanious 12 to 0. However then they began discussing it and some people went the other way and at some point voted 8-4 and then they took a day off, and when they resumed deliberations some of the jurors convinced others that the initial unanimous decision was correct, and this is when they returned to it.

The conclusion that the initial vote was a unanimous “No” is based on the fact that Greg Barden says that the verdict went the same way as before, or otherwise we could be tempted to think that initially their vote was a unanimous “Yes”, which it evidently wasn’t.

However juror #27 is saying something different about the process of voting and what it boils down to is that the initial vote was not unanimous. Actually the juror names himself as the one who was of a different opinion and now he is “ashamed” of initially answering “Yes”.

If you recall the question (“Was Dr. Murray unfit or incompetent for the work he was hired?”) this Yes answer would mean that juror #27 initially agreed that Murray was unfit and incompetent, but later grew ashamed of it and changed his decision.

This is what he says in his Question and Answer session on MJJC (we have the full summary of it thanks to Truth4MJ ):

So then we moved to question 2, and again we took a vote. I am ashamed to admit that in our initial vote, I ignored the “for which he was hired” portion of the question and I voted “yes”. As we read the results we realized we didn’t go over the question thoroughly enough and we scrapped the results of the vote.


But if he said “yes” to a question about Murray’s incompetence, this means that the initial vote could not be 12 to 0 as the foreman said, and should have been at least 11 to 1.

Let me note once again that in both cases the jurors talk about the initial vote, only one of them says it was unanimous and the other says it wasn’t.

Изображение
CNN calls the second juror who spoke at the press-conference Kevin White ( the black juror is wearing a T-shirt with “Legendary King of Pop” written on it)

Isn’t it an interesting discrepancy? Does it mean that the foreman is untruthful? Or does it mean that the juror now talking on MJJC is an impostor telling a fictitious story of their deliberations?

Or could one of them simply forget how they initially voted? But how could they forget so crucial a vote which took place only recently? And if they forgot so simple a thing aren’t they unfit and incompetent for the job of the jury which requires at least some memory from the people participating in it?

Изображение
And BBC calls the same vehement juror Kevin Smith (discrepancies are all around us)

In addition to this strange inconsistency there is one more discrepancy in what juror #27 says about the process of deliberations , only now his words seem to conradict the results announced in court.

He says that even at the final stage they were unable to reach a unanimous decision on that question, had to stop at 10-2 and reached for the buzzer.

However when the verdict was read I had the impression that all the jurors answered this question in the same way (?)

Here is what juror #27 says about their result:

“We then discussed the question at length and examined what we thought was relevant to the question. What did they actually hire him to do? Did anything stand out which would alert AEG that CM was not fit to provide basic medical care? We didn’t see anything. Was MJ’s condition during this time evidence that CM was not fit or competent? No, we did not believe so. We watched the majority of This Is It on the afternoon of day 3 and the rest on the morning of day 4.

Day 4 we finished watching This Is It, talked about the question some more, and went to lunch. We were going to lunch earlier than usual during deliberations because we were partially sequestered and it was easier for the court attendants to get us to and from lunch that way. After lunch we decided to vote on question 2 and the result was 10-2. We talked about it a bit more since we wanted to have a unanimous decision, but when it became clear that the vote would stand we decided to hit the buzzer twice and get on with it”.


And here is the video of the verdict being announced.

I wonder what will be your impression of the way they voted?



Beginning with 6:30 of the above tape each juror answers individually and since not all of them understood whether they should answer Yes or No to the question asked, the court clerk clarifies that they should say ‘Yes’ if they agreed with a ‘No’ answer in the verdict, after which all of them begin to say Yes, Yes, Yes ….

“Was Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work he was hired for? The answer was “No”. Juror No.1, is this the way how you answered?”


When juror #27 said that they voted 10 to 2, I was consumed with curiosity as to which of the jurors disagreed, and therefore started listening, but to my surprise all of them seemed to say Yes (?)

However the sound is very low so I cannot be sure of it and will appreciate it very much if someone with a better ear for spoken English will check it up too. This is necessary for the sake of the truth in the first place and in order to determine whether this juror #27 is the real McCoy.

I highly doubt that he would be willing to discredit himself in so blatant a way but if there is a discrepancy here it should be sorted out, especially since the contradiction between the foreman and juror #27 about the way they initially voted also give us grounds for wondering what’s going on here.

THE JURY AND MURRAY’S LACK OF ETHICS

However these are not the only points where things don’t add up and one more inconsistency arises from the foreman’s words about Murray’s ethics.

You remember the shock waves Greg Barden’s words about Murray’s ethics sent throughout the concerned humankind.

He said that if the word “ethical” had been included in the question their answer could have been different. This made the public realize that this jury thinks that a medical doctor may be called competent and fit even he is devoid of any ethics. And it is especially interesting since at least four of them are in this or that way connected with the medical profession.

Here is another excerpt from Greg Barden’s interview where he speaks about it:

2:35 The big thing that we did was that Dr. Murray was unethical. Had the word “unethical” been in there it may have went the other way. He was definitely unethical. He did something that he or no other doctor shouldn’t have done. That was the evidence that was presented abundantly during those 5 months. No one administers propofol by himself outside the 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 license, 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 practitioner.

And in this CNN video of the jury’s press-conference the foreman speaks about it again which gives us reason to believe that it is a well-thought out position of the jury and not a mere whim on Greg Barden’s part. In the same video the second juror Kevin White speaks strongly in favor fo AEG accusing Michael Jackson in his every sentence:

CNN: Juror on Murray: He’s competent, but I wouldn’t call it ethical
Jurors Greg Barden and Kevin White speak at a press conference




Greg Barden: Court gave us a series of questions to answer. And in each question it didn’t just stop at whether Conrad Murray was just competent. It asked “Was Conrad Murray competent for the job he was hired to do?” Okay? Conrad 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 doesn’t mean that we felt he was ethical. And maybe had 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 was all we had to focus on.

Now where is the discrepancy here besides the absurd statement that ethics can be snatched away from the concept of a fit and competent doctor? You don’t notice it? Well, I didn’t notice either until my compatriot Natalia, who isn’t sure of her English and prefers to send emails, drew my attention to it.

The essence of it is about what AEG could or could not know about Murray at the time when they were hiring him. If they didn’t know that he was unfit and incompetent, they couldn’t know about him being unethical either. But if the jurors think that Murray was fit and competent but nevertheless regard him unethical, then things don’t add up, because it is either this or that.

Please remember that we are talking of the jury’s thought process and the way they came to their conclusion, so if there any illogical points in their reasoning they should be revealed and noted.

So when we look into the jurors’ line of reasoning we understand that they were thinking of the whole period when Murray was hired by AEG and not just a moment when Murray started working. And that they realize perfectly well that during the time of providing his services Murray was a totally unethical doctor.

And then things don’t add up again because in respect of competence and fitness they looked at Murray only at the moment of hiring him, but in respect of his ethics they considered the whole period of his employment with AEG. An interesting discrepancy, isn’t it?

IT WASN’T ONLY PROPOFOL

When it comes to Murray’s poor ethics everyone talks only of propofol. However the testimonies at the trial provide ample evidence that Murray broke his medical ethics in everything he did during performing his services for AEG.

He gave a sick leave to Michael but quickly withdrew it when Randy Phillips started calling him and Paul Gongaware sent emails reminding who was paying him money, as a result of which Michael had to appear at rehearsals the next Monday though still being in a very bad state.

He totally disregarded Michael turning skeletal, though the evidence at the trial said that it was seen at least to Michael Bush, the clothes designer, who told others about it, and even to MJ’s fans. On June 20th they saw Michael changing his clothes and were horrified by the sight of a skeleton they saw and sent an email to Karen Faye who passed it over to Frank Dileo according to her chain of command.

However all this time Michael had his personal doctor and it means that Dr. Murray was observing this picture every day but didn’t give a damn?

Since this fact has got somewhat forgotten here is a quote from Karen Faye’s testimony where the fans’ letter named exhibit 12850 was discussed:

Q. Okay. Can you read to us what the fan that sent you this email that you forwarded on told you about Michael’s physical condition on June 20th?

A. “He took his jacket off and I saw something horrible. A skeleton. I watched his back. It was only bones. I am still in shock; and my best friend, too. He was so — we knew he was skinny, but we were always seeing him with a jacket on or a large top. But as he was dressed this day, it was as if he was naked and we saw how awful it was.”

Q. This is what the fans were telling you, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Is this consistent with what you were concerned about?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Read the next paragraph.

A. “We don’t know if he is anorexic and stopped eating, as he has told us, or if it’s something more complicated than that, a disease or something else.”

Q. Do you know whether these fans were medical doctors?

A. I don’t know, sir; but I don’t think they were.

Q. Was this something that, in addition to everything you saw, concerned you severely about Michael’s physical condition within a week of his death?

A. Yes, sir. That’s why I sent it on.


No, these fans were absolutely no medical doctors but even they were abhorred by what they saw – though Dr. Murray (and his boss Randy Phillips) assured everyone that there were no reasons to worry. Is this what competence and good medical ethics are called these days?

Or look at another exhibit also discussed at Karen Faye’s testimony – it is one of her emails:

Mr. Panish: exhibit number 12748. Okay. Here we go. It says “Michael is painfully thin. His bones are protruding. I’m the one person that has physical contact with him every day. Michael is OCD, he’s getting worse.” … “He repeats his actions and rambling words constantly, rarely coherent with the present conversation. I see Travis struggling and winded just going through the motions at rehearsal doing MJ’s part.”

Q. Is that what you were seeing?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Does that accurately show the concerns that you had, some of them?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. It says “We are having Michael on a cherry picker over the audience, climbing very high, steep steps; and so far, he can’t even walk down the ramp without assistance. Kenny has asked the female dancers to assist him leaving the stage.” Is that problems that you saw Mr. Jackson having?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are you a medical doctor?

A. No, sir.

Q. These concerns that you had, did you try to do everything you could to ring the alarm, the red flags, on the problems that existed?

A. Correct.


So Karen Faye, not a medical doctor was seeing it, and a licensed doctor Conrad Murray was not?

And what about Michael Bearden’s email of June 16th to Travis Payne saying that Michael is not healthy and strong enough and needs his stamina back? Wasn’t Dr. Murray supposed to see what was obvious to the musical director 10 days before Michael’s death?

“MJ is not in shape enough to sing the live stuff and dance at the same time.”…”He can use the ballads to sing live and get his stamina back once he’s healthy enough and has more strength.“ [June 16th, Michael Bearden]

Or look at Bugzy’s (John Hougdahl) email of June 20th which Karen Faye confirms as completely consistent with her own observations:

Q. Now, I want you to assume that on June 20th, Bugzee Hougdahl wrote “My layman’s degree tells me he,” meaning Michael Jackson, “needs a shrink to get him mentally prepared to get onstage, and then a trainer to get him in physical shape.” And that’s five days before he died. Is that consistent with what you were observing?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. I want you to further assume that Bugzee said “I have watched Michael Jackson deteriorate in front of my eyes over the last eight weeks.” Okay? Were you observing the same thing?

A. Yes, sir.


And this not to mention Alif Sankey who almost screamed to Kenny Ortega on June 19th that Michael was dying and needed urgent help.

But if all of the above was seen to laypeople with a naked eye the same should have been absolutely obvious to Dr. Conrad Murray as a general practitioner and it could be only due to his total lack of medical ethics that he still assured everyone of Michael’s good health.

By the way if all the above was obvious to the whole company, the same should have been obvious to Paul Gongaware too as he attended each of the rehearsals – at least those at which Karen Faye was also present:

Q. You told us that Mr. Gongaware was constantly at concert rehearsals, is that right?

A. Every time I was there he was there.


In short the trial revealed numerous instances of Michael’s declining condition for the last 8 weeks of his life, and all these signs were perfectly ignored by Dr. Murray and his bosses, and reducing the matter to propofol only ”about which no one knew” is a grave stretching of the truth. Of propofol AEG probably didn’t know, but the signs of Michael’s ill health were seen by everyone with a naked eye, so it is absolutely inappropriate to talk here of propofol only.

Everyone will agree that when someone looks ill, but you don’t know why, your worry and concern will only double, and if you really care for this person you won’t find any rest until you find out what’s wrong. And general care for Michael was by the way Murray’s job, as this was actually what he was hired for.

So incompetence and poor ethics were a regular pattern with Dr. Murray, and if the jury noticed his poor ethics they should have noticed his incompetence too as one is inseparable from the other, and all the rest is pure demagogy or a pretext to absolve AEG of its guilt.

JUROR #27 Q&A SESSION

What’s interesting is that in his Q&A session juror #27 is correcting the foreman’s mistake about Murray’s ethics.

It remains unclear why this juror could not explain his point during their deliberations so that their foreman shouldn’t make such a fool of himself in the follow-up interviews, but the fact is – in contrast to their foreman juror #27 says that Dr. Murray’s unethical behavior would not change their answer to question number 2:

JUROR: The problem I have with what our foreman said and the question you are asking is that it mixes up the timelines. If the word unethical was included in question 2, we would still have to assess whether AEG knew that at the time they hired Conrad Murray.

The most the plaintiffs could say in that area was that Murray asked for $5million initially and that should have sent up red flags. Asking for that amount would definitely catch my attention and maybe raise an eyebrow, but it still doesn’t qualify in my mind as unethical. Asking for a lot of money doesn’t mean one is unethical in my estimation (and I hope the irony of repeatedly implying that in court was not lost on the plaintiffs). Also that Murray was being foreclosed on and had a lot of owed child support. Again, being in debt or being foreclosed on doesn’t in itself cross an ethical boundary in my mind.

So no, I don’t think we would have answered differently if the question asked whether he was ethical because we didn’t see any evidence that showed that AEG knew Murray was going to act unethically.


This statement from Juror #27 looks like a belated correction of the version they discussed during deliberations and the arguments they used for delivering their verdict. Its idea is probably to hush up the fact that the jury based their verdict on the whole period of Murray’s employment for AEG during which he showed his ethics and competence in his full glory.

But the current version presented by Juror #27 is that AEG hired Dr. Murray absolutely not knowing what a criminal he was and judging by what he says, then all of them must have flown away to Mars and returned back only when the criminal doctor had done his dirty job, which took the employer completely unawares. They thought they had hired for him one of the top ten doctors (as Kenny Ortega said to Karen Faye) and see what he did when they were away!

Here is an excerpt from Karen Faye’s testimony:

Q. Did Kenny Ortega tell you about the intentions or the plans of the producers to help Michael Jackson?

A. He told me Randy Phillips hired the top ten doctors in the country

Q. Did you ever hear anything about Dr. Conrad Murray?

A. No


The reason why all of them are focusing solely at the beginning of Murray’s employment is because only a mission to Mars for the whole company can explain why not a single person of them noticed that the health of the patient in care of their doctor was deteriorating with every new day.

This is why juror #27 is stressing that Murray was hired sometime at the beginning only when no one could yet know that he would turn out incompetent, unfit and unethical. In other words he adds a sort of a tail to Question No.2 which must sound in his interpretation as something like “Was Dr. Murray unfit or incompetent to do the job for which he was hired at the time when he was hired for it?”

THE TIME OF HIRING WAS NOWHERE IN THE JURY’S INSTRUCTIONS

This tail about the time of hiring Murray may be added to the question, but what’s funny is that it is nowhere to be found in the jury instructions. I specifically studied the instructions and found that it is absolutely not there. So the time of hiring Murray is shifted to the forefront of the discussion only now – after the verdict, and from the little the jury discussed that point during deliberations I am more than sure the jurors did not go as far and deep into the problem as it is being presented now.

However the moment when Murray was hired is indeed very important. Juror #27 returns to this point again and again explaining it by means of easy examples:

JUROR: Think of it like this. A doctor works at a hospital and is caught stealing meds and performing unauthorized procedures in secret. When the hospital hired the doctor, there was nothing in his record that showed this kind of behavior. The doctor in this example should be held responsible, not the hospital.


And what if we think of it in a different way? For example, that the doctor was working on probate for two months at this hospital and was indeed caught stealing meds, but even after that the hospital decided to hire him? Then they would clearly know that they are hiring an unethical and criminal doctor and they guilt would be enormous, wouldn’t it?

So you see how important the timeline and date of employment is? It is actually crucial to the whole matter! And this is why juror #27 is going out of his way to explain that hiring was done at the beginning only and not at the end:

JUROR: But that again is taking what we learned in hindsight and applying it to an earlier time frame. When you go to see your general practitioner, are you absolutely certain they can perform CPR? Don’t you think it is reasonable to assume that a licensed doctor who is practicing medicine would know that? Is it really reasonable to say that AEG should have quizzed CM about how to perform CPR and whether calling 911 immediately in case of an emergency is the best course of action? I have never asked a doctor who is treating me these things and I doubt I ever will.


From other forum members we learn that the issue of the date of hiring was actually introduced by the Senior Staff of the MJJCommunity forum, who was the first to call it a “hindsight” argument meaning that it is only now that we know all these things about Murray, but at that time we (and AEG) absolutely could not:

FORUM MEMBER: I appreciate that you pointed out the word “timeline.” It is so important IMO for this trial. Ivy used the word “hindsight” in pointing out that many things re Dr. Conrad Murray were completely unknown until it was too late and MJ was already gone. To judge a hiring on the eventual outcome of Murray’s treatment would not be fair to the defendants. The question remains, was there evidence to anticipate or to ‘know’ that despite his licenses, education, training, he was going to be one of the most incompetent and unfit doctors ever. I am convinced by the evidence presented that such was not a reasonable conclusion at the time he was hired.


This “hindsight” argument is indeed an interesting point, and therefore it is crucial to find out when exactly Murray was hired.

WHEN DID THEY HIRE MURRAY?

As regards hiring Murray there can be no better expert than Kathie Jorrie who drafted Murray’s contract and was acting as an agent for AEG. An agent means that AEG was fully responsible for her conduct as the judge specifically pointed it out in the instructions to the jury.

On the issue of hiring Murray we have a number of splendid quotes from Kathie Jorrie’s testimony, from which we first of all learn that AEG was in absolutely no hurry to hire Conrad Murray (even though they included Murray’s salary into their budget). In fact they even stalled Murray after reaching the initial agreement with him.

Kathie Jorrie was told about the need to make a contract with Murray only in late May and started working on it two weeks later, sometime “in the first two weeks of June”. As regards AEG’s intentions to stall Murray Mr. Panish had a respective email from Mr. Woolley to prove this point to court:

Q. Do you recall when you first became aware of Dr. Murray?

A. To my best recollection, I received a call from Timm Woolley asking me — telling me that he was hoping I could assist in preparing the agreement. It would have been in mid to late may of 2009.

Q. And how long after your conversation with Mr. Woolley did you begin actually drafting a proposed agreement with Dr. Murray?

A. Beginning of June sometime. June — first two weeks of June, 2009.

Q. When you were first contacted by Mr. Woolley, did he tell you anything about how he had been trying to stall Dr. Murray?

A. No, he didn’t.


Kathie Jorrie talked with Dr. Murray for the first time only on June 18th after which she checked him up for 10 total minutes on the Internet during which she didn’t notice that his licence in internal medicine had lapsed, and this is when and how the formal hiring process actually started:

Q. Now, when you were speaking to Dr. Murray — was it the 18th where you decided to go Google him?

A. Yes.

Q. What’s your best estimate, Ms. Jorrie?

A. Ten minutes.

Q. Ten total minutes?

A. Yes.

Q. That’s your best estimate, ten minutes, right?

A. Well, yes.

Q. Well, you just told us that Dr. Murray was licensed in internal medicine, didn’t you?

A. I told you what I saw, sir.

Q. Well, did you see on the website that his license and board in internal medicine had lapsed in 2008?

A. I wasn’t — no, I don’t remember seeing that.


After June 18th a lot still had to be corrected, altered and be agreed on, including the equipment AEG was responsible for. At some point the date of the contract was backdated on May 1st on Murray’s insistence though Kathie Jorrie initially wanted to start the contract from the date of its signing:

Q. Okay. So now — the first time you say you talked to Dr. Murray was on the 18th, correct?

A. That’s right.

Q. And Mr. Woolley told you that you needed this — that he needed the CPR Machine, correct?

A. He didn’t say it that way, but it was on the list.

Q. So the producer had to approve the medical equipment that Dr. Murray was going to use pursuant to this contract that you drafted, right?

A. No, not exactly. They had to approve what they were going to pay for.

Q. Well, it says “producer shall provide Dr. Murray for his use during the term with medical equipment requested by Murray to assist him in performing the services as approved by producer,” and it says “equipment” in parentheses. Did I read that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And all of these drafts, you sent those to Mr. Trell for his review, comment and input, correct?

A. I did.

Q. Did you include in that first draft a date for the starting date that had passed six weeks earlier?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So May 1st, and the date that you sent that to Mr. Woolley to forward to Dr. Murray was what date?

A. The date I sent it was June 15.


The agreement on hiring naturally had to include the termination clause. These terms were discussed between AEG and Dr. Murray back and forth and said that AEG could perfectly well terminate Dr. Murray of their own free will without any consent from Michael Jackson. Kathie Jorrie had to admit it:

Q. There were terms where the producer had several ways to terminate Dr. Murray’s agreement that did not require Mr. Jackson’s consent, correct?

A. Consent wasn’t written into this document; so yes, I think that’s correct.


In comparison with Murray’s contract and what its author Kathie Jorrie says about it, the views of juror #27 on this point are simply monstrous:

JUROR: I’m sorry but you are flat out wrong. The original boilerplate contract that Ms. Jorrie used had “producer” listed in the termination clauses. When she sent the draft contract to Murray, he reviewed it and told her to change “producer” to “artist”. She agreed with that and changed it in subsequent drafts.


Kathie Jorrie never changed Producer into Artist in the termination clause and Producer was and remained the only party that could directly fire Dr. Murray, while the Artist had to take a bypass route and first request the producer to dismiss the doctor in case he didn’t want him.

As to the point where Kathie Jorrie changed Producer into Artist Juror#27 got it absolutely wrong again, as the corrected final variant of the contract said that Dr. Murray was to perform the services requested of him by the Artist from time to time only thus making Producer the main beneficiary of Dr. Murray’s services,. And this was reiterated in another paragraph specifying work for the Producer as Murray’s main responsibility.

Juror #27 either pretends he hears of it for the first time (or really doesn’t know it?):

JUROR: Where are you getting that AEG was the only party who could terminate CM? The contract clearly spelled out that if at any time and for any reason MJ did not want CM’s services, he could fire him. Maybe you are thinking of an earlier draft before “producer” was changed to “artist” in the clauses?


I was extremely happy to see that the commentators who turned out much more knowledgeable than the juror explained to this dinosaur what Murray’s contract was all about. I wonder if the jury’s ignorance can be a reason for the appeal? If it is we have a huge potential here.

To close the subject of Kathie Jorrie’s contract for Murray let me also say that it was never shown to Michael’s representatives. Kathie Jorrie says that the final variant was to be agreed with Michael, which is highly doubtful as Dr. Murray already signed the final variant and there was no time or opportunity to change anything even if Michael had lived and disputed some of its points. So please don’t believe everything you hear:

Q. Why didn’t you check with Mr. Jackson or his representatives before making this change?

A. Because we were negotiating the contract to a point where when it was to a place where Dr. Murray was happy with the terms, it would be presented to Michael Jackson for review and his representatives for review and comment. And if he had comments, he would be free to provide comments and changes if he wanted to.


In short Dr. Conrad Murray’s contract was putting the doctor fully at AEG’s disposal and therefore the jurors’ verdict that AEG did hire Murray was absolutely correct.

However even if we in absolute agreement over this point, the matter of when he was hired still remains unresolved.

The facts say that the oral agreement was reached at the beginning of May, then the written contract was asked for in late May, and began to be drafted in the first two weeks of June. The final draft was ready and signed by Conrad Murray on June 24th, however it was backdated to May 1st and so we have a riddle to solve when the actual hiring took place. Most probably in May as the judge’s instructions said that an agreement may be made in oral form too and even in this case it will be as valid as a written one.

So though formally Dr. Murray was hired on June 24th, his factual employment lasted for two months prior to that, and the closest analogy my common sense suggests for this situation is that Dr. Murray was on a kind of probate with AEG for two months, and when they finally noticed that he could be of some help to them they hurried up to sign a formal contract with him.

In my layperson’s opinion AEG even had an option not to make a written contract with Murray without breaching the oral agreement too much – they could have paid him for two months of working on probate and could have refused to sign a further contract motivating it by the fact that during his general medical care for Michael Jackson for two months his health deteriorated so much that it made clear that he was unfit for the job.

But they never did, though for Michael himself Dr. Murray was not the best choice – he even wanted a proper anesthesiologist Dr. Adams to attend to his needs, but Murray didn’t let him in as getting Dr. Adams meant sharing money with him.

The reason for AEG’s actions is obvious – they found Dr. Murray instrumental for their own goals like using him as a leverage tool for making Michael attend rehearsals, not to mention the doctor’s value in taking care of Michael’s insurance which he actually did on the night when his patient died.

And if the jurors on this panel had not been battling with their common sense they would have agreed that during the whole period of hiring Murray (between its oral and written dates) the AEG people had ample opportunity to see that Dr. Murray was ready for any compromise with his conscience and ethics in order to receive this much coveted job with AEG, and that Michael Jackson’s good health was absolutely not on the list of his priorities.

However Juror #27 goes on with his propaganda job giving us totally ludicrous examples:

JUROR: If I hire a nanny to watch my kids, and after checking her references and checking online I can find nothing that says she has hurt a child, or done anything illegal or unethical, should I be held liable if she kills my children? Liability can only go so far, and in this example as well as the AEG case, the liability for the unethical behavior falls with the individual who acted unethically. Period.


The example is horrendous. First of all it reminds us that “checking online” in Murray’s case took place almost two months after the moment of hiring him , and therefore means that the employer could not care less what all this time the criminal “nanny” was doing.

And second, what if you promised the nanny that you would hire her, and keep her on a probate for two months and during this time the child turned skeletal, started rambling and obsessing and became icy cold to touch, and even after that you still thought her work “successful” and hired her??? And you would still be not liable for that? And what if all this time the nanny was poisoning the child?

In my opinion your neighbors would suspect you of criminal negligence and would report you to the police. Especially if they find out that you were keeping the nanny because she rendered special services to you and this is why you liked her so much.

NO, THE JURY LOOKED INTO THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT

But then the arguments of juror #27 take a totally different turn. At some point he begins saying that they didn’t stick to the moment of hiring only but “considered Murray’s competence during the entire period”, only they didn’t find anything alarming in what he did.

He thinks that June 19th was a kind of an episode and on June 20th for example, Michael was already “rested and healthy looking”. Where did he take it from I wonder?

This question to the juror is hitting the nail on the head and this is why juror#27 has to twist and turn and accept the truth:

Question: The jury instructions did not put a timeframe on the second question it if I’m correct. so during the time Murray was hired by aeg, there were OBVIOUS signs that he was not fit and competent to treat mj. did you not consider this at all or did you all base your answer from the time he was hired (may 1)? Remember, jury instructions did not state that you had to base your answer ONLY at the time he was hired (may 1).

JUROR: You bring up good points, and we did consider Murray’s competence over the entire period and whether what AEG saw was enough to conclude that he was not fit. We felt that based on what they saw and were communicated, there was not enough to say that they should have known CM was breaking his sworn duty to do no harm. The main issue for me personally that cements this is that on the June 20th meeting, everyone saw a rested, healthy looking Michael. He and CM personally reassured Phillips and Ortega that MJ was fine, that he was OK to continue forward. Then on the 23rd and 24th MJ had great rehearsals and everyone had reason to be hopeful that he would be fine from then on.


First of all, on June 20th Michael wasn’t “rested and healthy looking”. He seemed a little better but was far from well. What’s noteworthy is that Michael’s health was not even a matter of discussion that day though only the previous night he was almost on a death-bed.

Kenny Ortega said about it:

Q. Did he offer any explanation as to what was wrong with Mr. Jackson the night before?

A. I don’t believe so, no.


Instead the meeting had an accusatory character where the ‘competent, fit and ethical’ doctor practically shouted at Ortega for having the audacity to send the ill Michael Jackson home the previous night:

Q. That day was June 20th; correct? And you said that in that meeting Dr. Conrad Murray appeared angry, started to like accuse you of things; right?

A. Yes.

Q. He told you, you shouldn’t be an amateur doctor; right?

A. Yes.

Q. You shouldn’t be an amateur psychologist?

A. Yes.

Q. Told you to stay out of it and leave Mr. Jackson’s health to him?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were — I think you said “accused.” you said it was like an accusatory meeting? Is that the term you used? I think you did, right?

A. Yeah….He thought I was meddling, you know, and I just didn’t — couldn’t believe that he would think I was meddling rather than acting out of concern.


Let me remind you that at the time Dr. Murray was still “on probate” and was probably behaving that way to win the approval from his soon-to-be employers. By the way Randy Phillips indeed assessed his behavior as ‘fantastic”.

It was also around that time that Conrad Murray agreed to take care of Michael’s attendance of rehearsals sharing the job with his boss Randy Phillips, and this in spite of seeing Michael unfit for the performance (remember the female dancers assisting Michael to leave the stage?):

Q. And you understood after concerns that you had raised that Randy Phillips and Dr. Murray were both going to be responsible for MJ’s rehearsal and attendance schedule? Is that what you understand?

A. Yes.

Mr. Panish: All right. Let’s put this up. Okay. This is Mr. Hougdahl, that email that I asked you about, “I have watched him deteriorate in front of my eyes over the last eight weeks.”

Q. Do you remember that email?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You had also watched Michael deteriorate, correct?

A. Yes.


So Ortega, same as Karen Faye, Alif Sankey, Michael Bush and Bugzy Hougdahl did notice that Michael’s was on a steady decline and Conrad Murray and AEG did not. Juror #27 grasps at straws and says that on June 23 and 24 Michael was fine:

JUROR: But he was a lot better on the 23rd and 24th. Everyone who testified said that it was an unbelievable transformation from the 19th and that he looked perfectly healthy. Why would it be reasonable to see MJ look so much better, hear from MJ himself that he was fine, and conclude that they should remove his personal doctor? It doesn’t make any sense unless you are looking at everything after the fact with the things done in private finally found out.


No, it does make much sense. Between June 19th and June 23rd at least full three days passed and things could have turned out totally differently, and the fact that Michael didn’t die in those three days and looked much better on June 23 does not give grounds to think that there no reasons for worry.

In fact it is the same “hindsight” argument which the Senior Staff of MJJC and Juror #27 mentioned earlier and for this case it will be someting like, “See that he didn’t die in those three days? So everything was okay with him and there was no need to worry”.

And what if he had died?

The point is that at that time no one could know what would happen and whether Michael’s health would improve. In fact people were expecting only the worst and this is why the great rehearsal he had on June 23 took everyone by so much surprise. And if people expected only the worst, it was time to seek urgent medical help and not wait for full three days and do nothing.

Well, at least Randy Phillips did something – he sent everyone soothing emails that things were under control, rejected help from the outside and reminded everyone that it was critical not to play “amateur physicians”…. and he also asked the insurance company for a policy covering Michael’s death which AEG had previously not sought.

The fact that on June 23 and 24 Michael looked healthy is disputable too – Michael was still cold and we can even see it ourselves from This is it documentary, where he is wearing numerous shirts while dancing. All dancers are sweating around him and he is wearing layers of clothing and is still cold.

Karen Faye testified:

Q. Did you think some of those symptoms you were worried about on the 19th were gone?

A He was still cold; but his spirit was better, sir.

Q. You indicated that Mr. Jackson’s — there was a levity and spirit, there was more of a lightness to him than there had been.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And he was laughing again?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember making fun of the headphones that you talked about before?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And he was referring to you by your nickname again?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So all these were things that gave you hope?

A. Yes, sir. He still kept repeating, though, which I found really odd, “I have no control. Why don’t I have any control? “he said that a few times. There was still like this little — a little anger there, you know. But yes, we did laugh..

Q. And did you think that as a result of those two rehearsals, that you thought that he could be ready in time for London?

A. Oh, no.

Q. — you didn’t think that he could be ready now?

A. No. That was like in two weeks. Michael — he didn’t gain like any weight, you know, in those few days. He was still extremely thin. I didn’t think physically he could actually do a show unless they made some major alterations to the – how strenuous it was or if they could delay it, you know, even longer.

Q. So you didn’t think he could be ready after seeing those two rehearsals?

A. No.


By the way it is noteworthy that of all testimonies at this trial Juror #27 is distrustful of Karen Faye’s testimony most – for all others, even those of Randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware with all their numerous “I don’t remember”, he has much more respect….

Meanwhile his own arguments are turning more and more demagogical:

JUROR: So then you might say, well since AEG saw MJ sick a few times and got some concerned emails, that should have alerted them to remove CM. I disagree. The best doctor in the world can not prevent a patient from becoming ill. If the mere act of a patient becoming ill while under a doctor’s care means that that doctor is unfit or incompetent, then one could say that every doctor is incompetent and go down that crazy road. At that point you lose grip on evidence and reason, and land in the realm of speculation and revisionist history.


I may have landed “in the realm of speculation and revisionist history” but I consider it pure demagogy to say that even the best doctor in the world cannot prevent a patient from becoming ill.

In my opinion the best doctors cannot help only in case of lethal diseases while in all other cases the steady decline of an otherwise healthy patient is simply proving that they are not the best doctors and that their treatment is wholly improper.

In fact I don’t even understand what we are discussing here – if a healthy 50 year old man is dying in front of everyone’s eyes his doctor is the first to go to and ask him questions, and the condition of his patient is the first reason to doubt his competence! So I cannot even comprehend what this juror #27 is talking about

JUROR: I am not disagreeing that things got worse, but there is no evidence that ties MJ’s worsening condition to what CM was doing or not doing.


And who else is responsible for the patient’s worsening condition if not his physician who was specially hired for the purpose? And the company in whose employment this physician was?

And isn’t all the rest of all this talk simply a lesson in non-stop demagogy?

Our reader Simba summed up the strange impression produced by juror #27 perfectly well:

I’ve read and re-read Juror 27′s posts on MJJC, and I’m convinced that if he’s really one of the jurors, he’s a shill for AEG. He simply has too much detail in his answers. It seems to me to be written to persuade, not explain. And as noted, the literary style is too perfect – it seems like a PR person put this together. I was especially struck by Juror 27′s answers to Tygger, a poster who didn’t drink the MJJC Kool-Aid. (What is up with that ‘fan’ site?).

Juror 27 overplayed his hand when he talked about a statement Katherine Jackson made in her deposition. Katherine Jackson testified; the deposition was never played in court. The only way Juror 27 would have known about it is if he did his own outside investigation, which is strictly forbidden. Or more likely, the posts were prepared by an AEG operative who got a little sloppy.

All in all, the fawning flattery back and forth, the incredibly detailed explanations, the effort to make lies about Murray’s contract the truth, the excuse about the “freak” comment not being so bad because it originated in the London office! – just too good to be true.


Great comment, Simba, thank you very much.

THERE IS NO CLOUD WITHOUT A SILVER LINING

A shill for AEG or not, but the appreciative words said by this juror and their foreman about Michael are the perfect answer to those who still harbor ideas that the trial was a “waste of time”.

No, it absolutely wasn’t! Listen to what these jurors say now about Michael and no matter how sincere or hypocritical their words are, they are still sending a message to the general public that after hearing all the evidence about MJ they came to highly appreciate him as a human being.

So what juror#27 and their foreman definitely did manage to do is shut up those voices who were whining throughout the trial about their fears that the trial would “tarnish Michael’s legacy and image”.

Well, AEG did try to drag Michael through the mud but his personality kept shining through it all and according to these two jurors even turned them into Michael Jacskson’s fans. Though I am a little doubtful of at least Juror #27′s sincerity, I suggest we take these statements at their face value and use them for silencing those who still have the cheek to say that the trial was in vain.

Actually in a recent interview Brian Panish and his hosts spoke exactly about the same thing. Brian Panish said that all jurors without exception came to highly appreciate Michael as a human being and the host of the interview agreed:

I am a huge Michael Jackson fan and one of my concerns was what it would mean for the legacy of Michael Jackson, and I agree with you – I was pleasantly surprised to see that if anything, it bolstered the humanness and the normalcy of a celebrity that as you said struggled with those issues.


Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 2):
TAIS (16 окт 2013, 23:05) • Admin (15 окт 2013, 19:16)
Рейтинг: 18.18%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

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

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1074  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 15 окт 2013, 18:30

продолжение

BRIAN PANISH’S INTERVIEW, OCTOBER 11, 2013

As you already understand the Jacksons’ attorney Brian Panish gave an interview about the jury’s vertict. It took place on October 11th, 2013 and the interviewers were Black Hollywood Live hosts Eboni K. Williams and Mari Fagel. Here is a link to the video of it sent to us by Susan62509:



I’ve partially transcribed the first part of it:

Question: What was your reaction when the verdict was read?

Brian Panish: Obviously we were disappointed in the verdict. When talking to the jurors it appears they were confused about the wording of one of the questions on the verdict form, but we respect the jury system and respect all the work that they put into the case, and we’re going to look at the options and proceed from here.

Question: …Can you tell us what that instruction was?

Mr. Panish: Sure. The claim was negligent hiring, retention and supervision. All three separate parts of the claim. First the jurors had to decide, “Did AEG hire Dr. Murray?” Either by themselves or in conjunction with Michael Jackson. They found 12 to 0 that that was the case.

The next question they had to decide was “Was Dr. Murray fit and competent for the position he was hired?” That does not mean just at the time of hiring, it means throughout the time of hiring. And they thought that they only had to determine whether he was fit and competent at the time he was hired. Which he was a physician being hired to be a general physician which he was qualified and licensed doctor… Our claim really thrust upon the deterioration of Michael’s condition within 60 days and the lack of anything been done and the warnings AEG had and ignored.

Question: What went on in terms of choosing those questions? Did you fight for a different wording of that second question?

Mr. Panish: Yes, we did. We wanted to say it “at any time” and the judge made a ruling and the one that she gave was “at the time of hiring” and that really was a dispute and unfortunately it appears, based on the investigation and discussion with the jurors that they answered the question “Yes, he was fit and competent when he was hired” but they never answered the question “Was he fit and competent as he was retained throughout the time that he worked and when they were supervising him?”

Question: We know that it is a very, very important aspect of the trial – jury instruction and the wording of that. Is that something you are going to challenge if there is going to be an appeal?

Mr. Panish: We’re looking at it right now and we are interviewing all the jurors and talk to appellate lawyers, so we are certainly not dismissing that. Obviously there’s a lot put into the case, we think that the case went well, we think that we proved what we had to prove and we will investigate what we should do from there on.

Question: Will another grounds for the appeal be whether the original causes of action…, whether they were wrongfully dismissed?

Mr. Panish: Obviously we had other claims such as that Dr. Murray was working as a course-and-scope employee of AEG Live that was dismissed by the court on the AEG negligence claim, so those can also be appealed and will be up to the appellate lawyers to decide how to proceed in that regard.

Question: After this disappointing by your own statement verdict, how did you as the personal attorney deal with the personal aspect of this?

Mr. Panish: … Katherine is a fantastic client and a fantastic person. She was very appreciative for the job that we did for her, she was there nearly every day and saw, and she was grateful that the jury had to see what a great person Michael was off the stage, what a great father and son he was. And she is also grateful that we did prove that AEG hired the doctor that killed her son, and those answers to those questions she got. And the public really got to see more about Michael and what kind of person he really was.

Question: Now some commentators, Nancy Grace among them, felt that this case was a money grab by the Jackson family. What is your response to those people?

Mr. Panish: I’d say Nancy Grace doesn’t know anything about the case, number 1. But really, the case was a search for the truth and to find some answers – What really did AEG know and what did they do? And by uncovering their internal emails and their actions we were able to expose what really happened. And what really happened to Michael and what his condition was like, and what AEG failed to do to help Michael.

And it came down to AEG was that they were to get the show on the road at any cost and they over roaded Michael and unfortunately Michael was desperate and took measures that a normal person wouldn’t take had he been in such a desperate situation and been pressured.

Question: The verdict was a big surprising for me and many in the legal community because there were two seemingly contradictory conclusions that the jury came to. Finding that AEG was indeed responsible for hiring this doctor but then not seeing his overall behavior and scope problematic on negligent. And when you look that he is right now serving a sentence on a manslaughter conviction that does not seem to flush for a lot of us. Can you talk about some of these contradictions?

Mr. Panish: You know, I think there is a difference between reality and the law, and the law requires certain things to be proved, and in this case there is no question that Dr. Murray is unfit and incompetent for what he did to Michael and I think the jurors all agreed with it, and it was the way the question was phrased “Was he fit and competent when hired to be a general practitioner doctor?” and it was a licensed physician and then he followed his Hippocratic oath and he wouldn’t be incompetent at that time, but it is deeper than that and as AEG continued on to rehearse and get ready for the This is it show, and Dr. Murray’s incompetence began to show more and more and it was really an ethical dilemma he was placed in, and he was placed in a conflict of interest and a three-party relationship where one party has a contract with somebody else’s doctor and keeps control and that really was the crux of what drove Dr. Murray to do what he did.

Question: The jurors didn’t ask any questions during deliberations to clear up their confusion?

Mr. Panish: You know, they said that they didn’t want to ask questions but they didn’t.

Question: Speaking of the jury, myself and others say that jury selection is probably one of the most important aspects of the trial process. Can you give us a little insight of what you were thinking…. about the jury selected?

Mr. Panish: I think the jury was fairly selected by both sides. I believe it was a very diverse group both in age, race, gender. Six male, six female, all from different background. We had a pretty diverse jury and I liked the jury. What we were looking for was people who didn’t have preconceived notions about Michael and about AEG, it turns out may one or two may have already decided the case before the evidence was put on, but that’s the risk we always take. But I really think that the jury system is the best thing that we have and this is a way that we resolve disputes in this country and that’s a fair and just way to do it.

Question: Were there any concerns on your part watching the jury during this case…. Kenny Ortega was on stand and jurors were clapping for him at one point, did that concern you?

Mr. Panish: No, I think Kenny was a great witness for us. Kenny was honest, he told it the way it was, he was raising red flags about Michael’s condition and they were right back to him, “Kenny don’t burn down the building, we’re handling this, don’t worry about it’. I think what the jurors said in the end is that Kenny was one of the first witnesses that was totally honest in the case and I think he was good for both sides and he told the truth.

Question: Kenny Ortega was also featured in the film This is it. Do you think that was helpful for your case when jurors got to see that ? Michael seemingly to be in pretty good shape?

Mr. Panish: Actually they told he wasn’t in pretty good shape. You’ve got to remember that Kenny had testified that This is it, when it was edited it was edited to make Michael look in the best light that it could. So it was really the best light of Michael. And it was also not intended to be a documentary as to how Michael looked, it was more of the process. So I think they did watch the This is it video, I don’t think it was very critical in their decision, but they did watch it.

Question: Your strategy in terms of quantifying fault…Why was comparative fault not presented to the jurors?

Mr. Panish: It was presented to the jurors. In cases like this when they are making a claim, it is all about responsibility and accountability, I believe it was a case of shared responsibility. Michael had paid the price with his life, Dr. Murray had paid the price by going to jail and AEG had walked away, made money on This is it and merchandise for Michael and they continue to move forward and I don’t think this is a case where it is one side or the other. I think it is the shared responsibility, numerous things coming together, creating the synergy for what happened.


(after half a minute speaking of another case they got back to discussing the trial again, only I haven’t transcribed it yet. Please join me kin doing this job if you can)

MORE QUESTIONS TO SORT OUT

The Jacksons’ attorney Brian Panish did an overall marvelous job in this case, but as you have probably guessed I do not whole-heartedly agree with some of his statements (about Ortega, for example) because I still remember that it was on Ortega’s insistence that AEG forced Michael to attend those rehearsals.

Mr. Panish also didn’t specify where we can find the notorious point about the time of hiring Murray which seems to have been introduced somewhere (where?) by the judge.

Similarly Mr. Panish’s phrase “…what drove Dr. Murray to do what he did” attracted my attention. Considering all those “hindsight” arguments mentioned by the AEG advocates and in a situation when AEG could indeed not know of propofol given to Michael by Dr. Murray, I suggest that it is much more important to focus not on what Dr. Murray did, but on what he did NOT do.

This is a case of negligence by a doctor who was hired for providing general care to his patient, so any claims against him and those who employed him should in my opinion center on this doctor’s failure to pay attention to the obvious signs of his patient’s ill health, which was before anyone learned of the reason for it - propofol or lack of biological sleep (depending on which scientific theory you adhere to).

Neither Dr. Murray nor AEG paid attention to Michael’s deterioration of health, and the fact that AEG didn’t know of the final diagnosis should not absolve them of their guilt as even chronologically the diagnosis comes after noticing the signs of trouble and not before it.

You first pay attention to the fact that someone is ill, and only then learn the reason why it is happening. So first you are supposed to take action upon seeing the person’s ill health, and only then you learn that it could be the result of propofol (or lack of biological sleep).

But if you neglect to do what is expected of you at the first stage, the second stage of the tragedy will not be averted and will now become imminent.

This is why I think that focusing on propofol is simply not an issue here. The real issue of this AEG negligence case is that neither Dr. Murray nor his employer paid attention to Michael’s deterioration of health during the whole period of Murray’s employment by AEG.

And in an effort to sort out these and other matters let me ask my five questions too:

1.Was the time of hiring Dr. Murray included in the instructions to the present jury?

2.The jury instructions published on the internet suggest that it was not, so how could the jury get the impression that they were supposed to discuss the time of hiring Murray? Were there any oral instructions given by the judge in this respect? Isn’t it necessary to determine in which way the juror were misinformed?

3. Michael Jackson showed obvious signs of general health deterioration – his body turned skeletal, he was losing his dance moves by the end of the rehearsals, he occasionally displayed “rambling and obsessing” and his body temperature dropped to icy cold (which was already a sign of an emergency situation). Aren’t all these signs within the scope of general care obligations for which Dr. Murray was hired in the capacity of a general practitioner?

4. When someone gets ill his body displays signs of deterioration and it is a doctor’s first duty to notice these signals and then make a diagnosis. And if the doctor neglects his duty of paying attention to his patient’s ill health it is called negligence on his part, correct?

5. So isn’t it totally unnecessary to know the reason of the patient’s health deterioration (for example, propofol) to accuse the doctor of negligence in performing his duties? And propofol shouldn’t be the primary subject in this negligence case, right? Instead it is Dr. Murray’s and his employer’s total indifference to Michael Jackson’s visible signs of ill health which should be in the center of the case, correct?

I will agree with you that it is bizarre to even have to discuss all this.

But you will probably agree that it is only because the verdict is bizarre – this is why.


Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 4):
TAIS (16 окт 2013, 23:04) • Lina (15 окт 2013, 20:04) • Admin (15 окт 2013, 19:16) • Белая роза (15 окт 2013, 18:53)
Рейтинг: 36.36%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

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

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1075  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 16 окт 2013, 14:00

Jackson Family Attorney Considering Appealing AEG Verdict Due to Confusing Jury Instructions

After a five-month long trial where attorneys questioned 58 witnesses, jurors in the Jackson v. AEG trial concluded 12-0 that the concert promoter was not liable for the death of superstar Michael Jackson. Now, the attorney who represented the Jackson family in the case says he is considering all options, including appealing the verdict because the wording of one of the questions posed to jurors may have cost them the case.

"In talking to the jurors, it appears they were confused by one of the questions on the verdict form," said Jackson family attorney Brian Panish in an exclusive interview with hosts Mari Fagel and Eboni K. Williams on Black Hollywood Live's Justice is Served.

The first question on the verdict form was, "Did AEG hire Dr. Conrad Murray?" to which jurors unanimously responded, "Yes." The second question read, "Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?" to which jurors unanimously responded, "No."

Panish says jurors misinterpreted the question by focusing on whether Dr. Murray was competent when he was first hired by AEG in May 2009 rather than correctly focusing on whether he was competent throughout the span of his employment up until Jackson's death on June 25th, 2009.

"Jurors thought that they only had to determine whether he was fit and competent at the time he was hired. He was hired to be a general physician, for which he was licensed and qualified as a doctor. But our claim really thrust upon the deterioration of Michael's condition over 60 days and the lack of anything being done and the warnings AEG had and ignored."

Jurors did not submit any questions asking for a clarification of the instructions during deliberations.

Panish says when preparing the jury instructions with the judge, he had requested the question be phrased, was Dr. Conrad Murray fit and competent to perform the work for which he was hired "at any time." However, he says the judge denied the request and ruled that the question would be phrased, was Dr. Conrad Murray fit and competent to perform the work for which he was hired "at the time of hiring."

"There is no question that Dr. Murray was unfit and incompetent for what he did to Michael and I think the jurors all agreed with it," Panish said. "It was the way the question was phrased, was he fit and competent 'when hired' to be a general practice doctor. He was a licensed physician and had he followed his Hippocratic oath, he would have been competent at that time. But it's really deeper than that. As AEG continued on to rehearse and get ready for the This Is It show, Dr. Murray's incompetence began to show more and more."

In his closing arguments, Panish suggested to jurors that Jackson's share of blame for his own death was 20%, but the rest of the blame was on AEG, urging jurors to award the family between $1 billion and $2 billion in damages for what he called AEG Live's share of liability in Jackson's death. Panish says he stands by that argument.

"I believe it was a case of shared responsibility. Michael paid the price with his life, Dr. Murray paid the price by going to jail and AEG walked away. AEG made a bunch of money off of the documentary This is It and merchandise of Michael and they continue to move forward. I don't think this is a case where one side or the other is to blame. I think this was the shared responsibility of numerous things coming together creating the synergy for what happened."

Panish is also urging Dr. Murray to stop denying his own responsibility for Jackson's death.
"Dr. Murray claimed this verdict was a vindication of him. That's not what it was at all. I think Dr. Murray should come forward, tell the truth and admit what he has done," Panish said. "Michael died from the overdose of Propofol given to him by a physician that shouldn't have done it. Michael was a person that trusted doctors, and he believed doctors, and he believed they would do no harm. Unfortunately Dr. Murray sacrificed that for money and fame."

Panish says after having interviewed all of the jurors in the case, he is in talks with appellate lawyers to decide how to proceed. He says he will look into all options in order to provide the Jackson family with the justice they deserve, shooting down allegations that Jackson's family pursued the case solely to continue to profit off of Michael's death.

"This case was a search for the truth, to find some answers," Panish said. "What did AEG know and what did they do? By uncovering a lot of the internal emails and the actions of AEG, we were able to expose what really happened to Michael, what his condition was like, and what AEG failed to do to help Michael. AEG wanted to get the show on the road at any cost and they overrode Michael and unfortunately Michael was desperate and took measures a normal person wouldn't take had he not been in such a desperate situation, being pressured."

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 4):
TAIS (16 окт 2013, 23:04) • Trueamore (16 окт 2013, 20:23) • Lina (16 окт 2013, 19:28) • Admin (16 окт 2013, 15:49)
Рейтинг: 36.36%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

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

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1076  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 17 окт 2013, 18:37

Michael Jackson: Family Will Ask for New Trial, Wrongful Death Decision Will Be Appealed

Изображение

The family of Michael Jackson lost their wrongful death suit against AEG Live, but the story isn’t over. I am told that the family will not only appeal the jury decision, but they will file for a new trial as well. That’s right, there could be a Trial 2.0, dragging everyone and everything back through the courts.

The word is that the Jacksons’ lead lawyer, Brian Panish, already has a law firm that specializes in appeals writing the documents now. But it’s not just an appeal. They will also ask the court for a do- over based on the jury getting wrong marching orders or misunderstanding the questions they received to make their deliberations.

Separately Panish appeared on an internet radio this week where he talked a little bit about the case and the potential appeal. He doesn’t actually say anything, but I am told definitively that Jackson v. AEGLive is not over, at least not for the Jacksons. Panish says Katherine Jackson was happy that it was proved that AEG hired the doctor that killed Michael Jackson. But remember the jury decided that AEG hired a doctor. They didn’t know, and no one did, that he’d kill Jackson.

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 4):
Trueamore (17 окт 2013, 22:36) • Admin (17 окт 2013, 21:19) • MagicalLove (17 окт 2013, 20:36) • Lina (17 окт 2013, 18:50)
Рейтинг: 36.36%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

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

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1077  Сообщение Admin » 19 окт 2013, 21:35

Роджер Фридман: Семья Джексонов не только подаст на аппеляцию, но так же будет просить о новом слушании
Roger Friedman: Jackson family will not only appeal but will also ask for new trial


Изображение
Roger Friedman began his Showbiz411 column in April 2009 after 10 years with Fox News. He writes for Parade magazine and has written for Details, Vogue, the New York Times, Post, and Daily News and many other publications. Friedman has proved to be well informed when it comes to the Jackson family.

His latest column not only reveals the Jackson family will appeal but that they are evn going to ask for a new trial!

The family of Michael Jackson lost their wrongful death suit against AEG Live, but the story isn’t over. I am told that the family will not only appeal the jury decision, but they will file for a new trial as well. That’s right, there could be a Trial 2.0, dragging everyone and everything back through the courts.

The word is that the Jacksons’ lead lawyer, Brian Panish (photo), already has a law firm that specializes in appeals writing the documents now. But it’s not just an appeal. They will also ask the court for a do- over based on the jury getting wrong marching orders or misunderstanding the questions they received to make their deliberations.

Separately Panish appeared on an internet radio this week where he talked a little bit about the case and the potential appeal. He doesn’t actually say anything, but I am told definitively that Jackson v. AEGLive is not over, at least not for the Jacksons. Panish says Katherine Jackson was happy that it was proved that AEG hired the doctor that killed Michael Jackson. But remember the jury decided that AEG hired a doctor. They didn’t know, and no one did, that he’d kill Jackson.

http://www.legendarymichaeljackson.nl/n ... new-trial/?
Изображение

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Admin поблагодарили (всего 6):
Trueamore (22 окт 2013, 10:22) • Lina (20 окт 2013, 16:50) • Mermaid (20 окт 2013, 16:46) • Liberian Girl (20 окт 2013, 03:43) • Белая роза (19 окт 2013, 21:56) • MagicalLove (19 окт 2013, 21:41)
Рейтинг: 54.55%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

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

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1078  Сообщение Mermaid » 20 окт 2013, 16:47

admin писал(а):Роджер Фридман: Семья Джексонов не только подаст на аппеляцию, но так же будет просить о новом слушании
Roger Friedman: Jackson family will not only appeal but will also ask for new trial


Удачи им.
Молюсь за них днем и ночью.. icon_angel

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Mermaid поблагодарили (всего 2):
tamaraki (22 окт 2013, 15:03) • Lina (20 окт 2013, 16:50)
Рейтинг: 18.18%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

Mermaid
Прогресс до нового звания:
8.6%
Благодарил (а): 543 раз.
Поблагодарили: 1127 раз.

Re: Разные интересные статьи

#1079  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 02 ноя 2013, 02:07

AEG in Karen Faye’s text messages: HE LOSES EVERYTHING, PROBABLY EVEN HIS KIDS

TIME TO WIPE AWAY TEARS AND DO SOMETHING AT LAST

This is not the right time to stay in limbo. The time for complaining about the injustice of the verdict and feeling sorry – mostly for ourselves – has passed. It is time to do something at last and stop waiting for someone to come and save us.

No one will save us unless we save ourselves, Michael and the truth.

How much longer are we going to let them lie in our faces and obediently swallow what they are feeding us and think that we can’t do anything about it?

Can’t do anything? Really?

And what about opening the September 9 transcript of AEG court proceedings, reading Karen Faye’s iphone messages about the way AEG and Ortega bullied Michael and just posting them everywhere we can?

There is no need to even comment on them that much. Just place them as they are on the internet to balance the lies told by AEG about their “huge love for Jackson then, now and at all times”, and let the people decide for themselves.

Just give the people a chance to see the other side of the story and that’s it.

Speaking of the need to read out Karen Faye’s text messages to the jury Ms. Chang of the Plaintiffs emphasized that the jurors were entitled to hear evidence from both sides:

Ms. Chang: … there’s two different conflicting pictures of how Michael Jackson was treated by defendants shortly before he died. The defendants have all stated on this day of love, affection, total support, no pressure inflicted on Michael Jackson whatsoever. Plaintiffs, however, know that there’s an entirely different scenario where they kept bringing up they were funding his entire life, including his house, his food, his kids, and they threatened to pull the plug, put everything he had at risk, including his kids, if he did not, and I’m quoting, “get his shit together,” end quote. And we state, based on the case law, that in search for the truth in the case, the jury’s entitled to hear evidence from both sides.


Yes, the jury was entitled to hear evidence from both sides. But though this sounds as an indisputable maxim the AEG lawyers did not agree with it. They resorted to every means at their disposal not to allow Karen Faye’s text messages to be even read out in court.

Did the jurors hear all the evidence as a result? No, they did not. Did the general public have a chance to read those messages in every newspaper, hear them on every TV channel or at least learn of their existence from anyone at all? No, far from it.

The truth about those messages was stifled, supressed and hushed up making us suspect that it is the most shameful of AEG’s sins which no one was ever supposed to ever know.

Is this freedom of information?

Well, it is freedom but only for some type of information.


Do you remember how many times we heard of the $40 bln figure allegedly demanded by Katherine Jackson of AEG though it was mentioned by the Plaintiffs’ lawyers in some preliminary document which Katherine Jackson never signed and never even saw?

Oh, but this “news” was screamed about by every media outlet, it was stuffed into every internet corner and AEG collaborators diligently worked on every fan forum to make sure that everyone knows about this figure though no one has ever seen it – except the Plaintiffs attorneys preparing the draft and the AEG side of course.

But what the AEG side has seen today so will the puppet media trumpet all over the world tomorrow, and so the subject of the never-ending discussion among Michael’s fans will be, thanks to AEG collaborators who are always there to explain, interpret and rub it in.

And how often have you heard the same media reporting the news about the text messages sent by Karen Faye to her boyfriend about the way AEG bullied Michael?

NEVER?

And after that you still doubt that AEG uses the media as their own vast backyard lawn regularly mown by their lawn-mowers?


But what makes the whole thing even worse is that for the past two months the evidence about Karen Faye’s messages was readily available in the transcripts of the AEG trial proceedings purchased by the heroic TeamMichaelJackson and all we needed to do was just look and make it available to everyone else – fans, the general public and the media after all.

Did we do it? No, we didn’t. Why not? Because we think that someone else should come and do it for us, or that the truth will triumph all by itself, or that we are not bright enough to sort it out in the face of all those formidable lawyers – all of which are just pretexts lulling us into inactivity and reducing ourselves into the state of limbo we are in.

No one will come and save us, and we will have to do all of it by ourselves. And the truth will not triumph on its own – it needs to be worked for. And we are no less brainy than these “formidable” lawyers – these matters are well within the bounds of usual common sense all of us possess and this is what the jury principle is actually based on.

All the truth needs of us is working for it.

However it is only the AEG agents and their puppet media who tirelessly work brainwashing the public and fans, while Michael Jackson’s supporters are waiting for something while all the way having by their side the original documents procured for them by others (at much sacrifice for themselves too) and sometimes don’t even bother to look what’s inside.

What a shame and what a disappointment. And we have the cheek to call ourselves Michael’s soldiers of love?

MESSAGES FROM AN OLD IPHONE

The messages from Karen Faye’s iphone, published almost two months ago and so shamefully missed by all of us, are telling in real time what AEG did and said to Michael at some ‘intervention’ meeting arranged for him by Randy Phillips, Kenny Ortega and Conrad Murray sometime prior to June 18th 2009.

Kenny Ortega was mad about Michael coming late to a rehearsal that day and in his anger retold Karen the gist of their demands made to Michael during the “intervention”.

After listening to what Ortega had to say that evening Karen arrived home at 2:30 at night and first thing in the morning June 19th repeated Ortega’s words to her boyfriend, apparently still being in a state of a shock.

Did those messages say much? Not very much – they are actually as short as any iphone messages should be, but the news they contain is still ground-breaking.

They say that Kenny Ortega and AEG threatened Michael that unless “he got his shit together” (loosely translated by me as “unless he attended every rehearsal”) they would “pull the plug” on the show and this would put at risk everything Michael had (yes, the catalog too) including his kids.

So they warned him that he might lose his kids if he didn’t attend those damned rehearsals!

Need I tell you that threatening Michael with these words was the worst thing they could ever say to him?


The kids were the most precious Michael had, the reason for his whole existence and a threat like that was the most devastating and deadly blow he could ever receive.

It was much worse than a “freak”, a slap and all the rest of the bullying and harassment they subjected him to during the several months of their wonderful collaboration. It was a lethal blow which surely sent Michael into a couple of sleepless and tormenting nights all of which led to the disastrous June 19th rehearsal which was a clear signal of the future catastrophe.

That day his body temperature was ice-cold to the touch, he was rambling and obsessing and saying that God was talking to him, he begged Ortega as a “lost boy” not to leave him and produced the overall impression of a man who needed a psychiatrist or at least urgent medical help.

Not only couldn’t he get on the stage but he could barely function as a human being that night, and this is when Kenny Ortega got really frightened for what they had done to him several days earlier.

Up till now all information about one more meeting prior to June 20th was supressed and this is why Ortega’s message to Randy Phillips sent at 2 in the morning after the June 19th rehearsal was somewhat of a mystery to us. It mentioned the details which up till now have never surfaced anywhere before and it is only now that its every little detail is beginning to fit into the general picture:

Randy Sat, June 20, 2009 at 2.04 am

I will do whatever I can to help with this situation. If you need me to come to the house just give me a call in the morning. My concern is, now that we’ve brought the Doctor into the fold and have played the tough love, now or never card is that the Artist may be unable to rise to the occasion due to real, emotional stuff. He appeared quite weak and fatigued this evening. He had a visible case of the chills, was trembling, rambling and obsessing. Everything in me says that he should be psychologically evaluated. If we have any chance at all to get him back in the light, it’s going to take a strong Therapist to help him through this as well as immediate physical nurturing. I was told by our Choreographer that during the Artist’s costume fitting with his Designer tonight they noticed he’s lost more weight. As far as I can tell there is no one taking responsibility (caring for) him on a daily basis. Where was his assistant tonight? Tonight I was feeding him, wrapping him in blankets to warm his chills, massaging his feet to calm him and calling his doctor. There were four security guards outside his door, but no one offering him a cup of hot tea. Finally, it is important for everyone to know, I believe he really wants this. It would shatter him, break his heart if we pulled the plug. He’s terribly frightened it’s all going to go away. He asked me repeatedly tonight if I was going to leave him. He was practically begging for my confidence. It broke my heart. He was like a lost boy. There still may be a chance he can rise to the occasion if we get him the help he needs.

Sincerely,

Kenny


I hope I needn’t remind you that Ortega’s worries had no effect on the steely Randy Phillips who called this and other Ortega’s emails “hysteria” and basically told everyone to shut up (“It is critical now not to be amateur physicians and psychiatrists”).

What I ask you to do is put Kenny Ortega’s email side by side with Karen Faye’s text messages referring to the ‘intervention” meeting prior to those events, and you will see how the two pieces perfectly fit and complement each other. One is the cause and the other is the consequence arising from it.

Here is the full of Karen Faye’s messages. Ms. Chang read them to the judge on September 9, 2013:

Ms. Chang. It’s actually — it goes four pages. And I can read it for the record. It basically says: “MJ has not shown up yet. His call was 4:00.” this is at almost — its 7:55 p.m. “his fear is big. He needs a 24/7 therapist.” and then the next one, it goes: “Kenny was mad.”

Ms. Bina. The fact that there’s an in-between text is relevant.

Ms. Chang. Okay. Well, I’ll read the whole thing. I’m sorry.

Mr. Panish. I just gave –

Ms. Chang. “Can you bring that suitcase with clothes to London for Michael’s clothes?” “She will pay excess baggage charges?” “Of course.” “He needs a few extra days to complete some items. This gives him the time he needs.” “Okay. Thanks, my love. I will tell him.”

“Didn’t get home until 2:30. KENNY WAS MAD,” all in caps.

“He and Randy Phillips and the doctor held a sort of intervention. MJ didn’t show till 9:30 p.m. Kenny told me AEG, (Randy Phillips) is funding his entire life right now. His house, food, kids, school, everything. They told him they will,” all capitals, “PULL THE PLUG IF HE DOESN’T GET HIS SHIT TOGETHER. IF HE DOESN’T DO THIS, HE LOSES EVERYTHING, PROBABLY EVEN HIS KIDS.”

Her boyfriend texts, “I hope he doesn’t.”

She writes back, “He came in ‘very serious’ last night. Any ‘hand holding’ has been removed. He has to be forced to face his fears.”

That’s the texts.


So they did tell him that he would probably lose his kids if he didn’t follow their orders… I doubt they ever could and the threat was actually absurd, but it did strike at Michael’s vulnerable most and must have instilled in him the fear nothing else was comparable with.

Hearing the voices of doubt from the throng of people brainwashed by AEG into thinking that the messages are ‘”fake”, let me note that according to the transcript of the September 9 court proceedings the same conversation and same details are also basically contained in Alif Sankey’s declaration.

This declaration was part of the evidence AEG had to attach to their so-called “motion for summary judgment” made with a view to throw out Katherine’s case against AEG as “nonsuit” at the very final stage of the trial prior to the jury deliberations.

None of us have ever heard of Alif Sankey’s declaration either as those who took it upon themselves to explain every little detail of that AEG’s motion and the declarations accompanying it never bothered to mention this document and the crucial information it contained. I specially checked it up – Randy Phillips’, Gongaware’s, Tim Lieweke’s and Kathie Jorrie’s declarations are all there, but Alif Sankey’s is not.

However Ms.Chang did refer to that document and said that it described the same type of conversation Karen Faye’s messages were all about

Ms. Chang: “.. the jury has only heard one side, and that’s AEG’s pure love, pure support, no pressure whatsoever, Kumbaya, holding hands, and “he hugged me the last day he saw me.” okay. That’s the story the jury has. And we all know from a whole variety of sources — and Ms. Jessica Stebbins Bina knows, because there’s other people, not only Ms. Faye, but other people who have — Alif Sankey, other people who have alleged to the pressure that’s being inflicted.
ms. Chang: We all know from what was already submitted — and we talked about it in the sidebar ad Nauseum — that a pivotal conversation occurred between Kenny Ortega and Karen Faye in which the intervention meeting was held and discussed in considerable detail. And interestingly, Alif Sankey, in her declaration to — that was submitted as part of the motion for summary judgment evidence, also states the same type of conversation and the same type of detail. And the discussion was upsetting and remarkable enough to Karen Faye, because of the specific pressure being inflicted on Michael Jackson, what she saw, that within hours of the conversation, she was writing texts to her boyfriend on her iPhone about the issue. Now, before we even knew about the iPhone texts, we had all discussed the fact that we wanted to elicit from her just the testimony. And your honor stated correctly, the easiest way to do this is get Kenny Ortega here, see what he says about it –


There will be another time and another opportunity to see what Kenny Ortega says or doesn’t say about it (he actually denies most of it).

What is important now is to lose no time on secondary matters and tell the truth to everyone on this planet that AEG and Kenny Ortega threatened Michael with a risk of losing his kids if he didn’t attend those damned rehearsals.

As a side note let me say that Michael wasn’t even obligated by his contract to attend the rehearsals and it was only AEG’s opinion that he should. Their John Meglen shared with us exclusive information that Celin Dion also barely attended rehearsals and her director was mad too, only no one dared make any threats to Celin Dion and all was fine in the end.

And AEG’s General Counsel Shawn Trell also testified that it is never an Artist’s duty to attend rehearsals and that the Artist can do as he pleases and it is even an insult to an Artist to demand attendance of rehearsals from him.

However all these rules are non-existent for Randy Phillips who thought that Michael “was not working as hard as he should” quoting his exact words from an interview given back in 2009 soon after Michael’s death. And not only did Randy Phillips force Michael to come, but now we know that he also threatened him that he would lose everything including his kids if he didn’t abide.

By the way doesn’t all of it make it clear why Michael Jackson hired a lawyer on June 18th which must have taken place almost immediately after that intervention meeting? The immediate reason for it must have been shielding himself from the danger of everything being taken away from him – his kids, his catalog,his dreams…

See how one missing link – lost and found now – can put all the events in the right perspective?

THEY MADE MICHAEL PAY FOR THEIR MISTAKES

The AEG people will tell you a lot of different lies to explain what they can explain and hide from public view what they can’t explain even by means of lies.

One of their big lies is that it was due to Michael’s perfectionism that the show became technically very complex and they were short of time due to the enormity of the project – and this is how all that pressure arose.

Изображение

However while saying one thing they forget to mention another thing.

They forget to tell you that their own contract with Michael initially said that the shows were to begin only on July 26.

It was AEG who shortened the period of rehearsals by full three weeks by setting the first concert on July 8 which was two and a half weeks earlier than the date stated in the contract.

And all this was due to their unlimited greed and desire to grab more money in March 2009 when they expanded 10 shows into 30 and then to 50 – the period provided for by the contract did not allow to fit that much and the date of starting the tour had to be moved to an earlier date.

The almost three weeks they added to the actual shows at the expense of rehearsal time were exactly the three weeks they were short of in June 2009, and it’s no use making Michael a fall guy now for their own incorrect timing and poor production skills.

You can even see it with a naked eye that the two and a half months for producing a show of this scale was too little time for it, so the problem of a mad race with rehearsals they created for the whole company was the problem of AEG’s own doing.

They wanted to correct their mistakes at the expense of the artist, namely Michael Jackson, and demanded that he should attend every day of their crazy rehearsal schedule 6 days a week. And this despite the fact that he was not obligated to attend any of them. And when he wanted some time off for himself they threatened to take his kids away from him…

SMEARING KAREN FAYE

AEG doesn’t like the fact that Karen Faye’s text messages are the irrefutable proof that AEG bullied Michael. Therefore they fill the media and fans forums now with nasty innuendoes that Karen Faye allegedly faked them.

Alleged Karen Faye’s forgery is what the AEG lawyers tried very hard to impress on the judge during those September 9, 2013 hearings. The innuendoes were made in a sophisticated manner typical of these lawyers the essence of which is “we are not really saying it, but you can easily guess it yourselves”.

What is interesting though is that when it came to discussing a forensic analysis of the messages suggested by Karen Faye herself the AEG lawyers were the first to reject it:

Ms. Bina: …Then turning to the last issue, your honor, which is the forensic examination of the text. Since I don’t think there’s any basis to admit the texts, I don’t think there’s any need to go through forensically examining them. But there is a concern here. Ms. Faye was subpoenaed in two different cases. She came — she brought documents to her depositions, including documents that, you know, showed that she was concerned about Mr. Jackson that she sent to Mr. Dileo saying he was thin, and he was sabotaging himself, and so on and so forth. She didn’t bring the texts. She didn’t bring the texts in at all. She didn’t bring them when she first testified at trial. She instead brought them on her second or third appearance and said, “oh, I’ve suddenly found the texts.” well, again, your honor, we’d ask the opportunity to examine, if your honor was inclined to admit the texts, because it’s suspicious when they were discovered. It’s also very, very easy to fake. You only have the printout of the texts. And as your honor will recall, we went away at lunch and figured out exactly how easy it is to change the dates on an iPhone conversation, and it’s super, super easy. Takes two minutes.So we’d like the opportunity to prove that hadn’t been done. And, again, there is some reason to doubt Ms. Faye’s –

Mr. Putnam: Veracity.


The same dirt about Karen Faye was picked up by AEG collaborators immediately after the trial and some unsuspecting fans swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

When asked whose testimony struck him as the least honest ones, a certain juror #27 residing on MJJC now took it upon himself to to speak on behalf of the majority of the jurors and said that Karen Faye’s testimony looked to them as the most “off-putting”:

* Karen Faye’s testimony and demeanor was off-putting to a lot of the jury. I think I’ll leave it at that.

Simultaneously the heart of juror #27 heart went out to Kenny Ortega as the one whose love for Michael was most true, genuine and in every way unsurpassable. This contradicts Karen Faye’s messages reflecting Ortega’s real attitude to Michael at that time, but the agenda of juror #27 demands that he turns everything exactly upside down:

* I thought Kenny Ortega was the most forthright out of everyone, and his testimony was a refreshing change because there was no dodging of questions or anything like that. His emails expressed sincere care and concern for MJ and his testimony in person just solidified and strengthened that feeling. He very obviously cared for and loved MJ.

And if you haven’t yet realized whose interests juror #27 is actively promoting among MJ’s fans here is his impression of the innocent AEG CEOs and the justification of their terrible lapses in memory:

* When they were direct examined by plaintiffs, they were painted into all kinds of corners with loaded questions and asked about 4 year old emails and conversations. So there was definitely a lot of squirming by those guys but I believe also that it is reasonable to not remember specific emails from 4 years ago. Especially considering the volume of emails these guys were exchanging daily. Hundreds of emails a day.

And all this is said in full seriousness and in defiance of everything we know about (for example) Gongaware’s lies, who didn’t remember even his email about reminding Murray that it was AEG who was paying him salary and not Michael Jackson! As if he sends this type of emails about doctors attending to stars of Michael’s calibre every day!

Изображение

Shawn Trell also blatantly lied when he made two mutually exclusive statements as to when Michael Jackson signed his contract – on January 26 when Tohme/AEG and MJ/AEG agreements were allegedly signed and when Trell was in Michael’s home just once, or on January 28 as their email about meeting the “freak” actually said.

So all those AEG CEOs of different ranks with their never-ending “I don’t remember a thing” looked more trustworthy to juror #27 and his supporters than Karen Faye’s messages found on her old iphone, readily offered for forensic analysis and confirmed by Alif Sankey’s declaration at that?

Doesn’t it tell you more than you ever wanted to know about this mysterious juror #27 and those who are embracing him with their open arms?

Sad as it is but AEG people are everywhere you look and they work real hard – much harder than Michael Jackson’s supporters do, who seem to be still waiting for the manna from heaven to fall upon their heads.

Or do they wait for the time when AEG lies fully overwhelm the public? But if it is hard to fight their lies now, how much harder will be when these lies take root and leave much bigger debries to sort out?

Don’t wait. Go and fight for each grain of truth NOW and simply do the most of what you can.

HOW KAREN FAYE RETRIEVED HER MESSAGES

Ms. Chang asked Karen Faye to show her the way she retrieved those messages and said that it was a tedious process of rolling the messages back into the past to the year 2009. The process could take the whole day, so no wonder Karen Faye found those messages at so late a time.

Below is an excerpt from the transcript where Ms. Chang is explaining the process of retrieving the messages to the judge. Incidentally we also learn that when it came to questioning Karen Faye about those texts in the presence of the jury the Plaintiffs were interrupted and were not allowed to discuss them until they first “laid the foundation” for it.

On September 9, 2013 they did lay the foundation for it and did not even ask for admitting the messages into evidence but only for a chance to have the messages read out in court, however the judge found the situation “marginal” and as a result the messages never made it to the jury.

Ms. Chang. I’m so sorry, your honor. The thing about Karen Faye on the texts, we don’t know until we lay the foundation. We were interrupted, we didn’t do it, so we just don’t know.

The second thing, I just want to state this for Karen Faye because I think a lot of bad things have been said on the record. As an officer of the court, I went to get the phone from her. I asked her, “can you show me how you went and retrieved all this?” it was the most tedious thing. She had to go back all the way to 2009 and scroll down. There was no fabrication of any evidence there. I saw — it must have taken her days to go back that far. And so with respect to that, I feel — especially since she so gladly went over and said, “do any forensic analysis that you want to do.” but it is degrading, it’s humiliating.

But with that said, why don’t we all powwow, take a break, see where we are. I think we all agree that she’s entitled to do something. We can lay foundation for other things, and then we can all discuss how marginal or helpful it would be over lunch.….

Ms. Bina. And there’s another e-mail in that same time period, your honor, where she says, “I’m very protective of Michael Jackson’s image, and I’ll do anything to protect it.” so she’s a witness who has a motive not — she has, frankly, a motive to fabricate something. I’m not saying she did it, but I’m saying, before we put it to a jury, I’d like an opportunity to examine that, particularly when she didn’t produce it in response to discovery, and she’s been selective in what she’s produced. But I don’t think we need to deal with any of that, because the only two statements at issue aren’t directly contradicted by the texts, so I don’t think there are any grounds for ever getting to the texts. The only issue is whether Ms. Faye can come in and testify against Mr. Ortega as to the two statements he actually said “no” to. And that may be, but I think at that point, your honor, it’s pretty irrelevant as to whether kenny ortega ever told her —

Judge. It’s pretty marginal.

Mr. Putnam. So marginal, your honor.

Judge. Benefit is pretty marginal.

Ms. Bina. Very marginal.

Ms. Chang. But it’s our –

Judge. I know it’s your case. I think even if you get that, it’s so marginal –

Ms. Chang. Do we want to leave the impression it’s all hugs and kisses from AEG?

Judge. We have enough of that impression.

Mr. Putnam. And, your honor, that’s why –

Mr. Panish. Are we coming back at 1:30?

Judge. One thing, and then I have to let the staff go.


Ms. Chang did her absolute best and fought for Karen Faye’s messages like a lioness would – to the very end of the debate, ending it with a desperate question: “Do we want to leave the impression it’s all hugs and kisses from AEG?”

And I want to address the same question to all Michael’s supporters:

DO YOU WANT TO LEAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS ALL HUGS AND KISSES FROM AEG?

And if you don’t then wipe away your tears and do what is expected of you to do – tell the truth about the real way Michael Jackson was treated by AEG and that fine gentleman Kenny Ortega who was even applauded to at the AEG trial.

All you need to do to spread the truth is quote Ortega’s words to Karen Faye and tell everyone that they threatened to make Michael lose his kids in case he didn’t attend the rehearsals which he was not even supposed to attend:


* Kenny told me AEG, (Randy Phillips) is funding his entire life right now. His house, food, kids, school, everything. They told him they will PULL THE PLUG IF HE DOESN’T GET HIS SHIT TOGETHER. IF HE DOESN’T DO THIS, HE LOSES EVERYTHING, PROBABLY EVEN HIS KIDS…


Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 2):
Admin (02 ноя 2013, 23:13) • Lina (02 ноя 2013, 18:24)
Рейтинг: 18.18%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

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

Re: Разные интересные статьи

#1080  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 02 ноя 2013, 03:14

продолжение

SUPPLEMENT:

Below is the part of the transcript of the September 9, 2013 court proceedings devoted to the discussion and rejection of Karen Faye’s evidence. The transcript was provided by TeamMichaelJackson: http://teammichaeljackson.com/archives/9751

The arguments of the AEG lawyers were purely technical and struck me as the worst demagogy I ever heard. However they worked.

Judge. No. Okay. The next thing we were going to talk about, why don’t we do Faye.

Ms. Bina. Okay.

Judge. Okay. This was, I think, plaintiffs’ motion.

Ms. Chang. Yes, your honor.

Judge. Plaintiffs’ motion to admit text messages in Faye’s phone that were from Kenny Ortega.

Ms. Chang. Actually, our reply, your honor –

Ms. Bina. Not from Kenny Ortega. They were from Karen Faye to her boyfriend. She quoted –

Mr. Boyle. I can — I’m sorry. It’s my motion. I can state what it is, because that’s not exactly correct. Page 16, our reply, lines 20 through 24, specifically lays out exactly what we are asking for: “and the following evidence should be admitted: Kenny Ortega’s testimony specifically on prior inconsistent statements.” and then the texts as past recollection recorded.

And the texts as prior consistent statements. So there’s three different theories, and three different things that we are doing. And basically, your honor, in this motion, what we are alleging is, there’s two different conflicting pictures of how Michael Jackson was treated by defendants shortly before he died.

The defendants have all stated on this day of love, affection, total support, no pressure inflicted on Michael Jackson whatsoever. Plaintiffs, however, know that there’s an entirely different scenario where they kept bringing up they were funding his entire life, including his house, his food, his kids, and they threatened to pull the plug, put everything he had at risk, including his kids, if he did not, and I’m quoting, “get his shit together,” end quote. And we state, based on the case law, that in search for the truth in the case, the jury’s entitled to hear evidence from both sides.

We all know from what was already submitted — and we talked about it in the sidebar ad Nauseum — that a pivotal conversation occurred between Kenny Ortega and Karen Faye in which the intervention meeting was held and discussed in considerable detail. And interestingly, Alif Sankey, in her declaration to — that was submitted as part of the motion for summary judgment evidence, also states the same type of conversation and the same type of detail. And the discussion was upsetting and remarkable enough to Karen Faye, because of the specific pressure being inflicted on Michael Jackson, what she saw, that within hours of the conversation, she was writing texts to her boyfriend on her iPhone about the issue. Now, before we even knew about the iPhone texts, we had all discussed the fact that we wanted to elicit from her just the testimony. And your honor stated correctly, the easiest way to do this is get Kenny Ortega here, see what he says about it –

Judge. Right. And see if he denies.

Ms. Chang. Exactly. And in fact, that’s what we did. And in fact, he did deny some; he admitted some; and he said, “I don’t remember” to some. And I listed and attached the transcripts, so there would be no confusion, as to what he did say of answers to some issues. So with respect to the ones that he flat-out denied saying, that’s a prior consistent statement. And that’s on page 3. For example: “do you recall if you told Karen Faye that AEG was funding?” “no.” “have you ever” — “did you ever tell them that?” “no.” “that AEG told Michael if he doesn’t do this, he loses everything?” “no.” so that’s prior inconsistent statements. Now, the issue becomes after that –

Judge. And — okay. So you need to call Karen Faye to –

Ms. Chang. Correct. To talk about that as we discussed before, and that renders it non-hearsay on the Kenny Ortega level because of the prior inconsistent statement. Then we came to the issue where, unbeknownst to both sides, she has these texts that records everything dutifully on her iPhone. The issue then is, did the iPhone texts help her when she didn’t remember certain aspects of that conversation? And if they did, then they can be read out loud to the jury. Now, defendants claim, and they cite from her testimony, where she says, “I specifically remember” — I’m going to get the exact quote here. Hold on.

Judge. Well, remind me. Did she — did you ask her about the prior inconsistent statements yet, or you have to call her back?

Ms. Chang. We have to call her back. We were right in the middle of asking her questions –

Judge. Okay.

Ms. Chang. — And defendants kept objecting, and the court stated, “how much more do you have on this examination?” in other words, can you come back to this, and can you finish what you have? And Mr. Panish responded, “I can go to some other things, sure.” in other words, we all knew this fight was coming, this day was coming, so why waste — they kept objecting every five seconds. So, basically, what we — what they allege, too, is they claim that Ms. Faye testified that she remembers, quote, “specifically everything that happened about what occurred on June 18th.” but this testimony refers to the events that happened, such as when he came late to rehearsals, everything. And we were trying to elicit from her — because she did state she was trying to remember what happened in the conversation. So we have to get that out of her, and we were stopped right in the course of the conversations. And if we can’t get it out of her, if Ms. Bina is correct, and she says, “oh, no, I remember everything absolutely,” then I would agree then she can’t read the text out loud, because if she remembers it completely, she can just say what is inconsistent with Kenny Ortega. However, if it does — if she –

Judge. Right, that would be the next step.

Ms. Chang. The next step is, then, she can read them. They are not admitted into evidence.

Judge. No. The next step — refreshing recollection, would be the first step. If she doesn’t remember what Kenny Ortega told her, okay, would looking at a copy of these texts –

Ms. Chang. Actually, 1237 allows her to read the prior — the past recorded –

Mr. Panish. Past recollection recorded.

Ms. Chang. The past recollection recorded statements into the record. They’re not admitted, but what she wrote is — can be read.

Judge. I think you’re jumping ahead a little bit.

Ms. Chang. Okay.

Judge. First try the refreshing recollection, because it’s very short; right?

Ms. Chang. Well, they’re very detailed. I have them right here. Well, I guess. I mean, compared to, like, the “emancipation proclamation,” yes. I guess everything is relative. Yeah, I’ll agree with you, your honor, they’re fairly short.

Judge. Okay. The first thing you do is you try to refresh recollection with her text messages.

Ms. Chang. Okay.

Judge. And if she remembers, after reading them, then she can testify as to what Kenny Ortega’s statements were.

Ms. Chang. Okay.

Judge. Now, the past recollection recorded –

Ms. Chang. States: “evidence of a statement previously made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule” –

Judge. Right.

Ms. Chang. — “if the statement would have been admissible if made by him while testifying, the statement concerns a matter as to which the witness has insufficient present recollection to enable him to testify fully and accurately, and the statement is contained in a writing which: “was made at a time when the fact recorded in the writing actually occurred or was fresh in the witness’s memory; “was made by the witness herself; “is offered after the witness testifies that the statement she made was a true statement of such fact; “and is offered after the writing is authenticated as an accurate record of the statement. “The writing may be read into evidence, but the writing itself may not be received into evidence unless offered by an adverse party.”

Ms. Bina. Right.

Ms. Chang. So therefore we have to –

Judge. Usually, the way –

Ms. Bina. You refresh first, your honor. You’re absolutely right. And when it’s my turn, I’ll go.

Ms. Chang. Would you please not?

Judge. Usually, the way that past recollections are admitted is, there are usually long lists of things that people just can’t remember. I don’t know. For example, I don’t know, a long list of addresses. 20 addresses. And I might ask somebody, “What addresses did you refer this person to?” “I don’t remember, but I wrote a memo.” “Okay. Would looking at it refresh your recollection?” “Well, sure.” you look at it. “Can you tell us what addresses?” “Well, no, because there’s 20 of them. I can’t recite them by memory.” “Okay. Did you prepare a memo?” “Yes, I did.” then you lay the foundation for the memo, and then she can read from the memo and the 20 locations. That’s usually how it comes up. But if there’s a text, it doesn’t seem to me that’s in the typical nature of past recollection recorded.

Ms. Chang. Well, a lot of people — I think it will come up more, because texts has really changed a lot of people. But many people don’t sit down and say, “oh, my god. Let me write down this thing.” some people do. We had that in Cuthbertson, Stephanie — the first witness, Stephanie Chan, wrote — she went home and was so upset by what she saw, she went to her computer and typed out the entire statement, which was in fact read to the entire jury.

Judge. It was a long statement.

Ms. Chang. Yes. It was a long statement.

Judge. It wasn’t something –

Ms. Chang. Correct.

Judge. — She could just recite by looking at it and refreshing –

Ms. Chang. My heart. Exactly. And I think that a lot of people do not take the time to write out, like when Mr. Panish tells me things, I don’t sit down and write and record it all. But if it was something shocking, I might in an e-mail. And I think that’s the point. Because if something — if you take the time, like Ms. Chan did, or whatever, to record something, then there is some level of inherent truthfulness associated with it –

Judge. Yes.

Ms. Chang. — Because you’re doing it when it’s fresh, you’re doing it for the purpose of remembering it. And I think what she did is it struck Ms. Faye, because she cared very deeply about Mr. Jackson, that she was extra vocal, like, “you would not believe what happened. Here’s all the things” –

Judge. How long was it?

Ms. Chang. Here’s the texts right here, your honor. I can show it to you. It’s very — it’s attached here. Here’s exhibit 1. You can see the iPhone bubbles.

Judge. I can’t. My eyes –

Mr. Putnam. I can’t from here.

Ms. Chang. It’s actually — it goes four pages. And I can read it for the record. It basically says: “MJ has not shown up yet. His call was 4:00.” this is at almost — its 7:55 p.m. “his fear is big. He needs a 24/7 therapist.” and then the next one, it goes: “Kenny was mad.”

Ms. Bina. The fact that there’s an in-between text is relevant.

Ms. Chang. Okay. Well, I’ll read the whole thing. I’m sorry.

Mr. Panish. I just gave –

Ms. Chang. “Can you bring that suitcase with clothes to London for Michael’s clothes?” “She will pay excess baggage charges?” “Of course.” “He needs a few extra days to complete some items. This gives him the time he needs.” “Okay. Thanks, my love. I will tell him.” “Didn’t get home until 2:30. Kenny was mad,” all in caps. “He and Randy Phillips and the doctor held a sort of intervention. MJ didn’t show till 9:30 p.m. Kenny told me AEG, (Randy Phillips) is funding his entire life right now. His house, food, kids, school, everything. They told him they will,” all capitals, “pull the plug if he doesn’t get his shit together. If he doesn’t do this, he loses everything, probably even his kids.” her boyfriend texts, “I hope he doesn’t.” she writes back, “He came in ‘very serious’ last night. Any ‘hand holding’ has been removed. He has to be forced to face his fears.” that’s the texts.

Judge. Okay. And so not all of this was denied by Kenny Ortega; right?

Ms. Bina. Well, when we get to that, your honor, I don’t think any of that was, but we’ll get to that when it’s my turn.

Ms. Chang. Well, your honor –

Judge. What part are you, plaintiffs, are claiming were not remembered? I think by your –

Ms. Chang. Let me turn to it here. I’m sorry, your honor. I’ll have it here. The fact — the part that he denied was that they were funding Jackson’s entire life and that they threatened to pull the plug so that he would lose everything.

Judge. Okay. “Kenny told me AEG”? Okay.

Ms. Chang. And we could just turn to Mr. Ortega’s testimony here that we attached here.

Judge. And the question to Kenny Ortega that he denied was what?

Ms. Bina. Your honor, there’s several. (JUDGE SHOULD HAVE TOLD BINA TO BE QUIET LONG AGO)

Ms. Chang. Well okay. I think she’s asking me. I’m looking it up right here, your honor. I’m sorry.

Ms. Bina. They’re in our opposition brief.

Ms. Chang. We have listed his testimony. And, basically, he denies that he said that if he doesn’t do this, he loses everything; he admits that maybe he told her about something like, any hand holding of Michael had been removed. He denies that he told Karen Faye that he had to face his fears.

Judge. I don’t know why he would deny that. I think he said something like that in an e-mail, but –

Ms. Chang. He said: “do you recall whether you ever told Karen Faye that AEG had told Michael that they’ll pull the plug if he doesn’t get it together?” “Maybe in some capacity to that.” that’s what he says. And then specifically: “did you tell Karen Faye that he was funding Michael’s entire life right now? His food, his kids, everything?” “no.” “Did you ever tell Karen Faye that AEG told Michael that if he doesn’t do this, he loses everything?” “no.” other things, he specifically stated, “I don’t remember.” let me –

Judge. So right now, it looks like the only thing he really denied was that — the statement “Kenny told me AEG (Randy Phillips) is funding his entire life right now. His house, food, kids, school, everything.”

Ms. Chang. “and that he could lose everything.”

Ms. Bina. And actually, your honor, on that first one, he didn’t deny making that statement. He was only asked if he recalled making the statement, and he said, “no.” the second one he denied making the statement, but the text doesn’t attribute it to him. Anyway, I’ll let Ms. Chang – (HERE SHE GOES AGAIN, AND SHE ACKNOWLEDGES SHES DOING WRONG)

Ms. Chang. Well, the good thing is Kenny Ortega is coming back on Monday, according to the defense.

Judge. Oh, no.

Ms. Bina. Depending on your honor’s ruling in terms of the “This Is It” movie and this issue and any number of issues. We’re trying to avoid bringing him back.

Ms. Chang. Is the only issue if the whole movie is in?

Mr. Putnam. Your honor, it’s more than what Kenny Ortega has. And in fact, Faye was called –

Judge. It is just not unique to you.

Mr. Putnam. I will tell you, I heard precisely what you said, which is why we’ve narrowed it to something very precise, which is — we may not have to do it if they agree that the movie is actually entered into evidence entirely at this point.

Mr. Panish. So Marvin — can I ask Mr. Putnam a question? I know it’s not –

Judge. Sure. Go ahead.

Mr. Panish. Are you saying that the reason that you may need to call Mr. Ortega back is because there’s a potential issue regarding whether “This Is It” is in or not? Is that what you’re saying?

Mr. Putnam. That’s what I’m saying.

Ms. Chang. They think the whole movie should be in.

Mr. Putnam. I think the whole movie is in.

Mr. Panish. I just want to understand your position, is all. Did I say that?

Mr. Putnam. No. I understand you called him and told him, “you can argue before the court that he’s not necessary as cumulative.”

Mr. Panish. I haven’t talked to Mr. Ortega.

Mr. Putnam. I know. Mr. Boyle did. They called and let me know that argument was made.

Mr. Panish. We didn’t talk to Mr. Ortega.

Mr. Putnam. I’m glad you could know that. I believe there are reasons we can put that in.

Mr. Panish. Your honor, we’ve never spoken to Mr. Ortega.

Ms. Bina. Mr. Ortega’s counsel.

Mr. Putnam. His counsel.

Mr. Panish. No. So all I wanted to do, I was just trying to understand, and was I correct in understanding –

Ms. Chang. Yes, you’re correct.

Mr. Panish. That’s all I’m asking. I’m not here to argue.

Ms. Bina. The biggest issue is the film. And the texts –

Mr. Panish. Well, he already testified about the texts.

Ms. Bina. Well, I’m not going to call Kenny Ortega about your videos. But, yes, the issue is the “This Is It” movie.

Ms. Chang. What we’re saying is what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Mr. Putnam. Karen Faye, I agree.

Mr. Panish. Do I get an answer?

Ms. Chang. Yes, he answered you.

Mr. Panish. They said, “Among other things.”

Mr. Putnam. I did answer.

Mr. Panish. She just said among — okay. You said, “Yes.” thank you. But she said, “yes, among other things,” so –

Ms. Bina. Your honor, I’d like a chance to respond about Karen Faye before lunch.

Ms. Chang. I wasn’t finished. Can I suggest this, your honor?

Judge. All right.

Ms. Chang. I have in the — between the motion and reply and the opposition, the entirety of Mr. Ortega’s testimony relevant to these texts are in. I propose that we make — specifically know which ones he said, “no” to, which ones he said, “I don’t know” to, and to finish up my argument, we submit case law that says in the context of saying, “I don’t know,” an “I don’t know” is sufficient to be a denial to allow her to come back and address them as prior inconsistent statements. So it is — and then that raises the issue of whether or not they should be allowed to do a forensic examination of the phone. And what they allege as grounds for that is because, during her deposition, or before the deposition, they subpoenaed her and asked her to bring all her e-mails, and she didn’t. And she didn’t provide these texts. She explained how she found these texts and the number of hours it took. You’re only required to submit what you have at the time of the deposition. She’s not a party, didn’t pursue it with her. Secondly, they alleged that the Frank Dileo e-mails, she didn’t submit an e-mail that she wrote to Frank Dileo that said, “yippee” on the last day. She’s thrilled at how much better he did. It’s not inconsistent. But I will also point out that this is the time period where they represented Frank Dileo and did not produce those documents to us.

Ms. Bina. We didn’t have them.

Mr. Putnam. We didn’t have them.

Ms. Chang. So in any event — nor do we know if she had them, either. We didn’t know if she had all her e-mails or didn’t have her e-mails or checked her e-mails or she has e-mails that are discarded or whatever. So, basically, I don’t think that — under California case law, and what’s required to lay these foundations, had they submitted enough proof to show, “oh, we can call her a liar and say that she made up and fabricated evidence, and now we get a forensic examination”? I, as an officer of the court, pursuant to our discussion, took the phone, put it in a little bag. It’s all been locked and secluded and everything. I mean, we could have done the same thing to Mr. Trell, I guess, and Mr. Gongaware and Mr. Phillips on their iPhones and their phones and did analysis if they erased everything, too. But I believe that it does nothing but raise the costs of an already expensive case. It is not required. Well, we would have to do a counter one. And it also delays, and we’re all trying to finish this case and get it to the jury. We have always, always tried, from the very beginning, to get our story across. We’ve been lambasted by — I think at one count there was like 68 objections during her examination. And I think that we tried very hard to get everything in, and we followed the court’s suggestion with Mr. Ortega. I think it’s very clear that there are certain things that she’s entitled to come back for to say what Mr. Ortega said, the things that he says “no” to, specifically. And then we lay the foundation to see if we meet the burden of evidence code –

Judge. Well, I could see if maybe this –

Ms. Chang. — 1235. I’m sorry. I was just finishing the evidence code.

Judge. — Statement said, “Kenny told me AEG told him that they are funding his entire life right now,” I can see why you would want that. But this is just Kenny saying, “AEG is funding his life right now.” in other words, that’s Kenny’s opinion, really. I mean, I don’t know how much that really adds to your case.

Mr. Putnam. Can we respond?

Judge. “Kenny said he thinks AEG Is funding his life.” it isn’t a recitation of Kenny saying that “AEG told him that they’re funding.” I can see why that would be valuable.

Ms. Chang. Well, she can go into detail about what the conversation was. That’s the whole point.

Ms. Bina. If she had the memory, your honor, there’s no basis to admit the texts. So, I think, briefly — and I’m going to try not to take too much time, but there’s two — three issues here: one, did Kenny Ortega testify inconsistently? Because if not, no hearsay statements come in at all; two, if Kenny Ortega testified inconsistently, he can be impeached by Ms. Faye’s testimony, not by intrinsic evidence that is hearsay; and then three, is there any exception that gets the text in; and four, should there be a forensic examination of the text?

So starting with — as a normal lawyer, I mean, you don’t get to bolster your testimony through hearsay. For instance, Mr. Phillips has witnesses he spoke to back in the spring of 2009 who can come in and testify that he told them, “Michael is wanting us to have this doctor. I don’t want him. He’s really expensive.” and it could bolster his own credibility that way, but you don’t get to bolter your credibility through hearsay, you get to testify, which is what Ms. Faye has done.

She’s discussed the events of June 18th in detail repeatedly, when asked by her counsel — if you recall, they put the texts in front of her, and, you know, he said, “do you remember what happened on June 18th?” and your honor said, “without looking at the texts.” and she says, “yes. I remember specifically everything that happened.

The only thing I used the text for was to refresh my memory as to dates. So there’s no evidence at this point that she needs the text or is unable to remember them independently. In fact, many times in deposition she described in detail the conversations she contends took place that night. So setting that aside, the first thing your honor must decide is, is there any inconsistent testimony of Mr. Ortega? Because otherwise, none of this is dealt with. So Mr. Ortega was asked a couple of different questions. He was asked: “do you recall whether you told Karen Faye that Dr. Murray and Randy Phillips had had some sort of intervention?” and he says, “I don’t recall that.” so he was only asked, “do you recall,” not did he ever say it. So, “do you recall?” “I don’t recall that.” “do you recall whether you told Karen Faye that AEG was funding Michael’s entire life right now? His food, kids and everything?” he said, “no.” again, the question was, “do you recall.” they never asked the follow-up question of, “well, do you deny you said it? Is it possible you might have said it?” none of those things.

Judge. “Did you ever tell Karen Faye?”

Ms. Bina. Right. “do you recall whether you ever told Karen Faye that AEG has told Michael that they’re going to pull the plug if he doesn’t get it together?” answer: “maybe in some capacity to that.” and then, “did you ever tell Karen Faye that any hand holding is removed?” and he said, again, “we may have had a conversation about something like that.” those four, he said, “I don’t recall” to two of them, and he specifically admitted the other two. What remains is, “did you tell Karen Faye that Michael — if Michael doesn’t do this, he’ll lose everything, including his kids?” he did say “no” to that, but the text doesn’t attribute that statement to him. Now, Ms. Faye –

Judge. Doesn’t attribute it to?

Ms. Bina. To Kenny Ortega. Doesn’t attribute it to anyone. The last thing she says, “if he doesn’t do this, he loses everything, probably even his kids,” it’s not clear that that’s a statement in the text attributed to Mr. Ortega. Now, Ms. Faye might testify that Mr. Ortega told her that. She might testify, but it’s not in the text. And if she testifies, I would argue, it’s a pretty collateral matter, whether Kenny Ortega ever told Karen Faye, Michael might lose his kids if he doesn’t do this, has no bearing on any position of the case. So that’s the only time, your honor –

Judge. So are you telling me that you’re trying to impeach Kenny Ortega?

Ms. Bina. Yes, your honor.

Judge. Is that what you’re trying to do? To show a prior inconsistent statement? Because that’s –

Ms. Chang. Well, your honor, here’s how it all started. I’ll remind your honor how it all started. We’re trying to give the two pictures of what happened before Mr. Jackson died. We allege correctly I believe the record will show and will later be determined, if necessary, is that we were correct in our initial arguments to your honor that all of this is non-hearsay because it goes to Mr. Jackson’s state of mind, because it shows why he was pressured to do things; that they were pressuring him so badly, he was up against the wall, he had no capacity to make decisions for his own.

And we reminded your honor, there was a long argument on sidebar that they are alleging negligence on the part of Michael Jackson and that all of this goes to all of these issues, and they even alleged punitive aspects against Mr. Jackson. We argued all of this, and your honor said — was not persuaded by any of those, because we believe we have the right to tell both sides of the story. So the jury has only heard one side, and that’s AEG’s pure love, pure support, no pressure whatsoever, Kumbaya, holding hands, and “he hugged me the last day he saw me.” okay.

That’s the story the jury has. And we all know from a whole variety of sources — and Ms. Jessica Stebbins Bina knows, because there’s other people, not only Ms. Faye, but other people who have — Alif Sankey, other people who have alleged to the pressure that’s being inflicted.

However, after that argument failed, then we vehemently argued about, in sidebar, how — other hearsay exceptions, and your honor finally said, “the easiest way to do this is get Kenny Ortega here. It’s clean and dry, it’s a prior inconsistent statement.” and we agreed with that. So we all waited for Kenny Ortega.

So then the questions here now, it’s unclear, like a lot of things in this trial, he never came out, flat out, either the question was unclear at some point, or the answers weren’t clear. But there are some crystal-clear questions, and I’ll read one from page 13,567 of the transcript “did you ever tell Karen Faye that AEG had told Michael that if he doesn’t do this, he loses everything?” “no.” and this is right after, “do you ever recall” — you know, whether they’d pull the plug if he doesn’t get it together. “did you ever tell Karen Faye that Michael had to face his fears?” “no.” so all of that — that is clear –

Judge. It’s kind of interesting that –

Ms. Bina. Your honor –

Judge. — If he didn’t remember, then why didn’t you refresh him? Well, you know, showed him something, and even if it was these texts, you could have shown it to him.

Ms. Chang. Actually, we did show those texts.

Judge. To Kenny Ortega?

Mr. Putnam. No. The answer is “no,” your honor. The reason is because it’s not inconsistent.

Mr. Panish. We actually did give it to his lawyer who showed it to him, and he denied it.

Ms. Chang. And he said, “I would never have this conversation with Karen Faye.”

Ms. Bina. Your honor, again, it was not done on the witness stand, which is where it should be done. The only way you get a prior inconsistent statement is you ask the witness, and he denies making the statement. Now, there are times when the witness is being evasive, and only when the witness is being evasive, and they say, “I don’t know,” it can be construed as a denial.

Judge. That’s true.

Ms. Bina. That’s not the situation here. He admitted some of the statements. He didn’t recall others. He denied two, but those two are not actually attributed to him in the texts. “any hand holding has been removed” and the statement about — sorry — the statement about “he has to be forced to face his fears,” and “if he doesn’t do this, he loses everything, even his kids” in the texts, are not attributed to Mr. Ortega or AEG now, it’s possible the witness has a memory that impeaches Mr. Ortega on those two statements, but that’s not grounds for getting the texts in. And the other four statements were never denied, so there’s no inconsistency there. Again, they had the opportunity to ask Mr. Ortega, “did you make those statements” –

Judge. To Ms. Faye.

Ms. Bina. — “To Ms. Faye?” to have him get squirrely and say, “I don’t recall,” have him deny it –

Ms. Chang. There’s a firm denial.

Ms. Bina. The standard follow-up answer, your honor, is — to “do you recall making the statement?” is, “well, are you saying you didn’t make the statement?” and they never asked that.

Judge. Or “if I showed you a text, would it help you refresh” –

Ms. Bina. “Would it refresh your recollection?” they could have, and all of that –

Ms. Chang. That’s not what –

Ms. Bina. Can I please finish?

Ms. Chang. Your honor stated, “Get him to say whether he said it or not.” there’s no rule –

Judge. But you didn’t do that.

Ms. Chang. Yeah. How — “did you ever tell Karen Faye that AEG had told Michael that if he doesn’t do this, he loses everything?” “no.” “Did you ever tell Karen Faye that Michael had to face his fears?” “no.” we don’t have to refresh his recollection.

Ms. Bina. Those were clear denials, your honor. We’re not disputing that.

Ms. Chang. Okay.

Ms. Bina. But they’re also not attributed to Mr. Ortega in the texts. So, again, it’s possible that they can bring in Ms. Faye, and she has an independent recollection that would impeach Mr. Ortega as to those two statements.

Judge. And she’ll say that, yes that information came from Mr. Ortega.

Ms. Bina. Right. At that point –

Judge. She hasn’t said that yet.

Ms. Bina. Right. So it’s possible — she said that at deposition, your honor, so there’s reason to believe that she will say that. Again, that’s not grounds for getting the texts in. It might be grounds for getting her testimony in.

Ms. Chang. I think we’re fighting –

Ms. Bina. Can I finish please, Ms. Chang?

Judge. Ms. Chang, let her finish. (HERE WE GO, JUDGE DID SPEAK UP BUT FOR BINA)

Ms. Chang. This helps her. We’re not trying to get the texts into evidence. I think she thinks we are.

Judge. I thought you were, too.

Ms. Chang. No, no, no, no, no. The code doesn’t allow us to get the texts in, it allows us to read from it.

Judge. If it’s past recollection recorded, you haven’t gotten that analysis yet.

Ms. Bina. Which is what I’m getting to. They’re not allowed to get in the texts or read from the texts. Ms. Faye, conceivably, could impeach Mr. Ortega as to the two statements he specifically denied. I would argue, your honor, that at that point, the testimony is cumulative and collateral because Ms. Faye repeatedly said on the stand, said Mr. Ortega was pressuring Mr. Jackson –

Ms. Chang. No, she was not.

Ms. Bina. She actually did say that. She was allowed to testify considerably to this. She wasn’t allowed to give any hearsay testimony.

Ms. Chang. No.

Ms. Bina. But as to those two statements, your honor, if Ms. Faye has a recollection that impeaches Mr. Ortega, they would not be hearsay. The remaining four statements are hearsay with no exception, because Mr. Ortega never denied them, and plaintiffs never asked the questions that would lay the foundation for prior inconsistent statements. So we’re only dealing with the two statements, not the six. So then we talked about the two statements –

Judge. The two statements where there was negative responses?

Mr. Putnam. Yes, your honor.

Ms. Bina. With a negative response.

Judge. It wasn’t a “do you recall,” it was a direct “yes.”

Ms. Bina. It was a direct “yes” or “no,” which is “he has to be forced to face his fears” and if –

Judge. Loses.

Ms. Chang. “Loses everything.”

Ms. Bina. “He loses everything, including his kids.” and, again, actually, that one is not actually an inconsistent statement, if you go by what the text says. The text says — doesn’t attribute an author to that. Mr. Ortega was asked, “did you ever tell Karen Faye that AEG said that?” it’s possible that Mr. Ortega said it to Karen Faye without it being from AEG. They didn’t ask that question. So in any event, Ms. Faye might have an independent recollection that impeaches on those two statements alone. The other four, there’s no basis for admission whatsoever. Then we get to the second question of, well, can she read from the texts as to those two statements? And the law is very clear that that is not permissible; that past recollection recorded, two things have to happen first: first, the witness can have no independent recollection. Ms. Faye has testified under oath that she remembers specifically everything that happened.

Judge. Did she say that in trial or in the depo?

Ms. Bina. She said that in the trial.

Mr. Putnam. In trial.

Ms. Bina. She had the text in front of her, and she said, “I remember. I don’t need the texts. I remember specifically what happened on June 18th.” now, it’s possible they’ll bring her back in, and she’ll magically forget all that. But she testified to all that repeatedly under oath at her deposition and elsewhere.

[AFTER SHE SAW HER MESSAGES SHE RECALLED IT]

Mr. Putnam. At trial.

Ms. Bina. So I don’t have any reason to believe she will suddenly have a lapse of memory, requiring her to read these two texts. So first the witness has to have no recollection at all. Then –

Judge. And if she doesn’t, you refresh.

Ms. Bina. Then you refresh. Exactly, your honor. And the law is very, very clear, and we cited the authorities in our opposition papers, that if the witness is refreshed and then can testify, then you don’t get it in as a past recollection recorded.

Judge. Right.

Ms. Bina. Only if, after attempting to refresh, the witness still has no memory of what happened, then you can read from the document.

Judge. And that’s usually only in the case where it’s such a lengthy document, such a lengthy list of something, that nobody can possibly retain it just by reading it on the stand. That’s usually how it happens.

Mr. Putnam. And how we’ve done it in this trial.

Ms. Bina. Right. The problem here, your honor, is that reading from the document as to those two statements wouldn’t actually impeach Mr. Ortega, because the document doesn’t attribute them to Mr. Ortega. So we have this sort of convoluted situation here where there’s text messages that they’re basically trying to get in to bolster Ms. Faye’s credibility, which they can’t do unless it’s challenged. And there’s no grounds for admitting at least four of the six statements in question. Again, Ms. Faye might have a recollection that might contradict Mr. Ortega’s denial on two specific statements, and they could potentially bring her in, ask her those two questions. She can testify as to her recollection. If we then challenged it, then she might get it in, in part, as an inconsistent statement. But that’s the only way the text would ever come in.

Mr. Panish. Clearly comes in –

Ms. Bina. Not past recollection recorded unless she can’t remember it. And even, after being refreshed on it, can’t remember it actually happening, at which point then I suppose you could read it in, but it would have to be actually inconsistent, and it’s not. So that’s –

Judge. I would be surprised, because it’s one sentence, how you would not remember. How could you not be refreshed?

Ms. Bina. Particularly since she said it multiple times, including under oath, and testified a month ago that she could remember specifically everything, and the text only clarified the dates for her. Then turning to the last issue, your honor, which is the forensic examination of the text. Since I don’t think there’s any basis to admit the texts, I don’t think there’s any need to go through forensically examining them. But there is a concern here. Ms. Faye was subpoenaed in two different cases. She came — she brought documents to her depositions, including documents that, you know, showed that she was concerned about Mr. Jackson that she sent to Mr. Dileo saying he was thin, and he was sabotaging himself, and so on and so forth. She didn’t bring the texts. She didn’t bring the texts in at all. She didn’t bring them when she first testified at trial. She instead brought them on her second or third appearance and said, “oh, I’ve suddenly found the texts.” well, again, your honor, we’d ask the opportunity to examine, if your honor was inclined to admit the texts, because it’s suspicious when they were discovered. It’s also very, very easy to fake. You only have the printout of the texts. And as your honor will recall, we went away at lunch and figured out exactly how easy it is to change the dates on an iPhone conversation, and it’s super, super easy. Takes two minutes. So we’d like the opportunity to prove that hadn’t been done. And, again, there is some reason to doubt Ms. Faye’s –

Mr. Putnam. Veracity.

Ms. Bina. Ms. Faye’s here, because we know at least one instance she was selective in what she produced. She produced an e-mail for the plaintiffs’ version of the case but not defendants, which is when –

Judge. The “yippee”?

Ms. Bina. Yes. “yippee,” “everything’s great.”

Mr. Putnam. Same conversation.

Ms. Bina. And there’s another e-mail in that same time period, your honor, where she says, “I’m very protective of Michael Jackson’s image, and I’ll do anything to protect it.” so she’s a witness who has a motive not — she has, frankly, a motive to fabricate something. I’m not saying she did it, but I’m saying, before we put it to a jury, I’d like an opportunity to examine that, particularly when she didn’t produce it in response to discovery, and she’s been selective in what she’s produced. But I don’t think we need to deal with any of that, because the only two statements at issue aren’t directly contradicted by the texts, so I don’t think there are any grounds for ever getting to the texts. The only issue is whether Ms. Faye can come in and testify against Mr. Ortega as to the two statements he actually said “no” to. And that may be, but I think at that point, your honor, it’s pretty irrelevant as to whether kenny ortega ever told her –

[WHY NOT LET THE JURY DECIDE?]

Judge. It’s pretty marginal.

Mr. Putnam. So marginal, your honor.

Judge. Benefit is pretty marginal.

Ms. Bina. Very marginal.

Ms. Chang. But it’s our –

Judge. I know it’s your case. I think even if you get that, it’s so marginal –

Ms. Chang. Do we want to leave the impression it’s all hugs and kisses from AEG?

Judge. We have enough of that impression.

Mr. Putnam. And, your honor, that’s why –

Mr. Panish. Are we coming back at 1:30?

Judge. One thing, and then I have to let the staff go.

Ms. Chang. I’m so sorry, your honor. The thing about Karen Faye on the texts, we don’t know until we lay the foundation. We were interrupted, we didn’t do it, so we just don’t know. The second thing, I just want to state this for Karen Faye because I think a lot of bad things have been said on the record. As an officer of the court, I went to get the phone from her. I asked her, “can you show me how you went and retrieved all this?” it was the most tedious thing. She had to go back all the way to 2009 and scroll down. There was no fabrication of any evidence there. I saw — it must have taken her days to go back that far. And so with respect to that, I feel — especially since she so gladly went over and said, “do any forensic analysis that you want to do.” but it is degrading, it’s humiliating. But with that said, why don’t we all powwow, take a break, see where we are. I think we all agree that she’s entitled to do something. We can lay foundation for other things, and then we can all discuss how marginal or helpful it would be over lunch.

Judge. That’s what I suggest you do.

Mr. Putnam. Yes, because we don’t agree –

Ms. Bina. But, your honor, I don’t think there’s really any room for debate. There’s only two statements, and Ms. Faye can come in –

Judge. I’m done with the argument. I wanted to focus on the marginality of the benefit.

Ms. Chang. Let me –

Judge. Say this to Mr. Putnam.

Mr. Panish. When — what are we going to work on this afternoon?

Ms. Chang. Statement of damages brief.

Judge. Statement of damages. And I guess to the extent we can finish this –

Ms. Bina. Should be able to.

Ms. Chang. Okay.

Mr. Panish. Okay.

Mr. Putnam. 1:45, your honor?

Judge. Yes. 1:45.

Mr. Panish. Okay. Thank you, your honor.

Ms. Bina. Thank you, your honor

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 3):
Admin (02 ноя 2013, 23:12) • Lina (02 ноя 2013, 18:22) • franklin5569 (02 ноя 2013, 17:20)
Рейтинг: 27.27%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

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

Пред.След.

Вернуться в СУД / COURT

cron