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 · 发表于 2013-10-7 09:28:47

Originally Posted by Nina Hamilton
9 F) [, k3 `. w( LI was very happy to read your words, Jury No.27. that you have joined the band of followers of MJ. Maybe the trial has had a positive outcome after all. However, one or two points are bothering me. If AEG had checked Conrad Murray out, they would have discovered that his medical licences/board certifications in Nevada and Texas had expired in December, 2008. so indicating they were negligent in hiring him knowing that. Perhaps it didn't matter. But something else, I read that CM asked AEG for resuscitation equipment but failed to get it. Surely AEG would have wondered if he was carrying out a risky procedure, and was he competent? Over four years some information may have been forgotten. I don't remember hearing any of that in the civil trial.

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.

Originally Posted by bluetopez : } g$ v- q+ U6 M/ M7 F. y/ M3 u* O
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!

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.

Originally Posted by morinen - j8 l7 U! F6 i$ e6 [5 i
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.
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.

Originally Posted by LMAT 1 v- Z; m7 m1 S
Want to thank Juror #27 for posting her thoughts on the trial verdict and on Michael. The last 5 months have been very painful as we watched Michael's privacy be so grossly invaded and his personal business broadcast across all forms of media. A media that salivates over salacious details about this lovely man. Based on what this juror explained and a bit of common sense, I agree with the verdict. Personally, I believe that Conrad Murray holds the majority, if not all, the responsibility for his patient's death. And to think his burden of guilt would be diminished in the slightest is totally unacceptable. Rather than the deep pockets of AEG, perhaps justice would have been served by not waiving restitution and hounding that man for every dime he attempts to pocket from what he did.

The fact that this juror and others were able to see the kindness, gentleness and caring that is at the core of Michael Jackson,certainly is a wonderful gift and a reason to finally smile. Thank you for sharing that with us.
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.

Originally Posted by ivy  : \4 p$ y) [, R4 m7 r! u  H3 b: p
If I was to ask questions to the jurors, I would be curious about
) T* ^9 x! t$ d  o6 i+ M( e7 ~- \2 w( O
- What did they think about the witnesses? Who did they believe to be honest and who did they believe to be not honest?
7 e% \& E$ C! D% G' T; q- S  }" h5 x1 l! p* `7 I
- 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)

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.

Originally Posted by Mneme 2 G; d$ P8 B3 C3 n1 y/ N' ~! ?4 D
I hope the juror tells nothing about this, Ivy!( d& @( h0 @ a& }$ w3 o
He would get into trouble if he would answer of such Question. All witnesses were put under the oath and if the juror would say "i believe Mr./Mrs. XYZ was not honest"... now, he could be sued for slandering. (IMO!)

But maybe in US it isn't so????
Actually 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.

Originally Posted by serendipity
; i1 r; ]1 T9 _+ ZIvy you asked the question I wanted to ask too - about question #3 and how the jurors would have answered it, if it was discussed.

And just wanted to add a Thank you to Juror#27 for posting this really nice message. Know that a lot of MJ fans do think you made a reasonable and logical decision with that verdict.

A lot of us who answered the questions from the verdict form, answered with "no" the second question (and the third too).

Don't pay attention to the disrespectful people out there.
Thank you for the kind words. 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.

Originally Posted by twinklEE
5 I" ]. b. @- g9 L0 b1 M( wThank you so much for taking the time to post here juror#27, it is defintely appreciated don't let a few people's opinions bother you.

You are quite welcome.

Originally Posted by corlista
, S8 C" T6 z ?# G"But his not calling 911 wasn't about skill or professional know how. A kid knows to call 911. Murray's was about covering himself and covering up. MJ was already dead when Murray started making any calls. And that he DID know."
+ B$ Q( l$ J0 {- S
; [7 c# Y9 `8 e2 Q. N- X8 O+ J: I; jJuror 27. Though I am not part of the majority here that supports the verdict, I do honestly commend you for having the courage to come here to explain the jury's decision (which I now better understand) and share your feelings but most importantly to acknowledge your softening of heart towards Michael. I always loved Michael's music and had a soft spot for him when the media began their 25 year attack mode but regretfully didn't become a passionate fan until after he died and I read everything I could get my hands on about him. Then I fell in love with the MAN and his goodness of heart. Please understand that Michael's fans have been in battle mode for years, some for decades. It has produced very protective and passionate advocates as we saw the human being behind the genius shredded and ridiculed. For all the joy that Michael gave us - which is immense - we are often a community in pain. Sometimes that bubbles over into overzealousness and anger and we suffer errors in judgment. However, if nothing good came out of this trial except that more people like you came to see the decent and loving and brilliant person that he was, then for that I am thankful. Thank you for caring enough to "talk" to us.

Yes, this is the impression I get from his fans. 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.

MkGenie · 发表于 2013-10-7 09:29:05

懂英文的先看
有空的帮翻译

MkGenie · 发表于 2013-10-7 09:36:45

Originally Posted by Bubs
( a1 S7 `" J: B% S( g& bI don't know can you answer to these questions, but if you can,what was your impressions of Randy, Katherine and Karen Faye's testimony? I know jury loved Debbie and Kenny O, and no wonder, we loved their testimonies too.

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.

Originally Posted by jamba
( I3 \$ G4 B: ~8 g% w' y" OHi, Juror 27,6 E4 ?0 ~6 i/ n* ^$ R& m' U
* i3 l' ~$ C3 B+ g
Thanks so much for joining us and for your candid and thoughtful comments. Many have already said what I would have said regarding your participation and how honored we are!!! Yay!!! ?/ G! z1 S8 \ u% C5 o: Y

# O: m1 f- M) _One thing I want to say, 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.
% z2 ], L/ z* K, U( X: u5 t; ~4 @
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.
4 h0 v& F! w. {0 _* @, M& M' |& O# H9 S/ g5 x2 p9 W5 @1 x* L4 K$ G: Z
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?

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.

Originally Posted by Victory22 # m1 K( B E4 [
For Juror #27 I'd like to ask what you thought of the judge in the case. Did you feel she controlled her courtroom well? How did you feel about the attorneys for both sides and which witnesses did you feel were not truthful? Which ones were the most truthful? Thank you again for joining us and giving us your thoughts.

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.

Originally Posted by Thrill 8 k6 x) g, k2 \7 O9 P5 S& g
Juror27. 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".
/ w, I1 O/ U$ j& c4 V) ^# b5 @5 b. V" A
if you go by that logic, no qualified doctor can ever be unfit or incompetent( F" X$ G5 b( E+ C

3 I8 }% [/ v( awhats your take on that??

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.

Originally Posted by B__Marco
" r  t+ S' |8 p6 M5 j, L( @"Juror#27: The decision to deviate from the standard of care and to ignore his Hippocratic Oath was CM's, not AEG's."
! J& Z2 L0 B8 k7 V3 d
* [* M& f/ {) O9 U6 P  P$ |Does "Juror#27" call it "decision", the being forced by AEG via threatening CM, being financially broken ?! }( {  P0 f, u9 S9 y/ y4 O* W

# ~2 g" }6 Q! R% OLet's remind CM who is paying his salary...we want MJ's butt on stage, no matter what...

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.

Originally Posted by Thrill  * I! r/ f9 m* Q$ a2 V: y% R( z$ ]
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.... b' x# [. y- _9 u+ a

  E0 C4 ?* w( g$ Y
* C# H+ \8 H/ L: eduring 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./ v% }# Y" W$ f1 ^; `

( }5 A% G# b+ uthe 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)?
" J0 Y- p" @1 ~* C4 y" y! ?1 W3 X2 O* [2 N% q) g
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..???'
( {2 ?& r6 x  q; b0 C4 T% H; G4 A
remember, jury instructions did not state that you had to base your answer ONLY at the time he was hired (may 1).

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.

MkGenie · 发表于 2013-10-7 10:16:07

Originally Posted by gerryevans
3 u+ B" \+ A$ mThis leads into what I was curious about. Why did you ask to see This Is It? And what did you think of the movie itself?

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.

Originally Posted by Petrarose
: j5 o# i0 a0 S6 W+ V5 j9 H% b1 ^Good question, and since she mentions how he functioned on the 24th & 25th, I can see the importance of looking at TII.

Not that it matters much, but I'm one of the 6 male jurors.

Originally Posted by passy001 6 k$ x) L3 x9 D5 z" B4 P* @
In other words everyone thought MJ was getting better and as such felt there was no need for further intervention.
1 |5 g1 @8 a& g( t) O! o: W, c8 V" o" Y4 l9 r. S
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.

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.

Originally Posted by Thrill
% k8 m) v m @6 vit 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Thrill
4 t) G" o' o( h" n: u! Ai 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.
6 e$ C* K( r& |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.

Originally Posted by Thrill
: I: K$ U2 @* n) f8 V' ^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. /[quote]
' Q. D: U+ X$ e, |: O/ RAnd he was fit and competent for the job he was hired for.
( A6 L8 T6 d! N6 S
e# ~5 F5 X) N8 g [quote]Originally Posted by Thrill
) v" O' x- q5 x! {: X8 Y/ A1 u$ aI 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Thrill 9 A* p; S) i! U- S$ C
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.

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.

queenie3374 · 发表于 2013-10-7 10:40:42

這場官司跟本不是為MJ而戰, 所以只想它快些完結, 結果誰勝了, 也不是問題, 當然心是偏向要錢的那方敗訴, 因為是J家發起這不必要的官司, 它將有損MJ的名譽, 這是我不想看見的......但當陪審團真正去了解MJ這個人的時候, 他們怎能不被MJ的優秀品格所感動呢!但外面的人, 受到媒体的渲染,又能看得到真實的MJ嗎??

April47 · 发表于 2013-10-7 12:06:00

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。

希望这个官司起到正面效果，而不是一再的曝光他的私生活，官司结束，我反而很开心

JovineJackson · 发表于 2013-10-7 18:44:45

这桩官司的发生和最终下判都是我们这些迈迷无法控制和左右的，如果因为这件事的影响力，MJ庞大的粉丝群又多了一些新成员，那也算是一种小小的安慰吧，苦中作乐•••••

青骢马 · 发表于 2013-10-8 09:55:47

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.5 c6 ` q" M* G3 w' K; b1 t: y
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。

一个充满爱的天使，一位好父亲，越了解越深爱

冰之光 · 发表于 2013-10-22 07:11:14

内容偶都有点晕了

		自动登录	找回密码
密码			加入MJJCN

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）

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）