Michael Jackson on 4
- Thread starter Notch7
- Start date
N
nauseous
Didn't watch it but saw a clip, a dead man cannot defend himself so it's mostly speculation.
B
Bodd
Let's celebrate jimmy savile
S
SammyInnit
Well he tried to when he was alive by paying a lot of people off.
No smoke without fire. A truly innocent man wouldn't feel the need to pay someone off, surely?
www.independent.co.uk/news/people/michael-jackson-paid-134-million-in-payoffs-to-stop-up-to-20-sex-abuse-victims-speaking-out-say-10159103.html
Well you saying 'No smoke without fire' is the reason that an innocent person who has a lot to lose merely through an allegation may 'pay someone off'.
Not saying he is innocent, but a pay off (or an 'out of court settlement) without presumption of guilt (and usually a gagging order) is used all the time by the police and other government agencies!
Do we assume then that they are always guilty/in the wrong?
S
SammyInnit
A billionaire stands to lose a lot more by paying people off than he does if he's innocent in court.
Latest example, Phil Green.
A man of his wealth could afford the best legal defense going but what's the point on a case he knows he'll lose?
And that's the point. If you're innocent you needn't worry.
Well specifically in my post you quoted I'm talking about Michael Jackson and it strikes me that the shoe fits.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
durhamplumber
Quite correct
B
Bodd
Someone who accepts an apparent injustice is not always guilty.
For example, suppose I feel that I have suffered an injustice, but I recognise the inconvenience, stress, financial, and even the potential consequence of losing the case, etc caused by challenging an injustice.
I decide to suffer the injustice rather than suffer the other alternative consequences.
For example, suppose I feel that I have suffered an injustice, but I recognise the inconvenience, stress, financial, and even the potential consequence of losing the case, etc caused by challenging an injustice.
I decide to suffer the injustice rather than suffer the other alternative consequences.
S
SammyInnit
Well as I've already mentioned, we're talking about MJ.
Seems this is another thread off on a tangent about the criminal justice system.
You said 'No smoke without fire'...
There is another saying - 'mud sticks'!
A billionaire would probably still 'lose' in the court of the media/public opinion, and thus may believe a payout is the best option.
Especially if the allegation is of a sexual nature.
And invariably the accuser can remain anonymous whilst the accused cannot.
Proving that 'guilty until proven innocent' is a well used judgement.
But it's not a clear cut case like that of GG.
Although it does of course sound like that MJ should have been tried.
But then of course 'money talks' in that respect also.
It is also a fact that between 94% and 97% of American court cases end in a plea bargain.
Thus taking a 'hit' instead of risking a 'bigger hit' should innocence not be proved.
So will you still listen to MJ's music or turn off the radio if a song of his comes on?
(Radio 2 have apparently dropped him from their playlist)
Because it was interesting listening to an interview with a woman who investigated MJ for some time, and yet she said she seperated the 'genius' music from the 'flaws' she believed he had.
He was.
I cast no opinion on the validity of any trial.
Only for one accuser...
Later accusations were never tried.
And some of the present accusers previously claimed that MJ never did anything to them.
B
Bodd
The most damming evidence for me was..
When Michael said to his live in house keeper
"shall we get a Chinese takeaway tonight."
"great idea" said the house keeper.
"I'll pick up a video from Blockbusters"
"Fantastic" said Michael
" We could get Alad din"
When Michael said to his live in house keeper
"shall we get a Chinese takeaway tonight."
"great idea" said the house keeper.
"I'll pick up a video from Blockbusters"
"Fantastic" said Michael
" We could get Alad din"
Similar threads
- imamartian
- General Discussion
