Remember Michael This way

Possibly so, but he molests children, so he'll never get a penny out of me.

Incidentally, would you let a ten year old son of yours sleep in his bed?

G

This is exactly the sort of response I wished to avoid. If you wish an outlet to comment on current events surrounding the trial I suggest the Padded Cell.
My initial post was motivated by my dismay. If he is guilty then he deserves to be locked away, probably for the rest of his life. My post concerned, however, his music.
Futhermore, it is interesting that you have already determined his guilt. I thought it was the job of the jury to do that.

Agreed Malky - Off the Wall is indeed a gem. One I forgot to add to the Best CD to show off your Naim stuff thread.

Still not sure whether or not he is guilty though - I suspect he's just extremely naive.

Malky

You didn't answer my question whether you would allow a ten year old son of your own to sleep in Jackson's bed. Do you have children? Much though you may wish to avoid it, the man is a dismaying creep. How can it be "just about the music"?

I also wonder whether you're praising the right person for those earlier releases. Surely the praise belongs to Quincy Jones, rather than Jackson.

And what am I to make of your remark that Jackson was "unmistakeably a black man" on the earlier covers? Who the f*ck decided, other than Jackson, to go in for the surgery resulting in the needlepoint nose and decaying whitened skin?

Do you have a similar admiration for Charles Manson's music?

Graham

My copy of Off the Wall never hurt any children.

'Don't stop til you get enough' is a classic track that I have enjoyed every year since it came out,and I still play it

Remember the word 'dog' never bit anyone.

DS

ps the same goes for my Charles Manson records

___________________________________________________
[QUOTE]Originally posted by graham55:
Malky
You didn't answer my question whether you would allow a ten year old son of your own to sleep in Jackson's bed
___________________________________________________
I have posted my thoughts on this matter in the padded cell.

To go back to the topic's title, how should we remember those other fine human beings, Jonathan King and Gary Glitter: as second rate producer and singer respectively; or simply as perverts?

G

__________________________________________________
[QUOTE]Originally posted by graham55:
To go back to the topic's title, how should we remember those other fine human beings, Jonathan King and Gary Glitter: as second rate producer and singer respectively; or simply as perverts?
___________________________________________________
You claim to be a lawyer, is this as sophisticated an argument as you can muster? It concerns me that a legal practitioner fails to recognise the obvious difference i.e. King and Glitter were tried and convicted, We have not yet had the verdict in the Jackson case.

And Ken Dodd got off, as did Jeffrey Archer (first time round). Juries don't always get things right. Ask that poor man who was released by the Court of Appeal yesterday 25 years after an "unsafe" conviction.

G

__________________________________________________
[QUOTE]Originally posted by graham55:
And Ken Dodd got off, as did Jeffrey Archer (first time round). Juries don't always get things right. Ask that poor man who was released by the Court of Appeal yesterday 25 years after an "unsafe" conviction.
_________________________________________________
I'm confused. You express concern over an unsafe conviction although you seem eager to convict and sentence Jackson before his trial reaches its conclusion.

Malky

I'm tired of this, but let me try to explain one last time.

The evidence presented against Jackson is from witnesses who testified what happened in the past. No FBI agents burst into his bedroom and found him abusing a minor, so it could be nothing else.

That said, witnesses gave first hand (unfortunate phrase) evidence that they had been abused (Jackson's hand in their shorts) or that they had seen Jackson with his hand in a minor's shorts. That was, in essence, the prosecution case.

The defence did not, nor could not, contradict these first hand accounts. That could only have been done if Jackson had taken the stand.

Instead, the defence tried to turn the trial of Jackson into an attack on the character or good faith of each of the witnesses against him.

So, what do we have at the end of all this?

Unless I have misunderstood Jackson's case, it is not denied that over a period of years a pattern is established of him sharing his bed/bedroom with young boys. No worse, after all, than sharing a bed with Bubbles the chimp.

Jackson's defence team asserts that this is all okay, that nothing untoward happened in all those years and that, if any first hand witness says otherwise, he or she is lying, motivated by greed or whatever. Note that these are no more than assertions by Jackson's lawyers - as I noted above, Jackson himself chose not to give evidence.

So I draw conclusions from that. You may draw different conclusions.

In any event, I'll say no more on this site.

Graham

Fine, If he is found guilty, and I agree with you about the likliehood of this, he deserves to be imprisoned for a very long time. Let the due process of law take its course rather than his guilt be established by this forum.