Michael Jackson: The Experience

Just arrived in the mail, now i'm going to test my vocal prowess.

Any questions feel free to ask.

Will you put the result on Youtube?

I don't have a move. Or are you talking about audio?
I'll see if there's an option.

I'm not a good singer, but i'm not bad.

Damn i keep being just short of 5 stars, this is completely hurting my throat though, the vocal range is a strain. That said i know these songs better then the songs on all the other games i got like rock band etc. so i'm doing better as i literally know these songs, that i can hear them in my head correctly.

I was expecting to be a joke topic about being Pedo Jacko.

He clearly was innocent.

Probably, but it's fun to assume otherwise.

I don't know about anyone else, but if I genuinel believed some guy had molested my kid, I would not accept an out of court settlement, no matter how much it was. That's basically prostitution.

The Iron Fjord wrote:

Probably, but it's fun to assume otherwise.

It's not fun, it's called defamation, and it'd be a crime if he were still alive. Now it's just a massive dick move.

What happened to that doctor did they ever catch him? It was clearly gross negligence at the least.

It's not defamation since: 1) You can not prove it false as the out of court settlement does not allow for him to sue people for assuming he touched little boys. 2) He is/was a public figure. Huge double standard here. If famous people sued someone for making a statement that insulted them or made them look bad everytime it happened, our courts we be flooded with those cases and nothing else.

The only difference would be if you were to publish something (making then libel instead of defamation) that was a clear lie (which in this case it isn't) and can be proven to show damages to the victim.


All that being said: Why did Michael Jackson go to K-Mart? And for bonus points, what's Macaulay Culkin's favorite salad dressing?

Thats why your legal system is fucked. Anyone can sue anyone for anything and get money out of them.

We were only just talking about that burglar sueing an old lady because of where she kept her knives. Legal fees end up being so huge that your best bet is to pay an out of court settlement.

I won't deny our legal system is fucked up (but I think you missed the point of my post were I said you couldn't sue someone in this case) but the common misperception on frivolous lawsuits here is blown way out of proportion. If you ever have time I recommend a documentary called Hot Coffee.

The OJ simpson case being televised and him being found innocent is what made the US legal system a joke.

Every person has the right to a public trial according to the sixth amendment. A private trial would be awful because how could the court be held accountable? You guys can't have that can you? I thought only dictators did stuff like that.

And I'm sure the US is the only place in the world were guilty men could get off for a crime because of things like great defense attorneys, weak prosecution or any other factors.

Ellis wrote:

And I'm sure the US is the only place in the world were guilty men could get off for a crime because of things like great defense attorneys, weak prosecution or any other factors.

Well lots of people think that, but i try not to judge america that harshly.

You're old enough to have seen this right? I think it was like 15 years ago.

The police chases and everything were on TV. The OJ Simpson trial was the biggest joke of a trial ever. I don't think i've ever heard anyone other then that jury consider the guy innocent. You can say all you like about other trials but i challenge you to find another serious crime trial with people unanimous the jury was wrong (oh yeah excluding corrupt countries, i'm sure countries where you can't have fair trials have all kinds of shit going on).

Also i can't think of another trial that was televised, the MJ cases were shown in the form of reenactments, and every british trial i can think of usually has illuastrations of it.

You can blame a billion other things but the fact is thats the thing that stands in most peoples minds. It also isn't something you can blame on misinterpretation as it was actually a live court case shown around the world.

We have a television network called Court TV and it does just that....televises court cases. Plus any person has the right to walk into the court room on any given day and just sit and watch the proceedings. The only time I've ever heard of this not being allowed were cases like rape trials or when security was a huge issue. Camera's themselves aren't allowed if on of the parties objects to them.

As for the OJ case, I was 7 at the time so I remember it happening but I couldn't tell you anything from the case first hand. I have however studied the case. I don't know what you guys think over there but yes the majority of people over here thinks he did it, but a huge amount of people think he didn't. (it's actually kinda racial, black people think he didn't and whites do). What really screwed the case was that so much stuff had to be omitted from juror deliberation due to media involvement plus one of the lead detevctives of the crime scene was asked twice if he planted evidence at the scene just to get a conviction during cross examination and at first he said no. Then later when asked the same thing he plead the fifth amendment (protection from self incrimination, which in itself is incriminating). Plus that glove ploy the prosecution tried to use. I mean it literally was half the size of his hand. That's no exaggeration.

Public perception in the UK might be guilty 100% but it is far from that here.

Oh right well its the same here you can sit in a court case like that to. As far as cameras in court cases honestly i don't know. I just know that i've never seen an english televised case. Maybe people here just always decline or no one would watch it.

I've seen numerous jokes made about the case even on american tv. The police chase was probably one of the most incriminating things i've ever seen. I think he even had a passport, disguise and money with him. The court case had errors in it, but one that was publicly shown worldwide? Seriously i can't believe more care wasn't taken. Normally when you're giving that much coverage on something you make sure everything runs smoothly and properly.

Well the chases and everything he said during it had to be omitted from the records. That whole fiasco (he didn't have a disguise or any of that he was actually trying to commit suicide or atleast threatening it. He wasn't actually driving his friend was. They were supposed to be driving to turn himself over to authorities when he pulled the gun and shit went crazy) was very incriminating but couldn't be used in court. If you want my opinion I personally think he did it. Did the legal system fail? Yes, but there were some justifications for why it failed. It wasn't that a group of jurors (mostly black, but that's a whole different debate in and of itself) just didn't listen, it was that what they were given to work with they came to a reasonable, though probably wrong decision.

Same with the Casey Anthony case.

From wikipedia:

Quote :

He also pointed out that the jury was never informed about items found in the Bronco: a change of clothing, a large amount of cash, a passport and a disguise kit.

I mean that doesn't seem like a man committing suicide. Its all really screwed up. I also find this stuff pretty stupid like the police chase and other incriminating stuff was just ignored. I know it falls under some legal loop hole, but come on its clearly not right.

I honestly think it's dumb to think he did it. There is no doubt in my mind that he was involved but I find it stupid a hall of fame running back would kill his wife and her lover like that. He knew about it previously and I think he hired a killer. That's why the glove with the victim's blood didn't fit, this is why he acted so guilty prior to the trial. He's in jail for a long time now anyway so I guess it doesn't really matter. If you believe in karama there is an example of it right there I guess.


But yea Michael Jackson. No one answered my MJ jokes.

He was mentally unstable, that car chase pretty much showed that. Then he held up a place in las vegas that he accused of robbing him or something?

He might have got a killer, some even claim his son did it. Either way there was enough DNA evidence to suggest he was there at the scene of the murder.

Oh yeah and he already had been known for bursts of violence to there'd been repeated calls for dmoestic disturbances involving him.

Still, he was one of the best football players ever.

Ellis wrote:

Still, he was one of the best football players ever.

Sure.

Thing is people seem to think being one means you can't be the other. Fact is the kind of guy who beats his wife or can kill her, is not a kind of guy we can relate to or understand. So regardless of how much he had going for him, he could do anything.

We are all capable of evil things. He was disturbed and he never became right again. hence why he ended up in jail. I think if anything the case showed the dangers of media involvement in these types of cases. Some of the reason evidence was omitted was becasue of the guilty perception that was being portrayed long before the verdict was handed down. It hurts his ability to have a fair trial.



That was before any verdict was handed down. Look at all the visual cues in the Time cover trying to portray him as guilty. They got in a lot of trouble for this but still it's these types of things that can fuck up cases like this.