Michael Jackson documentary

[Job]

And we wonder why we have fake news.

People just keep lapping up bullshit as long as its packaged just right.

It doesnt matter if he did or not, there is no evidence and they are either honest victims or good actors.
We cannot return to to witch hunts.

As Homer said..'He must be guilty Marge, listen to the music'.

 

[Scouse]

And Sir Jim?

Who cares what "the truth" is? He's dead.

Other than supporting people who were abused by him there's nothing we can do. But we'll never know "the truth" - we'll only have the allegations against him. And that's absolutely fine.

Unless you're saying that we should start retrospectively going back and prosecuting the dead, what's to be gained from it?

 

[dysfunction]

Closure for the victims perhaps?

 

[Wij]

Who cares what "the truth" is? He's dead.

I think that’s where other people may differ from you.

 

[Scouse]

Closure for the victims perhaps?

and

I think that’s where other people may differ from you.

...

Other than supporting people who were abused by him there's nothing we can do.

....

I mean. I get it's an emotive subject. But I'm being very clear in what I'm typing.

The *only* point I'm making is that court is where we decide "truth". Objective truth. Anything else is allegation, supposition and gossip. If Saville was alive I've no doubt he'd have been found guilty.

But he isn't. And he wasn't. So meh. Help victims. That is all.

Jackson was found not guilty. No matter what documentaries say after the court case. - which, lest we forget, is what this thread is about. - the documentary has *nothing* to offer. Nothing at all.

 

[BloodOmen]

Closure for the victims perhaps?

Beat me to it. Imagine if someone said "who cares what Jimmy Saville did? he's dead now"

 

[Job]

Unfortunately in these times it would seem it has everything to offer.

 

[Gwadien]

and

...

....

I mean. I get it's an emotive subject. But I'm being very clear in what I'm typing.

The *only* point I'm making is that court is where we decide "truth". Objective truth. Anything else is allegation, supposition and gossip. If Saville was alive I've no doubt he'd have been found guilty.

But he isn't. And he wasn't. So meh. Help victims. That is all.

Jackson was found not guilty. No matter what documentaries say after the court case. - which, lest we forget, is what this thread is about. - the documentary has *nothing* to offer. Nothing at all.

I still don't understand why you're coming from this absolute legal stand point, it's such bollocks.

Again, I think you should watch the documentary, I'm all for people calling them actors and that they're making it all up, but they don't know, and it appeared that there was plenty of evidence presented.

I feel like this is taking the whole concept of 'trial by media' and radicalising it.

 

[Scouse]

I still don't understand why you're coming from this absolute legal stand point, it's such bollocks.

Again, I think you should watch the documentary, I'm all for people calling them actors and that they're making it all up, but they don't know, and it appeared that there was plenty of evidence presented.

What would the documentary do for me?

Would making myself feel sad, outraged and disgusted do anything whatsoever?

*What's the fucking point of it @Gwadien?*

 

[Deebs]

Think I will just leave the FBI evidence here:

Michael Jackson

 

[Bodhi]

and

...

....

I mean. I get it's an emotive subject. But I'm being very clear in what I'm typing.

The *only* point I'm making is that court is where we decide "truth". Objective truth. Anything else is allegation, supposition and gossip. If Saville was alive I've no doubt he'd have been found guilty.

But he isn't. And he wasn't. So meh. Help victims. That is all.

Jackson was found not guilty. No matter what documentaries say after the court case. - which, lest we forget, is what this thread is about. - the documentary has *nothing* to offer. Nothing at all.

Yes, but as I am sure you are aware, being found Not Guilty does not mean he was innocent, just there was enough doubt to mean he couldn't be found guilty (as in the OJ case, but then after watching that Netflix documentary, the wife and I weren't convinced OJ could be found Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt).

I've only seen the second half of the MJ Documentary, and the evidence it presents is pretty compelling - my Spidey Senses do start tingling whenever someone's point is "I was lying before, I'm not now" - especially with the amount of money involved, but that is the only thing that makes me doubt the story. Other than that there seems to be far to much smoke for there not to be a fire at the bottom of it.

 

[Scouse]

Think I will just leave the FBI evidence here:

Michael Jackson

The FBI "evidence" are files from the Sun(?) newspaper, which were included in the court case against him and, as the FBI say, "He was acquitted of all such charges".

Looks. I don't care whether he was guilty or not. He's dead. The above is clearly just more food for gossip.

Nice to see @Gwadien's ducked telling me what the actual point of the documentary is tho


Edit:

Yes, but as I am sure you are aware, being found Not Guilty does not mean he was innocent

Yes. Yes it does mean that.

Innocent until proven guilty. Being found "not guilty" means you must be treated as such. That's why you are "vindicated" when cleared of the charges against you.

But he's dead anyway. This is all pointless, so this is my last post on it (unless Gwad grows a pair).

my Spidey Senses do start tingling whenever someone's point is "I was lying before, I'm not now"

Yeah, people who admit they're not trustworthy asking you to take them on trust. Must be why we have courts eh?

 

[Deebs]

Yes, but as I am sure you are aware, being found Not Guilty does not mean he was innocent, just there was enough doubt to mean he couldn't be found guilty (as in the OJ case, but then after watching that Netflix documentary, the wife and I weren't convinced OJ could be found Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt).

I've only seen the second half of the MJ Documentary, and the evidence it presents is pretty compelling - my Spidey Senses do start tingling whenever someone's point is "I was lying before, I'm not now" - especially with the amount of money involved, but that is the only thing that makes me doubt the story. Other than that there seems to be far to much smoke for there not to be a fire at the bottom of it.

Apparently over 30 minutes was cut from the UK airing of the documentary.

Have you seen this?

View: https://twitter.com/nonamejustheree/status/1105161654118072320

 

[Deebs]

The FBI "evidence" are files from the Sun(?) newspaper, which were included in the court case against him and, as the FBI say, "He was acquitted of all such charges".

Looks. I don't care whether he was guilty or not. He's dead. The above is clearly just more food for gossip.

Nice to see @Gwadien's ducked telling me what the actual point of the documentary is tho


Edit:

Yes. Yes it does mean that.

Innocent until proven guilty. Being found "not guilty" means you must be treated as such.

But he's dead anyway. This is all pointless, so this is my last post on it (unless Gwad grows a pair).

What?

They are the actual files produced by the FBI showing no crime was commited. What the fuck has The Sun newspaper got to do with it?

 

[Scouse]

What?

They are the actual files produced by the FBI showing no crime was commited. What the fuck has The Sun newspaper got to do with it?

Ah - OK - click on the files. Say the first one. And scroll down.

That's what I looked at, so I didn't bother going through the rest. Thought it was bizarre.

 

[Deebs]

Ah - OK - click on the files. Say the first one. And scroll down.

That's what I looked at, so I didn't bother going through the rest. Thought it was bizarre.

Basically they siezed all his Apple computers complete with images and found fuck all on any of them (2 of 7). It is quite an interesting read if you take the time to go through each set of documents.

 

[Scouse]

Cool. But tbh, same applies. I could read that and come to a conclusion myself that he's not guilty. But that's not for me to decide.

 

[Exioce]

I had naively assumed that protesting historic child sexual abuse investigations was a position only taken by contrarian forum dwellers, taking absolutist stances on the presumption of innocence.

I was wrong, it seems there is a sizable faction of the electorate willing to be courted on this issue:

Boris Johnson says spending on child sex abuse investigation 'spaffed up a wall'

 

[Scouse]

I had naively assumed that protesting historic child sexual abuse investigations was a position only taken by contrarian forum dwellers, taking absolutist stances on the presumption of innocence.

I was wrong, it seems there is a sizable faction of the electorate willing to be courted on this issue:

Boris Johnson says spending on child sex abuse investigation 'spaffed up a wall'

I'm not against "historic sexual abuse investigations" at all. Not for a second. The police (not documentary makers) should be all over that.

I'd say that there's limited value in investigating suspects who are already dead - what are you going to achieve, and what aren't you investigating because you're spaffing money on Michael Jackson, for example (which they're not, but you get my point).

If we can catch criminals, great. If they're alive.

If not, we've got better places to spend limited funds. Such as attempting to stop knife crime deaths of actually-alive people.

Do you not agree?

 

[Gwadien]

I'm not against "historic sexual abuse investigations" at all. Not for a second. The police (not documentary makers) should be all over that.

I'd say that there's limited value in investigating suspects who are already dead - what are you going to achieve, and what aren't you investigating because you're spaffing money on Michael Jackson, for example (which they're not, but you get my point).

If we can catch criminals, great. If they're alive.

If not, we've got better places to spend limited funds. Such as attempting to stop knife crime deaths of actually-alive people.

Do you not agree?

The order usually goes private investigation (documentaries, books etc) -> criminal investigation. I'm fairly sure that's how the Jimmy Saville stuff happened and revealed a massive conspiracy by lots of people to do dodgy shit.

What if Jackos investigation does the same thing? What if there's still fixers out there that can get some celebs some kids? What if? The way that happens is that people watch the documentary and then apply pressure to conduct an investigation, they might find stuff, they may not. The only thing that I would request is that it's done as discreetly as possible so Celebs lives aren't fucked even if they're innocent. That's how you moderate this snowflakey neo-libtard PC culture (or what ever the fuck you want to call it) you don't go full whack and just deny the legitimacy of any claims because from this point onwards everyone is a liar and is out to make money.

 

[Job]

Fair enough..but a shed load of people..powerful people.. have decided to skip the next step and go straight to guilty by accusation.

 

[Gwadien]

Fair enough..but a shed load of people..powerful people.. have decided to skip the next step and go straight to guilty by accusation.

I'd say no, there's been a flip to everyone's innocent and everyone should stop making shit up.

Why?

 

[Exioce]

I'm not against "historic sexual abuse investigations" at all. Not for a second. The police (not documentary makers) should be all over that.

I'd say that there's limited value in investigating suspects who are already dead - what are you going to achieve, and what aren't you investigating because you're spaffing money on Michael Jackson, for example (which they're not, but you get my point).

If we can catch criminals, great. If they're alive.

If not, we've got better places to spend limited funds. Such as attempting to stop knife crime deaths of actually-alive people.

Do you not agree?

No, we disagree on this one.
You can see only limited value in investigating suspects who are already dead, despite Operation Yewtree cracking open a Pandora's box of arrests, convictions, accomplices, closure and validation for victims, and just all round culture change in the way we treat victims.

If this documentary paves the way for America to achieve half of that it'll be a turning point in their culture, just like we had - even if it's not sunk in for everybody.

 

[Scouse]

No, we disagree on this one.
You can see only limited value in investigating suspects who are already dead, despite Operation Yewtree cracking open a Pandora's box of arrests, convictions, accomplices, closure and validation for victims, and just all round culture change in the way we treat victims.

If this documentary paves the way for America to achieve half of that it'll be a turning point in their culture, just like we had - even if it's not sunk in for everybody.

From your link:

After a period of assessment it became a full criminal investigation, involving inquiries into living people, notably other celebrities, as well as Savile

There you go. Real people being investigated. The original problem was the police refusing to believe victims when they came forward.

So police should investigate people. Live people. When accused. As I said.

Then yewtree and fucking documentaries wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

I disagree that we disagree strongly

 

[Embattle]

If I remember correctly the law is quite different in the US compared to the UK when accusing someone of something, it tends to be easier to do and harder for the accused as they must prove it isn't true or something....which naturally is very hard to do when you are dead.

 

[Embattle]

Michael Jackson 'innocent' adverts to be removed

 

[Ctuchik]

Perhaps these "me too" people should have spoken up when he was alive and could defend himself.

Many did, don't think he got convicted once.

 

[Job]

Its unbelievable.
The Simpsons creators are using the documentary as proof that he used his episode to groom boys and thats why they removed it.

I think we need to remove trial by jury until people get their fucking act together.

It really is becoming.
Who can be the most pious all over again

The Simpsons showrunner fears Michael Jackson 'used his episode to groom boys'

 

[Scouse]

Michael Jackson 'innocent' adverts to be removed

Woe betide anyone expresses an idea that some people might not like eh?

 

[Job]

Paris Jackson attempts suicide.

Time to bring some facts into this farcical witch hunt.