|
Post by Snow White on Oct 30, 2017 22:28:10 GMT
That was Sneddon's personal vendetta in action. Anyone who followed the case truthfully knows it should have never gone to trial. The prosecution didn't have anything to convict Michael.
|
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,424
|
Post by TonyR on Oct 30, 2017 22:31:32 GMT
That was Sneddon's personal vendetta in action. Anyone who followed the case truthfully knows it should have never gone to trial. The prosecution didn't have anything to convict Michael. Irrelevant even if true. He shouldn't have been winding people up. You don't fuck around with this sort of allegation and accusation. He was lucky 1993 never ended up in court. He did a perfect job of retaliating and answering the allegations on HIStory and should have ended it there. Obviously it was the wrong thing to do, you can see by how it turned out.
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Oct 31, 2017 1:22:06 GMT
Re. the Bashir interview, I think Lisa Marie was spot on with her opinion about what was happening there. Read more: www.oprah.com/oprahshow/lisa-marie-presley-opens-up-about-michael-jackson/all#ixzz4x1MIuACBThat was it basically. MJ is sitting there with Gavin hand-in-hand, Gavin putting his head on his shoulder etc, but in reality MJ hasn't even met Gavin for like three years at the time. So it is not like it reflected their true relationship. It was just an act of rebellion and stubbornness by MJ. Rebellion and stubbornness? Or stupidity? Bearing in mind it ended up with him nearly going to jail for child abuse, I'd say the latter. Never mind it gave a lot of people reason to suspect the allegations might have some truth to them.
|
|
|
Post by LindavG on Oct 31, 2017 2:36:15 GMT
I just wish Michael surrounded himself with better people. He deserved so much better. Of all the people to do an in-depth interview with, why Bashir? He was so obviously fake and sleazy. It was clear just by the way he phrased his questions and his tone of voice that this was going to be sensationalist garbage, even if he was sucking up to Michael when (he thought) the camera was off.
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Oct 31, 2017 4:00:29 GMT
Of all the people to do an in-depth interview with, why Bashir? He chose Bashir because of how he helped turn around public opinion on Princess Diana in the mid-1990s. He hoped he could do the same for him.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 31, 2017 4:17:48 GMT
He was lucky 1993 never ended up in court. I don't agree that he was lucky in 1993. In fact, he was extremely unlucky to never have the Chandler case tried under proper, criminal court circumstances. A civil trial isn't really a fair process to discuss child abuse allegations. MJ fought for the criminal case being brought ahead of the civil for that reason. That fight wasn't successful and that is why he settled the civil case. Nothing lucky about any of that. In fact, I'm sure had the case gone to a criminal court it would have cleared his name. Just like in the Arvizo case. The Chandler case isn't any stronger either when exposed. Why do you think the Chandlers always ran from having to testify in a criminal court (and they still continue to run as we speak)? That doesn't suggest it was MJ who was the lucky one there. For MJ it would have been better IMO if that case had been tried in a criminal court. If anything, he was extremely unlucky that the court rejected his attempts at getting the criminal process ahead of the civil. So unfair that the law was changed after that and later it wasn't allowed to have a civil trial ahead of a criminal in the same matter. The law change in itself acknowledges the unfairness of the previous practice that the Chandlers could take advantage of. It were the Chandlers who were lucky in 1993, not Michael Jackson.
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Oct 31, 2017 4:53:07 GMT
Why do you think the Chandlers always ran from having to testify in a criminal court (and they still continue to run as we speak)? Yeah I don't think Evan's doing a lot of running these days
|
|
|
Post by morinen on Oct 31, 2017 5:20:22 GMT
I don't agree that he was lucky in 1993. In fact, he was extremely unlucky to never have the Chandler case tried under proper, criminal court circumstances. A civil trial isn't really a fair process to discuss child abuse allegations. MJ fought for the criminal case being brought ahead of the civil for that reason. That fight wasn't successful and that is why he settled the civil case. Nothing lucky about any of that. In fact, I'm sure had the case gone to a criminal court it would have cleared his name. Just like in the Arvizo case. The Chandler case isn't any stronger either when exposed. Why do you think the Chandlers always ran from having to testify in a criminal court (and they still continue to run as we speak)? That doesn't suggest it was MJ who was the lucky one there. For MJ it would have been better IMO if that case had been tried in a criminal court. If anything, he was extremely unlucky that the court rejected his attempts at getting the criminal process ahead of the civil. So unfair that the law was changed after that and later it wasn't allowed to have a civil trial ahead of a criminal in the same matter. The law change in itself acknowledges the unfairness of the previous practice that the Chandlers could take advantage of. It were the Chandlers who were lucky in 1993, not Michael Jackson. It's a double-edged sword to say the least. In 1993, two grand juries refused to indict him, would you prefer that they did? It would have been a huge blow for him, we don't know if he would have even survived it given his addiction issues at the time. And I disagree that criminal case is better than civil to rebut molestation allegations. A criminal charge is already viewed by many as a proof of guilt, and even if the defendant is acquitted, people blame "celebrity justice," as we know from the Arviso case and other celebrity trials. It's a stigma you don't wash off. Failure to bring criminal charges, on the other hand, shows that the remaining civil case is likely an extortion attempt. And as Robson/Safechuck cases show, it can be thrown out effectively on demurrer or SJ, instead of going all the way to trial like the criminal case would. MJ camp's biggest mistake in '93 was to settle. They should have pushed through regardless of which trial might come up first, he was innocent, and he should have had trust in the system. It involved a risk, of course, but a payout just wasn't the right thing to do for an innocent person, and the public felt the same, which threw a shadow on the rest of his career.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 31, 2017 6:09:29 GMT
I don't agree that he was lucky in 1993. In fact, he was extremely unlucky to never have the Chandler case tried under proper, criminal court circumstances. A civil trial isn't really a fair process to discuss child abuse allegations. MJ fought for the criminal case being brought ahead of the civil for that reason. That fight wasn't successful and that is why he settled the civil case. Nothing lucky about any of that. In fact, I'm sure had the case gone to a criminal court it would have cleared his name. Just like in the Arvizo case. The Chandler case isn't any stronger either when exposed. Why do you think the Chandlers always ran from having to testify in a criminal court (and they still continue to run as we speak)? That doesn't suggest it was MJ who was the lucky one there. For MJ it would have been better IMO if that case had been tried in a criminal court. If anything, he was extremely unlucky that the court rejected his attempts at getting the criminal process ahead of the civil. So unfair that the law was changed after that and later it wasn't allowed to have a civil trial ahead of a criminal in the same matter. The law change in itself acknowledges the unfairness of the previous practice that the Chandlers could take advantage of. It were the Chandlers who were lucky in 1993, not Michael Jackson. It's a double-edged sword to say the least. In 1993, two grand juries refused to indict him, would you prefer that they did? It would have been a huge blow for him, we don't know if he would have even survived it given his addiction issues at the time. And I disagree that criminal case is better than civil to rebut molestation allegations. A criminal charge is already viewed by many as a proof of guilt, and even if the defendant is acquitted, people blame "celebrity justice," as we know from the Arviso case and other celebrity trials. It's a stigma you don't wash off. The stigma comes on as soon as one is accused. It doesn't matter much if someone is indicted or not. If he is not indicted then people will cite "celebrity justice" just as much as they do when a trial ends with acquittal. It's not like two Grand Juries refusing to indict him in 1993 made people believe he was innocent. The possibilites of the Robson/Safechuck case are very different in that (statutes of limitations etc.) than the Chandler case would have been in 1993. It's unlikely it would have been thrown out on demurrer or SJ. In fact, a trial date was already set for March 1994 when the settlement happened. Hindsight is 20/20, but we don't know what would have happened if he had gone trhough with the civil case. A civil case is simply not the right platform to discuss child abuse allegations IMO. And in many countries it is not even allowed to bring civil cases re. child abuse allegations. It's a criminal case, period. Even in the USA there is a lot of discussion about the unfairness of trying child abuse allegations in a civil court. In a civil court the burden of proof is much more lax, hearsay evidence is more allowed and it's enough for a jury to think you likely did it rather than the notion of reasonable doubt. It's very clear why that is a very dangerous path when it comes to child abuse allegations. Often those are "he said, she said" situations and people (including juries) give an emotional response to them rather than rational. Even on criminal trial there are wrong verdicts, but there are more safeguards there than in a civil court. Also, as a civil trial is only about money, the jury may feel a less serious responsibility in being very meticulous etc. There is not the burden on them of possibly putting an innocent man in jail. So juries could feel more tempted to bring back a "liable" verdict, or a "middle-of-the road" verdict - give at least some money to the accuser, so that everyone could be pleased. The unfairness of it is, that in a case of a child abuse allegation, although the accused cannot go to jail based on a civil trial verdict, but a liable verdict can ruin a life just as much. They will lose their job, people will consider them guilty etc. And that based on a trial that did not have the requirement of reasonable doubt and other strict safeguards that are built in a criminal trial to make sure innocent people don't get convicted. Even so, of course innocent people do get convicted - but then how much bigger is the chance in a civil trial? And is that fair to the accused? In cases of child abuse allegations punishment isn't just jail - it's also the total ruining of your reputation and life. Now, in 1993 that wasn't just about reputation either. The reason why it is considered now unfair to have a civil trial ahead of the criminal in the same matter (and that is acknowledged in the fact they did change that law) is because 1) it may give an unfair advantage in the prosecution in the criminal trial, 2) a liable verdict in a civil trial may influence the criminal trial jury as well. In other words, it comprimises the defendant's rights to a fair criminal trial. In fact, that's also been acknowledged in a number of court rulings that Geraldine Hughes' book cites. The very fact they changed the law after (and according to Sneddon because of) the Chandler case should tell us that it is a valid point to make that it's not fair to a defendant to have the civil trial ahead of the criminal in the same matter. Also, we cannot be sure had MJ not settled people would be more accepting of the fact that he was innocent. They say that, but that's not how they really act. The same people who bring up the settlement as a reason to believe he was guilty are also the same people who won't accept the Arvizo acquittal and will claim "celebrity justice". So IMO they are just paying lip-service to saying "had he not settled we would think otherwise". Hell, he did not settle the Arvizo case, went through with the trial, won and the accuser was utterly discredited and what is those same people's response? Not that he was innocent, but that it was "celebrity justice". Fact is, for many people once someone is accused of this type of crime he is guilty, no matter if they settle or go through with a trial and win. And this seems to be a bit of a contradiction to me. You say MJ was too fragile to go through with a trial: But then you say the settlement was a big mistake. But if he wouldn't have survived a trial then wasn't the settlement the right decision?
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Oct 31, 2017 6:28:46 GMT
And I disagree that criminal case is better than civil to rebut molestation allegations. A criminal charge is already viewed by many as a proof of guilt, and even if the defendant is acquitted, people blame "celebrity justice," as we know from the Arviso case and other celebrity trials. It's a stigma you don't wash off. Failure to bring criminal charges, on the other hand, shows that the remaining civil case is likely an extortion attempt. I'm not American so I don't know, but how many people genuinely know the difference between the two? I get the feeling for most people, court is court, be it civil or criminal. I don't think it'll make much of a difference for a lot of people ... ? Unfortunately the settlement is still something that many people think is an indication of guilt because you know, people assume if you didn't do it you'll fight them off instead of pay them to shut up.
|
|
|
Post by morinen on Oct 31, 2017 7:15:13 GMT
People know the difference. Civil suits are a staple in America, celebrities are involved in them by the dozen, including all kind of crazy and meritless ones. Criminal charges are an entirely different level, as they have an official government investigation behind them.
|
|
|
Post by morinen on Oct 31, 2017 7:20:06 GMT
But then you say the settlement was a big mistake. But if he wouldn't have survived a trial then wasn't the settlement the right decision? Civil trial is a much lighter emotional burden. There is no arraignment, no bail, less media coverage. Most importantly, no prospect of jail.
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Oct 31, 2017 7:41:21 GMT
People know the difference. Civil suits are a staple in America, celebrities are involved in them by the dozen, including all kind of crazy and meritless ones. Criminal charges are an entirely different level, as they have an official government investigation behind them. Ahh okay. Like I said, not American so I wouldn't know
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 31, 2017 8:18:14 GMT
People know the difference. Civil suits are a staple in America, celebrities are involved in them by the dozen, including all kind of crazy and meritless ones. Criminal charges are an entirely different level, as they have an official government investigation behind them. If they knew the difference then they wouldn't keep saying MJ settled so that he wouldn't go to jail. My impression is that a lot of people actually don't know the difference. As for a civil trial being less of an emotional burden, MJ was in that fragile state of mind "just" for how the media and public treated him in the second half of 1993. It's safe to say during a trial the frenzy would have been even bigger. If the media frenzy before a potential trial already crushed him, why do we think he suddenly would have felt better during a trial?
|
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,424
|
Post by TonyR on Oct 31, 2017 8:21:11 GMT
I don't agree that he was lucky in 1993. In fact, he was extremely unlucky to never have the Chandler case tried under proper, criminal court circumstances. A civil trial isn't really a fair process to discuss child abuse allegations. MJ fought for the criminal case being brought ahead of the civil for that reason. That fight wasn't successful and that is why he settled the civil case. Nothing lucky about any of that. In fact, I'm sure had the case gone to a criminal court it would have cleared his name. Just like in the Arvizo case. The Chandler case isn't any stronger either when exposed. Why do you think the Chandlers always ran from having to testify in a criminal court (and they still continue to run as we speak)? That doesn't suggest it was MJ who was the lucky one there. For MJ it would have been better IMO if that case had been tried in a criminal court. If anything, he was extremely unlucky that the court rejected his attempts at getting the criminal process ahead of the civil. So unfair that the law was changed after that and later it wasn't allowed to have a civil trial ahead of a criminal in the same matter. The law change in itself acknowledges the unfairness of the previous practice that the Chandlers could take advantage of. It were the Chandlers who were lucky in 1993, not Michael Jackson. It's a double-edged sword to say the least. In 1993, two grand juries refused to indict him, would you prefer that they did? It would have been a huge blow for him, we don't know if he would have even survived it given his addiction issues at the time. And I disagree that criminal case is better than civil to rebut molestation allegations. A criminal charge is already viewed by many as a proof of guilt, and even if the defendant is acquitted, people blame "celebrity justice," as we know from the Arviso case and other celebrity trials. It's a stigma you don't wash off. Failure to bring criminal charges, on the other hand, shows that the remaining civil case is likely an extortion attempt. And as Robson/Safechuck cases show, it can be thrown out effectively on demurrer or SJ, instead of going all the way to trial like the criminal case would. MJ camp's biggest mistake in '93 was to settle. They should have pushed through regardless of which trial might come up first, he was innocent, and he should have had trust in the system. It involved a risk, of course, but a payout just wasn't the right thing to do for an innocent person, and the public felt the same, which threw a shadow on the rest of his career. I mean he was very lucky not to have killed his career entirely.
I think there's two ways of looking at this & we're looking slightly differently.
I believe, you're looking as someone who knows a hell of a lot about the case itself, the legalities, the detail.
I'm looking at it from an outsider's perspective, the way I think most people looked at it at the time. As a fan, and someone who knows quite a bit about it, then I have no trouble with the settlement, and part of me laughs & sympathises a little at Lisa-Marie's describing his 'fuck you' attitude. But at the time (and now) I look it it from an outsider's perspective because more than anuthing in the world I wanted Michael to rebuild that image, and to become loved again. I wasn't expecting Thriller/Bad style adoration. But I wanted him to become a human again, not a caricature or even worse monster.
So when he went on this interview, which lest we forget, he wanted to do exactly to rebuild his image and instead he goes on hand holding a boy continuing to talk about sharing beds. And then tells anecdotes like the placenta story which still makes me shudder (yes, he may have been joking, but to me it sounded like someone protesting too hard) then I could have (and this I may have) cried because I could see it back firing horribly.
|
|