Michael Jackson The Farewell

[KIMItheThreadSlayer]

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

dittany - I don't follow your other comment. Courts of law do not smedia reports and jounralist reports as sources to refer to when deciding on someone's innocence or guilt. We all here knwo that journalists report their own version of what they say. This is seen many many times. They are not unbiased and some even have been known to not smimply report on the whole truth.

And of course it is not possible for the parent of little boy to leave vaseline in MJ mansion?

I am interested to know how certain the accusers are that they are correct. I cannot be certain that he was innocent. What about your level of certainty?

"You'd better take that up with the person who claimed child porn was found at Neverland then. I never said there was, and if someone said it here I must have missed it. "

ok, but what was the point of providing the list other than to provide a list for someone who asked if you weren't trying to prove something with the list?

Is the list irrelevant then?

could anyone link to the Maureen Orth articles.

Gosh - hate it when posters you otherwise like actually turn out to be Pitchforkers Extraordinaire. So very diappointing

Will now hide thread before any more illusions are shattered.

here you go beanie i've only just finished re-reading them now, it's a lot to get through.

td you keep saying about your level of certainty as if it means something. beyond a reasonable doubt can't be represented in percentage terms, can it? why do you keep returning to this? i'm baffled.

Aitch, I don't think I asked if you knew for sure, and there really is no need to shout.

You are right, we don't know. This is all speculation and stuff sourced from celebrity magazines. If speculation and journalistic writings were enough to convict then our prisons would be overcrowded.

Of course I have opinions about people same as everyone else. Like everyone else I thought that Colin Stagg murdered Rachel Nickell, I was wrong about that. I thought/think that OJ murdered his wife and now there is enough evidence to convict, but he cannot be brought to trial on that because of the double jeopardy law.

In this instance however, I really don't know if he was guilty or not. It is worrying that he openly slept with children (just boys or girls too?). As regards the gifts, he was well-known for showering his friends with gifts so I wouldn't read too much into that. I do think that people are, as a rule, reading his guilt into the evidence offered. But it can work both ways as this thread is demonstrating.

Based on what has been thrown up by this thread, I don't think you can say that he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Not on the sources stated.

That's roughly where I stand then.

how frustrating, you're not going to read the articles, just base your judgement on a few things pulled from probably 50,000 words on teh subject. ho hum.

btw re rachel nickell's murder, i don't see the relevance to decades of possible abuse and 15 years of journalistic enquiry on the subject and a litany of witness statements.

if her murderer had been getting away with killing several people for years by virtue of his money and celebrity, maybe...

AitchTwo- will you concede that you don'yt know for sure and that you could be wrong. I think if you bear that in mind then you might well re-consider how/what statements you make. I repeat, you could be right but neither you or I can be anything close to certain? Or are you cerain? I don't think that is a difficult question.

I didn't say I wasn't going to read the articles Aitch, give me chance woman! But it's not all courtroom stuff is it? She says she was there for 'most' of the trial, what does that mean? And some of it is stuff from telephone interviews with aides of Jackson who were happy to speak to her - do we trust those people happy to talk to journalists whilst this trial was going ahead?

oh, and just boys. only boys. no girls.
sisters were strictly not allowed in his bedroom, they slept elsewhere.

start at the beginning, rhubarb, a good decade before the trial. stop skipping.

i'm not answering your question again, tdiddy, i've done so already a number of times. i don't know why you're so stuck on this. [puzzled] it's primary school debating level.

You got this info from the articles again I presume, from the courtroom bit or where she interviews people happy to talk to the Press?

Aitch, please stop patronising those like tdiddy who are engaging in debate with you.

when u make such serious accustations you ought to consider how certain you are about your facts.

no he isn't, lol, he's being silly and debatey. beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden.

Thank you Rhubarb. I think that we are at a dead end.

You've used passive aggressive style posts against a few people on this thread. I'm happy to agree to disagree. I haven't time to read all the articles you put so much faith into. I've read the last one and didn't draw any conclusions from it.

The arguments you use to say he is guilty can be picked apart you see, as can the arguments saying he is innocent.

I don't see that there can be any conclusion to this thread. It's been interesting and he was a fascinating character. Unless more children now come forward to say he molested them, we may never know the whole truth.

AitchTwoOh - think that you ought to show a bit of humility and just admit that you can't be certain because you have a lot of unverifiable second had info and that your claim of abuse did not stand up in a court of law. Why can't you just concede some doubt? I am sorry if you have already done so, as I didn't notice.

well, we are if you expect me to answer the same question over and over and over again, td. one last time... beyond a reasonable doubh.

tdiddy, as i suspected you haven't been reading my posts.

and righto rhubarb, let's not make this personal between you and me, that's a bit of a bore. i think that it will be most interesting to see if more men do come forward. i don't know that they automatically will, though, given the recent sanctification that's gone on the jackson family has much to gain (financially) from diverting discussion away from molestation accusations. should be interesting to see what happens.

well clearly you are better positioned than the jury that examined the facts. As you know the hurdle is quite high in criminal law.

I think that there is something vindictive about much of this thread. Just look at what the OP was and how quickly some piled in to re-accuse MJ of a crime that he was found not guilty of (of whatever variant of not guilty that was judged in court).

best wishes

aitch..we're talking about MJ here....i haven't commented on any other trial.

anyway...this is going around in circles now...you know exactly how i feel and i know how you feel...normally i would say..that's fine, you are entitled to your opinion.....but to carry on with these "allegations" years after MJ was acquitted (and after his death) is quite bewildering.

you may think i'm biased because i am a MJ fan..abosolutely not the case..i believe in justice, and justice was done...you believe in conjecture.

bonkers, absolutely bonkers.