|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Jul 3, 2021 7:43:36 GMT
Ifs was classed as not a fair trial because he shouldnt have been charged with that crime based on the deal the other prosecutor gave him. More importantly there was the prior bad acts witnesses. Which to me in any case is a very slippery slope. They brought that in in the uk several years back. Something ive never agreed with
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jul 3, 2021 14:03:23 GMT
If a fair legal system and process is important for you then it was the right decision. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, you can't say: "we are sure this guy is guilty so it's okay to violate his fundamental rights in order to get a conviction". I also wouldn't say the right to a fair process is "a technicality". Of course, this ruling doesn't mean he's not guilty, this isn't an acquittal. But the fact he didn't get a fair trial isn't "just a technicality" either. This is why prosecutors and courts need to operate within the laws and rules of fairness, so that potential criminals don't get get away due to an unfair process and trial like this. The end doesn't justify the means. Hogwash. He wasn't released from prison because he didn't get a fair trial, he was released because of a highly questionnable plea-deal he struck with prosecutors many years before his trial. That's why people are saying it's a "technicality". Maybe read the article above. It explains why he was released and what was the problem. If someone is convicted based on evidence that couldn't even have been used against them in the first place, is that a fair trial then? Is that "just a technicality"? People are getting released also when, for example, they are convicted based on evidence that was unlawfully gathered by law enforcement (eg illegally wiretapping, illegal house search etc). Even if it makes people angry in this specific case, there's a good reason the law grants these fundamental rights and there's a good reason to uphold these standards even if people feel it helped Cosby get away. At other times such standards protect innocent people from getting framed and going to jail. Like the article said: "It’s very simple… If you believe in civil rights, you believe in civil rights for everyone, including the worst of the worst. And the moment you decide, based on your own political or moral preferences, that it is okay to violate someone’s civil rights, you are officially a member of the mob."
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Jul 3, 2021 15:45:06 GMT
The law in a democracy is essentially built on Blackstone's Formulation:
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Jul 4, 2021 20:13:37 GMT
Abit Ot. But ive got brain fog on when sneddon said mj abused arvizo for the first time. Timeline changed numerous times as mj wasnt there. Was it the day LWMj aired. I cant remember and its bugging me. But it was some ridiculous date
|
|
|
Post by kaeleah on Aug 13, 2021 21:41:32 GMT
I've been listening to a couple MP3 audiobooks on the Larry Nassar case, and it really bothers me that it was implied at least twice to be similar to Michael's case. Nope, nope, nope. Nassar possessed legit child porn, not just a briefcase full of girlie mags and some offbeat art books, and his number of victims was waaaaay higher than Michael's accusers.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Aug 14, 2021 4:40:17 GMT
I've been listening to a couple MP3 audiobooks on the Larry Nassar case, and it really bothers me that it was implied at least twice to be similar to Michael's case. Nope, nope, nope. Nassar possessed legit child porn, not just a briefcase full of girlie mags and some offbeat art books, and his number of victims was waaaaay higher than Michael's accusers. Wade and James's lawyers represent some of the Nassar victims, so I can imagine they are behind peddling this nonsense that the two cases are similar to boost Wade and James's case. Of course, it's BS. For a start, the California law change that revived Wade and James's case happened exactly with the Nassar case in mind. When you read the bill history, the reasoning behind the change expressly mentions the Nassar case. But Wade and James's case didn't go anywhere even after that law change, while the Nassar case did. But of course, Manly and Finaldi are trying to say it's the same to boost Wade and James's. It's nonsense, of course.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Nov 10, 2021 7:01:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Nov 10, 2021 8:35:40 GMT
Choo choo 🚂
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Dec 10, 2021 5:45:48 GMT
When MJ fans point out that Safechuck and co. must be lying because he says he was abused in a building that did not exist yet, I feel they need to point out the fact that there is up to a 6 year discrepancy between the first time the alleged acts happened, and when the train station was finally built. Certainly the fact that they emphasize that most of the abusing happened between 1988-1990, giving a 4-6 window for most of the abuse.
I'm just reading some of the Broadway discussions and one of the MJ fans brings up the train station thing (with no mention of dates), to which someone replied "You never misremembered a childhood memory?". Sure I have, but I've never, ever been off by 6 years. I feel that's really important to emphasise because it drives home the ridiculousness. People can forgive a few months, but years? 6 of them?
Then carry it home by following up with how it just really starts to pull apart the theory that Michael Jackson lost interest once they hit about 14 or so, because they were 16 by 1994 and (IIRC from the 'HIStory Begins' teaser set photos) did not look anything like 13 years olds by then. So to claim he was still molesting them at 16 also goes against this narrative they keep going back to throughout the documentary.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Dec 10, 2021 10:07:47 GMT
Yes, Oprah too said that nonsense of "mistaking Thursday for Wednesday" in defense of Safechuck. It's not that type of mistake. It's the difference between a 10 year old child and a 16 year old young man towering over MJ. Not to mention it's not just a date, it's also a location that's a very memorable location at Neverland. For it to be a "mistake" Safechuck also must have forgot that MJ kept abusing him after the Chandler allegations. There was never any such claim in his allegations. I used to point that out using photos.
When people defended Bob Dylan against his accuser by pointing out he was on your in Europe while this allegedly happened the media and most people gladly picked up that defense of him. No one said, maybe she misremembered the date a few months, it was 50 or something years ago,it can happen, that doesn't mean the allegation is not true. And that's a lot smaller "off" than Safechuck's.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Dec 10, 2021 10:24:31 GMT
BTW, Mark Geragos was on a show this week and mentioned Dan Reed's manipulative editing in LN.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Dec 11, 2021 5:26:48 GMT
Looks like it was a good interview
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2021 6:59:24 GMT
BTW, Mark Geragos was on a show this week and mentioned Dan Reed's manipulative editing in LN. I was even fooled by this. It took me a few minutes while watching the film to remember that this clip was NOT about the accusers. I was like "Jesus, I don't remember them being this aggressive" and then the penny dropped and I remembered the plane being bugged. Reed's defense of using this clip pretty much said everything about his integrity as a film maker then. Reed is clearly a Simpsons fan.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Dec 11, 2021 7:47:02 GMT
At the time when LN aired I have seen several comments bashing Geragos for "threatening victims", so the manipulative editing definitely achieved what it wanted to achieve.
The fact Reed edited parts out mid-sentence, that refer to the original context is proof that he knew what he was doing and he manipulated the viewer deliberately. This makes him not just a naive filmmaker who was fooled by Wade and James. This makes him an active participant in the fraud.
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Dec 11, 2021 8:01:23 GMT
Did he say why he didnt sue reed. This is such a blatant open and shut case tbh it fecks me off that geragos has done nothing when it would expose reed in a huge way
Didnt recognise geragos. Heck hes got old. Then you remember its along time ago now
|
|