Michael Jackson dies of Heart Attack

[gatso]

my understanding is that it was a civil case as there was no evidence to pursue a criminal investigation

if there was evidence they would've strung him up, there wasn't so they didn't

instead some people decided to take advantage of a very naive, very rich man

[Jon MW]

No.

So basically if there's civil action there's never any criminal repurcussions afterward?

If the civil case lead to new evidence being uncovered then that could make a difference.

But otherwise no.

[cia260895]

IMO

if the chandlers had never accepted the money then it would have gone to court and the chances of MJ being found guilty VVV slim,

so the parents had a choice quite a simple 1 really go to court or take the $$$,

but I know if I was accused of abuse against a child i would fight all the way to clear my name,

paying the victim off just leaves it wide open for the rumour mills to start and everyone will always question it..

[Acidmouse]

my understanding is that it was a civil case as there was no evidence to pursue a criminal investigation

if there was evidence they would've strung him up, there wasn't so they didn't

instead some people decided to take advantage of a very naive, very rich man

Yes becasue MJ didn't have loads of lawyers to help him obv. He was tricked into paying the money and was the victim in all this.

[MANTIS01]

A guilty verdict, and the abuser exposed to the world, would be the same result whichever court the case was heard in. Unless of course that wasn't your motivation when bringing the case to the table,

[AndrewT]

The burden of proof is much lower in a civil case. A criminal case needs to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt whereas a civil case merely needs to show it is more likely that the defendent did do it than he didn't.

[gatso]

my understanding is that it was a civil case as there was no evidence to pursue a criminal investigation

if there was evidence they would've strung him up, there wasn't so they didn't

instead some people decided to take advantage of a very naive, very rich man

Yes becasue MJ didn't have loads of lawyers to help him obv. He was tricked into paying the money and was the victim in all this.

lol, the lawyers sure didn't exploit him more than anyone else

[Acidmouse]

I must be living in a different world. A world where I don't try and defend mega rich celebrities who think they can do anything they want and pay people to do so. A world where I don't pretend I am upset when someone I don't know dies.

Guilty or not he was a right tool who used his celebrity status to go things that are at least questionable and at worst immoral and illegal.

[TightEnd]

I must be living in a different world. A world where I don't try and defend mega rich celebrities who think they can do anything they want and pay people to do so. A world where I don't pretend I am upset when someone I don't know dies.

Guilty or not he was a right tool who used his celebrity status to go things that are at least questionable and at worst immoral and illegal.

you cannot seperate the questionable personal life from the outstanding entertainment? He's surely an iconic figure for the latter?

[TightEnd]

changing tack slightly

quoted

The death of Michael Jackson will surely go down in history as the first "very" famous death of the Twitter generation. When these 20-somethings are 50-something (it isn't far away, kids, even if you think that it is) they will be able to look back and say "And where were you when your mobile twitter feed told you that Michael Jackson was dead?

A piece of news that was too late for many of the early editions of UK papers is now old hat.

Many of those youngsters (many tens of thousands, in fact) will say "ahh yes, I was at Glastonbury that year", with perhaps one or two adding that "It flooded, of course, despite two weeks of fantastic weather beforehand. Springsteen and Neil Young were still alive then, but I mainly remember it being the debut for Dame Louise Golbey. Of course, she was a youngster then, rather than a Dame, not the world megastar that she is today".

[GreekStein]

I must be living in a different world. A world where I don't try and defend mega rich celebrities who think they can do anything they want and pay people to do so. A world where I don't pretend I am upset when someone I don't know dies.

Guilty or not he was a right tool who used his celebrity status to go things that are at least questionable and at worst immoral and illegal.

you cannot seperate the questionable personal life from the outstanding entertainment? He's surely an iconic figure for the latter?

Just playing devils advocate - would we have a similar thread if Gary Glitter died on the basis that he was an outstanding entertainer in his day?

[TightEnd]

I must be living in a different world. A world where I don't try and defend mega rich celebrities who think they can do anything they want and pay people to do so. A world where I don't pretend I am upset when someone I don't know dies.

Guilty or not he was a right tool who used his celebrity status to go things that are at least questionable and at worst immoral and illegal.

you cannot seperate the questionable personal life from the outstanding entertainment? He's surely an iconic figure for the latter?

Just playing devils advocate - would we have a similar thread if Gary Glitter died on the basis that he was an outstanding entertainer in his day?

I think the impact of Jackson's music/popularity/cultural significance..as a performer...is so far ahead of Glitter's that my answer to that is no. Sure there would be a thread

Glitter was also convicted, and I beleive admitted offences and was stunningly unrepentant ever since. Jackson was never convicted, though convicted or not the personal life was at best highly questionable

[kinboshi]

Yep - I heard it first on twitter.

The conversation on twitter is now "Who should Martin Bashir interview next?".

[G1BTW]

I must be living in a different world. A world where I don't try and defend mega rich celebrities who think they can do anything they want and pay people to do so. A world where I don't pretend I am upset when someone I don't know dies.

Guilty or not he was a right tool who used his celebrity status to go things that are at least questionable and at worst immoral and illegal.

you cannot seperate the questionable personal life from the outstanding entertainment? He's surely an iconic figure for the latter?

Just playing devils advocate - would we have a similar thread if Gary Glitter died on the basis that he was an outstanding entertainer in his day?

Oh COME ON!!!







come on  

[doubleup]

The burden of proof is much lower in a civil case. A criminal case needs to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt whereas a civil case merely needs to show it is more likely that the defendent did do it than he didn't.

Although this is apparently true, I have often wondered how it is applied in practice.