AEG Live Jurors Speak Out After Verdict

On October 2, 2013, the jury in the AEG Live vs. Jacksons trial reached a verdict in the five month long trial. The jury’s instructions were to answer 16 questions, in order, given to them on a verdict form. If the answer to any one of the questions was no, there would be no need to answer any other questions and AEG Live would prevail in the case. Both the plaintiff’s and defendant’s attorneys gave input into the jury verdict form.

Question 1

Did AEG Live hire Dr. Conrad Murray?

The jury found that, yes, AEG Live did hire Conrad Murray.

Question 2

Was Murray unfit or incompetent for the job he was hired to do?

The jury answered no to this question.

The jury instructions were quite specific. Their reasoning for the “NO” answer to question two was that Conrad Murray was a physician who was licensed in three states and had no blemishes on his performance record. Upon reviewing specific contracts, even though unsigned, it was shown that he was hired as a general practitioner to treat Michael Jackson.

The jury foreman in the AEG Live trial, Gregg Barden, explained how the jury reached their verdict concluding that the wording of question two was the deciding factor. Although they realized that Michael Jackson did not survive Murray’s care, Murray was qualified to care for him. If ethics had been part of the wording of question two, it might have turned out differently. Mr. Barden said that the verdict in the AEG Live trial does not vindicate Conrad Murray for his part in Michael Jackson’s death.

According to Barden, “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,” Barden said. “Now, that doesn’t mean that we felt he was ethical, and maybe had the word ethical been in the question, it could have been a different outcome. But because it was for the job he was hired to do, that was what we had to focus on.”

“Contrary to some expectations that the trial would damage Jackson’s reputation with its focus on his drug use, jury foreman Gregg Barden said Thursday that what he saw and heard made him a bigger fan of the King of Pop. He bought some of Jackson’s albums growing up, but it wasn’t until serving as a juror in the wrongful death trial that he realized his talent, generosity and personality, Barden said.

Barden — a high school football coach — said he came close to crying in court when Jackson lawyers played a video of Jackson’s children as he sang “Speechless,” a song he wrote to describe his love for his children.”

http://www.ktvz.com/lifestyle/entertainment/Juror-Jackson-verdict-did-not-vindicate-doc/-/427160/22248500/-/k8tpkl/-/index.html

Here is a video link to an interview Barden gave to CBS2cals Andrea Fujii. This 10 minute video is well worth the time.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/9373934-jackson-jury-foreman-sits-down-with-cbs2kcal9s-andrea-fujii/#.Uk3yp_qm4pI.twitter

On October 5, 2013, Juror #27 sought out the Michael Jackson Community Forum to find out what was being said about the verdict in the Michael Jackson community. He signed up to post on the forum and gave some insight into how the jury came to their verdict. Throughout the five month long trial, the jury definitely came to appreciate Michael Jackson. This juror came to know Michael Jackson as a well-loved and caring person, a terrific father, a loving son and extremely talented.

Juror #27 on the MJJC forum—10-5-2013

Originally Posted by Victory22

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.

Response from Juror #27 whose credentials were confirmed by MJJ Community Forum

“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.”

The full Question and Answer session for Juror #27 is available at this link to MJJCommunity.com.

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/130676-For-easy-reference-Juror-27-s-answers-to-fans-questions-(No-Discussion)/page2

As always, most media will spin the stories negatively against Michael Jackson as will AEG Live whose “victory” speeches were sickening. The jurors have spoken out themselves and do not need interpretation of their meaning from third party legal analysts being paid by the very media that is continually out to portray Michael in a negative matter. This jury knows better and are willing to say so.

And, We Wait for Another Jury To Decide

The closing arguments in the AEG Live trial were completed last week and the case has now been presented to the jury. The jury has had to endure 5 long months of testimony in a trial whose main purpose is supposedly to determine who hired Conrad Murray, the man, now felon, who is responsible for the involuntary manslaughter of Michael Jackson.

No verdict in this trial can change the fact that Conrad Murray egregiously violated 17 tenets of the proper care of his patient. The AEG Live trial made this more than clear. Murray improperly treated his “desperate to sleep” patient’s severe insomnia by poisoning him for two months with a drug, propofol, that he had no training to administer and without the proper equipment while doing so. He administered the drug, walked away from his patient to talk on the phone with his stripper girlfriend, failed to call emergency services to assist while covering up his crime and lied to hospital emergency staff about what he had done. Murray’s only patient died in his negligent care. Murray, scheduled to be released from jail at the end of October, has not appropriately paid for his crime. Katherine Jackson declined to seek restitution from Murray so he is now free to profit from his crime in books and on the tabloid talk show circuit.

Testimony at this trial made it clear that Michael Jackson, the victim, was on trial for the third time. The judge presided over a circus that seemed to allow any and all line of questioning that laid bare the privacy of Michael Jackson for public consumption.

IF AEG wins, it means they didn’t hire or supervise Murray and bear no responsibility for his medical incompetence which led directly to Jackson’s death.

IF Katherine Jackson wins, it means AEG hired and supervised Murray who was then caught in a corporate conflict of loyalty which bred the incompetence that led to Jackson’s death

In either case, the jury heard witness testimony about Michael Jackson’s behavior over the years relative to his use of prescription medication — including brave attempts to separate from them for good. Some of these witnesses spoke from first-hand knowledge because they were doctors who treated Jackson and others spoke from close perspective like Debbie Rowe.

This trial did help Michael’s legacy in some respect. It shed much light on the fact that he was an excellent father. Not one witness disputed that or said to the contrary. It showed him to be a very spiritual person. When one of the doctors was asked what they talked about, he said the Bible. Nearly every one of the witnesses spoke very highly of Michael, even the doctors who felt he was over-medicating. They all loved him dearly. It has made him very human and has, perhaps, taken the focus off the previous negative perceptions. Most of the reporting had a certain amount of understanding and stuck to the facts. Anthony McCartney of AP, Alan Duke of CNN, and ABC LA local were generally fair and factual in their reporting. There were some that reverted to old negatives, but surprisingly few. We never knew before this trial how much pain Michael was in and hopefully there is a better understanding of what he endured. Thinking of the jury – before the trial and after – they probably have a hugely different opinion of Michael. That he was someone who had to live and cope with pain, someone who people loved dearly, an extremely generous and caring person, and a father figure to many. We sincerely hope that the public will hear about this and will listen.

For those who hoped that the “truth” would be discovered in this trial in total, that does not appear to be the case. There were too many important witnesses that either became “unavailable” or were not called to testify because what they had to offer did not promote the agenda of either side in this case. The trial was as notable for who was not called to testify as for who was called to testify. Most witnesses were HIGHLY paid “experts” who were used to promote a certain agenda in the case. A civil trial is all, after all, about money…seeking to be paid vs. trying not to pay. AEG’s strategy of “blaming the victim” is very ugly. Assigning blame to Michael by the plaintiffs is an also an ugly concession in order to try to win the case.

In the end, it is up to the jury to decide. Whatever the verdict, all of this testimony is on the record to be discussed, written about and spun every which way. It will be grist for the narrow-focused minds who see the world in black/white, and who perpetually grasp at simple answers for everything such as, “Michael Jackson was a grown man, elected to take drugs, and died as a result.” Period. End of story … for them.

There is really no winner here…only losers…Michael Jackson and his children.