>> is it extent in a way, because they say he was competent. and that is consistent with even what happened in the criminal trial, right? he was found involuntary manslaughter, that means recklessness, he perceived a risk and ignored it. if you're able to perceive it, you're competent, your brain works, you just made the wrong decisions. isn't there some through thread there? >> that seems to be along the line that they used to find him fit for the job. i think they should have looked a little more deeply and i think they should have said, look, michael needed an addiction specialist. he had sleep problems, aeg knew about that. one of their ceos had been his tour manager in the '90s knew he had addiction problems. this man was not investigated properly and was not fit for the job. that doesn't seem to be the track they took. and aeg dodged the bullet in this one. >> tough to deal with fact error when the jury has made its determination. if you think it's that obvious a case, is there any recourse for the jackson family, any way to go now?