Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Michael Jackson The Farewell

619 replies

KIMItheThreadSlayer · 07/07/2009 18:48

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

OP posts:
daftpunk · 09/07/2009 14:32

exactly 2kidzandi..... some people just wont listen to reason.

Hulababy · 09/07/2009 14:32

I think maybe the word "allegedly" should maybe appear before a few of these statements, seeing as many of them do not appear to have come from factual eviden, rather than from hearsay.

Rhubarb · 09/07/2009 14:34

Right, I've found a copy of a report that states the prosecution wanted to use 'erotic materials' found at his home in the trial. The list of materials were blacked out for the media.

'erotic materials' does not translate into porno mags of young boys.

Hulababy · 09/07/2009 14:35

As far as I can work out the articles are not providing actually factual evidence though are they? Where are the sources?

I still remain in the same position as before the thread started and the articles - I still have no idea if he did or did not do it. I have absolutely no way of knowing either way.

AitchTwoOh · 09/07/2009 14:35

it was more than two.

re the mag etc, maureen orth sat through the trial, reporting on it, these things were annotated at the time.

you really should read the articles, tbh. it will take an evening, it's thousands upon thousands of words, which paint no-one as a saint. be cynical about them after you've spent the time reading them. but ask yourself why MJ et al never so much as made a squeak about them legally.

the question is not 'why did the parents not have a problem with their young boys sleeping with a 35 year old man?' (although i think that's an excellent question under the circumstances) but 'why is a 35 year old man sleeping with young boys?'

by re-nosing the argument round to the first question, the trial was won.

those of you who'd denounce the parents while declaring MJ innocent should take a look at yourselves, because you're being swayed by the same money, the same media story, the same love of celebrity as they were.

Rhubarb · 09/07/2009 14:35
beanieb · 09/07/2009 14:37

pmsl at the Concrete!

Was there a child porn mag AitchTwoOh? Where's your source/evidence?

Rhubarb · 09/07/2009 14:37

Actually Aitch, the media were criticised by the judge for being too negative towards MJ. They were concerned that he wouldn't get a fair trial as the media had already convicted him.

AitchTwoOh · 09/07/2009 14:37

if you read the articles, rhubarb, the magazine was named. it was something like 'i like 'em young', certainly sounded like a porno to me. read the articles. read the articles. read the articles.

the sources, as in written sources, hula, were annotated at the bottom of the articles when they were printed in the mag as i recall. it's not smoke and mirrors.

Rhubarb · 09/07/2009 14:38

Can you quote from that article Aitch? I doubt I'd be able to find the exact quotation by skim-reading.

AitchTwoOh · 09/07/2009 14:38

precisely, rhubarb. so he swayed the jury the other way... a media shitstorm over someone you admire will do that.

Hulababy · 09/07/2009 14:39

I admit that I am concerned about the parents involved and why they did what they did, before and after the allegations. That does not mean I think "they were asking for it." Most definitely not. But I do think that the behaviour of the parents is of concern, of big concern especially of the second case.

I do not know if MJ was innocent or not. I do not proclaim his innocense, anymore than I would proclaim his guilty. I simply do not know, and have not seen any factual evidence that says that yes, he definitely did.

I am not convinced he could have paid everyone off to silence. There would have been too many people involved.

Clearly MJ did things that were inappropriate. However I do know know whether these inappropriate actions went further to abuse.

daftpunk · 09/07/2009 14:39

no aitch..i'm being swayed by facts...you are being swayed by speculative information.

Hulababy · 09/07/2009 14:41

lol Rhubarb! I really should not have time off work; coming on MN in the day like this is not good! I get drawn into things I really don't actually think about in RL!!! Let's hope I am definitely well enough to go back to work nexy week!

AitchTwoOh · 09/07/2009 14:41

no i can't, they're a pita to read tbh, the pages are short but take a while to load so you can't just do a search, which would mean flicking through about 50 pages just to find one thing.

can you just read the articles, please? if you're not goiing to, fair enough, you're not interested in the subject, but it's a bit unreasonable to expect me to read them for you.

AitchTwoOh · 09/07/2009 14:43

dp that's not the case, tbh. you clearly don't know much about the actual evidence presented at the trial.

TDiddy · 09/07/2009 14:43

hands up you are 100opc certain that 'erotic materials' would not be found at your home if serached by the police. Need to check with DW and revert

beanieb · 09/07/2009 14:47

"read the articles. read the articles. read the articles." could you link to them please, I have missed the links from earlier.

Rhubarb · 09/07/2009 14:48

Sorry Aitch, I presumed you had read them and would have a better idea where to find that particular quote than I would have.

I've had another glance and my first impression was that they do seem bias against MJ. Not that this says what she writes isn't the truth, just my first impression.

Again, I'm with Hulababy so far.

dittany · 09/07/2009 14:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

daftpunk · 09/07/2009 14:49

no aitch i don't...but all the evidence you're presenting would have convicted my goldfish....so why wasn't MJ convicted?...because the jury found him innocent....that is a fact..

TDiddy · 09/07/2009 14:51

"you clearly don't know much about the actual evidence presented at the trial."

AitchTwoOh- I am wondering why he wasn't found guilty based on the actual evidence. I didn't see you answer whether you are 1000pc certain that he is guilty. I repeat that many of us are NOT certain that he is innocent but recognise the media frenzy and strange life that he led. We have also paused to reflect that MJ was himself a victim and that some of his relations might be troubled by the kind of unfounded speculation that you are indulging in.

AitchTwoOh · 09/07/2009 14:51

oj is innocent. also a fact by your reckoning, dp.

Rhubarb · 09/07/2009 14:52

Dittany - that website is called The Smoking Gun, do you know why?

The inventory of what they found at MJ's house was blacked out before it was given to the Press, so how did this site get their hands on it?

As for journalists only reporting the facts - I've just one thing to say about that, 'Daily Mail'.

Rhubarb · 09/07/2009 14:53

Oh and there aren't many of us who are arguing that MJ is innocent. We are saying that we don't know. That the evidence isn't enough to persuade us one way or the other. We are NOT arguing a case FOR MJ. Perhaps, like the journalists you quote, you should read peoples posts more carefully so you don't get the wrong end of the stick.

Swipe left for the next trending thread