but i think it is about the money because you know who s responsible legally for the death and that is dr. murray. and dr. murray doesn t have any assets. who, then, to go to? aeg, you have to go under the assumption that he was working for aeg. and i agree with paul. i don t think it makes a lot of difference if dr. murray testifies because dr. murray may say aeg was my boss but aeg, as you said in that special, didn t pay him a dime, didn t have an executed contract and didn t act in accordance with an employer at that time. it wouldn t have kicked in until the tour. bottom line, i do think it s about the money. you bring up a very good point when you talk about the billions of dollars, $40 billion. that s a lot of money. here s what they contend, though, jim. they re saying he would have made money from these concerts, probably would have had hit records and gone on to vegas to have a very lucrative career in vegas and possibly get i don t think he would have gotten close to $40
that and more coming up. we re going to begin with this story. michael jackson, as you just saw, in my one-hour documentary, his death is back on the front pages. this time, it s michael jackson s mother and his children holding the concert promoters responsible for his untimely death. i want to continue this with jim moret in los angeles and chief correspondent for inside edition and our legal contributor, paul callan in new york. does it matter if conrad murray does or does not testify? first to you, paul. i don t think it makes an enormous difference in the case. obviously he s a central figure in the case. but the jury is going to know that conrad murray has been convicted, essentially, of causing the death of michael jackson. and, frankly, i don t know how much he would add, even if he did come in to testify. there are lots of other sources
dr. conrad murray worked for michael jackson or whether he worked for aeg. he could certainly end up helping both sides of the case. he would probably plead the fifth here. but do you think it s what does it say what s the significance of that contract? does that contract show that aeg is responsible here for dr. conrad murray s actions? the contract is important. if the jury decides or the judge decides ultimately that there was no oral agreement to hire conrad murray by aeg, they re out of the case. so the existence of the contract is important as supporting the jackson theory. but in the end, i think the case is fatally flawed for two reasons. first, you have a situation where you have a sophisticated performer with a lifetime of experience, capability of hiring lawyers, agents to help him in negotiations. and he goes to aeg and says, listen, i want conrad murray, my
and dr. murray doesn t have any assets. who, then, to go to? aeg, you have to go under the assumption that he was working for aeg. and i agree with paul. i don t think it makes a lot of difference if dr. murray testifies because dr. murray may say aeg was my boss but aeg, as you said in that special, didn t pay him a dime, didn t have an executed contract and didn t act in accordance with an employer at that time. it wouldn t have kicked in until the tour. bottom line, i do think it s about the money. you bring up a very good point when you talk about the billions of dollars, $40 billion. that s a lot of money. here s what they contend, though, jim. they re saying he would have made money from these concerts, probably would have had hit records and gone on to vegas to have a very lucrative career in vegas and possibly get i don t think he would have gotten close to $40 billion. but he certainly could have made into the billions. but michael jackson was a big spender. his estate, as
so i don t think it will make that much of a difference. jim, let s talk about the money here. is this case all about the money? we re talking about millions, possibly billions for the jacksons if aeg loses this case. is this really conrad murray seems to believe this is all about the money. aeg says it s all about the money because they re not suing dr. conrad murray. is that what it s about? it feels like that, don. it really does. it s funny, when you talk about the money and you talk about $40 billion being the number we ve heard bandied about, my 15-year-old son said to me, he didn t make $40 million in his lifetime, did he? i said, no, not even close. he was broke when he died. most of michael jackson s wealth at this point, the estate is, in the publishing rights. if the you look at what aeg was going to pay him over the year and assume he would work for ten years more, i don t know where you re going to get $40 billion. but i think it is about the money because you know w