the jackson family lawyer hinted the nanny was fired by aeg, not jackson. the fbi is asking for your help in trying to solve a mystery. who was behind a sear receives bombings in new york city. here s mary snow. reporter: a new push in an unsolved case of a possible serial bomber in new york city. the fbi is hoping surveillance video and a $65,000 reward will nab the person responsible for setting off a bomb in 2008 outside a military recruiting station in new york s times square. authorities also believe it could be linked to similar incidents. one in 2005 at the british consulate. and another in 2007 at the mexican consulate. in the times square case, the device was set off in the middle of the night and no one was injured. what is known, someone was seen riding on a bicycle before the device was detonated. carlos fernandez is the fbi s acting agent in charge in
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
would not have surprised me and it would not have been abnormal but he never was a problem for us when it came to talking to him, getting information from him, telling him what was going on. he was a delightful client to represent. one of the e-mails you alluded to is from aeg live ceo or co-ceo paul gongaware which says we want to remind murray it is aeg, not jackson, who is paying his salary. we wants to remind him what is expected of him. quite explicit in terms of who s responsible. on the flipside, michael jackson s a well known, highly temperamental superstar prone to canceling concerts, having a variety of health issues of various types of severity, unpredictable, all those things, like many pop artists. could that work against the family s claim in the sense aeg may say look, we did try to get him to work but he was a bit flaky? well, if they thought he was that flaky and they thought he was that disturbed, why did they enter into a contract with him to do all these concert