Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2023 15:04:14 GMT
And yet the estate are still pressing forward with this biopic, which could potentially be out the same year as a trial? Talk about bad timing. Fans said from day one that now wasn't the time for an MJ biopic but as always, they press forward with the most ridiculous and ill-advised decision making. Could be worse. How much of Taj's filmed material at this point refers to the lawsuits being thrown out do you reckon?
|
|
|
Post by mjjfan810 on Jun 27, 2023 15:06:54 GMT
And yet the estate are still pressing forward with this biopic, which could potentially be out the same year as a trial? Talk about bad timing. Fans said from day one that now wasn't the time for an MJ biopic but as always, they press forward with the most ridiculous and ill-advised decision making. Could be worse. How much of Taj's filmed material at this point refers to the lawsuits being thrown out do you reckon? Is he even still pretending that's a thing anymore?
|
|
|
Post by SoCav on Jun 27, 2023 21:33:50 GMT
Will this nonsense ever end?
Bet they tried to get this published on June 25, btw.
|
|
|
Post by dancingmjsdream on Jun 27, 2023 22:22:24 GMT
I knew this disgusting snake would do it again, perfectly timed for MJ’s death day and also before the biopic about MJ comes out… how convenient for him to remember his abuse now…
|
|
|
Post by electriceyes on Jun 28, 2023 6:02:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by electriceyes on Jun 28, 2023 6:10:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Jun 28, 2023 8:46:21 GMT
I think even if I weren't an MJ fan I would give some serious side-eye to them trying to justify holding MJ accountable in death. There's no amount of word salad or mental gymnastics that can make that sound reasonable. If this is about justice, then is Wade prepared to go on record to say he'll be donating any financial win from the trial to Gavin Arvizo, seeing as Wade was a key character witness in MJs defense back in 05? After all, Wade's only concerned with what is moral and just and, of course, "healing."
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Jun 28, 2023 9:01:19 GMT
I think even if I weren't an MJ fan I would give some serious side-eye to them trying to justify holding MJ accountable in death. There's no amount of word salad or mental gymnastics that can make that sound reasonable. If this is about justice, then is Wade prepared to go on record to say he'll be donating any financial win from the trial to Gavin Arvizo, seeing as Wade was a key character witness in MJs defense back in 05? After all, Wade's only concerned with what is moral and just and, of course, "healing." Not a chance! Wade would simply say "I was a victim of coercive control and Michael Jackson still had control of me in 2005!". If some are able to get people to believe big lies, then it's entirely possible to get people to believe people like Wade and Safechuck. This is a propaganda war, if you will. And the first casualty is morality. The second casualty is the truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2023 9:12:02 GMT
You'd have to, HAVE TO think they are hoping for a settlement. I'd like to think that if fans can dismantle stories regarding X, Y and Z then a team of very well paid professionals will absolutely scorch the earth and leave no victims when it comes to tearing their cases and stories apart.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jun 28, 2023 11:41:38 GMT
I think even if I weren't an MJ fan I would give some serious side-eye to them trying to justify holding MJ accountable in death. There's no amount of word salad or mental gymnastics that can make that sound reasonable. And this is what worries me and it's all very problematic from a legal and justice POV. It's everyone's constitutional right that when accused we can face our accusers and be given the chance to defend ourselves. This is one of the reasons you can't charge or sue dead people. Technically, of course, here MJ isn't being the one sued, but his companies, but in practice it's him who is going to be on trial. After all you cannot determine whether the companies can be liable if you haven't first decided about whether you think MJ did it it at all. So when the jury is going to be asked for a ruling the first question likely will be "Do you think MJ abused Robson/Safechuck?" This essentially puts MJ on trial. As a dead man. Without his chance to face his accusers and have the ability to defend himself, assist his own defense etc. This feels to me like a travesty of justice, a circumvention of a basic constitutional right. How is this even possible? I wonder if there are even precedents with cases that are anything like this? Of course there are cases against churches, companies etc where they are being sued for covering up an abuse that was committed by someone who's already dead. However, I assume in a vast majority of those cases, if not all if them, the guilt of that abuser was already established while he was alive. Like there's a conviction or a ruling against him. Or a confession by him. In the church cases I have seen in documentaries that was usually like that. There wasn't really a question about whether it really happened at all. The only question was why did the church cover up knowledge of convictions or confessions by certain priests. Here however there's a man who was not only not convicted in life but he was actually acquitted. Yet, the Gavin Arvizo case is being used against him as if he was really guilty of it. To hell with the acquittal, I guess. The Chandler case is also being used as a fact, despite of it never being proven and the settlement clearly stating it's not an admission of guilt. In 2005 several legal analysis pointed out that Judge Melville's allowing of "prior bad acts" evidence was likely misguided if not downright a violation of MJ's constitutional rights. If MJ had lost the trial that would have been probably a good ground for appeal. There the prosecution used claims that have never been proven and in most cases even denied by the alleged victim himself (Brett, Macaulay, Wade)! And it was fully based on disgruntled ex-employees. The fact that the Chandler case was brought up without MJ being able to face and cross examine his actual accuser, Jordan, was also wrong. And now this seems even worse, because now MJ is dead and dead people shouldn't be put on trial. But he will be. Subjected to one sided bashing and trashing without him being able to assist his defense. Oh and don't forget this is not a criminal trial with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement, it's a civil trial where if the jury feels it's 50.01% likely that MJ did it vs. 49.99% that he didn't, that's enough to stigmatize him as an abuser. I have seen legal analysis that pointed out why trying cases that are in criminal in nature, specifically sex abuse cases, in civil court instead of criminal is very problematic: less burden of proof, and yeah the defendant can't go to jail there but specifically in sex abuse cases the stigma and harm arising out of liable civil trial verdict can result in just as bad consequences, like loss of job, loss of friends, loss of family, shame etc. And that with a much lower burden of proof. So, the article argued, sex abuse cases should be strictly criminal and they shouldn't be tried in civil court instead of a criminal trial (of course, it's different when there was a criminal trial conviction in the same matter before the civil trial). And here it's exponentially worse, because MJ can't even defend himself. It feels so wrong and unfair on so many levels.
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Jun 28, 2023 13:04:02 GMT
I think even if I weren't an MJ fan I would give some serious side-eye to them trying to justify holding MJ accountable in death. There's no amount of word salad or mental gymnastics that can make that sound reasonable. And this is what worries me and it's all very problematic from a legal and justice POV. It's everyone's constitutional right that when accused we can face our accusers and be given the chance to defend ourselves. This is one of the reasons you can't charge or sue dead people. Technically, of course, here MJ isn't being the one sued, but his companies, but in practice it's him who is going to be on trial. After all you cannot determine whether the companies can be liable if you haven't first decided about whether you think MJ did it it at all. So when the jury is going to be asked for a ruling the first question likely will be "Do you think MJ abused Robson/Safechuck?" This essentially puts MJ on trial. As a dead man. Without his chance to face his accusers and have the ability to defend himself, assist his own defense etc. This feels to me like a travesty of justice, a circumvention of a basic constitutional right. How is this even possible? I wonder if there are even precedents with cases that are anything like this? Of course there are cases against churches, companies etc where they are being sued for covering up an abuse that was committed by someone who's already dead. However, I assume in a vast majority of those cases, if not all if them, the guilt of that abuser was already established while he was alive. Like there's a conviction or a ruling against him. Or a confession by him. In the church cases I have seen in documentaries that was usually like that. There wasn't really a question about whether it really happened at all. The only question was why did the church cover up knowledge of convictions or confessions by certain priests. Here however there's a man who was not only not convicted in life but he was actually acquitted. Yet, the Gavin Arvizo case is being used against him as if he was really guilty of it. To hell with the acquittal, I guess. The Chandler case is also being used as a fact, despite of it never being proven and the settlement clearly stating it's not an admission of guilt. In 2005 several legal analysis pointed out that Judge Melville's allowing of "prior bad acts" evidence was likely misguided if not downright a violation of MJ's constitutional rights. If MJ had lost the trial that would have been probably a good ground for appeal. There the prosecution used claims that have never been proven and in most cases even denied by the alleged victim himself (Brett, Macaulay, Wade)! And it was fully based on disgruntled ex-employees. The fact that the Chandler case was brought up without MJ being able to face and cross examine his actual accuser, Jordan, was also wrong. And now this seems even worse, because now MJ is dead and dead people shouldn't be put on trial. But he will be. Subjected to one sided bashing and trashing without him being able to assist his defense. Oh and don't forget this is not a criminal trial with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement, it's a civil trial where if the jury feels it's 50.01% likely that MJ did it vs. 49.99% that he didn't, that's enough to stigmatize him as an abuser. I have seen legal analysis that pointed out why trying cases that are in criminal in nature, specifically sex abuse cases, in civil court instead of criminal is very problematic: less burden of proof, and yeah the defendant can't go to jail there but specifically in sex abuse cases the stigma and harm arising out of liable civil trial verdict can result in just as bad consequences, like loss of job, loss of friends, loss of family, shame etc. And that with a much lower burden of proof. So, the article argued, sex abuse cases should be strictly criminal and they shouldn't be tried in civil court instead of a criminal trial (of course, it's different when there was a criminal trial conviction in the same matter before the civil trial). And here it's exponentially worse, because MJ can't even defend himself. It feels so wrong and unfair on so many levels. How in gawds name does one even begin to explain this to a jo-anne public on the street?! Is this EVER going to resolve itself?! How many gawd damn times are we going to go down this road and WTF are MJ’s estate with all their wealth going to do to help put things right? Are they going to leave it to the fans again?! I’ll be taking a very long hiatus! I can’t deal with this shit as well as my own life!!
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Jun 28, 2023 13:06:12 GMT
I knew this disgusting snake would do it again, perfectly timed for MJ’s death day and also before the biopic about MJ comes out… how convenient for him to remember his abuse now… I think that’s what hurts the most! The sheer evil of it! The calculated timing yet again is a massive fuck you to everyone!
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Jun 28, 2023 16:57:09 GMT
And this is what worries me and it's all very problematic from a legal and justice POV. It's everyone's constitutional right that when accused we can face our accusers and be given the chance to defend ourselves. This is one of the reasons you can't charge or sue dead people. Technically, of course, here MJ isn't being the one sued, but his companies, but in practice it's him who is going to be on trial. After all you cannot determine whether the companies can be liable if you haven't first decided about whether you think MJ did it it at all. So when the jury is going to be asked for a ruling the first question likely will be "Do you think MJ abused Robson/Safechuck?" This essentially puts MJ on trial. As a dead man. Without his chance to face his accusers and have the ability to defend himself, assist his own defense etc. This feels to me like a travesty of justice, a circumvention of a basic constitutional right. How is this even possible? I wonder if there are even precedents with cases that are anything like this? Of course there are cases against churches, companies etc where they are being sued for covering up an abuse that was committed by someone who's already dead. However, I assume in a vast majority of those cases, if not all if them, the guilt of that abuser was already established while he was alive. Like there's a conviction or a ruling against him. Or a confession by him. In the church cases I have seen in documentaries that was usually like that. There wasn't really a question about whether it really happened at all. The only question was why did the church cover up knowledge of convictions or confessions by certain priests. Here however there's a man who was not only not convicted in life but he was actually acquitted. Yet, the Gavin Arvizo case is being used against him as if he was really guilty of it. To hell with the acquittal, I guess. The Chandler case is also being used as a fact, despite of it never being proven and the settlement clearly stating it's not an admission of guilt. In 2005 several legal analysis pointed out that Judge Melville's allowing of "prior bad acts" evidence was likely misguided if not downright a violation of MJ's constitutional rights. If MJ had lost the trial that would have been probably a good ground for appeal. There the prosecution used claims that have never been proven and in most cases even denied by the alleged victim himself (Brett, Macaulay, Wade)! And it was fully based on disgruntled ex-employees. The fact that the Chandler case was brought up without MJ being able to face and cross examine his actual accuser, Jordan, was also wrong. And now this seems even worse, because now MJ is dead and dead people shouldn't be put on trial. But he will be. Subjected to one sided bashing and trashing without him being able to assist his defense. Oh and don't forget this is not a criminal trial with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement, it's a civil trial where if the jury feels it's 50.01% likely that MJ did it vs. 49.99% that he didn't, that's enough to stigmatize him as an abuser. I have seen legal analysis that pointed out why trying cases that are in criminal in nature, specifically sex abuse cases, in civil court instead of criminal is very problematic: less burden of proof, and yeah the defendant can't go to jail there but specifically in sex abuse cases the stigma and harm arising out of liable civil trial verdict can result in just as bad consequences, like loss of job, loss of friends, loss of family, shame etc. And that with a much lower burden of proof. So, the article argued, sex abuse cases should be strictly criminal and they shouldn't be tried in civil court instead of a criminal trial (of course, it's different when there was a criminal trial conviction in the same matter before the civil trial). And here it's exponentially worse, because MJ can't even defend himself. It feels so wrong and unfair on so many levels. How in gawds name does one even begin to explain this to a jo-anne public on the street?! Is this EVER going to resolve itself?! How many gawd damn times are we going to go down this road and WTF are MJ’s estate with all their wealth going to do to help put things right? Are they going to leave it to the fans again?! I’ll be taking a very long hiatus! I can’t deal with this shit as well as my own life!! If it's televised, half of me would want to watch it and another half of me values my mental health too much. I'd have to follow it to some degree, but I think hearing it second hand from fans who can stomach it is the best option for me. I could only watch clips of LN and mainly followed the lowdown on it from here and fans on Twitter. Just the thought of a trial makes me feel crying, I know that probably sounds melodramatic and/or a bit pathetic, but hey, it shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that I'm invested in MJ.
|
|
|
Post by Liberian Girl on Jun 28, 2023 17:23:26 GMT
How in gawds name does one even begin to explain this to a jo-anne public on the street?! Is this EVER going to resolve itself?! How many gawd damn times are we going to go down this road and WTF are MJ’s estate with all their wealth going to do to help put things right? Are they going to leave it to the fans again?! I’ll be taking a very long hiatus! I can’t deal with this shit as well as my own life!! If it's televised, half of me would want to watch it and another half of me values my mental health too much. I'd have to follow it to some degree, but I think hearing it second hand from fans who can stomach it is the best option for me. I could only watch clips of LN and mainly followed the lowdown on it from here and fans on Twitter. Just the thought of a trial makes me feel crying, I know that probably sounds melodramatic and/or a bit pathetic, but hey, it shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that I'm invested in MJ. At work writing this in case anyone's wondering why I'm replying to the man I live with. It doesn’t sound pathetic. I know how much MJ means to you and how much his death broke your heart. I totally get why you’d feel like this. If a trial is too emotional then you're absolutely doing the right thing by avoiding it.
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Jun 28, 2023 18:03:49 GMT
How in gawds name does one even begin to explain this to a jo-anne public on the street?! Is this EVER going to resolve itself?! How many gawd damn times are we going to go down this road and WTF are MJ’s estate with all their wealth going to do to help put things right? Are they going to leave it to the fans again?! I’ll be taking a very long hiatus! I can’t deal with this shit as well as my own life!! If it's televised, half of me would want to watch it and another half of me values my mental health too much. I'd have to follow it to some degree, but I think hearing it second hand from fans who can stomach it is the best option for me. I could only watch clips of LN and mainly followed the lowdown on it from here and fans on Twitter. Just the thought of a trial makes me feel crying, I know that probably sounds melodramatic and/or a bit pathetic, but hey, it shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that I'm invested in MJ. I’ll rant and rave and say I’m refusing to watch it and I’ll probably end up following it religiously! Although, I couldn’t watch LN. I’ve seen very brief clips but I couldn’t watch it. I can’t watch those two leaches sit there with a straight face and outright lie on a man who gave them more than anyone. I hope that this is will be a day of reckoning. If MJ loses I’ve lost all faith in human beings. Imagine wanting him to be a monster to the point where if people only looked slightly behind the vail they’ed see what’s really going on here. Why are human beings such vile creatures? I can’t stand this capitalist world where EVERYTHING is driven by money including destroying the lives on innocent people for it?!
|
|