72 replies to this topic

[peony]

No, not guilty means not guilty.

By that standard it would be that OJ Simpson was innocent.

Not guilty is not the same as innocent. It only means that the prosecutor has not proven guilt.

[harper]

By that standard it would be that OJ Simpson was innocent.
>
Not guilty is not the same as innocent. It only means that the prosecutor has not proven guilt.

Not guilty and therefore presumed innocent. is that not the law of the land, Peony?

[harper]

Poor Michael. What a carry on.

Have never had much thought about Michael Jackson.

His singing voice is no better than averagely competent. Sorry, but it's not.

His dancing was not at all interesting AFAIAC - not my definition at all of what dancing is about, or should be about. Looked like he was getting electric shocks. Not remotely interesting.

The songwriting - not brilliant, not genius, by any stretch of the imagination.


What we are talking about here is the demise of one of the greatest creations of truly brilliant record producers that the world has ever had.

Michael was not the genius. Quincy Jones is the genius.

Quincey Jones - now there is a man of outstanding talent.

[peony]

Not guilty and therefore presumed innocent. is that not the law of the land, Peony?

Legally, yes. Would I trust a man accused of child molestation with my child because he was found not guilty? No.

[harper]

Legally, yes. Would I trust a man accused of child molestation with my child because he was found not guilty? No.

Me neither, Peony and I wouldn't let my child have sleepovers with a man of that age even if they hadn't been accused of a crime. It is just not approprioate.

[tomtscotland]

What we are talking about here is the demise of one of the greatest creations of truly brilliant record producers that the world has ever had.

So Michael Jackson was created by record producers?
Jeepers - I don’t think so.
For sure record producers are necessary but the Jacksons were up and running before any record producer got hold of them.

Michael was not the genius. Quincy Jones is the genius.

Quincy Jones may have been a genius – but he was not the genius that created Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson was his own talent.
Same way that Sam Phillips was the facilitator of the likes of Elvis, Cash, Orbison, Gerry Lee, Perkins etc


Maybe genius is an overstatement when you look at the individual elements as you did – but when you take the total package – singing, song writing, dancing and choreography it’s very hard to see anyone who comes close in terms of excellence, innovation and pure entertainment.
Maybe you could suggest someone?

[Iona Weedug]

This Forum is has probably the most balanced comments so far on MJ !
Some of the American sites are unbelievable with many idolising him and more talking as if he was the anti anti anti Christ.

Don't think we will ever know the story of his life -so many contradictions.

What I've cherry picked out of some of the things that I've read is that he was psychologically disturbed so much so that he thought he was a child in his head and could not accept that other people didn't understand that he innocently slept with children like a sleepover..
What parent would let a child sleepover with him?
Maybe one who wanted to exploit him?

It's also been stated that he paid the parents money on advice from his leeches because he was bringing a book or an album out and it would be the best thing to do!!
I'm inclined to believe that theory and that they tried to cover that up rather than cover up that he was an actual paedophile. ??? But who knows?
What parent would take money from the person they were saying abused their child?

HIs sister La Toya was forced by her abusive ex husband to say that Jackson was an abuser and when she retracted her statement she was beaten up by him. Jackson later forgave her.

Two of the jurors later sensationally said that they wished they hadn't acquitted him however that same week they were launching their book about the trial. La La land law

Don't suppose we'll ever know the truth - it's all so sad for his family. I hope his children remember the good times with him and God help them when they're older and read all the blah that will be written about him.

[samscafeamericain]

By that standard it would be that OJ Simpson was innocent.

Not guilty is not the same as innocent. It only means that the prosecutor has not proven guilt.

Unfortunately it is and it has to be. You can make subjective decisions based on instinct, gut feeling, etc but in the eyes of the earthly laws that govern us all he was innocent.

Now had they tried MJ or OJ for that matter in Scotland we could have delivered a verdict of Not Proven

[peony]

Yes, as I said to Harper, legally, they are considered innocent. Only legally.

[tomtscotland]

Unfortunately it is and it has to be. You can make subjective decisions based on instinct, gut feeling, etc but in the eyes of the earthly laws that govern us all he was innocent.

Now had they tried MJ or OJ for that matter in Scotland we could have delivered a verdict of Not Proven

In a way a fair point but then again maybe not.
As you know the standard in the UK for a guilty verdict is guilty " beyond reasonable doubt" - I assume that is what peony is getting at.
I would say that to change your phrase slightly "in the eyes of the earthly laws that govern us all he was found not guilty" is actually what happened. The use of the word innocent implies a complete freedom of blame or suspicion. There is no doubt that some not guilty cases can imply complete innocence - this would due to the evidence against being completely discredited. In the Jackson case it would seem clear that his "not guilty" was because it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. This is similar to rape cases etc - where it is very difficult for the prosecution to get a conviction.

[peony]

How is a verdict of "not proven" not eternally damning?

[yonza bam]

How is a verdict of "not proven" not eternally damning?

Aye, it is. It basically means "Away you go, and don't dae it again".

[samscafeamericain]

How is a verdict of "not proven" not eternally damning?

it can be, I've heard it described as 'we think you did it but we cannot prove it beyond reasonable doubt'

[Iona Weedug]

Jackson's father has just issued a statement saying that;
"Michael will be bigger in death than he was in life"

sounds like the marketing machine is revving up?

[ozneil]

Aye, it is. It basically means "Away you go, and don't dae it again".

I also seem to remember that with a Not-proven verdict if new evidence is brought to light accused can be re-tried.

[ozneil]

In this country if the DPP (department of Public Prosecution) doesn't think they have a good chance of obtaining a conviction they wont proceed with a case

I was recently on a jury of a child molestation trial. It was harrowing. In the end the jury was split as to verdict so poor people will have to have another trial.

After 2 days of deliberation we were haulee back before the judge & were told that if we couldnt reach an unanimous verdict we had to tell him so. We did & a mistrial was called.

[rolo tomassi]

What we are talking about here is the demise of one of the greatest creations of truly brilliant record producers that the world has ever had.

Michael was not the genius. Quincy Jones is the genius.

Agree that Quincy Jones is one of the best producers ever, but still--- even he can't make a silk purse outta a sow's ear.......producers only enhance the talent they're given to work with.

Berry Gordy championed The Jacksons on his label from day one; now he's not a man who doesn't know serious talent when he sees it CBS/Sony later signed Jackson to the biggest ever record deal in history; that is NOT something you do unless you have a talent that has longevity and mass appeal. Labels like that are never gonna take a gamble on losing their investment.

Jackson had an enduring career because he was multi-talented. But as Harper's said so eloquently, the people around him allowed this fragile man to descend into depths there was never gonna be a recovery from.

There's more to this story than meets the eye right now. I suspect some rather interesting facts will come out along with the general media dross we're all having to abide just now....

[rolo tomassi]

I just despise 'the no smoke without fire' mantra.

Have to agree, Sammy.

And I do wonder how many of those who'd continue to 'accuse' MJ of crimes he's been found not guilty of, switch off their radios in outrage when CONVICTED criminals' music's played.....

Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger, Keith Richard, Phil Spector, Gary Glitter, Johnny Cash, Jim Morrison, Jonathan King, for starters.

Does mud still stick to REM because Peter Buck was found not guilty of assault on a plane?
I don't think so. Because REM aren't the fodder of ignorant tabloid readers...

The one thing I'm sure of after a lifetime of working in this industry is that there are nutters out there who will do and say ANYTHING to sue the ass offa people in the public eye. They will stop at nothing for a few quid.