Juror 27 joined MJJCommunity answering a forum member as you can read below. He provided his service certificate as a proof of authenticity:

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


It is increasingly alarming to me how many people seem to be losing the ability to analyze facts critically. It’s scary how any illogical theory or conspiracy theory can be thrown up and people will believe it without paying any attention to the facts. Randy and the Jackson's have done a good job of messing with the minds of MJ's fans.

JUROR:I couldn't agree more with the bolded. It's practically an epidemic as far as I'm concerned.

I was on this jury, and of all the places I've seen where this is being talked about, this community seems by far to be the most level-headed and approachable. So many passionate MJ fans rationally discussing the verdict rather than lashing out in anger is very nice to see, and makes me think this is probably the best place for me to make a small statement. 

Initially I planned to avoid and ignore all the comments about the verdict after the trial ended. Because as soon as we answered 'no' to question 2 in the jury room, I knew how it would be reported and misunderstood ("DURR STUPID JURY HOW CAN CONRAD MURRAY BE FIT AND COMPETENT WHEN HE IS IN JAIL FOR KILLING MJ??? DURRR"). And sure enough, the very first question asked by the media when we got outside was "How could you find Conrad Murray competent?" And of course a bunch of hardcore MJ supporters outside were yelling, calling us stupid and confused, etc. So I figured rather than getting annoyed at misinformation being spread or seeing us called morons ad nauseam, it'd be better to just ignore it all. 

Well that lasted about a day before my curiosity got the better of me, and I had to peek around to see what people were saying. I had to see if that version of us as idiots was the main narrative going on. Thankfully most people commenting on the verdict are actually looking at what we were instructed to consider, and agree with our decision. We knew from day 1 that no matter the outcome we would have people agreeing and disagreeing with the verdict, and I'm thankful that this jury did not concern itself with what people would say or think about us and decided to follow the instructions and base our verdict on the evidence in the case.

Just like our jury foreman, I went into this trial about as neutral as one could be towards Michael Jackson. I was 7 when Thriller came out so I grew up with his music and loved it, but I knew very little about his life other than what I'd seen in the media, and I honestly had no strong feelings about him as a person either way. I walk out of this trial completely understanding why he has so many fans who practically deify him. Who are so strongly attracted to his kind spirit, huge heart, gentle nature, love of his children and mother, etc. I totally get it now. 

Every single witness who was questioned about whether they thought MJ was a good father (and almost every one who knew him closely was asked) sang endless praises about his love of his kids. If Prince's testimony is any indication, MJ was definitely a great father. The kid is bright, intelligent, caring, has great character and a great personality, and I truly believe MJ did a phenomenal job raising him in the few years he was able to. Honestly, every single juror came away feeling very positive about Michael Jackson as a person and father. 

I know there was concern about MJ's image being hurt because of this trial, and maybe to outside viewers it was because of some of the details that came out. But for us in the jury in that courtroom for all these months, we just grew more and more fond of him during the course of the trial.

I'd like to say thank you to all the people I've seen here supporting us jurors in our decision, it really means a lot. I will be happy to answer anything I can about the trial if you'd like to ask and if I am able.

I will answer as many questions as I can, as well as post my jury certificate with my screen name here to prove myself as soon as I get home. I understand being skeptical and don't have any problem showing proof. 

Thx for your patience.

I have sent pics of the last two months of service certificates to ivy. 

I really wish I had held off posting initially until later. I didn't mean to drop a post and not be around to respond, but since it had to be approved and I didn't know how long that might take I posted right before I went to bed. Then had plans for all day today. So I apologize for my delay in responding.

FORUM MEMBER: I have a question for you if question 2 had included the word ethical would your personal answer still have been no?

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.

I can't stress enough how much we all liked him by the end of the trial. So many witnesses and so much heartfelt testimony. Lots of pure love and affection for Michael poured out over these months and it left an incredible impression on all of us. This hits the nail on the head. Throughout all the testimony and witnesses, that was one of the strongest recurring themes -- MJ was a wonderful father and person.

FORUM MEMBER: Thank you, Juror#27.

Before the verdict was read, we were going through the questions like you guys had to. Though I personally wouldn't have answered question 1 with a "yes", I can understand and thought it was very likely that this question had to be answered by 12 jurors with "yes" because it was realistic that at least 9 jurors would argue that both MJ and AEG Live could have hired Dr. Murray.

If you go through my postings in this very thread here, I was trying to explain the meaning of the terms "unfit" and "incompetent" in question 2 and their association with "the work for which he was hired".
I was also trying to show that even if that question would not lead us to a "no", there was nothing factual in those 5 months for question 3 that could tell us AEG Live had or should have had knowledge of Murray being unfit or incompetent.
Like you, we noticed here that many are confused by the fact that Dr. Murray did infact cause involuntary manslaughter of Michael Jackson and why this fact has nothing to do with determining Dr. Murray being "fit" and "competent" for the work he was hired for.
If you want to take a look at my thoughts on these questions and terms, here are some of my postings:

As you might have read, there was a particular idea that came up here:
it was whether a conflict of interest due to AEG Live advancing money to Murray (as per draft agreements) would a) be affirmed and b) thus determine Dr. Murray as "incompetent" in question 2.
However I highly disagree with this point of view for these reasons:

  • There is no precedent that established a cash-stricken person would automatically provide substandard work / putting a patient at risk.
    [The person in question has to be cash-stricken as otherwise, he couldn't care less about the money and there would be no conflicting interest.]
  • Dr. Murray had ordered propofol before Michael even introduced him to AEG Live.
    [You can't establish a conflicting interest that way since Dr. Murray was not affected by AEG Live or any other third party at all.]
  • Every doctor that is receiving (advance) payment from a third party would then - after this idea - have to be considered "incompetent" and that's quite untrue.
  • A doctor's Hippocratic oath would dwindle in importance since the Hippocratic oath is the fundamental ethic framework for doctors.
    [Dr. Murray breaking his Hippocratic oath was his very own choice, his very own responsibility and noone else can be blamed for being or becoming unethic than the unethical person itself.]

I would be interested what you think about this idea.

JUROR: You are right on the money in my opinion. 

The conflict of interest idea was countered by the defense saying that in actuality all 3 interests were aligned. It was clearly in everyone's best interest for Michael to be healthy and to do the shows and I see no way to dispute this. MJ being healthy and performing was good for everyone involved. And even if one wants to view this as a conflict of interest, I don't see how the existence of it in and of itself renders Murray unfit or incompetent. We were told over and over that conflicts of interest arise all the time in medicine and are the responsibility of the doctor to mitigate.

So even if a conflict of interest was in place, it was on Murray's shoulders to mitigate it since he was the one providing medical care to MJ.

As for question 1, our first vote had 3 answers. 

Hired him. 
Didn't hire him. 

After first vote it was 6 votes unsure, 4 votes no and 2 votes yes. I initially voted no.

But we then looked at the jury instructions which said that contracts can be written, oral, or partly written and partly oral. It said that oral contracts are just as valid as written contracts, and that implied-in-fact contracts could be valid through the parties' conduct.

So we looked at AEG's behavior in dealing with Conrad Murray, and we felt that between the drawn up contracts, the fact that they backdated his starting date from June 1 to May 1 in one of the drafts, the Gongaware emails about who was paying Murray's salary, that Randy Phillips and Murray were in charge of getting MJ to rehearsals, it was all enough conduct to say that they "hired" him.

I honestly don't see how letting a license lapse means that someone is negligent. Doctors let licenses lapse all the time when they are not going to practice in a particular state any more. 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. If AEG had found out about CM's financial troubles and told MJ "We can't hire your doctor for you, because we have seen that he is in financial straits and is therefore likely to be unethical or unfit", I can't imagine that going over very well, either with MJ or in the media if the story were to get out.

FORUM MEMBER: I understand the reasoning behind saying NO to question number 2 because of its wording! But, because the jurors did find that Murray was Hired by AEG, for some anything he did wrong later should fall on their responsibility, regardless! And I can understand that too because they did hire him. I will always be split with this case and the verdict, both sides made good arguments IMO!

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. 

The decision to deviate from the standard of care and to ignore his Hippocratic Oath was CM's, not AEG's.

FORUM MEMBER: Technically that was what the next question was about (3). And there I would agree with you. But q. 2 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.

It is a skill, because when you are taught first aid, you are taught that call 911 is the first thing you should do, before you start CPR. He didn't do it, and his excuse later was the he didn't call because he started doing CPR first. This technically means he didn't have the proper skill.

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.

You are very welcome. I just thought it was important to let you guys know that we did not come away with any negative feelings toward MJ. Quite the opposite, actually.

FORUM MEMBER: If I was to ask questions to the jurors, I would be curious about

- What did they think about the witnesses? Who did they believe to be honest and who did they believe to be not honest?

- and if they discussed it or considered it, what did they think about the other questions on the verdict form? or in other words of we assume question 2 wasn't on the form would the verdict change? (it looked like 2 jurors believed AEG didn't and couldn't know what was going on in regards to Propofol. I wonder if this was a widely shared belief)

JUROR: 1. We thought that most people were genuinely trying to be honest, but the way they were boxed in by the attorneys' questions often led to witnesses trying to clarify, avoid answering, or just answering something that wasn't asked, and that could sometimes come across as trying to hide something or being less than truthful. 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. I didn't applaud when he left the witness stand because I thought that was inappropriate, but I understand the other jurors doing it. It was spontaneous and the result of the conclusion of a lot of heartfelt, riveting testimony.

2. I don't think if question 2 was gone the verdict would have changed. We did not discuss question 3 much once we reached a 'no' on question 2, but the impression I got is that there is no way we would have said that AEG knew or should have known that CM was unfit or incompetent and that his unfitness or incompetence would pose a particular risk to others. There was simply no evidence presented which would prove that AEG should have known that.

In the jury instructions it explicitly said we are free to believe a witness or not, but I would never slander or disparage any of the witnesses I saw. The stress of being on that stand is unbelievable and I can't fault someone for their answers while in that hot seat unless I thought they were flat out lying, and I very rarely got that impression during this case.

After hearing about MJ so much for the last 5 months and reading a bit more the last few days, I understand why some fans are so protective and emotional about MJ, so I know not to take their anger at the verdict personally. I  promise that I won't hold the actions of a few against everyone. I'm very relieved to see that so many MJ fans are willing to discuss the case with reason and logic rather than get emotion. I understand being emotional but when dealing with law and facts I think logic and evidence should reign supreme.

FORUM MEMBER: I have no question for you personally as any discussion we would engage in will not change the verdict rendered that I do not support. I will however, leave you with this comment: jurors are expected to use their common sense, life experiences, and intuition when deciding on the trustworthiness of witnesses and the rendering a resulting verdict. Jurors should not rely on or express personal biases against either party.

JUROR: And whether you choose to believe me or not, I am telling you that not one juror on this case relied on or expressed personal bias against either party during the entire trial nor during deliberations. I don't understand where this comment is stemming from?

FORUM MEMBER: There were four plaintiffs. Testimony and evidence did not dismiss the fact that Michael idolized his mother as well as being an outstanding and loving father to his three children.

JUROR: Again, I don't understand this comment? We all believed without exception that MJ idolized his mother and was an outstanding and loving father to his three children. I only mentioned Prince because he was the only one to testify in person and I was very impressed by him.

We never discussed damages while deliberating. I was simply turning the plaintiffs' logic against themselves. They told us that someone asking for an outrageous sum of money is a red flag of unethical behavior. Does that logic not also apply to them? I ask only in a playful, rhetorical sense, because had we decided to award damages the ethics of the plaintiffs were completely irrelevant and would not have factored in at all.

Randy's deposition was interesting. I liked him a lot. The testimony was mostly about the time period where he was trying to stage interventions for MJ, and I believe he really tried his best to help get his brother clean.

Katherine's testimony probably hit me the hardest, emotionally. Late last year I lost my grandmother who raised me, and during her testimony I was reminded of her over and over. Very emotional stuff and I teared up more than a few times. I thought she was a sweetheart.

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

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.

As you might have noticed, the MJ 'fan community' has a number of heated, on-going debates within it, and it is sometimes a struggle to deal with these in a way that reflects MJ's message of love and tolerance. People strive to present their opinions in a way that respects the other party's views, but let's face it, we are not perfect--we are human--we make mistakes and we get caught up in our likes and dislikes, our deeply felt convictions, so please bear with us. 

I would like to ask you this: How well did you think the case was managed? Do you think it should have been dismissed, as some have argued?

JUROR: Yes, it is interesting and kind of sad for me to read now about the factions fighting within MJ's fanbase. As I said earlier, I was completely clueless before this trial. Obviously I knew he had millions of fans all over the world, but the in-fighting and schisms and drama was all completely unknown to me. 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.

Looking back it is easy to say that the case should have never been brought to trial, but after considering all the evidence I'm not sure I agree with that. There was an exceptionally high hurdle to cross for the plaintiffs to win this case, but since the burden of proof is lower in civil trials, and considering the words and conduct of AEG themselves, I'm honestly unsure about whether this case should have been thrown out or not. Obviously what that threshold is is determined by the court and gets into legal matters which I as a layperson am not qualified to discuss.

Judge Palazuelos was awesome, I really liked her. She easily had the hardest job in overseeing this entire case. There were times where I thought she could have cracked down on witnesses or the attorneys a little harder, but overall I thought she did an outstanding job. 

The attorneys on both sides were incredible. This was my first time serving on a jury, and it was like going to your first live boxing match and getting to see Ali vs. Frasier. I can't fully articulate how impressed I am with the attorneys. 

I didn't get the impression that many witnesses were not truthful. The only time I felt that was with a few of the doctors who were treating MJ in the early-mid '00s. Most truthful I thought were Debbie Rowe and Kenny Ortega. They felt the most neutral and did the least filtering of their answers, Debbie especially.

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

whats 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. 

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. 

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. He was being hired at the request of MJ. The only 'red flag' is the fact that he asked for a ton of money at first. In my opinion that is not sufficient evidence to say someone is unethical, unfit, or incompetent to perform a job for which they are qualified.

FORUM MEMBER: I also want to add my thanks to Juror#27. I'm grateful you chose MJJC to share your thoughts and answer questions--something you don't have to do--and you are furthering our understanding of what thought processes you and others on the jury went through to arrive at the verdict. Your commentary here is invaluable and helps us connect the dots on all our conversations and speculations through many months. What you're doing is a gift and I'm among many others here who are very grateful.

JUROR: Thank you so much for the kind words. That is why I am posting here. I knew there would be so much speculation and wonder after the verdict so I just hoped to provide a little understanding or clarification. It's also helping me to get my bearings on this whole thing. What a weird experience to sit in silence for 5 months absorbing this incredible story, then deliberate for a few short days and have it all end so abruptly. Talking about it is definitely helping me to sort my mind out and move on.

FORUM MEMBER: juror 27

if I may ask two questions

I'm presuming that in the beginning or on the end of the trial the jurors got plaintiffs complaint and statement from AEG.
If yes, do you got the 2 older plaintiff complaints too? 

What was you thinking about Mr. Panish' argument alteration in relation to his opening plädoyer? (i mean addiction; Michael's health etc.)

JUROR: 1. I'm not sure what you are referring to, but I think there was something to that effect in the jury instructions? In a very basic manner it laid out the claim by plaintiffs and AEG's statement of affirmative defense, but I'm not sure if that is what you are asking about.

2. I thought Mr. Panish handled everything well and I didn't notice too much deviation from his opening statement.

FORUM MEMBER: The decision to deviate from the standard of care and to ignore his Hippocratic Oath was CM's, not AEG's."

Does "Juror#27" call it "decision", the being forced by AEG via threatening CM, being financially broken ?

Let's remind CM who is paying his salary...we want MJ's butt on stage, no matter what...

JUROR: Yes, it was still a decision even if he was being pressured. He could have just as easily decided not to give MJ propofol. 

If there was pressure or a conflict of interest, then it was up to CM to choose, "Do I risk my career and freedom by violating my duty as a Dr., or do I do the right thing and refuse to break my Hippocratic Oath?" He made that decision, and I do not see that AEG's pressure was ever so great to say that it alone is what caused him to act unethically.

FORUM MEMBER: Thank for answering this. to go by your example with the nanny. what if i hire the nanny and as time goes, i start to hear things that should worry me, is that nanny still competent or should i take action?? yes, she WAS competent at the beginning but she's still on my payroll and my employee when i start to hear worrying things. is she competent or not?? she's still hired by me...

during trial we did hear testimony from worried THIS IS IT members that were worried about mjs condition and told various people about it. we know that randy philips, paul congaware and even the ppl above them in the aeg hierarchy were alerted of mjs condition week(s) before mj passed. kenny suspected dr conrad murray was not good and told randy philips. we have seen the emails from Houghdal where he said Mj was detoriating for the past 8 weeks and many other emails. this was all going on during the time murray was hired by aeg and aeg execs were informed.

the jury instructions did not put a timeframe on the second question it if im 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 concider this at all or did you all base your answer from the time he was hired (may 1)?

like a poster wrote before 'did aeg become negligent in allowing Murray to continue to care for MJ when it was clear to them that Michael was detoriating..???'

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.

FORUM MEMBER: what did the jury think of the fact that Randy Phillips & Paul Gongaware were dropped as defendants a week before the end of testimonies? 

Were you all aware that Kenny Ortega was initially one of the defendants? The Jacksons had also accused him of having a hand in MJ's death. I find it ironic that the jurors ended up liking him so much.

JUROR: Phillips and Gongaware being dropped from the suit had zero impact on us. Same with Kenny Ortega. We heard early on that he was a defendant who was also dropped from the suit, but honestly that did not factor in to our decision or deliberations at all. 

I also find that a bit ironic.

FORUM MEMBER: Why did you ask to see This Is It? And what did you think of the movie itself?

JUROR: We thought it was only fitting to watch it since we had just sat there for 5 months listening to all the details about this concert series. Plus we had seen mostly the same clips over and over, so we wanted to see the whole thing in its entirety.

I enjoyed it. I had never seen MJ in concert and even if This Is It had come to L.A. I probably would not have gone to see it, but I was blown away by what they were going to be doing on stage. The concert looked like it was going to be amazing and seeing it partially coming together in the film just made the ending of everything that much more tragic.

I'm one of the 6 male jurors.

FORUM MEMBER: In other words everyone thought MJ was getting better and as such felt there was no need for further intervention. 

Also, given that Murray was hired at the request of MJ, I don't think AEG could impose another doctor to MJ. they tried it and he was not interested.

JUROR: Exactly. AEG were not Michael's parents, and as a grown man he has responsibility for his own health care. Let's not forget that AEG was accommodating Michael's wishes by hiring CM, they didn't just go find a random doctor and force him on MJ.

If after the June 20th meeting AEG had said "You know what, Michael? We know that you are saying you are fine, and we know that your own doctor says you are fine, but we really feel like we know better and so we will be removing your chosen doctor for one that we think is better", do you honestly think that would have been OK? First of all, it is not their place to choose MJ's doctor. Then they would be going directly against what MJ himself is telling them. To ask any more of AEG at that point is unreasonable.

FORUM MEMBER: It has been evident from the beginning and reading jurors statement in the press that this is what you all believed. Blame Michael for his death.

JUROR: I'm of the opinion that Micheal definitely has some blame for his death. I don't see how you can believe otherwise? CM was giving him propofol at his request, not against his will. MJ was repeatedly warned about how dangerous it was to use propofol to 'sleep'. He ignored those warnings. I can't understand the idea that MJ has zero responsibility for his death, I really can't.

If he was injecting himself with propofol every night without CM involved, I would say he is 100% to blame. Since CM was in the picture, I think that 100% is now shared between 2 people. How much blame on each side? Who knows. There isn't a formula for this type of thing. But seeing as how CM was doing what MJ wanted, and seeing as how CM wasn't qualified to be doing what he was doing, my gut tells me to just split the blame 50/50. I really don't know how else to see it.

FORUM MEMBER: I  came to terms and understood the verdict when it was first announced. but now when the juror has said they had the possibility to determine if murray was fit and competent based on the entire period of time murray was hired, im really shocked at how they came up with that conclusion, esp since aeg didnt needed to know about propofol specific.

JUROR: They didn't need to know about propofol, but they needed to know that MJ was being put in danger by CM. If they didn't know that, then how can they be held liable?

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.

Yes, there were concerns raised to AEG about MJ's health, but not one of those concerns was "Hey, Michael's doctor is over here doing dangerous stuff to MJ, please advise". Because no one besides MJ and CM knew what they were doing every night. Not Kenny, Travis, Karen, nobody knew. And since AEG was even more removed from MJ than all those people, how in the world can you say that they are the ones liable for what he did in private?

I'd just like to clarify a bit where I said MJ is partly to blame for his own death. I don't like the word blame there, I used it because it was in the post I was replying to and I should have changed it to reflect what I actually feel. I do think MJ is partly responsible for his own death, but I feel like any blame put upon him is misplaced. He was suffering greatly, only found relief by using an extremely inappropriate and dangerous method, and paid the price for it with his life. It's like a person who commits suicide. They are responsible for their actions but it does no one any good to then lay blame on that person after the fact.

FORUM MEMBER: question 2 did not include anything about 'If AEG knew or should have known'. Question 2 was if Murray was fit and competent for the job he was hired for.

JUROR: And he was fit and competent for the job he was hired for.

FORUM MEMBER: I believe MJ detoriating was a process and not 'sick a few times' like you have described. It seems judging by trial testimony that as of May things got worse (chef kai Chase being away and returning and seeing MJ in bad shape). houghdal writing and email that he has seen mj detoriating for the past 8 weeks. Cherilyn Lee shocked when she saw that pic of how mJ looked at fitting. michael beardens email that MJ was still not ready.

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.

FORUM MEMBER: I believe the evidence presented in this trial showed that murray was not fit and competent for the job he was hired for. i believe as time transpired and mj not getting better but weaker, it was obvious the doctor was not doing what he was suppose to do.

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.

FORUM MEMBER: I don't think that Michael was 'suffering greatly' he wanted some sleep, that's all.

JUROR: I think not being able to sleep for days on end would qualify as suffering greatly. We saw weeks of testimony from sleep experts and I have no doubt that MJ's inability to get restful sleep caused him immeasurable suffering. I was staggered when I heard about how much trouble he had getting sleep.

FORUM MEMBER: I know the jury foreman mentioned it a little, but can you give us a little more info about the whole deliberation process? the specific evidence you looked, the voting, what went on in the deliberation room and so on.

JUROR: Sure. First thing we did was vote on our foreman. Some of us did not want the position, and so we voted on the jurors who were willing to accept. I voted for juror #1, a very intelligent and sweet lady who IMO was the best choice to represent us. We looked at what supplies we might need and we asked for them, plus a copy of the jury instructions and AEG/CM contract. Was much easier for everyone to just have their own copy of those. Someone mentioned T.I.I. and we all agreed we should watch it so we asked for that plus a tv/blu-ray player.

After that, as our foreman said we wanted to finally blow off steam and vent to each other, and we did do that, but I thought we got down to business just a little too quickly. There were SO many witnesses, SO much evidence, SO much to discuss, I thought we should spend a full day or even two just kind of gossiping and going over the whole trial to kind of get it all settled in our minds. There was so much to the trial that it was a bit overwhelming to try and make sense of it all at the end. I thought that just kind of generally discussing the whole ordeal would be good for us but we never really did that in depth. Our foreman was one of the jurors who was itching to get it over with so we followed his lead and just got right to the verdict form.

We took a quick poll to see where we all stood on question 1, Did AEG hire Murray? First result was 6 unsure, 4 no, 2 yes. This question was such a grey area for us to deal with. Clearly there wasn't a fully executed written contract, so we took that off the table. But there was a lot of email communication and actions between AEG and Murray. So we left day 2 with that up in the air, but when we came in on day 3 we talked for a bit about it and took another vote. It was a unanimous 12-0 to answer yes.

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. 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. 

The deliberation process was at times chaotic and intense, and at times very productive and enlightening. It was tough to keep everyone on the same page, keep small side discussions from happening, and generally keep ourselves on task. There was a knock on the door every 10 minutes it seemed like. We couldn't talk at all unless every member was in the room at the same time. Which was tough in itself since so many of the jurors had to use the restroom so often. It was definitely a bit of a pressure cooker situation, especially since on those last days we were so cooped up and guarded.

FORUM MEMBER: My question for you is how did you/other jurors seem to feel specifically about Randy Phillips stating in an email that he had slapped MJ and screamed so loud at him that the "walls shook" before the announcement of the TII concerts?

I'm not saying it should have had any impact on the final outcome of the trial, but just in general how did it make you feel (or the other jurors if it was brought up in deliberations)?

JUROR: We did not discuss that incident in deliberations, but I know that a few other jurors and myself cringed pretty hard when hearing about it. It's pretty damning testimony and I remember a lot of heads shaking and disapproving looks when we heard it.

I felt really bad for MJ because it seemed pretty clear that he was in a bad place mentally at that moment and was crippled by fear and doubt about the reception to his announcement. Mr. Phillips screaming at him and slapping him is obviously not cool, but at the same time I have to remember the stress he was under since they were already late and MJ was so out of it. That absolutely does not excuse him for slapping and screaming at MJ, but I think it is important to remember that this was an isolated incident and happened during a moment of incredible stress and pressure for both of them.

FORUM MEMBER: Allow me to preface this post by stating I am neutral on the validity of Juror27.

Juror27, jurors are not qualified to speak for other jurors regarding personal biases possibly being relied on against either party. I can only hope biases were not expressed.

In reviewing your posts however, almost every concept and view that was voiced by those who preferred AEG be found not liable as far past as the pre-trial discussions has been repeated.

JUROR: And that proves what, exactly?

FORUM MEMBER: The ethics of a mother who lost her son and three children who lost their father would have been an unknown to the jurors and most others so I agree it would not be relevant or factor into those decisions. 

Although the amount of monies Michael Jackson could command may seem outrageous to some, he simply could command those and similar sums due to his outrageous, extraordinary, and unparalleled talents. An expert’s testimony and supporting documents were used to quantify the amount of monies requested for potential damages had jurors reached that point to agree/disagree with. Those figures were not chosen at random as was the $5M request or the eventually accepted $150K fee. 

Interesting indeed that damages would characterized as "outrageous" and "unethical."

Ivy, this has been a busy time howerver, I hope you have had a chance to review the article(s) about the Jacksons being able to sue the doctor civilly in the article thread despite the rejection of restitution.

JUROR: You can't trick me here, sir. I never called the damages claim unethical. I said that if I used the logic presented by plaintiffs that asking for large sums of money raises red flags about a person's ethical character, that would be quite ironic since they themselves were asking for quite a large sum.

FORUM MEMBER: I updated my post slightly however, the view has not changed. It is NOT ironic. It is an illogical comparison as the damage request was quantified with supporting documents by an expert and were amounts Michael Jackson could command. The defense had their own figures they felt Michael Jackson could generate albeit those figures were lower than the plaintiffs' figures. Again, the damage request was not not a random request as was the $5M by the doctor so there is no comparison.

JUROR: The plaintiffs did not once mention the word "random" when referring to CM's initial request of $5M. Whether Murray arrived at his figure by random chance or through some figures he concocted was not once presented as a reason why we should see it as unethical. They said it was an outrageous sum of money and that the size alone should send up red flags.

FORUM MEMBER: AEG's Meglen and Gongaware said it was an excessive amount as well.

JUROR: Yes they did. Gongaware also said that when it came to MJ, people thought he had more money than God. That it was very common for people to ask for excessive fees all the time in connection with working for MJ. I don't find that hard to believe, and if they were used to having people ask for excessive amounts of money when it came to MJ, I can't fault them for not viewing the initial $5M request as a red flag.

About Randy Jackson - His testimony mostly revolved around the mid 2000's when he and his family were trying to stage interventions for Michael. The story about Randy flying to Neverland with another sibling by helicopter and Michael refusing to see them was corroborated by another witness who was there, Michael's security at the time Mr. LaPerruque (I'm sure I spelled that wrong). Now whether Michael refused to see them because he didn't want to confront his substance problem or because of some personal issues he had with Randy was not for us to consider.

FORUM MEMBER: I'm confused as to what you looked at, as it seems contradictory to what you said earlier. Was you def of incompetence breaking the hippocratic oath as in the above post. Or was it whether he was qualified to do general medical work as in your other posts.

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. I'll explain why.

Murray was brought to AEG by Michael. They would have had nothing to do with him if not for MJ's insistence. So when they were entering into an agreement with him they did a check, he checked out fine, and they (in the weakest sense possible, in my opinion) 'hired' him. OK, he's hired. 

So time goes on, and there are some concerns raised to AEG about MJ's health. We know AEG are aware because of the emails where Mr. Phillips says "is it chemical or physiological", "getting him (to rehearsal) is not the problem, it is something deeper", etc. But again, none of these concerns link MJ's condition to what CM was doing with him. I think the hindsight is what causes the problem in understanding here. 

It is easy to look back with all we know now and lump everything together and say "They should have known ______." I don't buy that. I think it is important to put yourselves in the AEG executives shoes at that time and ask if it is reasonable for them to remove MJ's personal physician because of a few concerns. In my opinion that would completely overstep their boundary as promoter. 

Michael would be the best person to know whether the medical care he was getting was adequate or not, NOT AEG. Why is Michael treated as if he was unable to voice these concerns himself or fire Murray himself? He had that ability. If Michael was a minor under AEG's guardianship, I think the negligence angle becomes a lot stronger. But Michael wasn't a child, he was a grown man receiving the specific care that he asked for. 

AEG made a horrible mistake in getting involved with CM, but I don't think it rises to the level of liability because they checked CM out at the time of hiring, and the concerns raised over the 2 months were not enough to reasonably conclude that MJ's declining health was due to the actions of his own doctor. For me it takes too large a mental leap to say that AEG should have known that based on what they saw at the time.

As for why AEG denied hiring CM so vigorously, I think it should be obvious. If they are found to have hired CM, then a huge hurdle has been crossed and the possibility of them being liable for damages opens up. It makes sense to me to try to say that they never hired him in the first place to block that path to damages.

FORUM MEMBER: I’d love to know this too. there were many ''i dont recall/i dont remember/i dont know'' from aeg.

I have a few more questions if you'd like to answer.

1) what did you think of aegs witness eric briggs when he testified that mj would not have earned a dime because it was all too 'speculative'? what did you think when eric said 'mj would not even had survived the first show' and what was your overall reaction when you was informed that mjs assets were greater than his debt and he could have easily erased the debt if he sold his share in sony/atv catalogue. your overall impression of eric briggs?

2) how did you react to when aeg exces tried to downplay mjs success with the ticketsales? you agreed with their opinion or not?

3) do you believe that THIS IS IT was going to be a worldtour or not.

JUROR: 1. Mr. Briggs never said that MJ would not earn a dime. He said that any projections of earnings would be speculative. (which drove me up the wall since it was so self-evident. it was like bringing him in to say something as obvious as "we are sitting in a courtroom"). Mr. Briggs was relying on another witness's testimony when he said MJ's life expectancy was so short. He didn't come up with that himself. The size of MJ's debt and the value of the Sony/ATV catalog were just astonishing to me. It didn't really factor in to what we looked at, but it was such a crazy amount I definitely did a double take. Mr. Briggs was not a popular witness among the jury because he steadfastly refused to answer Mr. Panish's questions which were very pointed and direct (which made his testimony drag on forever), and some thought he came across as arrogant. I didn't really get that vibe, I just got the feeling this is a guy who is out of his depth when trading with the likes of Mr. Panish.

2. Both sides manipulated ticket sales. Plaintiffs projected way too many, and the defense tried to downplay his success as well. 

3. I really don't know. I think 50 shows is a huge number, and I have a hard time believing that MJ would do a grueling 50 shows, and then go on to do another 200+ or whatever it was around the world. We heard about how much MJ hated flying and traveling for tours and I am really skeptical that it would have played out anything like what Mr. Erk testified to had MJ lived. The number just seems way, way too excessive.

FORUM MEMBER: I wonder how he felt over the testimony of Gongaware and Phillips, did they seem truthfull or were they hiding info and not being totally honest with all their "I dont remember"?

JUROR: 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.

If I had to rank the main AEG execs based on how forthcoming and honest they were under direct examination, I would say from most honest to least it was:


FORUM MEMBER: Did evidence point out that aeg were planning to make a worldtour???? (not asking if you believe mj would actually go on). aeg denied this fiercly but then we heard other testimonies that This IS IT was a 2 year project

JUROR: There was a little evidence for a world tour being contemplated but it was all very flimsy. It came in the form of very early tour production emails, comments made in T.I.I., hearsay, etc. Nothing definitive whatsoever.

FORUM MEMBER: hanks for the reply,i guess i wd have thought if mj was declining, his $5k a day doc wd be the guy in the crosshairs. I accept that in the jury's view the decline in mj didn't warrant a def of incompetence, and i'm actually glad that this aspect was discussed as it wd have ticked me off if all that happened was if you looked to see if murray was qualified to be a doctor. I do entirely accept your argument about what options were open to aeg at this point. My own personal view wd be to stop/postpone tii, but as you rightly imply this isn't what aeg are being accused of not doing. It's not a negligence lawsuit so aeg don't own a duty of care to mj, it's only a case on negligent hiring/supervising/retention of murray. Not sure if you're aware but the jacksons had multiple claims against aeg, and it was only this one claim that was allowed to go through.

JUROR: I agree with you that the correct course of action given what AEG knew at the time should have been to cancel or postpone the shows. But that is very easy to say for a person who has not invested over $30Million in the project. I would have liked to see some more compassion from the AEG side, but they are in a ruthless business and there is not a lot of room to fit compassion and caring into a for-profit venture. And I should point out that there were a lot of emails that did show care and concern for MJ coming from the AEG folks. They are not the heartless, soulless evil suits that so many want to paint them as. I just don't think it's fair to ignore that they did try to help and accommodate MJ and then turn around and say "well you should have done more, and it's your fault he's dead".

FORUM MEMBER: Yes i remember that aeg expert saying that. I'm not sure how it can be seen that mj's being healthy and performing was compatible and therefore one would be in conflict with the other. Clearly if mj had to be put in a drug induced coma every night just to manage rehearsals, never mind for the 50 show tour, then this is a danger to his health, this wd be blindingly apparent to murray. Mj was feeling ill and knew his weight loss and insomnia were huge problems for performing yet was financially and career wise 'locked into' tii and felt he had no choice, and as far as aeg was concerned, they admitted mj was on a decline in the lead up to tii and saw the state he had got in just for doing the press conf, so not sure how mj's health, physical or mental, was much of a priority for them as opposed to doing the shows.

JUROR: MJ's health was definitely a priority for them because without a healthy Michael there are no shows at all. Now you can say that they should have done more to keep him healthy, and my instincts tell me to agree with that, but how much more? At what point do AEG go from being a business partner to a parent? And why is it their duty to keep Michael healthy and not Michael's?

It's just my feeling that AEG was in a no-win situation. Were they supposed to force MJ into a hospital? For what ailment? They should have forcibly removed CM from MJ? How could they even do that? MJ and CM were a package deal and AEG had no authority or ability to remove CM from MJ's life.

FORUM MEMBER: I think it was interesting, and for me relevant, that randy phillips clearly regarded there being a conflict of interest going on with murray. When he was trying to convince kenny ortega on 20 june that mj should go ahead with this is it, he told kenny that murray felt it was best for mj to perform, and seeing that murray was successful and didn't need the gig, this judgment was unbiassed and ethical. Clearly aeg felt murray's financial reliance or otherwise on the tour going ahead would affect his judgement as mj's doctor

JUROR: To me this was one of the stronger parts of plaintiffs case. What it comes down to, is that AEG was going on the information provided to Kathy Jorrie by Conrad Murray. He said he was bringing in $1M a month from his various practices, he did pass a quick check to show that he actually did have practices, and for them that was enough to bring him into the fold. Mr. Phillips acknowledges that there is a potential conflict of interest, but as far as he was aware, CM was successful so he would not be conflicted by the promise of money. This is why plaintiffs spent so much time saying that AEG should have checked out CM's finances. Because it would have revealed that he was in financial trouble, and that potential conflict of interest was a lot stronger than Mr. Phillips thought. That makes sense to me, except that I don't believe that most people do credit checks on their doctors. There was a lot of testimony from two Human Resources ladies, and even the plaintiffs expert had to concede that when companies are hiring personnel, they only perform credit checks something like 3% of the time. And usually credit checks are performed only when the job entails sensitive financial information. This is AEG's policy as well, we were shown that in court multiple times. And on top of that, the HR ladies said that you are only supposed to do background checks that fit with what the job you are hiring for, otherwise you open yourself up to lawsuits for discrimination.

So with all that considered, it is my opinion that AEG should not be held liable for failing to perform a credit check on Dr. Murray.

FORUM MEMBER: The jury instructions i think made clear that AEG didn't need to be the only cause of what happened. There could be multiple contributory causes to murray's actions.

JUROR: Correct, and I should have not used the word "alone". I meant to say that AEG's pressure did not appear to me to be the main cause of CM's unethical actions.


FORUM MEMBER: They could remove him because thats what the contract said. kathy jorrie also testified on stand that aeg could remove the doctor without mjs consent. whether that was overstepping or not, thats what the contract said (which imo strengthen that aeg hired murray).

JUROR: I'm talking about removing him from MJ's side. Even if AEG banned him from their facilities and severed all contact with him on their end, he would still have been free to visit MJ at night and give him propofol.

FORUM MEMBER: How did the jury feel about katherine not asking for a penny from murray ? Did you really buy her excuse ?

Very good question. I would love to hear what juror 27 thought Katherine's excuse/explanation for not taking restitution from her son's killer Conrad Murray?

JUROR: I'm drawing a blank here. Was this something she said in her testimony? All I remember was that she said they brought AEG to trial to search for the truth about what happened to her son. I don't remember hearing about why she chose not to seek restitution from Murray.

FORUM MEMBER: I asked you about your definitions a few days ago but didn't find you answered my question. Why are you implying that your legal defs of incompetent and unfit are the only definitions that matter? Are they in the jury instructions? If not, then the jury is free to use their own definition. Jurors are not lawyers, they are there to bring their own life experience, common sense to the deliberations. You yourself say that there are different defs, legal and colloquial.

JUROR: Just to clarify this a little bit, we were explicitly told that we could not reference a dictionary for these terms, and that we were to use our common sense to guide us. We heard a lot of testimony regarding fitness and competence, so we absolutely understood the precise meaning of both of those terms.

FORUM MEMBER: k but as times pass and mjs health is detoriating, was he fit and competent???? 

they see mj detoriating and what do they think??? what made kenny to believe it was dr murrays treatment that affected mjs health? kenny alerts aeg but they tell him the doctor is a good guy.

im sorry but if i have a personal doctor with me who is suppose to help me but im getting weaker and weaker, isnt that an alarm that something is wrong and that its the DOCTOR causing it????

JUROR: I'm sorry but if that is the case would you wait around for someone else to come around and remove the harmful doctor, or would you act in your own best interest and get rid of him yourself????

FORUM MEMBER: mj is detoriating for 8 weeks, has a meeting with aeg and murray where they basically tell mj to get it together and are concerned about whats going on. im sure oth mj and murray knew they needed to improve or they would cancel the shows which leads to mj being pressured and murray being afraid he will lose his $150,000. so mj comes back in great shape for TWO days only and all is good???

JUROR: So MJ comes back in great shape for two days, tells AEG he is fine and ready to go, and they should respond by removing his personal doctor????

FORUM MEMBER: Which emails? can you be more specific???

I  guess you are not talking about the emails where they called michael 'the freak'...

JUROR: That 'freak' email came from an office in London, not from anyone directly involved with Michael, and Mr. Trell in his response to that email was clearly not in agreement with calling MJ a freak. 

I can't point you to a specific email since I don't have access to the evidence, but I absolutely remember a lot of language in various emails where Mr. Phillips and Mr. Gongaware showed genuine care for Michael. I'm not saying they were saints, but I don't believe that they were malicious or evil either.

FORUM MEMBER: i’m not asking that, im not asking why didnt aeg remove murray. im asking how can you claim murray was fit and competent when ppl are alarmed for 8 weeks but two days are good and thats all that matters for you??? those two last days were the dealbraker????


JUROR: Like someone said earlier, it is not like Michael was on death's door every day for those 8 weeks. The way you are painting it is that MJ came to rehearsals every day looking like a dead person. I don't think that is accurate. 

You have to go on what you see at the time. MJ's health is in decline, people are getting concerned, they go to see him and he is fine. He comes to rehearsals and looks great. He says he is fine to continue. 

Is it not a fact that sometimes people are sick and then they get better? Is it not the case that people go in funks and depressive episodes sometimes and then pull themselves out?

FORUM MEMBER: oh really?????? 

Trell responded to the email with: "Apparently. Not sure how I feel about that. Interesting for sure, but kind of creepy."

JUROR: Yes, and I don't take that as Trell calling MJ a freak. The counsel from London called him that. Creepy is such a vague and overused term that it just doesn't register for me as a major offense, I'm sorry.

FORUM MEMBER: u should know better. trell agrees that he is not comfortable to meet with MJ ''the freak''. he calls the meeting creepy (he is gonna meet the freak and its creepy). this is not an offense to you?????? ohh i forgot im talking with a person that understood why randy phillips screamed and slapped michael. its never acceptable to scream and slap a partner inspite how stressed out the situation is.

im sorry for your sake that you cant see that trell saying he is gonna meet a future client is creepy is offensive. a FREAK and a CREEP they are gonna make millions off.

why are you defending their behaviour????? can you please explain?

JUROR: I'm not defending calling MJ a freak. I find that comment disgusting and reprehensible. I'm saying that Trell's response is not on the same level as the initial email. I had a coworker who was prone to calling large women 'whales'. He'd say stuff like "Hey did that whale pick up her order yet?", and I would answer yes or no or whatever, but the fact that I didn't correct him doesn't mean that I agree with what he called them.

Furthermore, this has nothing at all to do with whether CM was negligently hired/retained/supervised by AEG, so is this just an appeal to emotion?

FORUM MEMBER: Testimony from Jorrie showed no one at AEG vetted the doctor. The defense was wise enough to not suggest Jorrie’s Google search was a vetting process so it interesting that it is being suggested the jury would see it as such. Panish would destroy that suggestion if the defense attempted it simply because the search did not discover the doctor’s two faux offices that he fabricated.

JUROR: And why exactly should AEG be expected to conduct this extensive vetting process for a doctor that was being brought to them by their star performer, especially since they were in essence doing nothing more than giving MJ a loan to pay him? 

"Hey guys I want to bring my doctor aboard the team. He's been my family physician for years and I insist on him."

"Yeah well we don't trust you or your doctor MJ so we are going to perform a thorough background check of this doctor including his financial status" 

Yeah I can't swallow that response as reasonable.

FORUM MEMBER: Jurors were not to decide if AEG knew about propofol or any treatment the doctor administered to Michael. AEG was the ONLY party in the three- party contract that could terminate the doctor so the “boundaries of the promoter” were already crossed thus, the conflicted interest of the doctor.

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?

FORUM MEMBER: The jurors were to decide if AEG hired the doctor and the jurors did. Jurors were then asked if the doctor was unfit or incompetent for the job he was hired for which speaks to his conflicted interest during his two months of employment.

It is interesting that it is being suggested the doctor was hired in “the weakest sense possible” yet; it was that contract, where only AEG could terminate the doctor that the jurors relied on to answer no to question two. The doctor was considered fit and competent by the jurors to provide general care to Michael as per the contract and to his children who were not included in the contract.

JUROR: You are all over the place here. We did not buy the conflict of interest argument. Sorry. AEG was not the only one who could terminate Murray. The kids were going to go to London, and if they were to get sick while over there it would be Murray who would treat them. That they were not named in the contract does not mean that Murray would not have attended to them while in London.

FORUM MEMBER: It is also interesting that there was no response regarding the doctor’s attempt to fleece Michael of $5M being seen as a precursor to unethical or conflicting behavior.

JUROR: Because the mere act of asking for a large amount of money does not make a person unethical in my opinion, nor does it indicate a precursor for unethical behavior. I think that line of thinking is irresponsible and dangerous and I reject it wholeheartedly.

FORUM MEMBER: Juror27, again, your responses are extremely familiar. AEG drafted an employment contract and that is what the jurors found AEG did in question one.

The jurors depended on the contract for their verdict to question two and that contract had eight terminations clauses. Michael could only terminate the doctor THROUGH AEG as per clause 7.3. Michael was NOT allowed to terminate the doctor directly as per that contract. The contract that was relied upon by the jurors explicitly stated Michael was to receive the doctor’s care, NOT Michael’s children or anyone else.

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. 

I don't know what else to tell you.

FORUM MEMBER: Anyone who asked for outrageous amounts of monies only because it was Michael Jackson attempted to fleece Michael Jackson. When that same logic is applied to the doctor who jurors found to be fit and competent as opposed to be negligent which would cause AEG to be held liable for negligent hiring, here is the reply:

JUROR: You will never convince me that the act of asking for large sums of money means that a person is unethical or likely to be unethical. I will also not accept that a person in debt or foreclosure means that they are unethical or likely to be unethical. I find that view extremely troublesome.

FORUM MEMBER: you told the world the man that killed mj is competent and fit inspite mj detoriating for 8 weeks. that is on your conscience.

JUROR: My conscience is as clean as a whistle, bro. You can hold that.

If I've offended anyone here with anything I've said I apologize sincerely as that was not my intention at all. 

I really did not intend to cause any problems here, and I do hope to stick around for a while. I was apprehensive about posting at first but I did so with no other intention than to give some insight as to what we saw on the jury and to let you all know that we came away from the trial with so much admiration for Michael the person. 

I always prefer direct information over speculation if it is available to me, and that is all I wanted to provide here. I understand there will be disagreements about the verdict and I don't mind that or take that personally, but calling my character or conscience into question is completely uncalled for and I refuse to engage in that kind of discussion.

FORUM MEMBER: I understand how you and the jury don't feel what aeg did or didn't do in may/june 09, doesn't rise to the level of liability in this lawsuit. It was a tough lawsuit for the plaintiffs to win and it was aeg's to lose, seeing the cause of mj's death was such an unusual occurrence - an o/d with a doctor present making foreseeability really difficult to prove. 

I can't say i agree that aeg showed care and concern, when tii reached a crisis point on 19th june, it seemed phillip's main concern was to keep ortega onside to make sure the shows went ahead, rather than any concern as to what the matter with mj was. I agree with you that ortega seemed to be one of the few genuine ones around mj. It was telling that when asked about mj's petrified state at the press conf in london ortega replied that if he had known about it he wdn't have taken on the tour as he wd have recognised mj wasn't emotionally/psychologically ready, whereas randy's reaction was to slap and scream and increase the number of shows mj had to perform from 31 to 50.

JUROR. I agree with this. Like I said, I don't think Phillips is a saint. But I also don't think it's fair to hold everyone to the Kenny Ortega standard either. He is a pretty special guy.

FORUM MEMBER: Maybe by looking in detail at how mj died on 25 june? I'm just assuming here that you didn't closely follow the murray trial a couple of years back. This trial didn't dwell on murray's negligence, there seemed to me to be an emphasis on the asking of prop by mj being the key to his death rather than how it was administered. Aeg actually made that claim explicit which ticked me off in that it was mj's negligence that led to his own death, not the hiring/supervision of murray, the admin of prop being like russian roulette - at a certain point death was inevitable. 

The facts at the murray trial actually showed the quite spectacular breaches in the standard of care that murray had for mj in order for him to die on 25 june - 17 egregious breaches of care. Such negligence that there was discussion in the da's office to prosecute the case as murder 2. It wasnt a series of unfortunate little incidents which added up to a horrible consequence - it was really quite massive violations which would be quite unexpected and inexplicable in a fit and competent general practioner doctor, never mind an anaesthesiologist - it made me wonder why aeg didn't fight the case on foreseeability alone rather than blaming mj. The absence of any written record of what drugs mj had been given and when, the leaving of mj's bedroom for up to an hour whilst mj under a prop drip so murray cd make non urgent social phonecalls , no monitoring equipment whatsoever, long delay in phoning 999, lying to paramedics and hosp staff about what had been given to mj. Mj had the right like we all have to expect basic standard of care and competence from his doc, what went wrong on 25 june was not a complicated set of circs only an anaesthesiologist cd overcome, mj cd prob have been saved by a pair of eyes seeing he needed a chin lift to unblock his airway. I honestly think you would reconsider your 50/50 split between mj/murray if you knew the details.

JUROR: You are correct that I didn't follow the Murray trial and those details about how Michael died were unknown to me. 

I don't believe that MJ taking propofol to sleep was something he did under the impression that it was safe. He was warned repeatedly about and knew full well the dangers of using propofol in an inappropriate manner. So MJ is at least 1% responsible for his death. That seems absurdly low to me considering that he knew he was requesting something that was illegal, unethical, and highly dangerous. 

Taking your points into consideration about what CM actually did that morning I do agree that he should hold the majority of responsibility for MJ's death. Whether that amount should be 60 or 75% or whatever seems impossible for me to resolve on my own. 

I will say that I had no idea CM was sentenced to only 4 years until I heard it towards the end of the trial, and I damn near fell out of my chair. Even if I were to assign CM 50% of the blame, I would still have given him life in prison. That sentence and the fact that he is getting out in a few weeks is unbelievable to me.

FORUM MEMBER: The below is the contract the doctor signed. This is what was admitted into evidence and what the jurors based their verdict on. NOWHERE in that contract does it state the artist could terminate the doctor WITHOUT going through the producer. It also does not mention the doctor caring for anyone else besides Michael.


JUROR: You are correct. My apologies for saying you were wrong. I was mistaken with other clauses which had their language changed.

It seems clear to me that the reason he would be terminated by producer is because the agreement is between the producer and CM. How would Michael have any legal authority to void a contract between Murray and AEG? That's why they have that provision in there in the first place, because he is only being hired at the request of the artist.

Are you saying that if MJ said he wanted Murray gone, that AEG would have held this contract up to him and forced CM to keep treating him?

FORUM MEMBER: To Juror 27: I have sort of a two part question for you
1. Do you think the jury could have reached the same verdict given the facts
determined in the contract between AEG/Murray without the many weeks spent by
both sides exposing Michael's private medical records? Was his struggles with pain
issues related to his burn, skin condition...etc. necessary information for you to
hear in order to reach the verdict you did?

JUROR: On one hand, no I don't think it was necessary for us to hear that to reach the verdict we did. That stuff gave a backstory, but it wasn't relevant to the questions we were asked to answer.

On the other hand that evidence was some of the strongest as far as garnering sympathy for MJ's struggles. I was completely unaware of the procedures they performed on Michael to heal the burn scars. Good lord that balloon implant stuff sounded so painful. I didn't know that he had that fall where he hurt his back in (Munich?). 

I never believed MJ was a junkie like so many people say, and that evidence made it clear to us that he was indeed not one and was trying to deal with unimaginable pain.

FORUM MEMBER: And 2. Was it noticed by the jury that there was a large span of time, probably
2003-2009 that was barely addressed during trial, if at all. Did you wonder why
testimony focused on 20, 10 years ago but not the immediate years before his death;
or did it matter?

JUROR: We definitely noticed that big chunk of time that was not focused on, but from what we heard it seemed Michael left the country in '05 or so? I'm not too sure on the dates but that is the impression I got, that he was just not around much in that time period. We did get a lot of '02-'03 testimony from the doctors who were seeing him in Santa Barbara during that time, Dr. Farshchian from Florida, from Randy talking about staging interventions, Mr. LaPerruque who was traveling with Michael during that time and also at Neverland, etc.

It just seemed to me that after the '05 trial MJ went away for awhile until around '07-'08.

FORUM MEMBER: Wondering what 27 thinks about the family dropping restitution inturn for going for the jackpot against aeg and what that says about the families motives for filing the suit as this is probably the one thing that has caused the biggest anger and outrage amongst the fan community although not the biggest surprise considering the jacksons actions to mj over the years

JUROR: I  was unaware that the family dropped restitution against CM to go after AEG until earlier today when I read it here. On the surface it does seem to imply that they were setting their sights on a target with deeper pockets, but I don't wish to speculate as to Ms. Jackson or the family's motives when deciding their legal actions. I am not privy to their discussions and I think for me to question their motives is inappropriate.

FORUM MEMBER: I beleive he said he doesn't recall Katherine 'explanation' of why she didn't go after Murray,. I truly hope Katherine is awarded a lifetime Academy Award before her time is up on earth, she truly deserves one as she is the epitome of an actor/actress.

JUROR: As a complete outsider to the whole Jackson saga, it is killing me to read this kind of stuff about Ms. Jackson all over the place. All I saw was a very sweet lady who reminded me of my grandmother. Obviously that does not mean that she is incapable of questionable decisions or actions. And I know that plaintiffs presented the nicest, sweetest picture of her to us that they possibly could. 

I think on this one I'm going to bury my head in the sand.

FORUM MEMBER: Katherine saying she didn't accept restitution because Murray had to feed his kids was ridiculous IMO. I believe she made that answer otherwise she would have to admit she didn't bother going after him because he has no money and it would have greatly reduced damages from AEG. 

Now he'll be out there profiting freely from killing her son.

JUROR: That is a questionable reason to drop restitution for sure. I have a hard time swallowing that explanation.

FORUM MEMBER: Juror#27, you are making way too much sense with your explanations. It's clear to me that the jurors discussed and considered all points and didn't rush the verdict. I find their reasoning logical. 

MJ deteriorating didn't make Murray unfit for what he was hired. He was still hired for general care. No one knew MJ was like that because of him and you had Karen sending emails to Dileo telling him MJ was self-sabotaging as this was how he was operating according to her, so why would anyone suspect Murray?

JUROR: Agreed.

FORUM MEMBER: Panish actually admitted outright that Katherine sued AEG and didn't sue Murray for financial reasons:


So there is nothing to question here, they basically admitted that they dropped complaints againgst Murray in order to be able to go after AEG because AEG had money and Murray didn't.

JUROR: Hmm. Seems pretty cut and dry from where I'm sitting.

FORUM MEMBER: Oh and I forgot to add about Juror"27's point that AEG tried to help - it's true. In the emails they offered to get the best therapist for MJ as they had access due to dealing with sports teams. 

And they also got a food person taking ccare of MJ's eating when they were told he wasn't eating much. So it ain't like they completely turned a blind eye. The problem was they were in the dark as to what the real issue was.

JUROR: Yes. I think Mr. Phillips and Mr. Gongaware could have shown more compassion towards MJ, but that is a matter of my personal morality and what I think I would have done in their situation. At the same time they did make efforts to help him and they certainly wanted him healthy and ready to do the shows. So while I might wag my finger in disapproval at them for not being as caring as I like to think I would have been, I do not agree with holding them liable for MJ's death or forcing them to pay billions of dollars to anyone.

FORUM MEMBER: Juror27, there is nothing illegal, unethical, or highly dangerous about the use of propofol.

JUROR: If you are ordering propofol under false pretenses and administering to someone in a non-medical setting without the proper skills or monitoring equipment, I think that qualifies as being illegal, unethical, and highly dangerous. How can you possibly dispute this?!?

FORUM MEMBER: There is nothing illegal or unethical about the administration of propofol even in a home setting. The administration of propofol is highly dangerous and was ultimately fatal when done by a negligent, conflicted, cardiologist. Michael passed from the negligent administration of propofol by the doctor not from simply the substance itself.

JUROR: You seem to be implying that Michael's choice for curing his insomnia was not dangerous had it been done by a qualified anesthetist. This is counter to what the experts testified at trial, where they showed that being in an induced coma is not restful sleep, and that to continue to use propofol to treat insomnia was an extreme deviation of standard medical care. There was not one expert who testified that it is OK to use propofol to sleep, regardless of whether it was in a home setting, hospital room, or administered by an anesthetist or a layperson. The use of the drug to 'sleep' is highly dangerous FULL STOP.

FORUM MEMBER: It was unnecessary for the jurors to know when the doctor would be released from prison. Senneff testified to the state that Michael was found in on the day he passed. The "trustworthy" Detective Martinez and Detective Smith determined the doctor was suspicious in the death of his patient because they believed he was conflicted enough to put his patient second to the $150K fee.

JUROR: I agree it was not crucial for us to know when CM was getting out of prison. Like I said, it was revealed in an offhand comment towards the very end of the trial. No time was spent discussing it in testimony.

Yes, it is detectives' jobs to be suspicious about things. They were investigating a death. Their post facto suspicion does nothing to convince me that AEG should have been expected to run a check on CM's finances prior to hiring him.

FORUM MEMBER: It was also unnecessary that the jurors knew that a plaintiff previously rejected restitution because jurors are not to rely on or express biases to any party. Certain Jackson family members can sue the doctor civilly as AEG could have also sued the doctor civilly. One may feel a plaintiff was "targeting a deeper pocket" however, AEG was made whole by the estate and profited from TII as testified to in court.

JUROR: I agree, I understand why that information was kept from us.

FORUM MEMBER: It did not seem clear to another juror who spoke to the media and stated the children would be cared for by the doctor when they were not listed in the contract. Another juror did not characterize Michael as a junkie however, the juror did characterize Michael as addict who no one would say no to.

JUROR: You are reading far too much into that comment by the juror. There is no question that MJ was dependent on Demerol and an addict for a period of his life. He checked himself into rehab in case you forgot. And yeah, there was ample testimony that showed that MJ had no shortage of doctors throwing whatever drugs he wanted at him. And there was plenty of testimony that when MJ was challenged or stood up to by someone, he would often cut that person out of his life. 

This is evidence we were shown in court. If you want to take that juror's comments as slanderous or malicious in spirit you are free to do so, but Mr. Smith was just as fond of Michael as the rest of us. I know for a fact that he was not intending to disparage MJ.

FORUM MEMBER: Jurors are instructed to ask any questions they may have during deliberations. Any concerns about AEG possibly forcing a doctor to continue to care for Michael were to be addressed at that time.

JUROR: Interesting. So rather than follow your implications to their logical end, you would rather deflect with a meaningless statement. We had no reason to discuss the termination clause because it was a red herring. I was asking YOU to explain your assertion, and your answer speaks volumes.

FORUM MEMBER: It was also testified to that Michael trusted doctors by the “trustworthy” Rowe. As Lee testified to in the criminal trial and the civil trial, Michael believed it was safe as long as he was monitored.

JUROR: Ms. Lee testified that when Michael asked her if she could get propofol, the first thing she did was check the Physician's Desk Reference to see what it was used for and what the side effects were.

She then brought the book back to Michael and explained to him that it was not intended for sleep and that a possible side effect is death. 

Michael also had tried to get propofol from Dr. Quinn back in 1999, and she refused and told him of the very same dangers. 

When Michael was given propofol in the mid '90s at the order of Dr. Metzger, the 2 anesthesiologists who administered it told him that it was highly dangerous and that they would not administer it to him again.

So no, I'm sorry but I don't believe you when you say "Michael believed it was safe". If he trusted doctors so much, why would he disregard all these warnings?

FORUM MEMBER: No one is qualified to speak to that juror’s feelings or views except that juror. It was also testified to that Michael was an addict however; he was not a participant in his addiction in 2009. An ethical doctor would say no to Michael and not be concerned about not being able to participate in Michael’s celebrity lifestyle.

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

FORUM MEMBER: And your response again is extremely familiar. I previously stated I am neutral on the validity of your identity. I also said I would not pose any questions to you as that discussion will not change the verdict I do not agree with.

JUROR: What does my identity have to do with anything? I asked you a simple question based on the contract we were talking about and an assertion you made, and the best you can do is deflect and question my identity?

FORUM MEMBER: There is no proof anything being said about Katherine or any Jackson to you in this thread is fact yet you readily and eagerly believe these negative views. Interesting indeed.

JUROR: Oh? So that link to quoted trial testimony is fabricated? Have you any evidence of this? Interesting indeed.

1. I didn't know about restitution being dropped against CM by Katherine.
2. On the surface it does seem to appear that the plaintiffs are looking for deep pockets. 
3. I don't think it is my place to question or speculate as to Ms. Jackson's motives.

Under what kind of twisted and tortured logic can you read that and say that I have formed an opinion of Katherine? As I sit here right now I don't hold an opinion of her other than that I really liked her testimony.

3. I don't think it is my place to question or speculate as to Ms. Jackson's motives.

We are done. Cheers.

FORUM MEMBER: In your opinion did Randy Jacksons deposition help the defence or the Plantiffs?

JUROR: It really didn't factor in for either side because what he testified about was not directly related to the questions we were asked. He was never brought up in deliberations since we were focusing on the hiring time period rather than the time Randy testified about, which was the early-mid 2000's mostly.

FORUM MEMBER: if you had to award damages did or have u ever thought about what sort of figure you would go for and how it would be split amongst kj and the kids or have u never even thought

JUROR: At a certain point during plaintiffs case they were just drilling us daily with the 'nasty' side of AEG (mean emails, Mr. Phillips slapping MJ, etc.). Mr. Panish just went to town on them. I did start to think that I would be OK with awarding some kind of small punitive damages. Something like $10M.

Later in the trial as other information came out and I got a clearer picture of everything, I stopped thinking that they should owe $10M or any money at all.

FORUM MEMBER: This is hypothetical question to Juror 27.
This is about the verdict form and if jury was to find AEG liable, what percentage would have been put on Michael.

Plaintiffs agreed that Michael was 20% responsible as per their pie chart. If the verdict would have been AEG liable, what percentage would you have put for Michael?

JUROR: I was never convinced that AEG's actions in any way caused Murray to give MJ propofol. If AEG had known what Murray was doing they would have shut everything down in a heartbeat. 

So on that pie chart I would have had to unfortunately put MJ at 100% and AEG at 0%. I think the instructions said we could put any percentage on each side as long as it equaled 100%. But since AEG is being held liable in this hypothetical, I guess they have to be at least 1% responsible.

The real pie chart should be between MJ and Murray, and after reading a lot the last few days about how Michael died and thinking it over more, I think I'd put Murray at around 90%.

FORUM MEMBER: I was interested in what he said about Briggs' testimony and it implied he was impressed with Panish as a lawyer. I was wondering if he had any comment about the interactions between Panish and Putnam, and between the 2 legal teams in general.

JUROR: I was blown away by Mr. Panish. What an awesome, commanding presence in the courtroom. Knows the law inside and out. A quick wit and genuinely funny as well. I might not have been buying all of what he was selling, but the sales pitch was the best I've ever seen. Just a master of his craft.

Mr. Putnam I found equally impressive in every regard. He is just as commanding a presence, just as quick witted and funny, and he also knows the law inside and out. I took careful note of how Mr. Putnam handled sensitive witnesses like Prince and Katherine Jackson. He was ever respectful even while asking hard questions. Just a class act all around.

The interactions between the two legal teams was by far the most entertaining thing about the trial. I could not believe the amount of snarky comments and mean looks being thrown back and forth. So many childish arguments ("He started it, your honor!") it sometimes felt like the judge was more of a nanny and she even said something to that effect a few times. 

There was one incident where Mr. Panish had heard during a break that an AEG attorney (Ms. Strong) was staring at him while he was questioning a witness. She was seated to his left about 6 feet away. So when Ms. Strong went to the podium (which was a few feet behind Mr. Panish's spot at the attorneys' table) to question the same witness, Mr. Panish turned 180° in his chair and stared directly up at her. That lasted a few minutes before the judge told him to face front. So he faced front, kinda. Then started to slowly turn back around until he was finally staring directly back at her. Ms. Strong says "Your honor..." and motions to Mr. Panish, who is already turning back around. The judge admonishes Mr. Panish a 2nd time, and he says "It's OK your honor, I have her on video now." Mr. Panish had set his laptop camera to capture Ms. Strong and he sat there face front, staring down at his laptop video to watch Ms. Strong question the witness. It was so hard to not laugh out loud at this.

That was something I did not expect, that there would be so much humor in the courtroom. Quips between the attorneys, or an unexpected answer from a witness (Like when Ms. Rowe repeatedly used the phrase "pissing match" to describe 2 doctors who were trying to give MJ more and better drugs -- the judge's reaction to that was priceless), or any other random thing that would happen in there. There were laugh out loud moments almost every day.

FORUM MEMBER: did the jurors (or this juror) feel the trial went on too long and that it was too drawn out and maybe repetitive? Was the jury burned out after 5 months?

JUROR: Looking back it's pretty clear now that a good amount of what we were shown wasn't relevant to the questions we were asked to answer. I didn't think it was too repetitive, and the times it was repetitive were mostly towards the very end. The beginning and middle of the trial were riveting. I personally wasn't burned out by the length and I don't think anyone else really was either. I think a few just were itching to get back to their normal routine.

FORUM MEMBER: What did Juror #27 think of the witness Earley, the one who did the study on propofol addiction and who had been an addict himself (heroin) at one point?

JUROR: I really, really dug Dr. Earley. He had some very emotional testimony and I teared up listening to him describe his struggles. How he hit bottom and managed to get himself clean. It was just so inspirational and my heart went out to him.

I was surprised to learn about the propofol study funded by AEG, and hearing him explain that whole thing was fascinating. Dr. Earley was one of the rare witnesses who were questioned by Mr. Boyle, and I thought he stood his ground well when Mr. Boyle was grilling him about a few blog posts he made shortly after MJ's death (I don't know if you've seen them). I do have to say though that I thought those blogs were way too sensationalist and poorly-written. I don't think they damaged his credibility, but I just didn't like them.

FORUM MEMBER: Thanks for answering my question. re what you said above. one of the issues many fans had with the judges rulings is she seemed to let anything and everything be heard during the trial. for example the majority of the jacksons case had been thrown out pre trial but the judge still seemed to let witnesses that were more related to the sections that had been thrown out testify in the actual trial. many fans also pretrial and right at the begining felt the judge had a bias against mj as she made several comments that stated her feelings that mj was just another typical druggie rockstar "like the rollingstones" when the evidence clearly shows that was not the case.

JUROR: I don't know the judge's personal opinions, but I doubt very highly that she allowed her alleged "bias against MJ" to color her judgment in the case, especially if she supposedly let any and everything in the case for the plaintiffs. If she let everything in the case for the plaintiffs, wouldn't that be bias in favor of MJ? I think it is far more likely that she did her best to keep things neutral.

FORUM MEMBER: I also wonder whats your opinion on the jacksons trying to have their cake and it it interms of in one hand claiming mj was a drug addict who needed saving from himself and was weak and didnt want to do 50 shows and was being bullied by AEG etc etc. yet in the next breath claim he was going to carry on working/touring into his 70s plus and was going to tour with his brothers afterwards (something mj denied himself many a time the last being in late 2008) obviously said to try and increase the damages to the ridiculous figure of 40 bill. seems to me the jacksons were trying to have it both ways in their quest to win lots of $$.

JUROR: That does appear to be contradictory at first glance, but if I may speculate for a moment I would guess the rebuttal to that would be that Murray's negligence and AEG's pressure is what wore MJ down and weakened him so much. So if we take those things out of the equation in an alternate future where MJ successfully completes the first 50 shows, then the contradiction between weakened/invigorated MJ disappears. (Of course this is all predicated on Murray being somehow removed from MJ's life, and I don't see why that would be the case since he was there due to MJ wanting him there. I guess we are to speculate that MJ at some point in this alternate future would just get rid of Murray?). The more glaring contradiction in my mind is simply comparing MJ's actual touring history and revenues with Mr. Erk's projections. I wish I still had the demonstrative exhibits they showed and passed out to us because all the numbers were there. But from memory it was speculated MJ would do something like 260 shows in ~3 years, and his actual touring history was 272(?) shows over a 10 year period. A 10 year time period when he was much younger and with no kids, I might add.

FORUM MEMBER: I personally was surprised that defence lawyer Putnam didn't bring up Katherine dropping restitution more times during the trial, in order to show reason from this trial. Putnam only brought it up during Katherine's testimony. Second issue for me was that Katherine sued AEG Sept 2010 and before Conrad Murray was sentenced to prison, which was Nov 2011. Did this raise any questions in your mind? We got this from ABC7 tweets:

Putnam: You do believe Dr. Murray has some responsibility for your son's death? Mrs. Jackson: Of course

Putnam asked Mrs. Jackson if Dr. Murray was convicted in the criminal trial. She said yes.

He asked if the doctor is now in jail. "I hope he is," she responded. (ABC7)

Putnam inquired about Mrs. Jackson asking the District Attorney to drop the $100 million restitution against Dr. Murray. Mrs. Jackson said yes, that Dr. Murray has children and has no money. "Because I felt his children needed him to take care of them," she explained. "He didn't have any money."

Putnam: You asked the DA to drop the $100 million restitution claim against Dr. Murray? Mrs. Jackson: I asked them to drop it because of his children, he has quite a few children, 7 or 8, I don't know.

Mrs. Jackson said she believes the DA may have dropped the $100 million restitution claim.

Putnam: Did you drop the restitution claim so you could file this lawsuit? Mrs. Jackson: No (ABC7)

I guess you cannot remember everything that was said during the trial, but I personally would have wondered greatly that mother of deceased son is more angry at concert promoter for "alledged" hiring than being angry at the real killer of her son. That to me would have been proper and clear red flag. Were you aware of that plaintiffs offered settlement twice before the trial?

JUROR: I was unaware of the settlement offer until after the trial. If it was mentioned during the trial I didn't recall it. It was definitely not something that was talked about at length. Reading those tweets refreshed my recollection a bit and I do remember her answering those questions now. I remember getting the impression that there were probably a lot of people in her ear who convinced her to go after AEG and not Murray. And at the same time I reminded myself that the case was to be decided by the facts and not my speculation as to Ms. Jackson's motivation for bringing the suit. So even if I believed that she was just going after deep pockets, in the end I would have awarded damages if I thought they proved their case.

FORUM MEMBER: More hypothetical questions: Regarding that Panish's pie chart, would all the juror have to agree the percentage of responsibility or how it would have worked? If you say MJ was responsible 99%, were other jurors had to be in agreement with that amount, or all jurors put their own percentage and then judge would have decided average? Also, did all the juror had to be in agreement amount of money awarded or all jurors put their own amount and judge decides average?

JUROR: Based on how we deliberated the first 2 questions, I think we would have tried to agree on the percentage rather than just averaging our different percentages.

I'm not sure but I think we had to be in agreement on the amount of damages. I don't know if that is explained in the verdict form or not, but I'm certain that if we made it that far we would have wanted to agree on both the % and the amount of damages. I don't know how the court would've handled it if we couldn't agree on those numbers.

FORUM MEMBER: Thank you so much for the detailed description in the courtroom. It's really interesting to read and envision these two opposing forces facing off in a court of law. I knew that Brian Panish was very good just by taking a look at his winning track record, and it seems Putnam was some real competition for Panish. It takes some real skill to be a trial attorney. Thanks for giving us a peak into that world. I wanted this trial to be televised. It would have been something to see.

JUROR: You're welcome. I agreed with the judge's decision to not televise the trial, but looking back I do wish I had a way to watch it (some of it, I should say) all over again. While I took my duty as a juror very seriously, there were just so many entertaining moments that it would be nice to see some of them again. Another funny thing I remember during the trial was when Mr. Phillips was on the stand and Mr. Panish was questioning him. He was asking about an email that Mr. Phillips had sent someone where he said he had info that would exonerate Conrad Murray, or something to that effect. Mr. Panish asked why Mr. Phillips didn't take this info to the police, and Mr. Phillips said that it was something crazy and unreliable. He tried to elaborate on what the info was but Mr. Panish wouldn't let him. So later when he was being cross examined, Mr. Putnam got around to the email info and asked Mr. Phillips to relay it. Mr. Phillips said that Lionel Ritchie's wife at the time had called him and told him - Mr. Panish: "Objection, Hearsay" - Overruled. Mr. Phillips continued and again Mr. Panish objected on the same grounds. Overruled again. So Mr. Phillips finally says that Ms. Ritchie told him that Michael told her - through a medium - that he had accidentally killed himself and that Murray was not to blame. Immediately Mr. Panish says "Objection. C'mon. Double, triple hearsay now?" The whole courtroom erupted on that one.

FORUM MEMBER: The end is that CM decided to do wrong/go against oath (under clear debt pressure... u have a family, u have to pay your rent and bills. What if they tell u that they pay your salary and u have to do what told otherwise no $ for your bills?) and AEG was/is liable for CM wrongdoing because they hired him, as your verdict of hiring said.

JUROR: That is incorrect. The question of liability is separate from the question of whether they hired him. If I hire someone to fix my roof, and while working for me they decide to shoot my neighbor, you believe that I should be liable for their actions? That is why the questions are broken down further to ask whether AEG hired a person who was unfit or incompetent, and whether they knew or should have known he was incompetent. If I have information that the roofer I hired has killed someone before or attempted murder, then I can be held liable. If I have information that the roofer I hired has no experience working on roofs and is actually a gardener, and he injures someone on the job, then I can be held liable. In this case, AEG had no information that Conrad Murray was an unethical and dangerous doctor. That was purposefully kept secret from them by Michael himself. His medical background qualified him to give basic medical care, so they were not hiring a gardener to work on a roof. They were hiring a doctor to be a doctor.

FORUM MEMBER: There is 1 thing very important to note: Thanks to the verdict about "AEG Hired CM" there are legal grounds (much stronger than before) for the Jackson Family to have AEG liable , via an appeal and probably without even passing through a jury.

JUROR: Now I'm no fancy bigshot lawyer, but I'm having a hard time believing this to be the case. I am interested to see where this appeal business ends up, however.

FORUM MEMBER: Thanks Juror #27 for your great replies. Some of the things you witnessed must have been hilarious--like the judge reacting to Debbie Rowe's colorful language. And the conflicts between the 2 teams--at one point they were almost coming to blows (at least from the reports)--was that true?

JUROR: Yeah Ms. Rowe was a trip. I liked her a lot, but I have to admit there was a small incident where she rustled my jimmies. When Ms. Rowe was being questioned by Ms. Chang of the plaintiffs, Ms. Bina from the defense objected to a few of the questions. For some reason, Ms. Rowe took these objections as personal attacks and kinda lashed out at Ms. Bina. I was totally taken aback because in my opinion Ms. Bina was by far the sweetest, most unassuming attorney on either side. Even when she was grilling a witness she was just so nice and pleasant. So seeing Ms. Rowe go after her when she didn't do anything wrong was a definite WTF moment, but Ms. Rowe had to go into some pretty tough testimony and I chalk the incident up to emotions running high + misunderstanding. Ms. Bina handled the situation with grace and a smile.

As far as Mr. Panish and Mr. Putnam, I never saw any outright physical hostility or even any raised voices between them, but I heard from a few people who said they saw them arguing loudly in the hallway one time. I got the sense early on that there was very real animosity between the two of them. At one point Mr. Panish was questioning Mr. Phillips about having lunch at the Polo Lounge with Mr. Putnam and a third party I can't remember at the moment. I want to say Dr. Tohme Tohme or someone from Colony Capital. Whoever it was, Mr. Panish was intimating that some serious shenanigans were afoot at the meeting. When it was Mr. Putnam's turn to cross examine you could just feel the anger coming off him even though he kept his composure exceptionally well. Remember the cartoon where the wolf and the sheepdog would clock in and out like they were at a job? They'd try to kill each other while on the clock and then clock out and be nice and chummy? That is how I pictured the two lead attorneys for a while. Early in the trial I often wondered whether they would have lunch or have a couple beers with each other after it was all over, but I stopped wondering that after a certain point.

FORUM MEMBER: So, maybe you could comment on 2 other witnesses--Prince and Metzger? Specifically, what did you think of Prince's testimony that he saw Randy Phillips grabbing Murray by the elbow? Also I think he said some men came to see MJ while he was away at rehearsal, including Phillips (if I remember correctly). As I recall, he was not sure of the date (understandable since he was 12 years old). I think he called MJ and MJ told him to offer them something. How did you, and the jury, feel about this testimony as far as the negligent hiring issue and AEG's alleged pressure on Murray was concerned?

JUROR: I didn't put much stock into that portion of Prince's testimony (the elbow grab). He was pretty vague on it himself, and as you said he was 12 years old at the time. It appeared to me that he was maybe combining incidents or remembering incorrectly, but I don't know. Same for the testimony about people coming over when MJ wasn't there.

FORUM MEMBER: What did you think of Metzger's deposition statement versus his live testimony in court? Did you think he was contradicting himself, or at least walking back what he said in his deposition? What was his effect on the jury in that he was the final witness for both sides? Thanks--I really appreciate your sharing your thoughts and experiences.

JUROR: Actually he wasn't the final witness for the plaintiffs. They called Dr. Metzger's attorney last. Dr. Metzger had retained the attorney just a few days prior to testifying, and that attorney also just happened to be Ms. Rowe's attorney (who was referred to Ms. Rowe by plaintiffs). But he was a last minute thing and was only on the stand for maybe 20 minutes total. Dr. Metzger's flip-flop was something that stood out like a sore thumb. In his deposition it was clear what he meant when he said that MJ was doctor shopping, and then on the witness stand he was practically calling his own deposition out as untrue. I don't know what that change was about but it was impossible to ignore.

We spoke about his change in testimony briefly in deliberations since it was so fresh in our minds, but his testimony was not germane to the questions on the verdict form so it was nothing we considered too heavily. We all noticed the change though, I remember asking if I had remembered the deposition incorrectly or attributed it to the wrong person. We all scratched our heads on that one.

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

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

FORUM MEMBER: Id like to know juror27's impression of TJ and Taj Jacksons testimony. Id also like to know the reaction/atmosphere in courtroom and among jurors when Debbie Rowe broke down over Paris Jackson. Id like to know what you thought about the notes the kids wrote to their father and the homevideos that were shown. Did it somehow change your perception of MJ as a father?

JUROR: I thought Taj and TJ were great. I'm exactly Taj's age so it was interesting to hear about him growing up with MJ as an uncle since at the same time I was growing up knowing MJ as a worldwide phenomenon. I thought they were both smart, humble and honest. Their testimony didn't really have anything to do with the central questions of the trial, but I appreciated hearing their stories of being with their uncle both as kids and adults. I got the impression that they really loved him and miss him and I thought they were both good people at heart based on what I saw and heard. It was pretty disheartening for me to read Taj's tweet about "big money wins again, no justice for MJ" or whatever it said after the verdict. That bummed me out.

There were a lot of emotional breakdowns in the trial but Ms. Rowe's was especially hard to see. You're sitting there and this person is going through this soul-crushing emotional pain, and your instinct is to want to give them a hug or comfort them somehow. But you can't. And the attorneys can't either. You just have to sit there and watch them struggle. I'm a pretty sympathetic person in general, but this trial really pushed me to the limit. Ms. Cherilyn Lee also broke down when testifying about how MJ trusted doctors too much, and she relayed how her mother also trusted doctors too much and that her mother died because of that misplaced trust. She had the most intense emotional breakdown and I can still remember the feeling in the pit of my stomach as I sat there watching her. My heart just broke for this poor woman over and over and having to sit there detached as someone is pouring their heart out and crying in pain was very hard.

The atmosphere was like being at a funeral whenever someone would break down. The air felt heavier, everything got quieter and you could just feel the tension every time it happened. To the judge's credit she handled emotional testimony with care and concern for the witnesses. Always offering to take a break if they needed it, quick to hand over tissues, reassuring them in a kind way. I really liked how she handled those instances.

One day towards the end of the trial (actually after Ms. Rowe's testimony I think), before the next witness was called, the judge read an instruction to us that said that there was a lot of emotional testimony during the trial, and that attorneys are forbidden from approaching the witness to console them in any way, and that we were not to view their inaction in a negative light. I kind of figured that on my own but it was interesting to hear it officially spelled out.

As far as the videos and handwritten notes, I was really touched by those. I honestly had no impression of MJ as a father before the trial so I didn't even have a perception that could be changed. I do have an impression of him as a father now and it is overwhelmingly positive. The thing that stood out to me the most about Michael as a father is how well he kept them grounded and instilled in them good character traits like caring for others, being helpful, being disciplined, being grateful for what they have, etc. Just imbuing them with good, old-fashioned values that are unfortunately going by the wayside more and more every day. And you see this manifested in the letters that they wrote to their father and how they treated everyone around them. They just seem like great kids and I think they are that way because they had a great father. They showed the clip of Paris crying at Michael's funeral a bunch of times, and it hit me like a truck every time. Even now I just feel so much sorrow for her that this amazing, positive force in her life was taken away so early. I truly hope she manages to find peace and harmony in her life after all she has been through at such a young age. I hope for that for all of them.

FORUM MEMBER: Welcome back, Juror #27--I thought we'd lost you so it's a nice surprise to see your replies! MJ tried to replace CM a number of times--with Dr. Adams in Las Vegas, by asking Metzger and Cherilyn Lee if they could find someone to give him 'IV sleep medicine' (aka propofol, we assume, although Metzger says this specific anesthetic was not mentioned in their discussion), and was not able to find someone else. I think he tried and decided that he had to go ahead with CM, as he was the only one willing to do it (although we know Dr. Adams agreed also but CM blocked MJ from knowing that).

JUROR: Thanks for the kind welcome back, jamba. I've been meaning to stop by lately, just been a bit busy. I don't think MJ wanted to replace Murray with Adams (or anyone else). I think it is more likely that MJ wanted a second set of hands and eyes to help him 'sleep', and who better to bring in than an actual anesthesiologist? When MJ was administered propofol in Germany, there were 2 medical personnel present. Ms. Rowe testified about how they told her and MJ that protocol required at least 2 qualified persons present when administering anesthesia. They explained that it is very possible that a single person could have something unexpected happen to them while the patient is under, which would then put the patient in serious danger. I believe MJ had enough experience with legitimate administration of anesthesia that he knew there should always be backup personnel present, and I think that was his reason for seeking out an additional person via Adams, Lee and Metzger. I also believe that Murray was worried that bringing someone else aboard would cut into his paycheck, and that is why he appeared angry at the meeting with Adams and why he later stonewalled him when he finally decided that he was willing to go on tour with them.

FORUM MEMBER: Juror#27...first thank you so much for coming back. We are a feisty bunch here, but I think everyone does appreciate your providing us insight into the thought processes of the jury, even if their is disagreement with the verdict. Second, would MJ's debt have factored into the damages amount if you had gotten that far?

JUROR: That's an interesting question. My initial reaction is that his debt seems irrelevant to the matter of damages, but then I remember that we were supposed to be arriving at a figure which would represent what Michael would have reasonably been expected to provide to his mother and children had he lived. In that light, his personal spending and debt do need to factor in. We were shown extensive testimony about how much MJ had spent on his mother and children in the past, and also a lot about his personal spending and debts which obviously would affect how much he actually had available to provide to them. So there would certainly need to be some discussion about his spending habits and debt when trying to arrive at a figure which would represent what he would have actually provided to them, but how much of a factor it would have been is not something I can speculate to. Especially without all those figures and exhibits in front of me or knowing the other jurors' opinions on this subject.

FORUM MEMBER: Yes, I agree with this. What I meant by 'replace' is that he wanted to replace Murray as the primary person who gave him the propofol. I think he would have kept Murray on--just as you said--but not to administer propofol, which he knew Murray was not qualified to do. So Murray could have been the general practictioner, the second pair of hands, and so on, but not the main person to act as what he wasn't--an anesthesiologist. But b/c no one else was available (as far as he knew), he went--reluctantly--with Murray. He was obviously looking for an anesthesiologist b/c he went to Adams and before that he asked Lee and Metzger to recommend one as well. It would have been easier if he had found someone in L.A. but eventually, he went back to Vegas to talk to the one guy he knew who had given him propofol before.

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





Source: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/130676-For-easy-reference-Juror-27-s-answers-to-fans-questions-(No-Discussion)


Please login to post comments or replies.