just because they were advancing those costs doesn t mean that aeg was the employer. of conrad murray. so wouldn t aeg say they should be reminding murray it s aeg, not jackson, who is paying his salary, they didn t know what they were talking about. for one thing, that e-mail did not come out in trial. suddenly all these e-mails appeared that the testifies did not have during the trial. and i m curious why those e-mails were not produced during discovery in the criminal trial. tom, from a legal point of view, that e-mail is going to be pretty significant, isn t it? very significant. because aeg s lawyers drafted an employment agreement, sent to dr. murray and dr. murray signed it. aeg is now saying we never actually signed it. but that s not going to hold up. under the law, all of this evidence, the agreement they prepared, the fact that dr. murray signed it, the e-mails, the discussions that took place, all of this is going to show there was an employment understanding betwee
million of preproduction costs paid at the time michael jackson died. just because they were advancing those costs doesn t mean that aeg was the employer. of conrad murray. so wouldn t aeg say they should be reminding murray it s aeg, not jackson, who is paying his salary, they didn t know what they were talking about. for one thing, that e-mail did not come out in trial. suddenly all these e-mails appeared that the defense did not have during the trial. and i m curious why those e-mails were not produced during discovery in the criminal trial. tom, from a legal point of view, that e-mail is going to be pretty significant, isn t it? very significant. because aeg s lawyers drafted an employment agreement, sent to dr. murray and dr. murray signed it. i don t know if he actually returned it or not. aeg is now saying we never actually signed it. but that s not going to hold up. under the law, all of this evidence, the agreement they prepared, the fact that dr. murray signed it, the
of conrad murray. so wouldn t aeg say they should be reminding murray it s aeg, not jackson, who is paying his salary, they didn t know what they were talking about. for one thing, that e-mail did not come out in trial. suddenly all these e-mails appeared that the testifies did not have during the trial. and i m curious why those e-mails were not produced during discovery in the criminal trial. tom, from a legal point of view, that e-mail is going to be pretty significant, isn t it? very significant. because aeg s lawyers drafted an employment agreement, sent to dr. murray and dr. murray signed it. aeg is now saying we never actually signed it. but that s not going to hold up. under the law, all of this evidence, the agreement they prepared, the fact that dr. murray signed it, the e-mails, the discussions that took place, all of this is going to show there was an employment understanding between murray and aeg. right, but look don t you know that in dr. murray s state