Jedi Council Forums - Hollywood Death Watch: Edward Woodward (1930-2009)

Post Reply | Active Topic Notification | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Hollywood Death Watch: Edward Woodward (1930-2009)
The2ndQuest Title: Manager: -Literature -LACWAC -Games Registered: Jan '00	Date Posted: 6/28 3:08pm Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	Soontir-Fel posted: Billy Mayes is dead. This is terrible. Geez, people are droppin like flies this week. The guy was just on Conan like 2 days ago! -----signature----- "When your future self tells you to do something, YOU DO IT." K'Kruhk, 140 ABY:"Why haven't I come forth earlier to share my Jedi knowledge with Skywalker? Well, it's kinda a long story, see, I had this freaking sweet hat..."
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Zaz Title: Manager, The Ampitheatre Registered: Oct '98	Date Posted: 6/28 3:27pm Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	Well, why was OJ acquitted? He was certainly guilty. The answer: it is possible to manipulate juries. Put it another way, Merlin: there's a 35 year old man on your street. Has his own house. No wife. Wants your nice-looking 10 year old son to come and have a sleepover with him. Would you say: a. Oh! you want to relive your childhood! How sweet! b. Flake off, freak! c. Other. I'm just curious.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JEDI-SOLO Title: Former FanForce CR Lafayette LA US Registered: Feb '02	Date Posted: 6/28 3:56pm Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	I am not going to debate the whole guilty not guilty aspect. I am just going to state that I am saddend by the loss of one of my favorite 80's stars. I was born in 80 so I grew up with his greatest hits. I was over MJ in the 90's and really paid no attention to him after that time. Thriller STILL plays in the local clubs down here. -----signature----- Master of Ringthane I'm SO hot! No really I am.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Merlin_Ambrosius69 Registered: Aug '08	Date Posted: 6/28 4:37pm Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	Zaz posted: Well, why was OJ acquitted? He was certainly guilty. The answer: it is possible to manipulate juries. Put it another way, Merlin: there's a 35 year old man on your street. Has his own house. No wife. Wants your nice-looking 10 year old son to come and have a sleepover with him. Would you say: a. Oh! you want to relive your childhood! How sweet! b. Flake off, freak! c. Other. I'm just curious. First, about OJ, the difference in that case is that there is physical evidence -- the gloves, the cuts on his hands, the blood at the site confirmed to have been his -- which directly points to his guilt. I'm no attorney, but I understand that in a murder case, all the defense has to do is introduce doubt, because if there is a shadow of a doubt -- a shred of a possibility that the accused did not do it -- then a guilty verdict cannot be returned. More, the members of the criminal trial jury were not privvy to all the same information we had watching at home, and which the civil suit against OJ -- which was successful, need I remind? -- did have. There is no such evidence in the MJ cases. All there is both cases are the questionable, contradictory and suspect testimonies of small children, who are notoriously malleable by parents and therapists in these kinds of cases. The Satanic ritual abuse trials of the 80s and 90s -- many of which have been challenged and/or overturned -- are prime examples of this kind of cynical manipulation of juveniles to achieve a monetary settlement for adults. I grant you that according to the parameters of your role-play scenario, I would not allow my child to spend time with a person of that description, unattended overnight. However, if it was Michael Jackson, internationally renowned superstar of known childlike demeanor, I would probably allow it depending on how much I knew about the previous case(s) against him. I grant you that it is abnormal and suspicious to sleep in the same bed with children who are not your own. (I once slept in the same bed with my then-goddaughter, who was 9, because we basically had no other choice.) But neither of these concessions alters the point that a criminal trial requires evidence to successfully prosecute. In both cases here, there is none, and furthermore the behavior and histories of the parents in both cases makes them highly suspect of frivolous and greed-inspired charges. I note you've had nothing to say about the mother in the 2003 case having asked an attorney specifically "How do I prosecute Michael Jackson for sexual assault of a minor?" -- in 2000, three years before her children even met the man. She also brought charges against a dept. store for padding her down looking for shoplifted merchandise. I've answered you questions, so will you please answer mine? What do these documented facts say about this woman's motives? -----signature----- "Chance makes playthings of us all." -- Seneca Shameless non-Manager Emeritus sock of Vortigern99. Fan of George RR Martin, JK Rowling and JRR Tolkien.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Zaz Title: Manager, The Ampitheatre Registered: Oct '98	Date Posted: 6/28 8:17pm Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	Merlin posted: However, if it was Michael Jackson, internationally renowned superstar of known childlike demeanor, I would probably allow it Which is exactly how he did it. Strip away his fame, and what have you got? The creepy neighbourhood guy who asks your kid to find his dog or offers him candy. But the fame masks what's really going on. An ordinary guy who asked you to do this, you'd spit in his eye (I hope). These children were quite frequently the children of stage parents--photos were sent to Jackson to get his help in establishing them in show business. Reportedly, Jackson was only interested in the boys, and would ask to meet those whose photos he liked. I don't really care that the parents were trying to set him up; that does not mean he was innocent of molestation, I'm afraid. It just meant that despicable people made their children available. And Jackson's tales of his childhood are not to be trusted; he was very manipulative. His brothers (with the possible exception of Jermaine) turned out rather ordinary. He was blessed with extraordinary talent, but the genetic lottery also gave him a curse. (By the way, research indicates that pedophilia is not caused by childhood experiences, including violence or being molested.) They really don't know the cause. If Jackson confined himself to adults, no one would care.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Merlin_Ambrosius69 Registered: Aug '08	Date Posted: 6/28 9:30pm Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	All the speculation in your mind, and in the minds of anyone who feels MJ guilty, does not amount to a shred of evidence against him. Coerced testimony of small children, bullied into leveling falsehoods for cynical monetary gain by parents who are documented frivolous litigators, does not constitute a smattering of proof. Without evidence, we're left with your imagination and intuition, which are not reliable methods of prosecution and do not sway me to your unsubstantiated opinion. I have researched this matter at length, which I gather you have not done, and am satisfied that MJ was wrongfully accused. Here we may agree to disagree, and leave it at that, unless you have something of substance to add. -----signature----- "Chance makes playthings of us all." -- Seneca Shameless non-Manager Emeritus sock of Vortigern99. Fan of George RR Martin, JK Rowling and JRR Tolkien.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Zaz Title: Manager, The Ampitheatre Registered: Oct '98	Date Posted: 6/28 9:32pm Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	I think I made my point, yes.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
yankee8255 Registered: May '05	Date Posted: 6/28 11:05pm Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	Don't forget, on the Jackson criminal trial, a number of the jurors have since stated that they think he was guilty, but just didn't believe it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Mainly because they found the victim's Mom less than trustworthy.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Zaz Title: Manager, The Ampitheatre Registered: Oct '98	Date Posted: 6/28 11:49pm Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	The prosecutor botched it, too; he had good evidence, but decided to throw everything in, the way prosecutors will, because they know only too well that it is often some obscure piece of evidence that wins the case. And discrediting witnesses are lawyer tricks. Just because the kid's mother was an unlikeable piece of...flesh, doesn't mean Jackson was innocent. I suggest reading Orth's book, and seeing Bashir's and Peretti's documentaries, both interesting. But the real way of finding the truth is to stop listening to what Jackson (and his minions) say, and watch what he does, instead. I despise the hype around his death; not because he was pedophile, in particular, but because the press is hyping a non-story in that peculiarly creepy way they have. In one documentary I watched, an auction of his effects was held a few years ago in Vegas; almost no one came and very little sold.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Moff_D Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 6/29 6:20am Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	Anybody see that CNN interview with Joe Jackson before the BET show last night? He hardly seemed devestated, or upset even. On the contrary, he appeared to be soaking up the sudden return to relevance. That says a whole lot right there. And here I thought old Joe had been dead for awhile -----signature----- 'Why are you always smiling?' 'Cause it's all so ******* hysterical.' -Road To Perdition. Apt, no?
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Gonk Registered: Jul '98	Date Posted: 6/29 7:12am Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009) - Date Edited: 6/29 7:14am (1 edits total) Edited By: Gonk
	Pretty despicable. Reading this and Zaz's posts on the matter of Michael's strange behavior -- which I don't disagree with, of course -- I'm almost reminded of Alex's ending fantasy in "A Clockwork Orange". It is not the acts themselves that are disturbing in the final summation, but how it is allowed to continue. Indeed, if this was all true, good riddance to him and even better riddance to the scum of the earth either surrounding him or offering thier children up as showbiz sacrifices. There are potentially people who could have had thier lives ruined by this man. Yes, he was a good musician and with the music made we might as well listen to it. But seriously if I was some music executive circa 1975 with the gift of foresight with the options to either block MJ's career or start it, I think I'd take the funds and try to see if I could negotiate another album with the Bee Gees or Bob Marley or something, Thriller be damned. -----signature----- What shall we do to fill the empty spaces Where waves of hunger gnaw? Shall we set out upon this sea of faces In search of more and more and more?
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Merlin_Ambrosius69 Registered: Aug '08	Date Posted: 6/29 7:20am Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009) - Date Edited: 6/29 7:20am (1 edits total) Edited By: Merlin_Ambrosius69
	The accusations against him were false. -----signature----- "Chance makes playthings of us all." -- Seneca Shameless non-Manager Emeritus sock of Vortigern99. Fan of George RR Martin, JK Rowling and JRR Tolkien.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Merlin_Ambrosius69 Registered: Aug '08	Date Posted: 6/29 7:29am Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	Zaz posted: The prosecutor botched it, too; he had good evidence, but decided to throw everything in, the way prosecutors will, because they know only too well that it is often some obscure piece of evidence that wins the case. And discrediting witnesses are lawyer tricks. Just because the kid's mother was an unlikeable piece of...flesh, doesn't mean Jackson was innocent. The prosecutor lost the case because he had too much evidence? That is absurd. What "evidence" are you speaking of? There is none but the shifting and irreconcilable testimony of small children. "Discrediting witnesses" in this broad, sweeping way by a legal team is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about specific actions that prove the mother in the 2003 case was lying. What part of "She contacted a lawyer to find out how to accuse Michael Jackson of molestation charges three years before her children met him" are you failing to grasp? I don't care about her "character" or that she is a "discredited witness" so much as I find it telling that 1) her testimony and timeline were hopelessly at odds with her children's and with the known facts of the case, 2) she had brought false sexual assault charges against two prior persons, and 3) she contacted a lawyer to find out how to accuse Michael Jackson of molestation charges three years before her children met him. That is direct evidence of fabrication. -----signature----- "Chance makes playthings of us all." -- Seneca Shameless non-Manager Emeritus sock of Vortigern99. Fan of George RR Martin, JK Rowling and JRR Tolkien.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Gonk Registered: Jul '98	Date Posted: 6/29 7:55am Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009)
	Merlin, if I were a judge or juror sitting on a Michael Jackson case right now I'd probably have to find in his favor as well. I don't think Zaz is trying to say Jackson's case was necessarily proof that the legal system doesn't work. Perhaps that there are deeper societal issues at play, but I don't think anyone's arguing that given what was laid out in the case and how it was proven that Jackson should not have been acquitted. Zaz's point is, I believe that justly the court FOUND Jackson not Guilty, since that was the only decent thing to do. That does not mean in actual fact that he is not guilty. As much as circumstantial evidence, our suspicions, and our gut feelings about something might be a good indicator to reality, they're not technically objective, so we can't decide cases on them. I mean if I were a sitting judge I might have had to find in Al Capone's favor for most of what he was guilty of too. -----signature----- What shall we do to fill the empty spaces Where waves of hunger gnaw? Shall we set out upon this sea of faces In search of more and more and more?
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Zaz Title: Manager, The Ampitheatre Registered: Oct '98	Date Posted: 6/29 7:44pm Subject: Hollywood Death Watch: Farrah Fawcett (1947-2009) & Michael Jackson (1958-2009) - Date Edited: 6/29 7:45pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Zaz
	Gonk posted: Merlin, if I were a judge or juror sitting on a Michael Jackson case right now I'd probably have to find in his favor as well. I don't think Zaz is trying to say Jackson's case was necessarily proof that the legal system doesn't work. Perhaps that there are deeper societal issues at play, but I don't think anyone's arguing that given what was laid out in the case and how it was proven that Jackson should not have been acquitted. I will argue that, and further say if he was the creepy guy on Merlin's street, and not a superstar, he would not have been acquitted. The legal system is imperfect, and doesn't work all of the time. Gonk posted: Zaz's point is, I believe that justly the court FOUND Jackson not Guilty, since that was the only decent thing to do. That does not mean in actual fact that he is not guilty. As much as circumstantial evidence, our suspicions, and our gut feelings about something might be a good indicator to reality, they're not technically objective, so we can't decide cases on them. Afraid that isn't my point, Gonk. I don't think it was the decent thing to do at all. IMO, since I do believe in good and evil, to the extent he had control over his behaviour, and I do think he had some, Jackson was a very wicked man. Gonk posted: I mean if I were a sitting judge I might have had to find in Al Capone's favor for most of what he was guilty of too. Now this I do agree with--the legal system doesn't function within a moral framework. It's a system of checks and balances. And indeed, no matter what I thought of Jackson I may have had to acquit him if the evidence so directed, were I the judge. However, the judge didn't acquit him; the jury did, and he was an expert manipulator of other people. Example: his familiars will tell you the falsetto he used in public was entirely put on. He had an ordinary male voice. So, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it is not a swan with a head cold.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 » - Previous | Next | Reload