Michael Jackson trial verdict coverage

TV

tvarksouthwest 13 June 2005 10:35pm

Marcus posted:

So you know better than the jurors who sat through the entire case!

How did you acquire these superhuman powers?

I'm all for innocent until proven guilty but, of course, we've been here before. Why would Jackson offer the Chandlers a substantial pay-off if he had nothing to hide?

It's inevitable that some people will try to cash in on his superstar status, but I suspect some witnesses may have perjured themselves in the accused's favour.

Let's wake up and smell the coffee. The way Jackson behaves with young boys goes beyond the bounds of acceptability. My thoughts go out to any boys he "befriends" in the future.

SC

scottishtv Founding member 13 June 2005 10:37pm

Short on resources? Nothing like the good ol' telephone for Newsnight. They claim to have a lot on this story, yet Newsnight Scotland still ran their insert at the top of the show. Looks like they're not going to be moved....

http://www.rp-networkservices.com/tvforum/uploads/1newsnight.jpg

http://www.rp-networkservices.com/tvforum/uploads/1newsnight1.jpg

ST

steddenm 13 June 2005 10:37pm

http://www.rp-networkservices.com/tvforum/uploads/cnnballsup.jpg

CNN convicted him BEFORE the court!

AN

Andrew Founding member 13 June 2005 10:39pm

An extended ITV News at Ten Thirty with Trevor McDonald
http://www.rp-networkservices.com/tvforum/uploads/jacko5.jpg

GS

Gavin Scott Founding member 13 June 2005 10:41pm

tvarksouthwest posted:

Marcus posted:

So you know better than the jurors who sat through the entire case!

How did you acquire these superhuman powers?

I'm all for innocent until proven guilty but, of course, we've been here before.

It's easy to say, "there's no smoke without fire" Simon, but neither you nor I were in the courtroom and saw the family giving their evidence.

I defy you or anyone else to determine the truth from a transcript or reconstruction.

I'm not necessarily comfortable with the verdict; but I have to accept that a trial has taken place and live with the decision. That's what it's all about, is it not?

You might want to think on that before you make any other comments.

MA

Magoo 13 June 2005 10:43pm

Has anyone got any caps of (I would assume) Fox's marvellously OTT graphics??

FL

Flava 13 June 2005 10:46pm

A trial's a trial... but still a travesty. The man is a head-case.

TV

tvarksouthwest 13 June 2005 10:46pm

Gavin Scott posted:

It's easy to say, "there's no smoke without fire" Simon, but neither you nor I were in the courtroom and saw the family giving their evidence.

I defy you or anyone else to determine the truth from a transcript or reconstruction.

I'm not necessarily comfortable with the verdict; but I have to accept that a trial has taken place and live with the decision. That's what it's all about, is it not?

But I can't help but think Jackson's involvement with young boys will find itself back in the spotlight again at some point. I saw the ITV documentary and couldn't believe what I was seeing.

Most parents, understandably, say they'd never accept such a pay-off from anyone accused of abusing their children. But if they actually found themselves in the position of being offered such a sum, and thinking what it could do for you? Money talks.

NE

Noelfirl 13 June 2005 10:50pm

Flava posted:

A trial's a trial... but still a travesty. The man is a head-case.

Your point being...? He should be convicted for being a complete and utter oddball?

SC

scottishtv Founding member 13 June 2005 10:50pm

tvarksouthwest posted:

ITV documentary

Enough said.

MA

Magoo 13 June 2005 10:51pm

tvarksouthwest posted:

But I can't help but think Jackson's involvement with young boys will finmd itself back in the spotlight again some time. I saw the ITV documentary and couldn't believe what I was seeing.

Most parents, understandably, say they'd never accept such a pay-off from anyone accused of abusing their children. But if they actually found themselves in the position of being offered such a sum, and thinking what it could do for you? Money talks.

I think we can safely assume that regardless of the verdict, he will not allow himself to be placed in such a situation with children again where there is scope for extortion by members of the public. Again, I was surprised that he was not guilty on the alcohol charge - but I do believe that it was the big bucks that drove the Arvizos to take advantage of Jackson's undeniable peculiarities.

MA

Marcus Founding member 13 June 2005 10:55pm

Gavin Scott posted:

tvarksouthwest posted:

Marcus posted:

So you know better than the jurors who sat through the entire case!

How did you acquire these superhuman powers?

I'm all for innocent until proven guilty but, of course, we've been here before.

It's easy to say, "there's no smoke without fire" Simon, but neither you nor I were in the courtroom and saw the family giving their evidence.

I defy you or anyone else to determine the truth from a transcript or reconstruction.

I'm not necessarily comfortable with the verdict; but I have to accept that a trial has taken place and live with the decision. That's what it's all about, is it not?

You might want to think on that before you make any other comments.

Indeed. Your first comment was plainly libelous. Let's hope Jackon is not a member of TV Forum.

Hang on Jackson.... J a r o n..

No can't be.

(January 2005)