陪审团团员在MJJC上发言 分享其陪审心路历程（15楼开始有更新）

MkGenie

" ]* a% c+ ], w) q" l
: b0 b$ b* J, P2 C* o: P( ^* e在全球歌迷论坛MJJC上（大多数MJ歌迷支持陪审团的判决），一位陪审员分享了她的心路历程。

原帖：  http://www.mjjcommunity.com/foru ... ckson-vs-AEG/page66
- ~" I3 j% V( L' O- g/ ^
- c+ c1 w: g: {（989楼）



+ y$ ~# z9 }& e4 x3 s' ?传唤她上庭的法院通知

5 {3 r" G4 V) i& @7 D

MJJC会员Victory22的发言：
  
* G) [* f/ A5 r, M对我来说，越来越让人警觉的是，太多人看上去已经失去了严格分析事实的能力。当任何不合逻辑的理论或阴谋论随便一扔出，就有人不管事实积极附和时，这太可怕了。兰迪和杰克逊家族在迷惑MJ粉丝方面做得不错。

陪审员27首次发言：

“对我来说，越来越让人警觉的是，太多人看上去已经失去了严格分析事实的能力。”
- B7 z# D( X- g! Y" a6 h
. e% t& i! N  V3 o8 N' k; A我非常同意，在我来看，这基本上是一种传染病。
3 `; O" G7 R$ Y3 o8 c* T1 v" H
! l2 W6 I* z$ O3 |- |* k# `我是这个陪审团的一员，从我从各处的讨论中看来，这个歌迷社区目前来说是最具头脑也是最可以接近的。这么多热情的MJ粉丝在理性地讨论判决结果，而不是发泄怒火，这很让人高兴。所以，我认为这里，是最好的地方，让我做一个小小的发言。
; R( I, S& ?0 z5 V/ Z8 g+ o
最初，在审判结束后，我计划避免和忽略所有对判决的评论。因为我们在陪审员讨论室里对第二个问题回答“不”时，我就知道这将怎样被报道和误解（“啊，愚蠢的陪审团，莫里怎么可能适合和胜任这个工作，他杀了MJ在监狱服刑呢？？”） 不用猜，我们在走出法庭，接受媒体的第一个问题就是“你们怎么可能认为莫里是合格的医生？”当然，还有一群死忠的MJ支持者在外喊叫，说我们愚蠢、糊涂，等等。所以我决定，与其对那些扩散的错误信息和骂我们是白痴、恶心的言论生气，还不如完全忽略掉一切。
- |8 ?+ n& }2 B
不过，一天之后，我的好奇心占据了上风，我开始到处去看看人们在说什么。我必须看看说我们是白痴的言论是否占据了主流。欣慰的是，大多数评论判决的人们都认真看到了我们被指示去考虑的问题，并同意我们的决定。我们从第一天就知道，无论判决结果是什么，人们都会对结果产生意见分歧，我很欣慰，陪审团并没有在乎人们可能会说什么、会怎么想我们，而是决定跟随指示，并依据案中的证据来做出判决。

正如我们的陪审团团长一样，我加入这个审判的时候，对杰克逊是很中立的。《颤栗》发行的时候，我七岁，所以我是伴随他音乐成长并热爱他的音乐。但我对他的生活知之甚少，主要来自于媒体，而我对他这个人也没有强烈的正面或负面的印象。而当我走出这场审判后，才完全明白为什么有那么多歌迷如此的崇拜他。他是那么的迷人，他美好的灵魂、慷慨的心灵、温柔的本性，以及他对他孩子和母亲的爱，等等。我完全明白了。
% M& E1 Z* ?2 e8 C; f8 }
每个证人都在法庭上被问到他们是否认为MJ是一个好父亲（几乎每个与他关系亲密的人都被问到了）？他们所有人都对他给他孩子们的爱予以无穷尽的称赞。他的长子普林斯的证词，说明了MJ绝对是个好父亲。这个孩子聪明、智慧、充满爱心，有很棒的品质和个性，我绝对坚信MJ在养育他的过程中，作出了令人惊叹的努力。实话说，每个陪审员在离开的时候，对迈克尔杰克逊这个人，这位父亲，产生了非常正面的印象。

( r$ L% c; R' B4 d# a9 h我知道大家有担心MJ的形象会因为这次审判被损坏，也许对外界来说，在一些细节出来后，确实有伤害。但对我们陪审团来说，在所有这么几个月的时间里，我们在审判过程中，对他的好感是与日俱增。

0 y7 q; E, }# t7 n我想要对所有支持我们陪审团决定的人说谢谢，这真的意味良多。我会高兴地回答任何我能回答的问题。
3 d8 k9 Q! M7 v

后续发言可关注：
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/foru ... ckson-vs-AEG/page66

% Y9 L% `. `6 e* o( p


% o" C% a. X, Q! ~2 e9 |! ~/ q如果有人想知道为什么大多数国外的MJ歌迷会支持杰克逊家族败诉，可以抽时间把这个帖看完（已经70多页，讨论得非常详细）：   
% ~5 n1 l* k9 F5 h! Q
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/foru ... rine-Jackson-vs-AEG

7 z5 R* T$ m- S# j- Q+ j
4 E$ [0 j6 X& ~. t: [

小魔女琪琪

而当我走出这场审判后，才完全明白为什么有那么多歌迷如此的崇拜他。他是那么的迷人，他美好的灵魂、慷慨的心灵、温柔的本性，以及他对他孩子和母亲的爱，等等。我完全明白了。

笑着流泪。

haoduowenti

这个...http://www.mjjcommunity.com/foru ... rine-Jackson-vs-AEG,   有没有中文的？

迈迈老婆

当心被某些人说成是AEG的走狗

不关灯的兔子

果然对Michael的声誉产生影响了，最怕的就是这点，Michael已经承受了太多的污蔑了，只希望这些影响不要被恶意的扭曲传播就行。

宁不知

很理性的分析。实事求是是法院应该有的决断和态度。这场败诉本不是针对Michael这个人，至于杰克逊家族之后的路怎么继续，希望他们自己好自为之，自求多福。

我認為AEG是應該隊MJ的死負責，連歌迷都看得出來麥可的狀態不好當心MJ可能死去，每天有MJ相處負責整個演場會的AEG公司難道沒有察覺有異狀？他們一定有察覺只是不把它當一回事，對他們來說MJ能如期的幫他們賺進大把鈔票才是重點，至於MJ的身體狀況他們並不在乎。當我看完整個整審判就覺得J家贏面不大，會敗訴並不意外。

scarecrow

而当我走出这场审判后，才完全明白为什么有那么多歌迷如此的崇拜他。他是那么的迷人，他美好的灵魂、慷慨的心灵、温柔的本性，以及他对他孩子和母亲的爱，等等。我完全明白了。

我超爱这段Mj就是如此不了解便罢，一了解肃然起敬

mimi177

相信有些人从这个案子中开始了解和喜欢MJ。

MkGenie

迈迈老婆 发表于 2013-10-6 14:49
0 X7 ^, R9 ~0 x' t5 v. ]0 c( ?当心被某些人说成是AEG的走狗

呵呵，这个MJJC的帖子也有讲到，具体哪一页忘记了

rosayang3960

M会好开心的～

可是MJ的名誉还是受到很大的损害，这要怎样弥补？更多的人误解他，片面的评判他，看那个投票贴就知道。
还是认为AEG是有责任的，只是问卷措辞或者其他方面出了问题，才使他们完全逃避了责任。
% [- e' G2 d( p1 j7 [无论如何还是不能很释然的接受这个结果，迈损失的太多，受伤害的太多。

很感动这位陪审员会这样说，从他的话中能感受到他的情真意切，MJ魅力无穷。

整个陪审团这次做得都非常好，我对他们除了敬佩还是敬佩。

世界的爱人

我接受审判结果但不认为AEG是毫无责任。

MkGenie

陪审员继续回答问题
/ ?: e# ~+ K9 |& O


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.

! ?& a& r9 l7 ~8 U8 |$ DThe 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.

, `" l$ e# Y4 q( Q# [
Absolutely. 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.
% h3 x0 K8 [7 E5 R9 s

+ b. f% |- P% {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.
# t( T* C) H5 F! k

You are right on the money in my opinion.

% h- v; t1 T; Y: X. p8 A9 \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.
  O) ?9 c9 L4 T3 C8 h: Z
1 y# }7 z3 u" `) H9 zAs for question 1, our first vote had 3 answers.
$ Z) k2 [/ m, n% w3 g+ L$ W
& \8 J) B* P4 V6 m/ l/ L! |% _Hired him.
4 z; E" a8 ?* ?+ _Didn't hire him.
( f" {$ J. Q6 PUnsure.
3 J* g) ?5 [& u, D! }9 X! _
After first vote it was 6 votes unsure, 4 votes no and 2 votes yes. I initially voted no.
. o' B2 V/ l9 L" L/ C! R1 D
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.
( r$ J: u- x1 N. o( R
/ @8 @; F' K' M( F% g/ y1 i8 xIt is late here and I'm off to sleep, will answer more posts tomorrow.