Michael Jackson

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wizard said:
I sort of know what you mean but in these two cases the waters are already so muddied it’s almost like the horse has already bolted. There have been court cases already against both of them that have had pretty sketchy outcomes. One of the guys (Wade Robson) in this latest doc pressed charges in 2015 but the statute of limitations had run out. So what is he supposed to do if he really was abused over a 7 year period? Just sit there and get treated like a liar looking for money or get his story out there. If it is true it may help other potential victims to seek help and try to come to terms with what happened to them.

In the case of R Kelly it seems like he is still active and court cases haven’t worked despite what sounds like very clear evidence. But the documentary has shed light on what a terrible human being he is and will hopefully lead to some justice finally.
Click to expand...

Wade Robson should have pressed charges earlier in accordance with the law. If the law doesn't allow him to pursue it now, tough luck.

So he should have stayed quiet on it. That might sound vicious to say, but if he has no legal route to justice then just throwing accusations into the court of public opinion shouldn't be the alternative.

If I were the Jacksons, I'd be looking at every legal route available to get a measure of recourse against what could easily be seen as malicious and unfounded public comments that dent the reputation and value of the Jackson estate.

We have laws and rules for a reason - it's to protect all sides of a complaint. Twitter shouldn't be judge, jury and executioner.
 

To clarify the above, I'm not saying what's happened here isn't effective - see the ITV documentary that led to Operation Yewtree on Saville as a prime example - but I just feel it really shouldn't be the way it is done.
 
Tubey said:
Wade Robson should have pressed charges earlier in accordance with the law. If the law doesn't allow him to pursue it now, tough luck.

So he should have stayed quiet on it. That might sound vicious to say, but if he has no legal route to justice then just throwing accusations into the court of public opinion shouldn't be the alternative.

If I were the Jacksons, I'd be looking at every legal route available to get a measure of recourse against what could easily be seen as malicious and unfounded public comments that dent the reputation and value of the Jackson estate.

We have laws and rules for a reason - it's to protect all sides of a complaint. Twitter shouldn't be judge, jury and executioner.
Click to expand...
Robson didn’t admit to anyone, basically not even himself, that he had been abused til 2012 when he started seeing a therapist. It took a fairly serious breakdown for the other guy to come to terms with it. Saying he should have come forward earlier or just stayed quiet is ridiculous quite frankly.

Michael Jackson showed no respect for them or their rights as children so why should they respect him now regardless of whether he is dead or not. And if his family care so much maybe they shouldn’t have abused him all through his childhood which is probably why he turned out the way he did.
 
Tubey said:
To clarify the above, I'm not saying what's happened here isn't effective - see the ITV documentary that led to Operation Yewtree on Saville as a prime example - but I just feel it really shouldn't be the way it is done.
Click to expand...
Jackson would never allow it to air if he was alive...
 
This is proper disturbing

Why would this Jimmy and his mum be saying this if it wasn't legit.
 

Wizard said:
Robson didn’t admit to anyone, basically not even himself, that he had been abused til 2012 when he started seeing a therapist. It took a fairly serious breakdown for the other guy to come to terms with it. Saying he should have come forward earlier or just stayed quiet is ridiculous quite frankly.

Michael Jackson showed no respect for them or their rights as children so why should they respect him now regardless of whether he is dead or not. And if his family care so much maybe they shouldn’t have abused him all through his childhood which is probably why he turned out the way he did.
Click to expand...

The statute of limitations exists for a reason and is law - it doesn't matter why a case isn't brought forward in time. It's not ridiculous to say that if your legal complaint is rebuffed because of the statute not allowing it, then publicly defaming the subject of your complaint without legal process shouldn't be the remedy.

As for the rest of what you say, I'm sorry but that's just lynch mob mentality. Take the emotive subject matter away and look at the legal logic of it - there's a reason why due process exists.
 

Tubey said:
I don't know for sure, like everyone else, whether he was or not (my personal belief is he was), but I do know that I'm always deeply uncomfortably with public lynch mobs not following the rule of law.

For that reason, this documentary shouldn't exist. It puts undue stress on the family of a dead man with no legal recourse. It could be all true and a brilliant award-winning documentary, or it could have as much fact as that Simpsons episode where Homer grabs the jelly baby off the babysitters' arse - either way it shouldn't exist.

Similarly, R. Kelly may be guilty (my personal belief on that one is he absolutely is), but again I'm very, very uncomfortable with this 24 hour news cycle, Twitter lynching before it saw a day in court. How do you not pollute a jury pool the way things are?
Click to expand...

The Jackson family?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top