Sounds like Juror #1 was a great juror and actually put in the thought and effort to be able to deliberate the case. Glad to hear the judge is thinking so too.
What this shows to me is that Juror #1 is an amazing, meticulous, detail-oriented man and is probably the best juror ever. The more I listen to what’s going on with him the more my respect for him grows. I do like that even the Judge seems to really respect him and is giving us, the viewers who weren’t in court to witness this, a little inside as to the work he - and the rest of the jurors but him specifically - was doing in regards to this case. Thanks for your coverage!
This poor fellow , Juror # 1, imo, was going over and beyond to be the best juror ever, he and his wife clearly have an interest in the the legal process and those involved. Your coverage is top class and much appreciated!
You know they didn’t even say you know I’m sorry about this you gave up nine weeks of your life and now you’re on trial so that’s how I feel about it. It’s just awful and the judge went too far with the questioning because that’s what that old loser wants that’s unacceptable and what happened was me and my husband Mom and my husband and I agreed said how they thought they were on their side So they thought they can do whatever they want because we have the judge on our side and this judge loves us so let us do whatever we want. The problem is he didn’t enforce this motions at all.
@@stacyhunt4783that really made me MAD. How dare they drag him thru this, force him to pay for a lawyer, and then not thank him or apologize to him for all of this BS??
I don't understand how JHATCH's attorneys can't see things from the perspective of a jury. To a normal person, JHATCH is the impersonation of evil based on the facts of the case. The expectation of being treated in an unbiased manner after the verdict is like a career criminal being upset a judge is giving them the maximum sentence. By attacking the jurors specifically, counsel is throwing themselves into the same pile of shit as their client.
Judge Carrol has all the receipts! JHACH needs to admit defeat and stop reaching. I feel for Juror #1, they are harassing him and making the jury system feel very unfriendly.
I hope your nephew and his new gf are having a good time and enjoying dating each other. Ngl, it'd be kinda funny if they ended up becoming something serious because then their "How we met" story would be like "so we were jurors on a murder trial" 😂
To say juror number one would lie is contrary to the premise that everyone is sworn to tell the truth before testifying in court. Why even require witnesses to swear to tell the truth if you believe people are going to lie? Obviously, the attorneys are grasping at very thin straws, which undermines their credibility.
People lie under oath all the time.😂 The fact is very few people are actually arrested for committing Perjury. It proves the point that it’s just useless to swear under oath because people are never actually going to be held accountable.
If I was a JHACH lawyer I would have felt sheepish facing Juror#1 after all the things they said about him. He had a choice not to have his face shown but chose to be in the open and be fierce.
They have to have a massive team. How do they not have time. Surely they have tons of associates working for them, let alone paralegals and law clerks.
So in Defense's motion they firmly stated they never directed anyone external to do research and the work the "internet" did was unsolicited. Yet here it is clear they did direct the "internet" to keep digging. Is that not the Defense lying to the court in their motion, I recall they asserted multiiple times on the topic??
This why many lawyers dismiss law enforcement, or former law enforcement officers, engineers, accounting people,science-oriented careers, and the like. We will take tons of notes, ask tons of questions, and fully investigate or analyze everything. These professions are requred to be detail oriented and highly investigative in order to be successful even though they maybe bias. They feel the need to prove what they believe and they expect you too to prove it. SHOW ME!
Great to see you back. I hope you and your family had a really nice vacation. Thanks for breaking all of this down for us. I really didn’t follow the trial, but I am really concerned about all the trouble you’re number one has had to endure. Pretty soon. No one will want to be on the jury. Look at the Murdoch trial. It seems that when things don’t go the the defense’s way, they begin to scramble, and throw whatever they can fine at the nearest wall. It’s infuriating.❤
I honestly had no doubt Judge Carroll would do what was correct, covered in the full armor of the law. Thank you for this recap as it helps to see it written out in his Honor's order.
Replay crew here. Problem with being 7 hours in your future i guess. My sympathies life with juror#1. I also think JHACH should just accept their defeat and pay up. Thanks for breaking down USA law
In the Netflix movie, there was a hand written note with the slanted s's. Not sure who authored the document but was obviously written prior to Juror #1's question during trial. Anyone aware of this?
Lawyer, lawyer! You look great! Your day off seems to have done the trick! 🎉 prosperity and love to you and your family. And here's to hitting the 500k mark in 2024.
Peter, Peter, Peter....chartreuse looks good on you, my man! I'm glad Judge Carol is limiting this. I don't agree with the inquiry and I know people are rightfully mad about it but ultimately I think the judge is allowing it to cya. He doesn't want them to keep questioning the jury and their verdict and I appreciate that.
@barbaracollins5605 chartreuse is a shade of green/yellow. It's the exact color he's wearing. I worked retail waaaaay too long and know a lot of random color names 😂
Rewatch crew! I appreciate Peter has to be careful cause he’s still in the same line of work as the Defense, especially in the same state, but I’m gonna say it. The Defense attorneys are not good people. They are doing this on purpose and hoping they will get away with it, like they had been up until the trial. They are totally ok with sacrificing their integrity and doing whatever it takes to not lose the cash cow that is JHACH. If JHACH was paying less of their bills, guarantee the Defense attorneys aren’t pulling this crap. Cruelles is the only one on that team that isn’t terrible and notice how she’s not involved in this BS.
Judge Carrol is a little spicy. I think it’s irritated he has to do all the research JHACH should have have done. He was meticulous with the depth of his research. I’m glad he called them amount for the amount of resources and people they have access to to do this research.
I really really enjoy Carroll as an officer of the court. Legally, he does his job excellently, very fair in his rulings, while being EXTREMELY mindful of potential issues. The questions he grilled/s the attorneys (from both sides) with before, during, and after trial shows how much attention he pays, and that he thinks down many possible scenario paths to come to a decision. An exemplary model for how judges should do their jobs (from everything I've seen). No, I don't agree with *every* ruling, but thinking that would happen with any judge in any case is foolish. But he also brings a breath of fresh air with his demeanor. He is welcoming and jovial, seems quite personable, and is willing to work with you to get the job done right (we saw this throughout trial). I read that the Petito v Laundrie case was reassigned to him and, if that holds true, that case is in very good hands.
42:04 thank Megan Fox and Mo in the Deep for the Hair Island 😂. Judge must have had some research on the channels that covered the trial lol. Mo named it Tuft of Justice 😂
I'm uncomfortable with the new trend of challenging jurors after a case is over, being accused of making the wrong decision. This is not the first case that we have seen jurors challenged. If I were a juror, I would not trust that my vote would be respected.
The bottom line from my perspective is that Jayhatch is very unethical and does not care about the harm they have done to the jury system or the people involved. They have proven this time and time again, even before the trial! They did not give to the plaintiffs the discover the judge order them to, they withheld information and lies about the poor review of the hospital that was far more reaching than they ever admitted! They are a disgrace as attorneys and a reason many have low opinions of the profession! I too believe most are not like these attorneys but they have not the profession in anyway!
Juror is a former law enforcement officer and was, as a juror, acting in a similar way he would ask if he were actually investigating this case as law enforcement. This is excellent. He was using his prior experience to help him as a muror. Even if he had a preceived idea of outcome, he was still investigating to confirm his ideas. This is a sign he wasallowing the evidence presented to make up his mind either way. I dont think it's possible to get a completely unbias jury but what you really want are jurors who will listen to both sides and investigate the holes left by their own lack of knowledge and/or ×hat was not addressed. Ifninwere the defense, id be asking about more specific questions about what happened to anyone who said yes to the victim question or left it blank.
I don't want to be disrespectful but at this point I gotta say JHACH's legal team is looking foolish right now. I get that their client got hammered to the tune of 260 M's. But we all know they could've busted the caps. It could have been a much larger number. They clearly were told to get back out there and do something. But these arguments are ridiculous and clearly the court agrees.
I think this is EXACTLY why I could never be a judge (aside from the obvious fact I don't have any formal legal education). I do NOT have the patience for this BS and the defence would sure get an earful 😂
It could just be that the defendants lawyers are trying to justify their bill and try to keep the client....they got or will get paid either way from the case.
Peter, love ya but you give the attorneys too much credit. They played dirty during the trial (report for the hospital that is still not turned over) and continue. It’s disgusting. People are already referencing this trial as to why they won’t serve jury duty.
When Peter does a live you need to be on then there’s a button on the live to switch on to be able to accept membership that’s how I did it hope someone else says it more clearly for you
It seems to me that these awful people are perpetuating the Kowalski family's (extraordinarily complex) trauma. I realize that there is a large herd of JHACH legal-team people... But they don't seem to realize, or care (😮) that JHACH is primarily a health-care provider and they boldly state on their website : "Creating healthy tomorrows ... for one child, for All Children... 😢 To provide leadership in child health through treatment, education, advocacy and research..." 😢. Isn't it JHACH's prerogative, and frankly, duty, to say the Kowalski's have endured enough, they need peace and quiet to mourn their mom/wife and find a new normal. Let's pull the plug. Show's over. Ps what are you drinking? If there is dairy or sugar in, your cough is excused. If not go to chatGPT 😂
Gonna have to disagree w you saying JHACH team is probably filing a bunch of things & don't have the time to make sure it's all correct... They have a HUGE team with paralegals. Checking if Salisbury was Juror 1's former lawyer was not time consuming... Should we accept this kind of work ethic for a large law firm? It's unacceptable they are openly accusing Jurors and other lawyers of lying and being unethical bc they don't have the time to fact check. What they are doing is dirty and dangerous.
I’ve got to say, although I don’t think it’s possible to make a legal argument out of it that a judge would understand unless he/she were a history aficionado- and bearing in mind that I’ve never actually seen the SS letters in question- but if the letters are indeed stylized the way the SS insignia was (they were called the “SS runes”) I personally have never, ever seen any nother example of such stylization of the letter S before. I’m not saying this guy intentionally meant to evoke the idea that this witness was some kind of Nazi or something, or even that he consciously was aware of having ever seen the SS runes before (it’s totally possible that he’s seen them in documentaries or such, and doesn’t remember that that’s where his idea came from. And I know my opinion here will be totally rejected by everybody else lol. But on my honor, I just can’t bring myself to totally dismiss the notion that what he was drawing were indeed the SS runes. I’ve never, ever seen that particular stylization before or since in my life. It’s not even a natural way to draw the letter “S”. It looks more like a lightning bolt than a letter. And like I said, having never seen the actual page in question, I can’t say for sure that they even look like SS runes at all. But what I’m saying is, if they are indeed identical to SS runes, those things are unmistakable. Once you’ve seen them you’ll never forget what they look like. And again, I can’t recall having ever seen them anywhere on planet earth, in the last 38 years of my life, except in reference to the organization known as the Schutzstaffel, in Germany during WWII. So, take that as you will…..
Look up the way the band KISS does the capital S’s in the band name. Juror #1 is close to my age (59) and many people (mostly male) rock fans of my age still make their capital S’s that way! The founding members of KISS are Jewish and Gene Simmons’ mom in particular is a holocaust survivor so it was never intended to glorify or symbolize the Nazi party. When I saw the hearing today, Juror 1’s appearance confirmed for me that he is definitely a rocker from my generation!
l agree that Maya and family should have won the case but 250 million is a lot. l would have thought half of this could have gone to children with illness charity or towards crps in children research.
Imo, They are trying everything because this settlement hurts too much. Maybe they will have to close the hospital, then all of the people that work there will lose their jobs. At the bare minimum, they will have to let some people go. It's a sad time for the staff of JHACH.
@@saratonen4255 "OMG Seriously?" Most insurers do not cover intentional acts, so only negligence is covered. They also do not cover acts done outside the scope of any employee's employment.
@@Litigator-4-life Outside of employment isn't relevant in this context as the key players were considered employed by JHACH. Intentional acts aren't covered, somewhat true, but the entire verdict and award are not predicated on intentional acts. Insurance will cover all but the 50 million in punative damages, of which will be covered by the parent company of JHACH. With that said, no one expects a $200 million payout, including the Kowalskis. Whether they pay that much is up to JHACH and their legal henchmen. I suggest they come to the table with a reasonable offer and do so quickly, which is what they should have done 7 years ago.
@@saratonen4255 Employees can do things outside the scope of their employment even if they are on the clock. Insurance companies contest coverage all the time. They can defend a case under a reservation of rights and fight about the existence of the coverage later. I agree wholeheartedly that the Kowalskis should come up with a reasonable number, if they are capable of entertaining that concept at this point, and negotiate in good faith. At least JHACH has a better idea of what its offer needs to be so it can negotiate in good faith.
Bias is prejudice. Prejudice is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason. He cannot be biased at this stage because he has watched the trial, seen evidence and now he has his own conclusions. He has reason to think and feel as he does. Also, most of this video was him reading and summarizing the judges commentary, not his own. Edit for clarity
Originally they were going to let him go because they believed he could side with the state based off the info they had thus far at that time. They left it up to Jack K and he said to keep him. it could have gone either way. So no it doesnt sound suspicious.
Not suspicious at all I feel certain that Jack, Maya and Kyle were unwilling to concede to JHAC because they have been conceding for years and their family has been destroyed by JHAC. And the attorneys for the hospital had kept this going for YEARS & YEARS.
For context when Anderson was going to strike juror 1, JHACH’s bench gave the jazz hands. Anderson ummmed and ahhhed then realise jack wasn’t asked. Jack says keep juror 1 and JHACH lost their minds and morals some more
I am noticing that just saying things as fact (and expecting everyone to just believe devoid of facts) has become very prevalent since Trump has become a household name, since this is exactly what he does. It's a shame it's made it's way into the legal system.
Sounds like Juror #1 was a great juror and actually put in the thought and effort to be able to deliberate the case. Glad to hear the judge is thinking so too.
What this shows to me is that Juror #1 is an amazing, meticulous, detail-oriented man and is probably the best juror ever. The more I listen to what’s going on with him the more my respect for him grows. I do like that even the Judge seems to really respect him and is giving us, the viewers who weren’t in court to witness this, a little inside as to the work he - and the rest of the jurors but him specifically - was doing in regards to this case. Thanks for your coverage!
Agree 💯
This poor fellow , Juror # 1, imo, was going over and beyond to be the best juror ever, he and his wife clearly have an interest in the the legal process and those involved. Your coverage is top class and much appreciated!
You know they didn’t even say you know I’m sorry about this you gave up nine weeks of your life and now you’re on trial so that’s how I feel about it. It’s just awful and the judge went too far with the questioning because that’s what that old loser wants that’s unacceptable and what happened was me and my husband Mom and my husband and I agreed said how they thought they were on their side So they thought they can do whatever they want because we have the judge on our side and this judge loves us so let us do whatever we want. The problem is he didn’t enforce this motions at all.
@@stacyhunt4783that really made me MAD. How dare they drag him thru this, force him to pay for a lawyer, and then not thank him or apologize to him for all of this BS??
I don't understand how JHATCH's attorneys can't see things from the perspective of a jury. To a normal person, JHATCH is the impersonation of evil based on the facts of the case. The expectation of being treated in an unbiased manner after the verdict is like a career criminal being upset a judge is giving them the maximum sentence. By attacking the jurors specifically, counsel is throwing themselves into the same pile of shit as their client.
Judge Carrol has all the receipts! JHACH needs to admit defeat and stop reaching. I feel for Juror #1, they are harassing him and making the jury system feel very unfriendly.
This judge was a smart cookie.
It’s a sad state in the world when they want men on a jury cause they’ll… care less about a little girl being abused?
They must not know any fathers.
Sanctions should always be awarded when the judge has to do research… especially when it so easily refutes your motion
My nephew was on a first degree murder jury with two defendants (guilty verdict) several months back. He’s now dating a fellow juror. 😊
I hope your nephew and his new gf are having a good time and enjoying dating each other. Ngl, it'd be kinda funny if they ended up becoming something serious because then their "How we met" story would be like "so we were jurors on a murder trial" 😂
@@khaleesireyna731 so far so good. It would make a great how we met story for sure. 😂
🎉❤
To say juror number one would lie is contrary to the premise that everyone is sworn to tell the truth before testifying in court. Why even require witnesses to swear to tell the truth if you believe people are going to lie? Obviously, the attorneys are grasping at very thin straws, which undermines their credibility.
People lie under oath all the time.😂 The fact is very few people are actually arrested for committing Perjury. It proves the point that it’s just useless to swear under oath because people are never actually going to be held accountable.
Judge Carroll’s comment about his hair (or lack thereof) had me screaming!🤣🤣🤣🤣
JH is making a mockery of our "justice" system, especially with a prior judge part of these crazy allegations smh
If I was a JHACH lawyer I would have felt sheepish facing Juror#1 after all the things they said about him. He had a choice not to have his face shown but chose to be in the open and be fierce.
And JHACH hates that.
I hope Juror 1 loses his shit on the hospital an put a lawsuit against them.
The judge had such a good sense of humour and was so good at his job
They have to have a massive team. How do they not have time. Surely they have tons of associates working for them, let alone paralegals and law clerks.
Watching now…JH thought they had the perfect jury to win their case…shock and awe it didn’t go their way.
So in Defense's motion they firmly stated they never directed anyone external to do research and the work the "internet" did was unsolicited.
Yet here it is clear they did direct the "internet" to keep digging.
Is that not the Defense lying to the court in their motion, I recall they asserted multiiple times on the topic??
You are correct! Sanctions are in order.
I really enjoy your recaps. They are so informative and to the point. Not full of fluff. I learn so much from you.
So agree. LOVE the lack of fluff and I, too, often learn something new.
This why many lawyers dismiss law enforcement, or former law enforcement officers, engineers, accounting people,science-oriented careers, and the like. We will take tons of notes, ask tons of questions, and fully investigate or analyze everything. These professions are requred to be detail oriented and highly investigative in order to be successful even though they maybe bias. They feel the need to prove what they believe and they expect you too to prove it. SHOW ME!
I WISH all juror pools had a Juror #1. Juror # 1 showed exemplary dedication
A small island amidst a sea of baldness 😂😂😂😂 love Judge Carols analogy. Although this is where the defense is on a small island 🏝️ alone
Great to see you back. I hope you and your family had a really nice vacation. Thanks for breaking all of this down for us. I really didn’t follow the trial, but I am really concerned about all the trouble you’re number one has had to endure. Pretty soon. No one will want to be on the jury. Look at the Murdoch trial. It seems that when things don’t go the the defense’s way, they begin to scramble, and throw whatever they can fine at the nearest wall. It’s infuriating.❤
I honestly had no doubt Judge Carroll would do what was correct, covered in the full armor of the law. Thank you for this recap as it helps to see it written out in his Honor's order.
Thank you Peter for keeping us updated on all of the post-trial motions and rulings in this case. 💗
Catching the replay in the uk thank you Peter for keeping us all updated
"Do you know what that tells me, members of the jury?"...gotta love Peter...lol❤
Love this info. You are on top of things.
Replay crew here. Problem with being 7 hours in your future i guess. My sympathies life with juror#1. I also think JHACH should just accept their defeat and pay up. Thanks for breaking down USA law
In the Netflix movie, there was a hand written note with the slanted s's. Not sure who authored the document but was obviously written prior to Juror #1's question during trial. Anyone aware of this?
Lawyer, lawyer! You look great! Your day off seems to have done the trick! 🎉 prosperity and love to you and your family. And here's to hitting the 500k mark in 2024.
Love your commentary Peter
Great video, Peter, thank you!
Peter, Peter, Peter....chartreuse looks good on you, my man! I'm glad Judge Carol is limiting this. I don't agree with the inquiry and I know people are rightfully mad about it but ultimately I think the judge is allowing it to cya. He doesn't want them to keep questioning the jury and their verdict and I appreciate that.
Is yellow the same color?
@barbaracollins5605 chartreuse is a shade of green/yellow. It's the exact color he's wearing. I worked retail waaaaay too long and know a lot of random color names 😂
Replay here. Thanks for covering this!
🧡🌸 Juror #1 and hippo lover have been defamed by JHACH and suffered abuse of their process and filings repeatedly!
Justice!!!
Yoooooo. I was representing LYK in Law&Crime
You guys are so generous❤
Hello LYK family! Happy New Year!🎉
Thank you for the membership!
Had to be in the rewatch crew but so glad to be here.
I love your commentary on hole thing no matter he won’t get a free pass
Rewatch crew! I appreciate Peter has to be careful cause he’s still in the same line of work as the Defense, especially in the same state, but I’m gonna say it. The Defense attorneys are not good people. They are doing this on purpose and hoping they will get away with it, like they had been up until the trial. They are totally ok with sacrificing their integrity and doing whatever it takes to not lose the cash cow that is JHACH. If JHACH was paying less of their bills, guarantee the Defense attorneys aren’t pulling this crap. Cruelles is the only one on that team that isn’t terrible and notice how she’s not involved in this BS.
Judge Carrol is a little spicy. I think it’s irritated he has to do all the research JHACH should have have done. He was meticulous with the depth of his research. I’m glad he called them amount for the amount of resources and people they have access to to do this research.
I really really enjoy Carroll as an officer of the court. Legally, he does his job excellently, very fair in his rulings, while being EXTREMELY mindful of potential issues. The questions he grilled/s the attorneys (from both sides) with before, during, and after trial shows how much attention he pays, and that he thinks down many possible scenario paths to come to a decision. An exemplary model for how judges should do their jobs (from everything I've seen). No, I don't agree with *every* ruling, but thinking that would happen with any judge in any case is foolish.
But he also brings a breath of fresh air with his demeanor. He is welcoming and jovial, seems quite personable, and is willing to work with you to get the job done right (we saw this throughout trial). I read that the Petito v Laundrie case was reassigned to him and, if that holds true, that case is in very good hands.
42:04 thank Megan Fox and Mo in the Deep for the Hair Island 😂. Judge must have had some research on the channels that covered the trial lol. Mo named it Tuft of Justice 😂
Thanks peter for ur recap 💚
Another great vídeo peter, your vídeos are so interesting and informative, you always do an amazing job.
Great assessment
Missed the live. Replay here we go
Me too VickyF
Same here
🙋♀️ 😊
Omg…I love your hair. 😊
I'm uncomfortable with the new trend of challenging jurors after a case is over, being accused of making the wrong decision. This is not the first case that we have seen jurors challenged. If I were a juror, I would not trust that my vote would be respected.
I wish I was a member.
Crazy defense
The bottom line from my perspective is that Jayhatch is very unethical and does not care about the harm they have done to the jury system or the people involved. They have proven this time and time again, even before the trial! They did not give to the plaintiffs the discover the judge order them to, they withheld information and lies about the poor review of the hospital that was far more reaching than they ever admitted! They are a disgrace as attorneys and a reason many have low opinions of the profession! I too believe most are not like these attorneys but they have not the profession in anyway!
#rewatch crew, but will be here for the live tonight!!!!!
Juror is a former law enforcement officer and was, as a juror, acting in a similar way he would ask if he were actually investigating this case as law enforcement. This is excellent. He was using his prior experience to help him as a muror. Even if he had a preceived idea of outcome, he was still investigating to confirm his ideas. This is a sign he wasallowing the evidence presented to make up his mind either way. I dont think it's possible to get a completely unbias jury but what you really want are jurors who will listen to both sides and investigate the holes left by their own lack of knowledge and/or ×hat was not addressed. Ifninwere the defense, id be asking about more specific questions about what happened to anyone who said yes to the victim question or left it blank.
Peter can you explain how we can attend a live? I think I was gifted a membership
I don't want to be disrespectful but at this point I gotta say JHACH's legal team is looking foolish right now.
I get that their client got hammered to the tune of 260 M's. But we all know they could've busted the caps. It could have been a much larger number. They clearly were told to get back out there and do something. But these arguments are ridiculous and clearly the court agrees.
Rewatch crew here.
Looking good 👍
I think this is EXACTLY why I could never be a judge (aside from the obvious fact I don't have any formal legal education). I do NOT have the patience for this BS and the defence would sure get an earful 😂
It could just be that the defendants lawyers are trying to justify their bill and try to keep the client....they got or will get paid either way from the case.
Peter, love ya but you give the attorneys too much credit. They played dirty during the trial (report for the hospital that is still not turned over) and continue. It’s disgusting. People are already referencing this trial as to why they won’t serve jury duty.
Love the new intro
Who will pay for the jurors' lawyer?
Greg popped on at the end of Megan Fox stream...after court.
How do i get a membership that someone donated Peter
When Peter does a live you need to be on then there’s a button on the live to switch on to be able to accept membership that’s how I did it hope someone else says it more clearly for you
How do you get a free membership? How do you turn gifting on?
Youve really got to do something on Jeanette Braun, attorney for Lauren the Mortician, who is suing other creators with a SLAPP suit
It is currently resounding 👀👀👀👀
Happy 2024!,
good lord! how much is JHACH spending on this losing fight?
It seems to me that these awful people are perpetuating the Kowalski family's (extraordinarily complex) trauma. I realize that there is a large herd of JHACH legal-team people... But they don't seem to realize, or care (😮) that JHACH is primarily a health-care provider and they boldly state on their website : "Creating healthy tomorrows ... for one child, for All Children... 😢 To provide leadership in child health through treatment, education, advocacy and research..." 😢. Isn't it JHACH's prerogative, and frankly, duty, to say the Kowalski's have endured enough, they need peace and quiet to mourn their mom/wife and find a new normal. Let's pull the plug. Show's over.
Ps what are you drinking? If there is dairy or sugar in, your cough is excused. If not go to chatGPT 😂
I can't believe how much they are stretching this trial. In your opinion, how long do you think JHACH will give Maya's family even $1.00?
Did you live stream today
Will the JH ever pay? Is there a due date on settlement? Or is the check being sent via Shetland pony express?
All i know is if i get picked im not saying reading sht. This sht is getting real.
Uuwwwhats up everybody!
Watching replay.
Why do you keep trying to defend them? It's not a good look Peter.
A rant would be far worse.
@MsTokra ☺❤☺
Watching on Tampa 13. ? He DEFINITELY looked alot different than I had formed in my head of him. Lol
Ty
Replay gang
How would everyone feel if the roles were switched? If the plaintiff raised these issues.
Gonna have to disagree w you saying JHACH team is probably filing a bunch of things & don't have the time to make sure it's all correct... They have a HUGE team with paralegals. Checking if Salisbury was Juror 1's former lawyer was not time consuming... Should we accept this kind of work ethic for a large law firm? It's unacceptable they are openly accusing Jurors and other lawyers of lying and being unethical bc they don't have the time to fact check. What they are doing is dirty and dangerous.
Replay crew!
Is it just me or do we really want the jhach lawyers disbarred?
302k! 16k views in 2 hrs!
Wow
The judge was spicy with a dash of snark! Tasty.
💜
I’ve got to say, although I don’t think it’s possible to make a legal argument out of it that a judge would understand unless he/she were a history aficionado- and bearing in mind that I’ve never actually seen the SS letters in question- but if the letters are indeed stylized the way the SS insignia was (they were called the “SS runes”) I personally have never, ever seen any nother example of such stylization of the letter S before.
I’m not saying this guy intentionally meant to evoke the idea that this witness was some kind of Nazi or something, or even that he consciously was aware of having ever seen the SS runes before (it’s totally possible that he’s seen them in documentaries or such, and doesn’t remember that that’s where his idea came from.
And I know my opinion here will be totally rejected by everybody else lol. But on my honor, I just can’t bring myself to totally dismiss the notion that what he was drawing were indeed the SS runes.
I’ve never, ever seen that particular stylization before or since in my life. It’s not even a natural way to draw the letter “S”. It looks more like a lightning bolt than a letter.
And like I said, having never seen the actual page in question, I can’t say for sure that they even look like SS runes at all.
But what I’m saying is, if they are indeed identical to SS runes, those things are unmistakable. Once you’ve seen them you’ll never forget what they look like. And again, I can’t recall having ever seen them anywhere on planet earth, in the last 38 years of my life, except in reference to the organization known as the Schutzstaffel, in Germany during WWII.
So, take that as you will…..
Look up the way the band KISS does the capital S’s in the band name. Juror #1 is close to my age (59) and many people (mostly male) rock fans of my age still make their capital S’s that way! The founding members of KISS are Jewish and Gene Simmons’ mom in particular is a holocaust survivor so it was never intended to glorify or symbolize the Nazi party. When I saw the hearing today, Juror 1’s appearance confirmed for me that he is definitely a rocker from my generation!
l agree that Maya and family should have won the case but 250 million is a lot. l would have thought half of this could have gone to children with illness charity or towards crps in children research.
Imo, They are trying everything because this settlement hurts too much. Maybe they will have to close the hospital, then all of the people that work there will lose their jobs. At the bare minimum, they will have to let some people go. It's a sad time for the staff of JHACH.
Not settlement, verdict. ❤
OMG Seriously? JHACH isnt paying out, their insurance carrier is.
@@saratonen4255 "OMG Seriously?" Most insurers do not cover intentional acts, so only negligence is covered. They also do not cover acts done outside the scope of any employee's employment.
@@Litigator-4-life Outside of employment isn't relevant in this context as the key players were considered employed by JHACH. Intentional acts aren't covered, somewhat true, but the entire verdict and award are not predicated on intentional acts. Insurance will cover all but the 50 million in punative damages, of which will be covered by the parent company of JHACH.
With that said, no one expects a $200 million payout, including the Kowalskis. Whether they pay that much is up to JHACH and their legal henchmen.
I suggest they come to the table with a reasonable offer and do so quickly, which is what they should have done 7 years ago.
@@saratonen4255 Employees can do things outside the scope of their employment even if they are on the clock. Insurance companies contest coverage all the time. They can defend a case under a reservation of rights and fight about the existence of the coverage later. I agree wholeheartedly that the Kowalskis should come up with a reasonable number, if they are capable of entertaining that concept at this point, and negotiate in good faith. At least JHACH has a better idea of what its offer needs to be so it can negotiate in good faith.
I dont think this is going well for them.
Replay Crew
Woohoo members!!
Lay parsons^*
In other words JHACH has nothing worthy of a appeal
Perhaps no issue regarding juror misconduct, but potentially many other issues in the rest of the trial.
Peter this is the only case that I have noted bias on your part.
Bias is prejudice. Prejudice is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason.
He cannot be biased at this stage because he has watched the trial, seen evidence and now he has his own conclusions. He has reason to think and feel as he does.
Also, most of this video was him reading and summarizing the judges commentary, not his own.
Edit for clarity
No, I was speaking of from the beginning..
Not wanting to argue, just stating an opinion.
@@lindagwilloughby2318 probably because the actions of team JHACH have been truly inexplicable and outrageous.
Can you go over the Epstein list??
So jack k. Told his lawyer to keep juror #1? Does that sound suspicious right off the bat to anyone else knowing what we know now?
No
Originally they were going to let him go because they believed he could side with the state based off the info they had thus far at that time. They left it up to Jack K and he said to keep him. it could have gone either way. So no it doesnt sound suspicious.
Not suspicious at all I feel certain that Jack, Maya and Kyle were unwilling to concede to JHAC because they have been conceding for years and their family has been destroyed by JHAC. And the attorneys for the hospital had kept this going for YEARS & YEARS.
For context when Anderson was going to strike juror 1, JHACH’s bench gave the jazz hands. Anderson ummmed and ahhhed then realise jack wasn’t asked. Jack says keep juror 1 and JHACH lost their minds and morals some more
I am noticing that just saying things as fact (and expecting everyone to just believe devoid of facts) has become very prevalent since Trump has become a household name, since this is exactly what he does. It's a shame it's made it's way into the legal system.