8 hours ago, smotherb said:

Do you believe any video you see, or just ones which support your beliefs? 

No. Like many people I had thought MJ was probably a pedophile, but I didn't actually want this documentary to help confirm my suspicions. FWIW, I was pleased he was found not guilty in 2005. Back then I believed he was probably innocent and misunderstood. I was groomed too. I now think he was definitely a pedophile as I think the evidence is compelling.  

 

1 hour ago, smotherb said:

However, it is a fact that documentaries can be biased and self-serving?  

True. But you see to have more than a passing interest in this topic so why not watch the documentary and find out for yourself? Then you can make up your own mind whether it is credible or not.  

True. But you see to have more than a passing interest in this topic so why not watch the documentary and find out for yourself? Then you can make up your own mind whether it is credible or not.  

 

I may misunderstand SmotherB but I don’t see his posts as much a defense of MJ but rather having a problem with the methodology many posters here rely on to establish guilt.

 

The fact that children share a bed is not sufficient grounds to assume abuse/assault and is very insulting.

 

And I share his belief that a documentary is an unbiased source and the conclusions the documentary makes should be assumed valid.

 

A court of law provides the accused a right to defend himself but no one seems concerned here that when he had been given that right in a real court of law he was successful.

 
 
And I share his belief that a documentary is an unbiased source and the conclusions the documentary makes should be assumed valid.
 

I waited too long to edit:

And I share his “DIS”belief that a documentary is an unbiased source and the conclusions the documentary makes should be assumed valid.

8 hours ago, Timbob said:

No. Like many people I had thought MJ was probably a pedophile, but I didn't actually want this documentary to help confirm my suspicions. FWIW, I was pleased he was found not guilty in 2005. Back then I believed he was probably innocent and misunderstood. I was groomed too. I now think he was definitely a pedophile as I think the evidence is compelling.  

 

True. But you see to have more than a passing interest in this topic so why not watch the documentary and find out for yourself? Then you can make up your own mind whether it is credible or not.  

I do not make-up my mind from documentaries. Documentaries are pre-planned exhibitions which inherently serve the purposes of their developers.   

 

58 minutes ago, smotherb said:

I do not make-up my mind from documentaries. Documentaries are pre-planned exhibitions which inherently serve the purposes of their developers.   

 

Your wife: "There's an interesting documentary on tonight that I thought we might watch together?"

You: "Documentaries are pre-planned exhibitions which inherently serve the purposes of their developers." 

 

Jeez, get over yourself.

12 hours ago, smotherb said:

Fine, we have your perspective, but I posit your perspective does not make it so.

 

Granted, a court decision can be influenced by funding. 

 

However, it is a fact that documentaries can be biased and self-serving?  

 

None of us were in the bedroom with Jackson and those boys.  

 

Do you not subscribe to the presumption of innocence?

 

There has been no proof beyond a reasonable--court adjudicated--doubt. 

 

 

Yeah, and now it is the new normal for men to sleep with young boys, and for the fans to say it is completely cool, and that nothing ever happened? He is an innocent man, and there is nothing wrong for him to be sleeping with young boys. Yeah right. If I were a judge, or jury, that would be all the evidence I would need. As a civilian, that is all the evidence I need. Guilty!

10 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Yeah, and now it is the new normal for men to sleep with young boys, and for the fans to say it is completely cool, and that nothing ever happened? He is an innocent man, and there is nothing wrong for him to be sleeping with young boys. Yeah right. If I were a judge, or jury, that would be all the evidence I would need. As a civilian, that is all the evidence I need. Guilty!

I agree that for the public it's like 99.999999999999999999 percent obvious that MJ a was pedo. Similar to the public's understanding that OJ did it. 

But I disagree about courts of law.

The bar is MUCH higher to prove guilt there and I think it should be. Of course MJ had megabucks and the best lawyers, but also super loyal victims, which is explained very well how that happened in the doc. 

He wasn't proven innocent. They just couldn't prove guilt. Doesn't mean he's innocent. Of course, he wasn't.

I don't get the problem with him being dead … like we should leave it alone out of so called respect.

That is RIDICULOUS. 

He's a historic figure now. The truth about what he did in his life, good or bad, is fair game. 

Edited March 29, 20197 yr by Jingthing

12 hours ago, Timbob said:

Your wife: "There's an interesting documentary on tonight that I thought we might watch together?"

You: "Documentaries are pre-planned exhibitions which inherently serve the purposes of their developers." 

 

Jeez, get over yourself.

I am indeed sorry that you have no better retort than to cast aspersions. 

 

Let me try to explain.

 

If my wife wanted me to watch something with her, I most likely would. I doubt she would be trying to make me form my opinion of the situation from the documentary. You see, she has a full command of English, is intelligent, educated, and can hold her own in a debate.  

 

I appears you believe I feel superior because I do not see your point. No, it is the ineffective way you argue it.

10 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Yeah, and now it is the new normal for men to sleep with young boys, and for the fans to say it is completely cool, and that nothing ever happened? He is an innocent man, and there is nothing wrong for him to be sleeping with young boys. Yeah right. If I were a judge, or jury, that would be all the evidence I would need. As a civilian, that is all the evidence I need. Guilty!

You, apparently, have not read my posts or do not understand. I am neither advocating Michael Jackson's activities with children nor am I a fan of his talents; although, I do recognize them.  I am very pleased; however, that you are not a judge; since your words indicate you would make your judicial assessments based upon your beliefs rather than the evidence presented.   If you cannot see the fallacy in the belief something is criminally and morally wrong simply because you do not condone it; I have nothing else to say to you; it would be like pounding sand down a rat hole.  

7 hours ago, smotherb said:

I am indeed sorry that you have no better retort than to cast aspersions. 

 

Let me try to explain.

 

If my wife wanted me to watch something with her, I most likely would. I doubt she would be trying to make me form my opinion of the situation from the documentary. You see, she has a full command of English, is intelligent, educated, and can hold her own in a debate.  

 

I appears you believe I feel superior because I do not see your point. No, it is the ineffective way you argue it.

<removed>

 

I made a joke based on your statement:

 

"Documentaries are pre-planned exhibitions which inherently serve the purposes of their developers"

 

I suppose you never read books / newspapers, or watch the news? Surely these are pre-planned exhibitions which inherently serve the purposes of their developers? The only TV shows you watch must be Judge Judy or Court TV. Oh and that was a joke... so there's no need to explain!

Edited March 30, 20197 yr by CharlieH
flame comment removed

Keep it civil please and do not get personal with your remarks.

On 3/26/2019 at 11:21 AM, ShortTimed said:

So my concern is with a society that now accepts alleged victim statements without any burden of proof and when they contradict earlier statements that spoke approvingly and never gave even a hint of wrong-doing.

That is what my position is. If you can offer counterpoint to that then great but if you are going to insist on framing this as a MJ apologist then that is just a strawman construct.

good luck trying to take a stand .......  now get ready for the rebuttals.  FWIW,   i'm with you

22 hours ago, Jingthing said:

He wasn't proven innocent. They just couldn't prove guilt. Doesn't mean he's innocent. Of course, he wasn't.

the judge has given his verdict

10 hours ago, Timbob said:

<removed>

 

I made a joke based on your statement:

 

"Documentaries are pre-planned exhibitions which inherently serve the purposes of their developers"

 

I suppose you never read books / newspapers, or watch the news? Surely these are pre-planned exhibitions which inherently serve the purposes of their developers? The only TV shows you watch must be Judge Judy or Court TV. Oh and that was a joke... so there's no need to explain!

A decision of any consequence to me should be based on numerous viable sources, not on one documentary, no matter how compelling it is to you.  

 

We have already established my faith in your judicial prowess. You tell me there is compelling evidence--or rather, "The two guys in the documentary are compelling witnesses . . . Then we have the accuser from the 2005 case, plus Jordi Chandler (who was paid off in 1993), and a few more besides. Sure they could all be lying, but I don't believe so. "

 

Let's recap:

"The two guys in the documentary" Yes, one of whom testified for Jackson in the 2005 trial.

 

"the accuser from the 2005 case" Yes, the case which resulted in Jackson being found not guilty.

 

"Jordi Chandler (who was paid off in 1993)" Yes, perhaps he got what he sought.

 

"and a few more besides" Yes, quite compelling they are.

 

"Sure they could all be lying" Yes, what can I add to that? 

 

"but I don't believe so. "  Well then, that's it, sorted.

 

Now, that's a joke.

 

 

6 hours ago, smotherb said:

We have already established my faith in your judicial prowess. You tell me there is compelling evidence--or rather, "The two guys in the documentary are compelling witnesses . . . Then we have the accuser from the 2005 case, plus Jordi Chandler (who was paid off in 1993), and a few more besides. Sure they could all be lying, but I don't believe so. "

Firstly, this was my response to your assertion that the case against MJ was a matter of "he said, she said", which is clearly false.

 

6 hours ago, smotherb said:

"The two guys in the documentary" Yes, one of whom testified for Jackson in the 2005 trial.

Yes, he did. He explains why in the documentary, which you refuse to watch.

 

6 hours ago, smotherb said:

"the accuser from the 2005 case" Yes, the case which resulted in Jackson being found not guilty.

Which without the false testimony of Wade Robson, may have delivered a different verdict.

 

6 hours ago, smotherb said:

"Jordie Chandler (who was paid off in 1993)" Yes, perhaps he got what he sought.

Perhaps. Or maybe MJ paid him and his family $25m because he was guilty. If he was innocent why pay him off? He also paid off another child, Jason Francia. 

 

6 hours ago, smotherb said:

"and a few more besides" Yes, quite compelling they are.

Yes, as a collective they are actually compelling. 

 

6 hours ago, smotherb said:

"Sure they could all be lying" Yes, what can I add to that? 

 

"but I don't believe so. "  Well then, that's it, sorted.

You are entitled to believe they are all liars. Why am I not entitled to believe them?

 

7 hours ago, smotherb said:

Now, that's a joke.

Hilarious, side-splitting comedy! Bravo!

On 3/25/2019 at 6:27 PM, Curt1591 said:

Boy; I'm glad she finally cleared that up!

I think all these washed up, aged celebs should simply enjoy their senility in peace. 

 

I guess you missed this.    I appreciate her talent but was never a big fan.

Washed up?     Please...

 

Barbra Streisand Tour Ticket Prices Hit All-Time High. Barbra Streisand is now officially the highest-priced touring act of all time, charging fans as much as $1,500(plus a service fee of $75) for a single ticket to see her perform live when she returns to Brooklyn at the Barclays Center on Oct. 11 and 13.Sep 18, 2012

 

Barbra Streisand - Tribute Tickets

• Friday, August 23 2019. 8:00 PM. ...
• Saturday, August 24 2019. 3:00 PM. ...
• Friday, December 13 2019. 2:00 PM. ...
• Friday, April 05 2019. 8:00 PM. ...
• Tuesday, May 28 2019. 7:30 PM. ...
• Wednesday, May 29 2019. 7:00 PM. ...
• Thursday, July 25 2019. 8:30 PM. ...
• Tuesday, October 08 2019. 7:30 PM.

 

https://www.songkick.com/artists/274358-barbra-streisand/calendar

 

 

 

 

 

I'm surprised George Clooney hasn't put in his two bobs worth.

Everything in America is about money.

Ever since MJ died every single deadbeat with a chest cold or nose bleed has been going after a piece of his estate.

Everyone in America wants to be a victim. MONEY

If I were his family I would sell off the entire estate and give future royalties to charity .

The parasites will then all slink back to their trailer parks and caves.