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

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

#1111  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 18 дек 2013, 03:45

Katherine Jackson wants new trial for AEG lawsuit, cites flawed jury instructions, verdict form



Lawyers for the King of Pop's mom claim the jury never got a chance to debate Dr. Conrad Murray's actions around the time of Michael Jackson's death, but instead were 'forced' to focus too heavily on Murray's history and actions at the time of his hiring.

Изображение
Michael Jackson's mother Katherine Jackson (center) is seeking a new wrongful death trial because the verdict form and instructions the jury received were flawed, her lawyers say.

Katherine Jackson wants a do-over of her failed wrongful death trial because the verdict form and instructions given to the jury were totally off the wall, new documents obtained by the Daily News reveal.

Lawyers for the King of Pop's 83-year-old mom signaled their intent to seek a new trial on Dec. 2, but the new paperwork made available Monday outlines the grounds of their argument.

They claim the jury never got a chance to tackle the heart of the case because their questionnaire "forced" them to focus too heavily on Dr. Conrad Murray's history and actions at the time of his hiring as Michael's personal physician.

The jury never got a chance to debate Murray's actions around the time of Michael's June 2009 overdose death, they claim.

Изображение
Lawyers for the King of Pop's mom say the jury was never able to debate Dr. Conrad Murray's actions around the time of Michael Jackson's June 2009 overdose death.

"The jury patiently sat through 86 days of trial, heard testimony from 57 witnesses and saw portions of over 800 exhibits, the bulk of which concerned the issue of whether defendant AEG Live LLC created an improper ethical conflict of interest between Dr. Conrad Murray and Michal Jackson that caused the desperate physician to make poor and rash decisions that ultimately led to the death of the patient entrusted to his care," the Dec. 12 filing written by Katherine's lawyers at the law firm Panish Shea and Boyle states.

After six months of trial and lengthy closing arguments in a Los Angeles courthouse, the jury retired to deliberate on Sept. 27.

"And then, suddenly and unexpectedly, it was over. The deliberations abruptly stopped before discussion on the most critical issues even began," the new filing says.

The first two questions of the jury verdict form "forced the jurors to focus solely on negligent hiring and whether Dr. Murray was unfit and incompetent at the time of hiring — even if they believed that he became unfit and incompetent because of the conflict at a later time," the filing argues.

Изображение
The jury in the wrongful death trial was 'forced' to focus too heavily on the history and actions of Dr. Conrad Murray (right) at the time of his hiring as Michael Jackson's physician, lawyers say.

"Both the verdict form and the modified (jury instructions) given to the jury were erroneous and misstated California law," Katherine's lawyers claim.

"Without even being given the opportunity to deliberate on the negligent supervision and negligent retention claims, the jurors had no choice but to reach an unjust verdict on Oct. 2, 2013," they argue.

Katherine sued concert promoter AEG Live in 2010, claiming the giant behind Michael's doomed "This Is It" comeback concert series set up a dangerous conflict of interest and failed to properly supervise Murray despite obvious red flags.

AEG denied any wrongdoing, arguing that Michael personally hired his doctor and kept his use of the surgery-strength anesthetic propofol a closely guarded secret.

"(Asking for a) new trial is the first step before appeal," Katherine's lawyer Brian Panish told The News two weeks ago.

The Dec. 2 notice came as lawyers for AEG Live filed their own papers demanding that Katherine's side pay $1.2 million in costs since the jury ultimately rejected her request for upwards of $1 billion in damages.

"It is tragic that plaintiffs refuse to accept the jury's verdict and move on from this baseless lawsuit," AEG Live's lawyer Marvin Putnam said in a statement to The News. "As the world knows, Michael Jackson provided handsomely for his children and his mother in his will. Clearly this lawsuit was not originally brought — nor is it now being done — to meet their needs. It is time to let these children move on from this tragedy so they can properly recover from the loss of their father."
Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 5):
franklin5569 (24 дек 2013, 01:51) • Admin (19 дек 2013, 00:30) • Trueamore (18 дек 2013, 22:41) • MagicalLove (18 дек 2013, 19:04) • Olenca (18 дек 2013, 16:17)
Рейтинг: 45.45%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

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

Re: Мама Katherine Jackson

#1112  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 19 дек 2013, 01:03

Katherine Jackson to AEG
YOU'RE CHARGING
ME FOR PARKING!!!


Изображение

Katherine Jackson is irate that AEG is asking her to pay more than $1.2 million in costs associated with the Michael Jackson wrongful death trial ... claiming many of the so-called "expenses" are bogus.

AEG -- which won the case -- is asking the judge to sock Katherine with court costs. But according to new docs, obtained by TMZ, Katherine is blanching at a bunch of them, including:

-- $540,000 in models and blow-up court exhibits
-- $20,000 for 1,000 pages of jury instruction paper and other stuff
-- $53,000 for process servers
-- $118,000 unnecessary depositions

Katherine is even grousing about the $9 parking fees tacked on for court reporters to show up for the trial.

A judge hasn't decided what, if anything, Katherine will have to shell out.

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 7):
MagicalLove (19 дек 2013, 21:03) • Dream (19 дек 2013, 20:47) • Lina (19 дек 2013, 15:33) • Trueamore (19 дек 2013, 10:36) • TAIS (19 дек 2013, 09:09) • Admin (19 дек 2013, 01:42) • franklin5569 (19 дек 2013, 01:27)
Рейтинг: 63.64%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

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

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1113  Сообщение MagicalLove » 19 дек 2013, 20:56

AEG Wants Jackson To Pay Legal Costs/АЭГ хочет чтобы Джексоны заплатили судебные издержки

Изображение
December 19 2013 at 07:26am

London – Katherine Jackson is furious that AEG Live wants her to pay their $1.2 million legal costs.

A jury ruled on October 2 that the concert promoters were not to blame for her son Michael Jackson’s death in 2009 and not wrong for hiring disgraced physician, Conrad Murray, to care for the ‘Thriller’ hitmaker before his This Is It comeback concert series in London, as he was neither “unfit” nor “incompetent” at the time, and the company is now asking a judge to make the Jackson family matriarch cover all of its court fees.

A source told gossip website TMZ.com that Katherine is irate and thinks many of AEG’s so-called “expenses” are bogus.

The company has included an itemised list of its costs from the five-month trial in new court documents, including $540,000 for models and blow-up court exhibits, $118,000 for unnecessary depositions, $53,000 for process servers and $20,000 for 1,000 pages of jury instructions and other documents.

AEG also wants Katherine to pay its $9 parking fees.

The judge overseeing the case has yet to decided if she will be held responsible for the legal fees.

The 83 year old filed court documents seeking a new trial in her wrongful death lawsuit against the concert promoters earlier this month.

It was previously revealed that she was still hopeful after hearing comments made the jury following the conclusion of the original trial and her lawyer Brian Panish confirmed they were gathering information for an appeal.

He said: “She isn’t throwing in the towel. We can’t give up until we gather all the information. Today is another chapter.”

http://www.iol.co.za/tonight/aeg-wants- ... -1.1624412
Изображение

you are in my heart forever icon_colorfulherats

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора MagicalLove поблагодарили (всего 6):
Lina (24 дек 2013, 11:44) • franklin5569 (24 дек 2013, 01:51) • Liberian Girl (20 дек 2013, 02:55) • Trueamore (19 дек 2013, 22:50) • Admin (19 дек 2013, 22:42) • TAIS (19 дек 2013, 21:36)
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

#1114  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 21 дек 2013, 19:20

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/
Bubs

Future Hearings

01/03/2014 at 08:46 am in department 28 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion for New Trial

04/14/2014 at 08:46 am in department 28 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion to Tax Costs

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 6):
Lina (24 дек 2013, 11:44) • franklin5569 (24 дек 2013, 01:51) • TAIS (22 дек 2013, 00:29) • Trueamore (21 дек 2013, 21:29) • MagicalLove (21 дек 2013, 21:28) • Admin (21 дек 2013, 20:49)
Рейтинг: 54.55%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

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

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1115  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 24 дек 2013, 01:43

THE DECLARATIONS OF FOUR HONEST JURORS /
ЗАЯВЛЕНИЕ ЧЕТЫРЕХ ПРИСЯЖНЫХ


The series about Conrad Murray is not finished, but it is simply impossible to go on keeping silence about the declarations of four jurors made after the recent AEG trial.

These honest and courageous people openly admitted that they had been trapped during their deliberations by the way the verdict form was worded and by the arguments of some super-active juror who persuaded them that question No.2 was about the time Murray was hired only.

Sometimes it takes only one well-prepared person to confuse the minds of unsuspecting people. It was indeed a trap as everything this juror said was wrong.

Firstly, no one can be really sure when the moment of hiring Murray was. Until June 24thMurray was working without a contract and was on a kind of probation with AEG within which time his future employer had more than enough chance to see him in action. The fact that Michael’s health deteriorated was seen by everyone with a naked eye and provided overwhelming proof of his total ineptitude for the job.

However even if we give up all theory over the question and simply read it as: “Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?” every normal person will answer it: “His job was to keep his patient safe and sound and this is exactly what he didn’t do, so the answer is – he was unfit and incompetent for the job”. Any other reply would be a violation of simple common sense.

And this is essentially what the four honest jurors are saying in their affidavits. However even when the truth is simple it is not always easy to tell it. This is why the sense of responsibility of these four jurors and their fortitude in going against the tide are awesome.

When things like that happen it restores some hope in humankind in general. When people like that exist you realize that all is not lost yet.

These people know that their declarations can still lead nowhere but they cannot keep silent and live in a compromise with their conscience. Their choice is to stand up and fight. My hat is off to these great jurors – no matter what is awaiting all of us we can say that they have fulfilled their duty and honestly did their job.

Here are their declarations retyped so that each reader can translate them into their language and take the word further. The affidavits come without any comment because when the truth speaks it does not require any.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT’

KATHERINE JACKSON, individually and as the Guardian ad Litem of MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON, JR., PARIS-MICHAEL KATHERINE JACKSON, and PRINCE MICHALE JACKSON II, Plaintiffs,

v.

AEG LIVE LLC, ANSCHUTZ ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC. AEG LIVE PRODUCTIONS, LLC;L BRANDON PHILLIPS, as individual; PAUL GONGAWARE, an individual; TIMOTHY LEIWEKE, an individual and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive.

Case No. BC445597 [Assigned for all purposes to Hon. Yvette M. Palazuelos, Dept. 28]


Изображение

Exhibit 1

DECLARATION OF …..

I, ….., declare as follows:

1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the matters stated herein.

2. My experience as a juror in this case was the first that I have ever served on a jury before and after such a long and important trial, I really wanted to perform my duty as a juror to the best of my ability.

3. Since the jury verdict, I have been very upset, and initially I was unable to eat or even check my emails because 1 was so sorry about the verdict and the fact that justice was not done in this case, because of how question 2 on the verdict form was worded.

4. Although I was eager to begin deliberations and discuss the evidence, I did not ever get the chance to discuss any of the important issues that arose in the trial because of the jury verdict form. The verdict form limited our discussions to only the hiring issue, even though the most evidence presented at trial involved the issue of the conflict of interest created by AEG Live between Dr. Conrad Murray and Michael Jackson.

5. Question 2 on the verdict form asked: “Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?” The clear meaning of that question, when coupled with the first question asking, “Did AEG Live hire Dr. Conrad Murray?”, limited our consideration to Dr. Murray’s competency at the time he was hired. The question did not allow us to discuss the issue of whether Dr. Murray became unfit or incompetent later in time.

6. I was shocked to see that we had to stop our deliberations at the end of Question 2 if we voted “no” to the question of whether Dr. Murray was unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired, I wanted and expected to deliberate on the issues of negligent supervision and negligent retention, which we had been instructed and told were separate theories.

7. I do not believe that the verdict form was fair or worded correctly, and as phrased, Question 2 was a trap that prevented us from deliberating on the real issues in the case. The question in this trial was not whether Dr. Murray was unfit or incompetent at the time that he was hired – but whether AEG Live should have hired him at all, and whether Dr. Murray was rendered unfit and incompetent because of the creation of a conflict of interest.

8. I do not understand why there were no time frames put in these questions – and I believe that the addition of the words “at any time” to Question No. 2 would have helped. The question was too specific and narrow, making it impossible for us to answer the question logically.

9. This was a very unfair and upsetting way to end the case. There was no question in my mind that AEG Live was liable, but I had no way of discussing this issue because of Question 2 on the verdict form. …………………………………………………………….. ……… …………… ………… …………………………………I will always feel badly for what happened in this case.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed December 11, 2013 at ……………………………, California.


Изображение

EXHIBIT 2

DECLARATION OF ……….

I,…………, declare as follows:

1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the matters stated herein.

2. After sitting though almost six months of the trial in this case, I believe that Mrs. Jackson had proven her case against AEG Live. Despite this fact, I had no way of voting in favor of the Plaintiffs because of the way that the verdict form was worded.

3. Question 2 of the verdict form asked: “Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?” When we reached this question, …………… discussed with us the fact that the clear meaning of that question, when coupled with the first question asking, “Did AEG Live hire Dr. Conrad Murray?”, gave us no choice but to consider Dr. Murray’s competency at the time he was hired. We discussed the fact that the question did not allow us to vote or discuss the issue of whether Dr. Murray became unfit or incompetent later in time. I believe that the evidence showed that Dr. Murray became unfit because of the conflict created after AEG Live tried to control Dr. Murray and make him get Michael Jackson to practice.

4. I was shocked to see that we had to stop our deliberations at the end of Question 2
if we voted ‘no” to the question of whether Dr. Murray was unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired. I wanted and expected to continue to talk about the issues of negligent supervision and negligent retention, which we had been instructed and told were separate theories. I do not think whether or not Dr. Murray was competent to be a general practitioner for the tour at the time that he was hired had anything to do with the real issues in this case.

5. Many jurors became very upset about the fact that we were not able to continue or complete our deliberations – especially because we had spent a lot of time listening to the evidence in this case. One juror, ……. refused to stop deliberating and he insisted that we continue answering the rest of the questions, Our foreman, ………, told ….. that we would send our verdict to the judge, and she would tell us if we completed it incorrectly.

6. I do not believe that the verdict form was fair or worded correctly, and I do not think that justice was achieved in this case.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed December 10, 2013 at ……………………………, California.


Изображение

EXHIBIT 3

DECLARATION OF ………….

I, ……, declare as follows:

1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the matters stated herein.

2. Being selected for and serving on the jury for this trial was one of the greatest experiences of my life. For such an important case, I would have been willing to deliberate fully and thoroughly until December. I took my role as a juror very seriously, and even before we began deliberations, I asked for all the evidence to be brought into the jury room.

3. To my shock and huge disappointment, however, I never got the chance to discuss the most important issues or review the most pertinent e-mails because of the confusing verdict form and the order in which the questions appeared on that form. To this day, I cannot understand why we had to stop deliberating after answering Question 2, or why we were prevented from discussing the ethical conflict or any of the real issues in this case.

4. Question 2 of the verdict form asked: “Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?” When we reached this question, ……… …. discussed with us the fact that the clear meaning of that question, when coupled with, the first question asking, “Did AEG Live hire Dr. Conrad Murray? “, gave us no choice but to consider Dr. Murray’s competency at the time he was hired. 1 believed that the question should have included the words “at any time”, but it did not I also thought that it would have been preferable to have this question at the end of the form. The real issues in this case were the negligent retention and negligent supervision of Dr. Murray by AEG Live – and we should have been allowed to discuss those issues first.

5. During our deliberations, 1 asked to send a question to the judge to explain Question 2, but by then the foreman had already answered “no” and followed the instructions to sign the form. I feel so cheated because I sat through more than five months of trial and listened to a lot of evidence on the ethical conflict created – yet I never got to even deliberate at all on that issue or even review the hundreds of exhibits that had been brought in. Most of the jurors discussed the fact that they also believed that such an ethical conflict existed, but our deliberations

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the forgoing is true and correct.

Executed December 11, 2013, at ……………………………….. California.


Изображение

EXHIBIT 4

DECLARATION OF ……….

I,…………, declare as follows:

1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the matters stated herein.

2. I want to have this opportunity to share my thoughts and feelings with Judge Palazuelos about the jury instructions and verdict.

3. As jurors, we did everything that was asked of us, made sacrifices, and willingly sat through almost sis months of a very important trial. The case, however, ended abruptly thus rendering a verdict for the defense. The verdict form caused us to stop deliberating after Question 2. I believe that the verdict form was ambiguous; and that it did not provide a way for the jurors to move forward in our deliberations.

4. I believe that some of the jurors wanted to render a verdict for the Plaintiffs, and some of the jurors were stunned and upset after learning that we had to stop deliberations after answering “no” to Question 2. Question 2 of the verdict form asked: “Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?” When we reached this question, one of the jurors, discussed with us the fact that the clear meaning of that question, when coupled with the first question asking, “Did AEG live hire Dr. Conrad Murray?”, gave us no choice but to consider Dr. Murray’s competency at the time he was hired.

5. I discussed with the jurors my belief that the strongest claims for the Plaintiff were negligent supervision and negligent retention – but we were never allowed to deliberate on those claims because of the verdict form. One of the jurors, …… even refused to stop deliberating and he wanted to continue answering the remainder of the questions. We discussed writing a question to the judge about the question, but we did not want anyone to know where we were in the deliberations.

6. I would like the judge to know that we did not have the opportunity to deliberate or render a verdict on the Plaintiffs” claims that Dr. Murray did not become unfit or incompetent until after the conflict of interest was created, Dr. Murray’s duties were changed, pressures were mounting, or even after the contract was prepared and signed by Dr. Murray.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed December 12, 2013 at ……………………………, California.


Here are the originals: http://ru.scribd.com/doc/191359933/Jury ... -new-trial

The declarations are attached to the Plaintiff’s Motion for a new trial filed on December 12, 2013.
I don’t agree with the Plaintiff’s estimation of Kenny Ortega’s role in the case but let us consider it a minor issue.

Here is an excerpt from the document:


PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

(filed Concurrently with Declaration of Deborah S. Chang in Support Thereof)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In this unique case involving an extraordinary decedent and an unprecedented factual scenario, Plaintiffs have continuously claimed that Defendants were negligent in the manner in which they hired Dr. Murray, wrongfully interfered with the doctor-patient relationship, and turned a traditional two-party relationship into a dangerous and risky three-party arrangement in which Dr. Murray was unduly pressured into keeping the Artist on the stage and the show on the road at all costs. The evidence presented in this case showed that AEG Live wanted the King of Pop to return to the stage at the 02 so badly that it was willing to do the unthinkable: it agreed to pay for a doctor who was willing to put his prescription pad on sale for an exorbitant price. Defendants knew or should have known exactly what Dr. Conrad Murray was and what he offered: an unlimited supply of prescription drugs. And Defendants needed Dr. Murray to make sure that Michael Jackson got back up on that stage where they needed him to be.

By April of 2009, too much was on the line. Randy Phillips had just seen Michael Jackson at the March 5, 2009 press conference, where just hours before Michael Jackson was found “locked in his room drunk and despondent” (Trial Ex. 93, attached as Ex. 6 to Chang Declaration). It was “the scariest thing” he had ever seen: Michael Jackson was an “emotionally paralyzed mess riddled with self loathing and doubt” (Id). In order to get him out of the room, Mr. Phillips had to scream at him “so loud the walls [were] shaking”, throw him in a cold shower, and then “slapped him” (Id; Trial Ex. 2780, attached as Ex. 7 to Chang Declaration). But by then, AEG Live could not “back off” because it “would be a disaster” for the company, which was “holding all the risk” (Trial Ex. 178, attached as Ex. 8 to Chang Declaration). Mr. Phillips got Michael Jackson on the stage for the press conference, but Mr. Jackson was, at best, described as “underwhelming” and “he did not give [AEG Live executives] the feeling that he was together enough to do 30 shows” (Trial Ex. 102, attached as Ex. 9 to Chang Declaration). The ticket sales, however, were overwhelming: it was a “cultural phenomenon”, with 50 shows selling out in record time (Trial Ex. 663-142, attached as Ex. 10 to Chang Declaration; Trial Ex. 112, attached as Ex. 11 to Chang Declaration). Randy Phillips knew that “the next battle” was going to be “getting [Michael Jackson] to play those shows” (Trial Ex. 102, attached as Ex. 9 to Chang Declaration). As March ended, he was asking people, “Odds I get MJ through the 50 O2s?” (Trial Ex. 121, attached as Ex. 12 to Chang Declaration).

With the shows sold out, AEG Live still had a huge problem: “This is It” was only insured for accident cancellation in the amount of $17.5 million – yet its production costs were already $30 million (Trial Testimony of Shawn Trell, attached as Ex. 13 to Chang Declaration at 4923:22-4924:4). It was the first time in AEG Live’s history that the company had ever had insufficient insurance to cover production costs (Id at 4924:14-19). Even worse, there was zero sickness cancellation insurance until Michael Jackson could be examined by a physician in London – which meant that if a show had to be postponed or cancelled due to sickness, AEG Live would have to repay ticketholders (Id. at 4925:11 -15; 4927:1 -3). No one at AEG Live knew if Michael Jackson could cover the mounting costs of the production (Id. at 4371:20-25). There was, understandably, concern within AEG Live because the company had never lost $30 million before (Id. at 4945:7-10). For AEG Live, it was critical for Michael Jackson to get up on that stage to perform the shows – and no one knew if he would or could.

Defendants made the decision to do something unheard of in the industry or by any expert in this case: step in between the doctor-patient relationship, and turn a traditional two-party relationship into a non-traditional three-party one. Defendants chose to do much more than just agree to pay Dr. Murray $150,000 a month; they entered into a contractual relationship with him. By doing so, Defendants interfered with the doctor-patient relationship and controlled the terms of the engagement. Most importantly, Defendants made it known to Dr. Murray that he could be terminated by AEG Live at any time and for any reason if the “This is It” shows were cancelled or postponed (Trial Ex. 343, attached as Ex. 14 to Chang Declaration at 7,2). Incredulously, AEG Live made the conscious decision to take responsibility for the hiring of Dr. Murray and committed a substantial portion of the production budget to his retention without first checking into his background. The show had to go on – and AEG Live would do “whatever it took” to make sure it did (Trial Testimony of Paul Gongaware, attached as Ex. 15 to Chang Declaration at 5297:6-10). Paul Gongaware told Dr. Murray that he “wanted him to have everything he needed” to get the job done (Id at 5297:18-27). Dr. Murray requested an array of medical equipment, including a cardio pulmonary resuscitation unit, saline, catheters, needles, a gurney and a “qualified assistant medical person” to be approved by AEG Live (Trial Ex. 343, attached as Ex. 14 to Chang Declaration at 3.3; 3.4), to which Defendants turned a blind eye.

Defendants continued to manipulate the relationship and reinforce the existing conflict by reminding Dr. Murray “that it is AEG, not MJ, who is paying his salary” and making him “understand what is expected of him” (Trial Ex. 256, attached as Ex. 16 to Chang Declaration). They made it clear to Dr. Murray that Michael Jackson could not delay the show from opening and thus could not continuously miss rehearsals – despite his obvious gradual deterioration. When director Kenny Ortega and others associated with the production began sounding well-intentioned alarms about Mr. Jackson’s declining health, Randy Phillips lied to silence such alarms. He falsely told Kenny Ortega that Dr. Murray “is extremely successful (we check everyone out) and does not need this gig so he [is] totally unbiased and ethical” (Trial Ex. 307, attached as Ex. 17 to Chang Declaration). He also told Kenny Ortega to stop being an “amateur psychiatrist or physician” and warned him: “You cannot imagine the harm and ramifications of stopping this show now” (Id). To make certain that Kenny Ortega was silenced, Mr. Phillips called Dr. Murray before a critical meeting to discuss Mr. Ortega’s concerns in a 23-minute phone call. At the meeting, Dr. Murray parroted Mr. Phillips’ words and told Mr. Ortega to “stay in his lane” and stop sending Michael Jackson home from rehearsals. AEG Live thereafter designated Dr. Murray, instead of Mr. Ortega, as one of the persons responsible for Michael Jackson’s attendance at rehearsal (Trial Ex. 336, attached as Ex. 18 to Chang Declaration).

Defendants’ decision to create such a conflict of interest while hiring Dr. Murray was a fatal one. Because of Dr. Murray’s precarious financial situation, the AEG Live deal caused him to make desperate and unwise medical decisions that ultimately led to Michael Jackson’s untimely death (Trial Testimony of Dr. Gordon Matheson, attached as Ex. 19 to Chang Declaration at 8400:3-8). Within two short months, Michael Jackson died as a result of an unintentional overdose of prescription drugs administered by a doctor who was more interested in keeping the show, instead of his patient, alive.

……

This Court modified this instruction by adding another element, “That AEG Live hired Dr. Conrad Murray”. When that first element was coupled with the next element, “That Dr. Conrad Murray was unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired”, the instruction wrongfully placed all of the emphasis on the unfitness or incompetence of Dr. Murray at the time of hire – even though such characteristics or even his assigned duties could have changed after he was already hired. The verdict form that was prepared pursuant to this modified instruction required the jurors to end deliberations if the answer to the second question was “No”. As given, these instructions and the verdict form were misleading and erroneous in that they did not distinguish between a negligent hiring claim (what the employer knew or should have known at the time of hiring) and a negligent retention or negligent supervision claim (what the employer knew or should have known during the courts of the relationship).

As a result, the instructions and the verdict form permitted the jury to only focus on

the knowledge AEG Live had at the time of hiring instead of what it learned or should I have learned during the course of the relationship. By forcing the jurors to stop if they answered “No” to Question Number 2 on the verdict form, the form never allowed the jurors to consider AEG Live’s separate ongoing duties relating to supervision and retention. This Court, in its ruling on Motion for Nonsuit, specifically found that after Dr. Murray’s hiring and until Michael Jackson’s death, “substantial evidence has been presented at trial from which a jury can reasonably infer that Defendant knew or should have known that Dr. Murray presented an undue risk of harm to Decedent.” (Court’s Ruling on Defendants’ Motion for Nonsuit at 14:5-9). Listed within such substantial evidence were numerous events that occurred after Dr. Murray was hired, including AEG Live’s preparation and negotiation of a contract to the exclusion of Michael Jackson, the

inclusion of a clause within such contract that allowed AEG Live to terminate Dr, Murray if the show was postponed or cancelled, the increased pressures inflicted on Dr. Murray by ABO Live after Kenny Ortega threatened to shut down or postpone the show, and the obvious deterioration of Michael Jackson that continued up to the time of his death, The jurors, however, never had the opportunity to consider such substantial evidence.

The erroneous jury instructions and verdict form given to the jury constituted prejudicial error because it misted the jury and affected the verdict. See Spriesterhach v, Holland (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 255,263. Based on interviews of several jurors, it is more than probable that they would have come to a different conclusion but for the erroneous instruction and verdict form (See Declarations of four Jurors, attached to Chang Declaration at Ex. 1 through 4). Many of the jurors, who sacrificed so much to serve on this jury, are understandably upset that they were “trapped” by a question that had nothing to do with the real issues of this case. One juror even refused to stop after Question 2, and wanted to continue deliberating on the issues of negligent supervision and retention. Because the jurors read the question so literally, some believed that the addition of the words “at any time*’, specifically requested by Plaintiffs, would have helped.

As written, however, the instructions and verdict form effectively took from the jury any consideration of whether AEG Live negligently supervised or negligently retained Dr. Murray.…


http://ru.scribd.com/doc/191359618/Jack ... -New-Trial

And here is Alan Duke’s article explaining some details:

Michael Jackson death trial jurors: ‘Stunned,’ ‘cheated’ by verdict process
By Alan Duke, CNN

December 13, 2013 — Updated 0533 GMT (1333 HKT)

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Four jurors gave sworn statements to help Katherine Jackson get a new trial
The trial ended with a victory for the concert promoter that Jackson’s family had sued
One juror called the verdict form “a trap that prevented us from deliberating on the real issues”
“I do not think that justice was achieved in this case,” another jurors says
Los Angeles (CNN) – Four jurors in the Michael Jackson wrongful death trial said they feel cheated by the outcome, which they blame on a misleading verdict form.

The six-month-long trial ended in October with a victory for AEG Live, the concert promoter Jackson’s mother and children had claimed was liable for his death because it hired, retained or supervised the doctor convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death.

The jurors, whose sworn statements were attached to a motion for a new trial filed Thursday by Katherine Jackson’s lawyers, said most of the jury wanted to find concert promoter AEG Live liable in Jackson’s 2009 death.

Along with arguing that the verdict form was faulty, the Jackson lawyers contend the judge erred by refusing to let them pursue a negligence claim independent of the hiring case.

Jackson died from an overdose of the surgical anesthetic propofol on June 25, 2009, which Dr. Conrad Murray told police he used to treat the pop icon’s insomnia as he prepared for a tour produced by AEG Live.

They jurors used the words “stunned,” “upset” and “shocked” when they were told they had to stop deliberations after a majority agreed that the answer was “no” to the second question on the verdict form — “Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?”

One juror called the question “a trap that prevented us from deliberating on the real issues of the case.”

“After sitting through almost six months of the trial in this case, I believed that Mrs. Jackson had proven her case against AEG LIve,” another juror said. “Despite this fact, I had no way of voting in favor of the plaintiffs because of the way that the verdict form was worded.”

Jackson lawyers, in their arguments for a new trial, contend that Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazeulos erred by denying their request to add the words “at any time” to the question.

The four jurors, whose names were redacted from the documents released by the court, agreed.

“I would like the judge to know that we did not have the opportunity to deliberate or render a verdict on the plaintiffs claims that Dr Murray did not become unfit or incompetent until after the conflict of interest was created, Dr. Murray’s duties were changed, pressures were mounting, or even after the contract was prepared and signed by Dr. Murray,” one juror said.

The jury voted “no” only after one member convinced them that the question could have only meant “at the time he was hired,” two of the juror statements said.

“During our deliberations, I asked to send a question to the judge to explain Question 2, but by then the foreman had already answered ‘no’ and followed the instructions to sign the form,” one said. “I feel so cheated because I sat through five months of trial and listened to a lot of evidence on the ethical conflict created — yet I never got to even deliberate at all on that issue or even review the hundreds of exhibits that had been brought in.”

Another juror said they decided not to ask the judge for direction on the second question because “we did not want anyone to know where we were in deliberations.”

“I do not believe that the verdict form was fair or worded correctly, and as phrased, Question 2 was a trap that prevented us from deliberating on the real issues of the case,” a juror said.

The same juror described the emotional toll it has caused. “Since the jury verdict, I have been very upset, and initially I was unable to eat or even check my e-mails because I was so sorry about the verdict and the fact that justice was not done in this case, because of how question 2 on the verdict form was worded.”

“I do not think that justice was achieved in this case,” another said.

The affidavits revealed that one of the 12 jurors refused to stop deliberating despite being told it was over. “He insisted that we continue answering the rest of the questions,” a juror said.

Judge Palazeulos will hear arguments on the new trial motion on January 3.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/12/showb ... isqus-area


So the first news will be on January 3, 2014 and we don’t have long to wait.

In the meantime our good old AEG is expecting Katherine Jackson to cover their costs on the trial amounting to $1,2 million:


Katherine Jackson wants another shot at AEG lawsuit; gives ‘notice of intent’ for new trial
The Jackson matriarch is seeking another trial in the case against AEG Live over the death of Michael Jackson, citing possibe jury misconduct, her lawyer said.

BYNANCY DILLON / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
PUBLISHED: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2013, 7:36 AM
Jackson seeks another trial against concert giant AEG Live over her son Michael’s 2009 death. Katherine Jackson claims the company failed to properly investigate the doctor who was convicted in 2011 of involuntary manslaughter for the singer’s death, but the company denies all wrongdoing.

Michael Jackson’s mother wants another crack at concert promoter AEG Live.

Katherine Jackson filed paperwork on Monday to provide her “notice of intent” to ask for a new trial in the wrongful death case she lost in October.

Her lawyers cited possible jury misconduct and newly discovered evidence in the short filing.

“(Asking for a) new trial is the first step before appeal,” Katherine’s lawyer Brian Panish told the Daily News in a text Tuesday.

Jackson died in 2009. The pop icon’s family has been in a feud with concert promoter AEG Live over who is responsible for Jackson’s death.

The legal maneuvering came as lawyers for AEG Live filed their own papers demanding that Katherine’s side pay $1.2 million in costs since they brought the jury rejected her request for upwards of $1 billion in damages following a costly five month trial.

“It is tragic that plaintiffs refuse to accept the jury’s verdict and move on from this baseless lawsuit,” AEG Live’s lawyer Marvin Putnam said in a statement to the Daily News. “As the world knows, Michael Jackson provided handsomely for his children and his mother in his will. Clearly this lawsuit was not originally brought-nor is it now being done-to meet their needs. It is time to let these children move on from this tragedy so they can properly recover from the loss of their father.”

Another of Katherine’s lawyers disputed that statement.

“I can confirm that a multibillionaire and his corporations are demanding that the Jackson children pay them $1.2 million dollars. Happy holidays, each and every one,” Kevin Boyle said in a statement to The News Tuesday.”

But Putnam said the King of Pop was responsible for his own health and “demanded” that his personal physician, Dr. Conrad Murray, join him on his ill-fated “This Is It” tour.Jackson even demanded the drug that killed him-a drug he had abused for decades,” Putnam said Tuesday, referring to the surgery-strength anesthetic propofol.

“Jackson ignored several doctors who told him taking propofol for sleep could kill him. AEG Live had absolutely no knowledge of what Jackson was doing in his bedroom at night with his personal physician. And as the jury found, AEG Live could in no way be held responsible for Mr. Jackson’s death.”

He said a retrial would be a waste of time and money.

“Taxpayers have already spent a fortune paying for the judicial resources for a five month jury trial so that Katherine Jackson could bring this lawsuit and try to get more money,” Putnam said.

“The jury has spoken. And the jury got it right. AEG Live is confident that the Court will reject plaintiffs’ attempt to start all over again.”

ndillon@nydailynews.com

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainmen ... z2mXRN8VC5


Putnam is wrong. Four honest jurors say that they and the others didn’t get it right and justice was not served.

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 4):
MagicalLove (24 дек 2013, 13:17) • Lina (24 дек 2013, 11:45) • Admin (24 дек 2013, 03:07) • franklin5569 (24 дек 2013, 01:51)
Рейтинг: 36.36%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

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

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1116  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 25 дек 2013, 19:12

C.A. Orders Unsealing of Documents in Jackson Case
By a MetNews Staff Writer


A number of sealed documents in a writ proceeding growing out of the wrongful death litigation between Michael Jackson’s family and estate and concert promoter AEG Live have been ordered unsealed by the Court of Appeal for this district.

In an order filed Friday, Div. Five said there was little reason to keep medical records, financial information pertaining to witnesses, and pretrial motions in limine under seal in the appellate court. Presiding Justice Paul A. Turner noted that most of the documents were ordered unsealed by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos months ago, that her orders were not challenged in the appellate court, and that the medical information is therefore already public.

“Further, much of this information was discussed during the trial in People v. [Conrad] Murray,” Turner noted.

As for the business records, none of them appear to implicate significant privacy interests, Turner said, although bank account and social security numbers must be redacted.

The documents were filed in the Court of Appeal in connection with a writ petition by the defendants challenging the judge’s partial denial of their summary judgment motion. The writ was denied in March.
The defendants won a jury verdict in the case last fall. The plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to move for a new trial earlier this month.

Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 5):
TAIS (26 дек 2013, 20:14) • MagicalLove (26 дек 2013, 15:47) • Lina (26 дек 2013, 14:02) • Admin (26 дек 2013, 06:32) • Trueamore (25 дек 2013, 20:54)
Рейтинг: 45.45%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

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

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1117  Сообщение Trueamore » 26 дек 2013, 22:45

AEG TO KATHERINE JACKSON
YOU LOST
... Move On With Your Life!


Изображение

Katherine Jackson is not only WASTING HER TIME by appealing the AEG wrongful death case ... she's also making a mockery of the legal system ... so says AEG.

AEG just responded to Katherine's request for a new trial -- after Katherine argued that jurors were bamboozled because the jury instructions blocked them from being able hold AEG responsible for Conrad Murray's actions AFTER he was hired to take care of Michael Jackson.

Katherine had claimed that even if Murray was competent when AEG hired him, they should still be liable because he proved reckless and irresponsible during the months leading up to Jackson's death, and AEG did nothing to stop it.

But AEG claims Katherine is simply grasping at straws ... and her appeal is a pathetic last ditch effort from a desperate woman.

The entertainment giant also argues that the jury instructions were crystal clear and perfectly fair, taken directly from the California Civil Jury instruction guide book ... so too bad, so sad ... but that's the way the law works.

Ultimately, the judge will decide who's right on January 3rd ... when the case is due back in court.



http://www.tmz.com/2013/12/26/aeg-kathe ... ful-death/

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Trueamore поблагодарили (всего 3):
MagicalLove (27 дек 2013, 17:11) • Admin (27 дек 2013, 06:25) • Liberian Girl (27 дек 2013, 05:18)
Рейтинг: 27.27%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

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

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1118  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 27 дек 2013, 05:35

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/
ivy



AEG has filed their response to Katherine Jackson's motion for a new trial. Below will include the documents as well as a summary.

AEG's reply

AEG filed a 19 page reply with exhibits. Exhibits included 7 juror affidavits.

AEG reply document link : http://ru.scribd.com/doc/193606436/AEG-New-Trial-Reply

(will insert it at the end of summary as well)

Summary as follows:

For Q2 AEG argues that it is taken from California jury instructions and it's a question that Jacksons requested and never tried to modify it or claimed it can cause confusion. AEG lists that Jacksons included and asked for Q2 at March 14, April 12, September 10, September 11 and September 12 motions or hearings. AEG also states that Jackson lawyers never asked to add "at any time" to Q2, they wanted to add it to Q3 (knew or should have known question).

Also AEG states that Q2 did not limit jurors to "date of hiring", it required them to consider "for the job which he was hired". Both parties expressed these points during their closing statements. Jackson lawyers mentioned it was at any time in both their closing and rebuttal. Panish said "at any time during his treatment" and during rebuttal he mentioned "it's not when they hired him only it's the entire time". Putnam never argued otherwise and he only focused on "for the job he was hired".

AEG says Jacksons never claimed Q1 could result in a confusion in Q2 and they also add that the jurors were instructed to consider every question separately. AEG also argues that in Jacksons always had "if you answered no stop" in all of their jury instructions.

AEG states that the jury verdict form is from CACI (Californoa Civil Jury Instructions) and it is according to the law.

AEG argues that the juror affidavits are inadmissible and that Jackson lawyers used improper and coercive tactics to get the jurors give those affidavits. AEG also files a separate motion to strike in regard to the jury affidavits. They state that the jury affidavits cannot be used about jury's subjective impressions about the deliberations. They state jury affidavits can only be used about a bias that is hid during jury selection process and coming to a verdict by chance. AEG also mentions that Jacksons got some affidavits in dishonest way. Finally AEG argues to reverse any judgment it should be shown that a different result would likely happen if that error wasn't present. So AEG argues it's not enough for Jacksons to show that if the wording was different the answer to Q2 would have been a yes, they need to show that every other question would be answered in their favor.

As for the negligence claim AEG argues the court heard and denied it twice and this is Jacksons third attempt to argue it. They are basically arguing that the court had the correct ruling and denied it twice and should deny it a third time.

AEG files 7 juror counter affidavits themselves. However as mentioned before they are asking the judge to strike any and all jury affidavits and only consider AEG jury affidavits if the judge will not strike Jackson jury affidavits. Basically they are asking the judge to throw all of them out but if she considers Jackson affidavits then consider AEG counter affidavits as well.

The 7 AEG jury counter affidavits link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/193605720/AEG-Jury-Affidavits

AEG Reply Embed Изображение

Изображение

Изображение

Изображение

Изображение

Изображение

Изображение

Изображение

Изображение

Изображение

Изображение

Изображение

Изображение

Изображение

Изображение
Последний раз редактировалось Liberian Girl 27 дек 2013, 05:38, всего редактировалось 1 раз.
Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 2):
MagicalLove (27 дек 2013, 17:11) • Admin (27 дек 2013, 06:25)
Рейтинг: 18.18%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

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

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1119  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 27 дек 2013, 05:38

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/
ivy

The summary judgment appeal Dismissal request by Jacksons

This was filed before the trial started.

Link : http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/ ... no=B248420

Opening brief due : 12/09/2013

Opening brief wasn't filed on time.

12/13/2013 Appellant notified re failure to timely file opening brief.

December 18th Jacksons filed a request to dismiss this appeal.



12/18/2013 Request for dismissal filed. appellant's counsel
Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 3):
Admin (27 дек 2013, 17:42) • MagicalLove (27 дек 2013, 17:12) • Lina (27 дек 2013, 10:09)
Рейтинг: 27.27%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

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

Re: Кэтрин Джексон против AEG Live

#1120  Сообщение Liberian Girl » 30 дек 2013, 04:25

The seven jurors’ affidavits – WHY DIDN’T THEY ASK JUROR #27?



Now seven other people on the jury for the AEG trial also made their affidavits and are saying in unison that they did not look into Murray’s competency only at the time he was hired.

Earlier other four jurors said that they had been told to focus on the moment of hiring Murray only.

The situation is unclear and understanding what’s what may be crucial for the outcome of the trial as theoretically there is a possibility of a hung jury (when the jurors are deadlocked and can’t decide). It is also absolutely crucial to know which side is telling the truth.

This is why I suggest that the Plaintiffs immediately contact Juror #27 (the one who spoke on MJJCommunity) and get an affidavit from him.

This juror said he was also on the jury and already explained to us his views on the trial. His viewpoint is that they based their decision mostly on the time of Murray’s hire. He repeated it many times over and provided us with various examples to make us swallow and digest it and remember it forever after.

And we didn’t forget what Juror#27 said. So now the Plaintiffs cannot find a better witness than Juror #27 himself about the way the jurors deliberated and how they came to answer “no” to question 2 on the verdict form.

THE 7 JURORS’ AFFIDAVITS

But first here is a short word about the 7 jurors’ affidavits. Surprisingly, all of them follow one and the same pattern:

* the mysterious Juror X (his name is blocked out in all affidavits) didn’t say to them that they should consider Murray’s competency only at the time he was hired,

* no one prevented them from asking questions,

* and even if they answered “Yes” to question #2 they would have answered “No” to question #3.

I was very much impressed by the common pattern of these affidavits and especially by their answer that they would say “No” to question #3 even if they said “Yes” to question #2.

All seven of them repeated that statement almost word for word which made their replies practically identical.

What’s also interesting is that all of them suddenly decided to mention that matter and place it at the end of their affidavits – somewhere in the range of points 7 to 9.

ИзображениеИзображение

This amazing uniformity betrayed the hand of one writer for all seven of them. Five of the affidavits do indeed look like they were written by one person and make us suspect that their forms were just signed by different jurors, while the affidavits made by the foreman and one more juror are more elaborate and provide some details, some of which are rather interesting.

The foreman, for example, says that Ms. Chang spoke to him for an hour saying that other jurors were somewhat unhappy and allegedly told him that Bugzy (Houghdahl) never came to testify at the trial because the Defendants “conveniently kept him out of California so he couldn’t be served with a subpoena”.

She also told him and that “Paul Gongaware knew that doctors had given Michael Jackson propofol on prior tours”.

The foreman was surprised to hear it which makes me think he was not attentive enough at the trial. Of course Paul Gongaware knew of those two Propofol incidents as he was the promoter of the History tour and the two German doctors arrived at the hotel through the front door with all their bulky equipment, so the security should have reported it to him on two consecutive nights when Michael was using it. Michael was absolutely not making a secret out of it and there was no way for Gongaware not to know it.

The foreman also says that Ms.Chang gave him the form of an affidavit and he refused to sign it. Probably she did draft a form of it which does not surprise me – the affidavits of the other 6 jurors prove that they did exactly the same, only they signed the ready-made forms drafted for them by the AEG lawyers, and this explains their uniformity.

Here is an excerpt from one of those affidavits – if you’ve seen one you’ve seen five of them:

Изображение
Sample page for 5 affidavits

SAMPLE TEXT:

…4. When we first began our deliberations, we reread the Court’s instructions to make sure we understood how to apply the law properly to the questions on the verdict form.

5. [Juror X] did not say that we could only consider Dr. Murray’s competency at the time he was hired. [Juror X] said instead that we should consider what Dr. Murray was hired to do, as the verdict question said.

6. We discussed sending a question to the judge at one point, but collectively decided not to do so. No one was prevented from expressing their thoughts or opinions about the case during deliberations at any point. No one was prevented from asking questions of the judge.

7. Even if we had answered “yes” to Question 2, I do not believe this would have affected the overall verdict. I would have answered “no” to Question 3 as well, because I do not believe the evidence supported plaintiffs’ claim that AEG Live knew or should have known that Dr. Murray was unfit or incompetent.



Besides this last uniform statement there is one more remarkable point about those affidavits.

All of them say that “neither juror X, not any other juror insisted that we only consider Dr. Murray’s competency at the time he was hired”.

Why is this statement remarkable?

Because if seven jurors say that juror X did not say it and four jurors say that he did, all in all it makes 11 jurors, so in order to come to number 12 only one juror is left and should be asked to make a statement on the above.

This mysterious juror is evidently the Juror X himself to whom everyone is referring and about whom all this fuss is about.

THE MYSTERIOUS JUROR

And the most incredible news is that we know who this juror is.

Our past experience with Juror #27 on the MJJCommunity forum suggests that this person is the only one who could be the mysterious Juror X.

We know so much about this juror that we can even predict what he will say in his affidavit if requested to do so. The statement of juror #27 will support the Plaintiff’s point of view as he will have to confirm what he previously said.

Let me repeat that Juror #27 himself explained it to us on numerous occasions that they focused mostly on the time of hiring Conrad Murray. The idea was that it was only the beginning of AEG/Murray cooperation, and there was no way to know for them that Murray would be doing anything inappropriate to his patient.

So all the Plaintiffs need to do now is approach this Juror #27 and ask him for an affidavit where he will repeat what he said before.

And this is what he said on the MJJCommunity forum:

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. ... 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.

JUROR: What we were looking for was disciplinary action against Murray in the form of malpractice suits or complaints, something that would give a reasonable person cause to find Murray unfit or incompetent at the time they hired him. Kathy Jorrie’s “10 minute google search” of Murray was talked about at length at trial, but I am of the opinion that that is a reasonable amount of due diligence for someone who you are bringing onboard as a favor to someone else.

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.

FORUM MEMBER: But question2 was about simple fact – was he competent or not to do the job. My logic is: the job required first aid skills, he didn’t have them, hence – not fit.
JUROR: But that again is taking what we learned in hindsight and applying it to an earlier time frame.


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.


JUROR: …I’m happy to see that even in the midst of all this there are so many MJ fans who continue to remain positive and use his caring, loving nature to guide them along their path.


FORUM MEMBER: the jury foreman Gregg Barden said the following to reporters “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”. if you go by that logic, no qualified doctor can ever be unfit or incompetent. What’s your take on that??


JUROR: You are mixing up what a person should know at one point in time, with what comes to light after the fact… Now, if I did a check on the nanny’s references and 2 people told me she hurt their kids and they fired her, or if I looked online and found she had a criminal record for abusing children, and I then hire her anyway, NOW I have been negligent in my hiring. Now I should share responsibility for what she did. So if we apply this logic to the AEG case, Murray passed a cursory check.
JUROR: Thank you for the kind welcome. To answer your question, it was not an either/or, we looked at both the time of hiring and the 2 month period of ‘deterioration’, but we felt that the most pertinent part was the time of hire.

JUROR: Yes, I agree Dr. Murray was highly unethical and negligent in his care of MJ.


No, I absolutely insist that the Plaintiffs should approach Juror #27 for an affidavit.

He will be the fifth juror to confirm to them that the jurors answered Question 2 considering the moment of hiring Murray only.

Moreover, since juror #27 is the only one left out of the whole company he is proving to us that he was actually the one who was convincing everyone that his point of view was the only correct one – same as he was persuading MJ’s fans of the same after the trial was over.

And he won’t be able to deny his words – he himself said on the MJJCommunity forum that “they felt the most pertinent part was the time of hire”.

They felt. Not only him, but they too.

And the Senior Staff of MJJCommunity also thought we should perceive the events only in “hindsight” which means looking at them from the point of view of the moment of hire only, but not later.

At that time many forum members were seeing eye to eye with juror #27 and now it is totally amazing that the same forum members no longer remember that they insisted on the “hindsight” point of view and said that the time of hire was the only correct angle to ever look at the problem.

But even this is not all about this incredible situation.

By his earlier statements about the jurors focusing on the time of hiring Murray Juror #27 is actually proving to us that the seven jurors are lying in their affidavits.

Изображение

Of course there is always an option that Juror #27 was an impostor and the MJJCommunity website intentionally or unintentionally brought this fraudster to spread his ideas among MJ’s fans. There were some who suspected the fraud already at that time when this person first appeared, however to refute the allegations the Senior Staff provided us with a copy of the Juror’s credentials, and this silenced some of their opponents.

Now the forum people are facing a wonderful option of either admitting that Juror #27 was an impostor, or accept his point of view that the jurors answered Question 2 considering the time of Murray’s hire only, and this way agree that the other 7 jurors are now evidently lying.

Well, whichever way it is, it is a hilarious follow-up to the story of one juror #27.

* * *

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year for all truthseekers!

THE SEVEN AFFIDAVITS: http://ru.scribd.com/doc/193605720/AEG-Jury-Affidavits

AEG NEW TRIAL REPLY: http://ru.scribd.com/doc/193606436/AEG-New-Trial-Reply

THE PLAINTIFFS ALSO MADE A REPLY TO AEG BUT IT IS NOT POSTED BY THE MJJCOMMUNITY.
IT IS LISTED AS PRIVATE.


Source: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threa ... eal/page18
Я готова верить, но надо знать во что!

Показать ссылки поста



За это сообщение автора Liberian Girl поблагодарили (всего 2):
Admin (01 янв 2014, 03:52) • Lina (30 дек 2013, 07:17)
Рейтинг: 18.18%
 
Аватара пользователя
offline

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

Пред.След.

Вернуться в СУД / COURT

cron