• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

OT - 60 MINUTES Michael Jackson Interview

Started by supapimp,

49 posts in this topic

supapimp

supapimp

Posted
Posted

did or is anybody watched/watching this right now? i'm watching it right now and you can't help to feel sorry for jacko. sorry for posting this here, but i didn't want thing and his neo con buddies hijacking/ruining this thread. thumbsup2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ares

Ares

Posted
Posted

the man is seriously delusional.

 

does he honestly think its OK to sleep in the same bed as other peoples children?

He has peter pan syndrome.

He is liek a little biy who never grew up

Link to comment
Share on other sites
supapimp

supapimp

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Sure, the guy is an oddball but I do believe that he is innocent and once that he is found not guilty I surely hope that the media gives THAT the attention that it deserves.

 

honestly, i believe he's innocent too, i smell "gold digging" going on here. if you saw the interview, the accuser wanted jacko to sleep in bed with him. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif i'm not saying that he was baiting him, but you just had to see the interview for yourself....it just doesn't fit. confused-smiley-013.gif he's been with thousands of children, why would only 2 come out? i still think in my mind he's innocent of this and the first accusation. he just never was able to be a kid. foreheadslap.gifsorry.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joe_collector

joe_collector

Posted
Posted
as I understand it, the kids parents are not suing for money and the case is a state criminal case where the other was a civil monetary case?

 

Also keep in mind that a criminal conviction (or a public one, if found innocent) is often used to hammer down in a civil case, as in the OJ trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted

I'm no lawyer but wouldn't pressing for criminal charges be an excellent way to turn up the heat on jacko and get him to consider a large settlement in exchange for dropping the charges?

 

I.e. I would assume it is perfectly legal for the two parties to come to a settlement before the case goes to court no matter what the type of action is... i.e. if the plaintiff wants to drop the charges, so be it. Whether there is a payment or not involved would I assume be irrelevant.

 

Sure, if the case did actually go to trial you wouldn't get any money out of him this way, but I think fear of jail would be an excellent way to motivate jacko to pay up, don't you? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greggy

greggy

Posted
Posted
I'm no lawyer but wouldn't pressing for criminal charges be an excellent way to turn up the heat on jacko and get him to consider a large settlement in exchange for dropping the charges?

 

I.e. I would assume it is perfectly legal for the two parties to come to a settlement before the case goes to court no matter what the type of action is... i.e. if the plaintiff wants to drop the charges, so be it. Whether there is a payment or not involved would I assume be irrelevant.

 

Sure, if the case did actually go to trial you wouldn't get any money out of him this way, but I think fear of jail would be an excellent way to motivate jacko to pay up, don't you? 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

They changed the law this time, as they can now force the victim to tesify. That is why he got away with it the last time. They couldn't force the victim to testify. tonofbricks.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted

Hmm... but the victims being kids how much reliance can one place on their testimony anyway? Kids are oftentimes scared to tell the truth or are being forcibly instructed to lie by parents, etc... I would not have much confidence in a child's testimony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
supapimp

supapimp

Posted
  • Author
Posted
as I understand it, the kids parents are not suing for money and the case is a state criminal case where the other was a civil monetary case?

 

Also keep in mind that a criminal conviction (or a public one, if found innocent) is often used to hammer down in a civil case, as in the OJ trial.

 

i hear ya and was going to include that in my last post, thumbsup2.gif but either way it's not in my hands. confused-smiley-013.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greggy

greggy

Posted
Posted
Hmm... but the victims being kids how much reliance can one place on their testimony anyway? Kids are oftentimes scared to tell the truth or are being forcibly instructed to lie by parents, etc... I would not have much confidence in a child's testimony.
Well...no on else is gonna testify so it has to be the kid! confused-smiley-013.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted

I know... I'm just highlighting my perception as to the potential difficulties involved in a criminal case (keeping in mind the high burden of proof here) where the only eyewitness/victim is a child... if the jurors have brains it should make it harder to convict him, I would think. Then again, if the jurors are weepy emotional types who are overempathising with the alleged victim, conviction could be easier... I bet jacko's lawyer is hoping for a male jury... I would think jurors that are mothers might be too willing to believe the child???

 

That's my rambling conjecture for today! laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greggy

greggy

Posted
Posted
I know... I'm just highlighting my perception as to the potential difficulties involved in a criminal case (keeping in mind the high burden of proof here) where the only eyewitness/victim is a child... if the jurors have brains it should make it harder to convict him, I would think. Then again, if the jurors are weepy emotional types who are overempathising with the alleged victim, conviction could be easier... I bet jacko's lawyer is hoping for a male jury... I would think jurors that are mothers might be too willing to believe the child???

 

That's my rambling conjecture for today! laugh.gif

Maybe it should be decided by judge only? Depends which side you are on! 893scratchchin-thumb.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites
COI

COI

Posted
Posted

I don't know what evidence there is(none of us do), so I'm not going to pass any judgement. But keep in mind that if the stuff that has been found in his house(pictures of their kids with their shirts off, a hidden guest bedroom you can only get too by going through Michael's Bedroom, etc....) were found in just some non-famous, rich guy's house, most of you would probably be calling for his balls to be cut off.

 

Michael was a good entertainer, but that dosen't mean he isn't capable of being a pervert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greggy

greggy

Posted
Posted
Good point, although aren't most high profile cases like this jury cases? I'm not sure why though, wish some of the lawyers were posting..

 

Dan

I think that the accused may have the option so it's usually with a jury, as all the defense has to do is to sway one member of the jury. A judge is probably less likely to be swayed by court room antics by both sides!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing