Anybody in the USA watching the trial of that paedophile Jackson's doctor? It says in the papers here that it is the most watched thing on US TV at the moment.

What is the attraction?

Should trials be televised? In my view it lowers the standing of a trial to little more than the X factor.

At the moment, they are not televised in the UK.

Col

No.

There is no attraction.

Trials should be televised. People can get educated that way.

The UK in obviously not particularly interested in education.

I haven't seen it but a report in our press said that the longwinded nonsense from the legal teams would be a cure for insomnia.

Brian

No.

There is no attraction.

Trials should be televised. People can get educated that way.

The UK in obviously not particularly interested in education.

Perhaps you should watch, then you may be able to string together a coherent sentence.

Plus, it is not legal (yet) to show trials in the UK - nothing to do with education.

Does anyone care how the little paedo died - he's dead and that's that. There are 2 people who know what actually happened, one is dead, the rest is speculation. Why propogate the memory of a child molester?

Col

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdpzS2w-ZGD_Q7MQPUI6PLFKQGXbTJsObzK7JmNzMv1J4rwRD3uw

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRdpzS2w-ZGD_Q7MQPUI6PLFKQGXbTJsObzK7JmNzMv1J4rwRD3uw

You are quite right. I shouldn't respond to Josies bizarre comments, he just does it to stir.

Col

Perhaps you should watch, then you may be able to string together a coherent sentence.



Col

LOL Col,
I was merely answering your questions. They're only incoherent if you don't consider the question.

Do you have evidence that shows such allegations? From what I understand, he was cleared of any charges brought against him or not even charged at all. I'm sure if you are a much better detective than the police investigating the allegations of abuse, they would consider bringing you in for a consult. Of course, if you don't, slanderous insults about a person who is deceased only show little character on your part.

I agree that significant trials should be broadcast in order to make trials fair and provide an understanding to the public of the justice system for its workings (and sometimes failures).
It would educate and also provide clarity to convictions and acquittals.

No.

There is no attraction.

Trials should be televised. People can get educated that way.

The UK in obviously not particularly interested in education.

I haven't seen it but a report in our press said that the longwinded nonsense from the legal teams would be a cure for insomnia.

Brian

Much the same as debating with Col. lol

I agree that significant trials should be broadcast in order to make trials fair and provide an understanding to the public of the justice system for its workings (and sometimes failures).
It would educate and also provide clarity to convictions and acquittals.

You must have a lot of time on your hands if you are able to watch every minute of a trial, and if you don't then you are working on a false premise.

Brian

Do you have evidence that shows such allegations?

Come on Vass - Josie is a mate, we just have a bit of fun joshing (and boy do these boards need it, they're virtually dead anyway) - you only have to read his last line in his first post to see it doesn't string together correctly. What more evidence do you need?

I know English is not the first language in the USA, so I would have thought any little help would be appreciated.

You'll be saying Amanda Knox and her wierd boyfriend are innocent next! Did you see the brilliant display of crying and sobbing she did for the cameras? She's going to make millions out of her story (when she makes one up) and the Yanks will lap it up.

Col

Do you have evidence that shows such allegations? From what I understand, he was cleared of any charges brought against him or not even charged at all. I'm sure if you are a much better detective than the police investigating the allegations of abuse, they would consider bringing you in for a consult. Of course, if you don't, slanderous insults about a person who is deceased only show little character on your part.
Trouble is as they say "there's no smoke without fire" and a lot of people here (rightly or wrongly) were of the opinion that he simply bought his way out of trouble, depended on whether you were a Jackson fan or not I guess, maybe it's just a part of the lifestyle culture and having money, we'll never know the truth:confused:

I would not reserve a number of days in order to watch a trial in its entirety unless it was of importance to me personally or professionally.
This current threads debate seems to be well rooted on false premise as opinions seem to biased on a prejudiced and reactionary nature then one based on the rule of law.


You must have a lot of time on your hands if you are able to watch every minute of a trial, and if you don't then you are working on a false premise.
Brian

I would not reserve a number of days in order to watch a trial in its entirety unless it was of importance to me personally or professionally.
This current threads debate seems to be well rooted on false premise as opinions seem to biased on a prejudiced and reactionary nature then one based on the rule of law.

That's what makes it fun, all of us are full of it. LOL

Trouble is as they say "there's no smoke without fire" and a lot of people here (rightly or wrongly) were of the opinion that he simply bought his way out of trouble, depended on whether you were a Jackson fan or not I guess, maybe it's just a part of the lifestyle culture and having money, we'll never know the truth:confused:

It really stems from the evidence of the first allegations against him in the 90s. The father was the one that came up with a dollar amount for a settlement. The mother didn't even believe he was guilty. The kid was on many many meds from behavioral issues that made his story to the police change repeatedly.

If I were a father, the last thing I would do is come up with a dollar amount to let someone go free over doing something like that to my kid. I just don't believe it.

Of course, if you don't, slanderous insults about a person who is deceased only show little character on your part.

Ok, so how about Al Capone. Jailed for tax evasion. Was he a gangster and killer? It was never proved.

Col

[QUOTE=Vassago;1101619
If I were a father, the last thing I would do is come up with a dollar amount to let someone go free over doing something like that to my kid. I just don't believe it.[/QUOTE]

"Normal" parents wouldn't I agree, however many don't fall into that catagorey wherever they live;)

to let someone go free over doing something like that to my kid.

Vass - So what did he (I presume you mean Jacko) do to the kid? Did he inappropriately conduct himself with him etc?

Col

Ok, so how about Al Capone. Jailed for tax evasion. Was he a gangster and killer? It was never proved.

Col

And who's fault was that? I belief real proof should be needed to put crimes on someone. This is how the judicial system is supposed to work.

It's like the case of Casey Anthony. The prosecution failed to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that she killed her daughter herself. I was happy about the result of the verdict. I wasn't convinced based on their argument that she did kill her. All they proved is that she was a liar, a bad mother, and probably knew her daughter was dead. But that she actually killed her? Nope, not enough evidence of that. It was a risky prosecution to begin with. They should have tried harder.

"Normal" parents wouldn't I agree, however many don't fall into that catagorey wherever they live;)

This is true. But even the mother didn't believe it and they ended up divorcing over it.

Vass - So what did he (I presume you mean Jacko) do to the kid? Did he inappropriately conduct himself with him etc?

Col

I don't know, I wasn't there. I don't believe enough evidence was produced to convince me to convict him. There's no disputing MJ was disturbed. I think a lot of it had to do with a lack of childhood. But was he a criminal? I don't think so.

I don't know, I wasn't there. I don't believe enough evidence was produced to convince me to convict him. There's no disputing MJ was disturbed. I think a lot of it had to do with a lack of childhood. But was he a criminal? I don't think so.

Well we'll never know, but one thing is for certain. OJ Simpson was a criminal.

Well we'll never know, but one thing is for certain. OJ Simpson was a criminal.

Clearly. He's in prison right now for burglary. :D

M.J. benefit of the doubt, misguided yes, OJ a mockery of the jury system yes, but we as just normal citizens don't have the power to make changes to the systems we have inherited:confused:

. OJ Simpson was a criminal.
Unless you can afford the lawyers to put a doubt in the juries minds of course;)

Clearly. He's in prison right now for burglary. :D

Actually it's armed robbery and kidnapping, and I'm glad to see you caught my meaning.

There have been a number of issues that have come forward in the trial.

The fact that MJ couldn'd sleep without using a dangerous drug (I forget the name of it) but it says right on the label not to be used except in a hospital. This shows a history of precription drug abuse by MJ...and where did he get these drugs?

The doctor himself when called to MJ's bedside didn't know what to do. It seems several minutes passed before he called for an ambulance. He then began doing CPR on MJ on the bed (supposed to be done on a hard surface) and used a CPR technique that hasn't been approved for 10 years. The doctor himself appears to be incompetent from this.

There have been a number of issues that have come forward in the trial.

..and where did he get these drugs?



With enough money, you can buy anything except your own life.How has Keef suvived all these years?:eek: