PeakOutput wrote: » unless i missed the memo not guilty is not the same as innocent by any stretch of the imagination if he didnt die and this was just a thread on micheal jackson no1 would be getting their panties in a twist over jokes or accusations NOTHING HAS CHANGED JSUT BECAUSE HE DIED i hope the stories were not true but i have a nagging feeling they were he was a musical legend to many but because of the way he lived his life there are numerous people in their early to late 20s who only know him for his crazy antics and not because of his music as it was just before their time
Blay wrote: » Eh yes it is?
PeakOutput wrote: » oj simpson was found not guilty and then released a book entitled something along the lines of 'if i did it, this is how i would have done it' was oj simpson innocent?ask any judge or lawyer or anyone who knows anything about law saying someone is not guilty is not the same as saying they are innocent
I_am_Jebus wrote: » Even if MJ did molest kids (and I don't believe he did) it doesn't affect the musical achievements - 750 million albums sold. INCREDIBLE!! That is one of the reasons why he is a legend.
RonMexico wrote: » http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/music/ref=pd_ts_zgc_m_music_display_on_website_more?pf_rd_p=482110191&pf_rd_s=right-5&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=5174&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0PP25WVJXFAX2M9A0GHR The top 15 selling albums right now are all Michael Jackson. The top 5 albums on itunes are Michael Jackson. He is going to smash records all over the world in the next week. Unbelievable.
murfie wrote: » I am amazed at that opinion. How could he be a legend if it comes out that in fact he did the things he was accused of. 750 million albums or not, if he did the things that he was accused of he can rot in hell!
gimme5minutes wrote: » Not as gifted as Lennon lol...Jackson was definitely more musically gifted than Lennon, if Lennon hadn't been shot he wouldn't get nearly as much acclaim as he does. Lennon was very musically talented, no doubt about it, but Jackson was even better. If his personal life hadn't cast such a shadow over his work, and he wasn't such an easy target for mockery he would get far more recognition for that fact.
murfie wrote: » Why would he have even offered a settlement unless his lawyers thought there was a chance they wouldnt win, How many court cases was it? How many accusations are there that we dont know of?
RonMexico wrote: » Breaking news, no other details as of yet... EDIT: Just would like to say so long Jacko. I'm stunned.
dr oatker wrote: » In fact, after the initial rush of sympathy after his death subsides you'll get all sorts of stuff being said because dead men can't sue.
Blay wrote: » He didn't, it was proven in a court of law.
d'Oracle wrote: » It mystifies me how Micheal Jackson can be an inspiration or role model to anyone. Infact, anyone who has Micheal Jackson as a role model, is probably going to be a severely warped and dysfunctional person.
I_am_Jebus wrote: » I don't know really, a court of law proved him innocent. That's all that matters at present in relation to those accusations. TBH, I think Michael was 50 going on 10 and was like that most of his life (Neverland etc...) I have no doubt that some of the stuff he said and done with children was bad judegement and stupid on his part but the impression I always got was that he was a child himself. He was his own worst enemy in my opinion but I don't believe he was paedophile/molestor.
murfie wrote: » I realise that but the statement of I_am_Jebus that he would be a legend even if he did do those things is was I was talking about. Cant be called a legend if you have done those things, MJ or anyone else. It was not proven in a court of law so in this case it is ok to call him legend.
thelordofcheese wrote: » So they'd rather have had money than take him to court and see justice done... yeah, i'm not buying your argument here. And his lawyers did the right thing, they saw some money grabbing shills and ended the court case as quickly as they could. Hardly a sign of guilt.
dr oatker wrote: » Agree to disagree on that.
keefg wrote: » Lennon did a great job while that McCartney fella was around to help him out with the song writing, after The Beatles split though it all turned to crap for Lennon. Lucky for him (musically, not personally ) that he was killed when he was because an extended solo career would have been woeful.
dr oatker wrote: » I think that Jackson will be remembered for his dance routines and his videos more than his music, (thriller excepted, and only because it sold shedloads)
dr oatker wrote: » Unfortunately for his fans the child molestation accusations won't go away either. In fact, after the initial rush of sympathy after his death subsides you'll get all sorts of stuff being said because dead men can't sue.
murfie wrote: » Its 6 of one, half dozen of the other. My take on why MJ offered the settlement if just as valid as yours. You have no idea what his lawyers saw, maybe they knew things we don't. I concede I could be totally wrong but so could you.
PeakOutput wrote: » not it wasnt your really misguided being found not guilty is not the same as being proved innocent it just is not the same no matter how many times you say it you say the lack of proof shows it was a farce of a case in sexual assault and rape and paedophilia cases most of the time there is no evidence accept for the word of the victimif anyother adult else was accused of molesting a boy and that adult admitted to sleeping with the boy they would be found guilty (rightly or wrongly)
In the common law tradition, an acquittal formally certifies the innocence of the accused, as far as the criminal law is concerned
PeakOutput wrote: » being found not guilty is not the same as being proved innocent it just is not the same no matter how many times you say it
Blay wrote: » The word of a person in a case is useless in court, it's not evidence, the accused can just say "I did not" and that's the victims evidence cancelled out.:
PeakOutput wrote: » the word of the victim has been more than enough to send people to prison see the case of the man recently proven innocent when the victim told gardai she lied ten years ago when she said he abused her there was no evidence other than her wordhe was convicted other than that see my edit i dont think we will agree
Quazzie wrote: » Innocent until proven Guilty. One of the fundamental basics in most judicial systems. He wasn't found guilty, so therefore is still Innocent. At the end of the day it boils down to the simplicity of that statement.