New topic
Printablemidnightmover said: funksterr said: The charges against MJ were a lot less substantial than OJ or Kelly. The DA made a worldwide public call for anyone who ever had been abused by MJ to come forward and he would prosecute. No one came. To me that proved MJ didn't do anything. The problem is the general public would never look closely at the accusations made against Michael. If you do you will realize that it's not likely that he did the things he was accused of. Actually, by far the most illuminating testimony about Michael wasn't heard in court. It came from an English boy who knew Michael from 1979-1983. He's almost middle aged now and is generally complimentary to Michael. But he did describe quite convincingly (and with no bitterness) an incident at the end of their relationship where Michael was talking dirty down the phone and appeared to be masturbating. Seeing him talk so naturally about it, and even rationalise it on Michael's behalf, was extremely revealing. It's one of many pieces of evidence that MJ fans like to ignore. You have to understand that these kind of sex trials are always slanted in favor of the defendant. The prosecution have strict guidelines which prevent them talking about other similar allegations and circumstantial evidence. Also, the fact that the defendant is never questioned in court but the accuser always is. A skilled lawyer can always make mincemeat of a witness under cross examination. They did it to the Arvizos (spelling?) and it would have happened to Michael if he'd been questioned too, but of course he never was. Reading your post convinces me that you know nothing about due process in the court of law. The accused/defendent has the right to know what he's being accused of and who's making the charge against him. One of the biggest misconception in criminal law is that in court cases, the defendent has to prove that he didn't do the crime he's accused of, wrong, the State has to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges have merit. It's not so much did Michael Jackson do it, yes or no, it's about do you believe this boy and his family story, yes or no. Hence the fact that the boy had to stand at trial and testify what happen and be crossed as well. Civil cases, much different the opposite, the stakes of less great and little to know evidence is needed. By the way, circumstantial evidence is little to know help for the State, and that English boy story (hearsay, inadmissible) would get dismissed by a judge himself. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
* [Edited 8/30/08 13:43pm] “The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
myloveis4ever said: midnightmover said: They rarely do in these kinds of cases. In the R Kelly trial even the girl in the video refused to testify. And by the way, one of Michael's previous victims did actually tell his story in court. He broke down in tears while he related what happened. Funny how this seems to have completely slipped your memory. DID u see him cry? i´m not defending MJ. But U Can´t trust the media/news nowdays.... or can U? Maybe all this about Mj is true. maybe not... The boy crying in court is a matter of public record. Go and look it up. It was MJ fans who were let into court who I first heard tell that story. You could see they were effected by it. For the first time they seemed to have doubts about Michael's "innocence". [Edited 8/30/08 13:45pm] “The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
thatruth said: midnightmover said: Actually, by far the most illuminating testimony about Michael wasn't heard in court. It came from an English boy who knew Michael from 1979-1983. He's almost middle aged now and is generally complimentary to Michael. But he did describe quite convincingly (and with no bitterness) an incident at the end of their relationship where Michael was talking dirty down the phone and appeared to be masturbating. Seeing him talk so naturally about it, and even rationalise it on Michael's behalf, was extremely revealing. It's one of many pieces of evidence that MJ fans like to ignore. You have to understand that these kind of sex trials are always slanted in favor of the defendant. The prosecution have strict guidelines which prevent them talking about other similar allegations and circumstantial evidence. Also, the fact that the defendant is never questioned in court but the accuser always is. A skilled lawyer can always make mincemeat of a witness under cross examination. They did it to the Arvizos (spelling?) and it would have happened to Michael if he'd been questioned too, but of course he never was. Reading your post convinces me that you know nothing about due process in the court of law. The accused/defendent has the right to know what he's being accused of and who's making the charge against him. One of the biggest misconception in criminal law is that in court cases, the defendent has to prove that he didn't do the crime he's accused of, wrong, the State has to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges have merit. It's not so much did Michael Jackson do it, yes or no, it's about do you believe this boy and his family story, yes or no. Hence the fact that the boy had to stand at trial and testify what happen and be crossed as well. Civil cases, much different the opposite, the stakes of less great and little to know evidence is needed. By the way, circumstantial evidence is little to know help for the State, and that English boy story (hearsay, inadmissible) would get dismissed by a judge himself. Another MJ fan with comprehension difficulties. Nothing in your long winded and rambling post contradicts what I said. You point out that the English boy's story would be inadmissable in court? Errr yes, that's what I said. The prosecution are subject to strict guidelines which limits what they can use. You say that the State has to prove Michael did it beyond reasonable doubt? Errr, no shit, Sherlock. Duh!! That's the whole point. And it's because of that (perhaps understandable) emphasis that so few sex crimes are punished because the accuser is the one who gets grilled and ripped apart in court while the defendant just sits back and watches. The whole point is that these cases are slanted in favor of the defendant. That's the point. You seem to have missed it. What else is new? [Edited 8/30/08 13:37pm] “The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
- Thomas Jefferson | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
midnightmover said: thatruth said: Reading your post convinces me that you know nothing about due process in the court of law. The accused/defendent has the right to know what he's being accused of and who's making the charge against him. One of the biggest misconception in criminal law is that in court cases, the defendent has to prove that he didn't do the crime he's accused of, wrong, the State has to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges have merit. It's not so much did Michael Jackson do it, yes or no, it's about do you believe this boy and his family story, yes or no. Hence the fact that the boy had to stand at trial and testify what happen and be crossed as well. Civil cases, much different the opposite, the stakes of less great and little to know evidence is needed. By the way, circumstantial evidence is little to know help for the State, and that English boy story (hearsay, inadmissible) would get dismissed by a judge himself. Another MJ fan with comprehension difficulties. Nothing in your long winded and rambling post contradicts what I said. You point out that the English boy's story would be inadmissable in court? Errr yes, that's what I said. The prosecution are subject to strict guidelines which limits what they can use. You say that the State has to prove Michael did it beyond reasonable doubt? Errr, no shit peckerwood. Duh!! That's the whole point. And it's because of that emphasis that so few sex crimes are punished because the accuser is the one who gets grilled and ripped apart in court while the defendant just sits back and watches. The whole point is that these cases are slanted in favor of the defendant. That's the point. You seem to have missed it. What else is new? I think in this case the prosecution had a very passionate and active prosecutor who spend millions of dollars investigating the guilt that you are talking about and did not succee - for a reason. "When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
midnightmover said: thatruth said: Reading your post convinces me that you know nothing about due process in the court of law. The accused/defendent has the right to know what he's being accused of and who's making the charge against him. One of the biggest misconception in criminal law is that in court cases, the defendent has to prove that he didn't do the crime he's accused of, wrong, the State has to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges have merit. It's not so much did Michael Jackson do it, yes or no, it's about do you believe this boy and his family story, yes or no. Hence the fact that the boy had to stand at trial and testify what happen and be crossed as well. Civil cases, much different the opposite, the stakes of less great and little to know evidence is needed. By the way, circumstantial evidence is little to know help for the State, and that English boy story (hearsay, inadmissible) would get dismissed by a judge himself. Another MJ fan with comprehension difficulties. Nothing in your long winded and rambling post contradicts what I said. You point out that the English boy's story would be inadmissable in court? Errr yes, that's what I said. The prosecution are subject to strict guidelines which limits what they can use. You say that the State has to prove Michael did it beyond reasonable doubt? Errr, no shit, Sherlock. Duh!! That's the whole point. And it's because of that (perhaps understandable) emphasis that so few sex crimes are punished because the accuser is the one who gets grilled and ripped apart in court while the defendant just sits back and watches. The whole point is that these cases are slanted in favor of the defendant. That's the point. You seem to have missed it. What else is new? [Edited 8/30/08 13:37pm] Okay, now you educate me on this genius. What strict guidelines does the prosecution have to adhere to that "limits" them in prosecuting sex crimes? What are the limits? The State can bring charges and present to a jury that a crime was commented and the defendent is guilty without a reasonable doubt, submit evidence, put the alledged victim on the stand to testify, bring in witnesses if there are any, redirect their own witness, cross examine the defense's witnesses, bring in rebuttal witnesses to the defense's witnesses testimonies including experts and psychologists. So what are the strict guidelines for the prosecution? [Edited 8/30/08 14:58pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
You know what, I don't like what people think of mj but I can't get mad at them for it anymore. We have mj to thank for being so stupid and putting himself in a dumb position instead of being like madonna, prince or his sister and focusing on music.
These days I respect Prince way more than him. [Edited 8/30/08 14:33pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
MattyJam said: I was listening to the radio today and Chris Evans played The Way You Make Me Feel on his drivetime show.
Anyway, after the song he says "Happy 50th birthday Michael... thinking about it, should we really be wishing him a happy birthday?" What the heck is this? Why is he being treated as if he wasn't vindicated in 2005? Why do Chris Evans comments have to have anything to do with the court case? Maybe he was acting like most sane adults and wondering whether he wants to be wishing Happy Birthday to a guy who freely admits that he thinks its acceptable to share a bed with boys? . | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I don't blame sane adults for being sane adults, but I just feel so upset with him for letting it go this far, sometimes I wish I wasn't such a big fan but it's not something you throw away overnight either.
Even though I don't think he's guilty, I know exactly why everyone thinks so and it's his own fucking fault. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
FuNkeNsteiN said: MattyJam said: I was listening to the radio today and Chris Evans played The Way You Make Me Feel on his drivetime show.
Anyway, after the song he says "Happy 50th birthday Michael... thinking about it, should we really be wishing him a happy birthday?" What the heck is this? Why is he being treated as if he wasn't vindicated in 2005? Perhaps he was just alluding to the fact Mike is (or atleast was) a JW, and JW's don't celebrate birthdays  Except Michael left the JW faith as early as 1987. By that time, Michael became a religion. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
^ elaborate | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
alphastreet said: ^ elaborate
You'll know after listening to Heal The World. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TonyVanDam said: alphastreet said: ^ elaborate
You'll know after listening to Heal The World. I think I get it Do you believe that he let fame get to his head, wanted to be seen as some kind of savior and god put him in his place with those allegations as punishment? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
alphastreet said: TonyVanDam said: You'll know after listening to Heal The World. I think I get it Do you believe that he let fame get to his head, wanted to be seen as some kind of savior and god put him in his place with those allegations as punishment? There's a saying that if you try to make yourself Godlike (like he admitted in '93), chances are some shit will come down and bring you back to earth and unfortunately that's what happened to him. I just hope he makes smart decisions this time around. As for him being treated like a criminal, Mike unfortunately has a stigma that continues to make him a target. I guess he's learning to live with that, I don't know. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Timmy84 said: alphastreet said: I think I get it Do you believe that he let fame get to his head, wanted to be seen as some kind of savior and god put him in his place with those allegations as punishment? There's a saying that if you try to make yourself Godlike (like he admitted in '93), chances are some shit will come down and bring you back to earth and unfortunately that's what happened to him. I just hope he makes smart decisions this time around. As for him being treated like a criminal, Mike unfortunately has a stigma that continues to make him a target. I guess he's learning to live with that, I don't know. I forgot about that saying though I'm sure I've heard it in some scripture. I guess narcissism would fall in the same category right? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
alphastreet said: Timmy84 said: There's a saying that if you try to make yourself Godlike (like he admitted in '93), chances are some shit will come down and bring you back to earth and unfortunately that's what happened to him. I just hope he makes smart decisions this time around. As for him being treated like a criminal, Mike unfortunately has a stigma that continues to make him a target. I guess he's learning to live with that, I don't know. I forgot about that saying though I'm sure I've heard it in some scripture. I guess narcissism would fall in the same category right? It could. I think MJ really believed he could save the world with his music. I think he really believed that as much as he believed he could bring back the childhood that he never enjoyed as a kid. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
alphastreet said: TonyVanDam said: You'll know after listening to Heal The World. I think I get it Do you believe that he let fame get to his head, wanted to be seen as some kind of savior and god put him in his place with those allegations as punishment? The album cover of History said it all. Ego. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dag said: uPtoWnNY said:  How predictable from you. No one here is more predicatble than Y-O-U.  [Edited 8/30/08 20:37pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
me too! everyone knows he is a FREAK not a criminal. No more than say, R. Kelly  ---------------------------------
 Funny and charming as usual | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dag said: I have a funny story about this too. I started a thread on LMP forum just wishim MJ happy b-day and got immediately attacked for being disrespectful to LMP for bringing up her past that she´s trying to distance herself from by contantly talking about him dissing him and by dragging LMP into it, by posting that little thread where there was not a single negative thing about him, her or their marriage. Anyway, this happy b-day thread was deleted. Does anyone get this? I´d really love to know your opinions.
You started a thread in a LMP forum to wish MJ happy birthday? Been gone for a minute, now I'm back with the jump off | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
midnightmover said:[quote] funksterr said: IAnd by the way, one of Michael's previous victims did actually tell his story in court. He broke down in tears while he related what happened. Funny how this seems to have completely slipped your memory.
You mean that one guy who's mother was Michael's maid and who changed their stories at least 3 times. From what I remember, it was discovered that the guy was married to the D.A's daughter and was living in a house that Sneddon owned "We may deify or demonize them but not ignore them. And we call them genius, because they are the people who change the world." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
JackieBlue said: dag said: I have a funny story about this too. I started a thread on LMP forum just wishim MJ happy b-day and got immediately attacked for being disrespectful to LMP for bringing up her past that she´s trying to distance herself from by contantly talking about him dissing him and by dragging LMP into it, by posting that little thread where there was not a single negative thing about him, her or their marriage. Anyway, this happy b-day thread was deleted. Does anyone get this? I´d really love to know your opinions.
You started a thread in a LMP forum to wish MJ happy birthday? the fact there's a LMP forum alone shocks me j/k"We may deify or demonize them but not ignore them. And we call them genius, because they are the people who change the world." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
bboy87 said:[quote] midnightmover said: funksterr said: IAnd by the way, one of Michael's previous victims did actually tell his story in court. He broke down in tears while he related what happened. Funny how this seems to have completely slipped your memory.
You mean that one guy who's mother was Michael's maid and who changed their stories at least 3 times. From what I remember, it was discovered that the guy was married to the D.A's daughter and was living in a house that Sneddon owned Yep, that's the one. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
 "We may deify or demonize them but not ignore them. And we call them genius, because they are the people who change the world." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
bboy87 said:  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TonyVanDam said: alphastreet said: I think I get it Do you believe that he let fame get to his head, wanted to be seen as some kind of savior and god put him in his place with those allegations as punishment? The album cover of History said it all. Ego. he let the king of pop shit go to his head like he was untouchable. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JackieBlue said: dag said: I have a funny story about this too. I started a thread on LMP forum just wishim MJ happy b-day and got immediately attacked for being disrespectful to LMP for bringing up her past that she´s trying to distance herself from by contantly talking about him dissing him and by dragging LMP into it, by posting that little thread where there was not a single negative thing about him, her or their marriage. Anyway, this happy b-day thread was deleted. Does anyone get this? I´d really love to know your opinions.
You started a thread in a LMP forum to wish MJ happy birthday? Yeah, I just wanted to see the Presley fans´ reaction. BTW there were about 10 replies in that thread before it got deleted and NOBODY except for me wished him a happy birthday. The same thread over here got normal reactions. Those who came just wished him a happy b-day despite the fact that not everybody is a fan over here. I have never even came across one single thread about him or their marriage, which is weird to me. It has been more discussed over here than it will ever be over there. I love the org. the fact there's a LMP forum alone shocks me lol j/k
Yeah. But there´s no discussion though. They only sentences you can come accross there is: "she looks beaitiful". "Lisa rocks" and "thank you for posting that". You can check it out over here. http://lisapresley.groupe...4751000171 at bboy´s picture.
[Edited 8/31/08 1:58am] [Edited 8/31/08 2:09am] "When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Timmy84 said: alphastreet said: I forgot about that saying though I'm sure I've heard it in some scripture. I guess narcissism would fall in the same category right? It could. I think MJ really believed he could save the world with his music. I think he really believed that as much as he believed he could bring back the childhood that he never enjoyed as a kid. That ain't a bad thing to me. Maybe he was naive to think people would be understanding to his emotions and depression regarding his childhood and stuff, but having songs that were a positive "heal the world" message, isn't exactly a crime. It opened my 4 year old eyes to alot of stuff about the world, and that is not a bad thing, in my opinion. I would say his EGO in the HIStory era is something perhaps forced after the allegations. When Diane Sawyer brought up his ego on Prime Time Live 1995 (with Lisa Marie), he said "Good Good, thats what I wanted." When she started being sarcastic with her wording or belittling regarding his promotional "egotistical" trailers for the album. I think after 1993, he could have either crawled up in a ball and ran away, or came out strong with his head held high, whilst thinking f**k everybody (even if it was all just an act). Which in a sense, is what he did. Publicity... it worked. It may have made people turn their nose up at him, but it was probably something he had to do after hitting rock bottom in 1993. "I was wandering in the rain Mask of life, feelin insane Swift and sudden fall from grace" If he didn't pick himself back up then it could have been the end of him, and he knew that. So coming back with a bigger than ever promotional tool was somewhat needed. It brought the news back to his art and his music, even if just for a few minutes then they went back to bashing - atleast it was something. The fans gripped onto it and he had a successful tour after that and number 1s. So yeah... it worked, even if it made people dislike him more, atleast the allegations didn't finish him. His HIStory album was more autobiographical than any other album hes done, so maybe thats another reason why he went full out for promotion, even if it did make him look like an egomaniac | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
OfftheWall said: Timmy84 said: It could. I think MJ really believed he could save the world with his music. I think he really believed that as much as he believed he could bring back the childhood that he never enjoyed as a kid. That ain't a bad thing to me. Maybe he was naive to think people would be understanding to his emotions and depression regarding his childhood and stuff, but having songs that were a positive "heal the world" message, isn't exactly a crime. It opened my 4 year old eyes to alot of stuff about the world, and that is not a bad thing, in my opinion. I would say his EGO in the HIStory era is something perhaps forced after the allegations. When Diane Sawyer brought up his ego on Prime Time Live 1995 (with Lisa Marie), he said "Good Good, thats what I wanted." When she started being sarcastic with her wording or belittling regarding his promotional "egotistical" trailers for the album. I think after 1993, he could have either crawled up in a ball and ran away, or came out strong with his head held high, whilst thinking f**k everybody (even if it was all just an act). Which in a sense, is what he did. Publicity... it worked. It may have made people turn their nose up at him, but it was probably something he had to do after hitting rock bottom in 1993. "I was wandering in the rain Mask of life, feelin insane Swift and sudden fall from grace" If he didn't pick himself back up then it could have been the end of him, and he knew that. So coming back with a bigger than ever promotional tool was somewhat needed. It brought the news back to his art and his music, even if just for a few minutes then they went back to bashing - atleast it was something. The fans gripped onto it and he had a successful tour after that and number 1s. So yeah... it worked, even if it made people dislike him more, atleast the allegations didn't finish him. His HIStory album was more autobiographical than any other album hes done, so maybe thats another reason why he went full out for promotion, even if it did make him look like an egomaniac Interesting. I never thought of it that way. But after seeing the Prime Time I also got that it was his "little trick" to get attention. I don´t think he really meant it that seriously. One you argue thought that some of the songs on the Invincible album were also him being egoistical, but I think that´s just him showing he´s strong. After all he´s been through, he just needed to show the haters that they won´t destroy and they still haven´t though. I think the fact that he still hasn´t commited suicide is a huge success. I don´t know how many other people would be that strong. I mean look at all the other starts (Elvis etc) and how they ended and they weren´t through even half of the things that Mike was. "When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |