Michael Jackson The Farewell

[KIMItheThreadSlayer]

I think it is a rather nice send off,
Fitting.
Nice to hear others sing his songs

Well done for keeping going with this, Aitch, by the way.

if it was true, mamazon, considering its been going around virally for days, don't you think the bbc or sky would have picked up on it by now. considering, y'know, how it would be the Biggest Story In The World right now.

[depressed]

I wish I had your energy, Aitch. Feel profoundly depressed by this stuff - it seems to me to reveal something deeply terrible about the world and its relationship with celebrity. Like the whole Diana thing but much much worse. All the more depressing because this is a parenting website.

AitchTwoOh - OJ has been mentioned a few times. I think that he was GUILTY but it was clear that the police cocked up the evidence by overreaching which is the reason he got off. I think that he lost in the civil courts, right? I think that the OJ analogy does not stand up apart from the fact that they are both black stars.

The piece I linked to was a GQ article.

It provides a rebuttal to every point/allegation made in the Vanity Fair article and is equally well written/researched.

actually the trials have quite a lot in common, not least a star struck californian jury and very rich defendants.

anthony pellicano, now doing a 15 stretch in prison, for example, was the hired thug in both cases. look him up. nice guy.

link again, bobbysmum, i missed that.

(although from what i know of payments made at GQ i veeeeeeeery much doubt whether a journo on £350 an article could match the american research.)

AitchTwoOh - you are deliberately muddying the waters. Do you expoect a jury to find someone guilty with tampered evidence? Most people I know find OJ hideous and calculating. How do you know the stae of mind of the MJ jury? You really ought to stick to the facts or be clear that you are speculating.

Many of us have already said that we can't be certain that MJ is innocent but some of you seem to have cast iron eveidence that the police and others didn't/don't have.

I can only refer you to Rhubarb's earlier posts.

Have a good day.

oh lol don't be so pompous. it's a web forum, we're discussing a subject... lolol.

Here's the link to the author's page. She has some serious credentials:

www.maryafischer.com/aboutMAF.html

There's another link to the article here:

www.usnewslink.com/framedjackson.htm

It's far more compelling than the Vanity Fair article.

And finally, to put it all in context:

www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-commentarydowns0705.artjul05,0,1000622.story

That last thing you linked to bobbysmum is appalling racist sexist guff.

I think the author makes a fair point actually.

that article is horrifying

so a white female journalist is exploiting a black man by writing about him? utter rubbish

michael jacksons's failings and faults - drug addiction, debt, alleged child abuse - were played out on teh world stage for all to see.

would be far more remiss for a journalist not to investigate and write about such things

We can only judge by what is written in the papers.The jurt had the evidence they found him not guilty.I think it is ludicrous and frankly very stupid to think you are better placed to make a judgment than them.

i'm just about to read the article, bobbysmum, thanks.

you say that it's more compelling than the VF one... you know there are five by maureen orth? i hope everyone's not just reading the front page introduction and thinking that's the sum of all her research.

OJ, katiestar. explain OJ.

Actually the OJ Simpson trial(s) and the MJ trial(s) have a lot in common. Both were acquitted in the criminal trial, but ended up paying (civil) damages, at least with OJ this was by a civil trial.

There are a lot of reasons a defendant e would pay off a claimant, not just guilt, but doesn't want to go through a trial and finds the legal process an ordeal.

aitch , i read all the maureen orth articles.

the other article is not IMO compelling, it is simply playing the race card. which is ironic considering MJ did all he could to look caucasian.

also, why are people not able to thikn that juries/jurors and witnesses can be bought off?

part way through it, already it's interesting quotes from unnamed sources etc. it seems to have been written after jordy chandler, so a lot of what's there has already been discredited. charity work is innaccurate according to MJ's tax returns.

so far bobbysmum this first piece you've linked to is just a re-tread of maureen orth's piece. she covers everything to do with the less than savoury aspects of the chandlers. i'd be suing if i was orth, tbh.

you know... i don't think you've actually read the orth pieces, bobbysmum. if you had, you couldn't have linked to this, it's just one half of what Orth wrote in her fair and condsidered pieces.

Nothing could sway your opinion, Aitch. You're too close-minded and militant.

If both those kids went on TV and said they'd lied, you'd still find reason to argue.

I'm certainly sitting on the fence on this one! I don't deny it at all.

I'm fully aware of the corruptions of the legal system both here and in the USA. However, I wasn't there. The police went through MJ's house, his computers, his paperwork, his phone, everything. They found nothing.

The evidence was largely down to witness testimony, which isn't exactly reliable when dealing with such a high profile case.

Interesting that Jordy Chandler's mother didn't think that anything untoward was going on.

You say that jurors and witnesses can be bought off, but so can the other side. If you were so sure of a conviction, if your son had been abused, why would you accept a pay-off? Surely if MJ had been found guilty, the compensation he would have had to pay out would have been so much more.

But all of this is psychology. I'd love to know what was going on in MJ's mind, but I never will. He would make a VERY interesting case study I'm sure.

I'm not going to say he was guilty or not-guilty. I honestly don't know.