0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
I'm probably late to this party but the printed info on the MJ FB page is:QuoteDescriptionThis is the official Michael Jackson Facebook page monitored and managed by the Estate of Michael Jackson with support of Sony Music Entertainment. Fans are encouraged to express the memories, join the conversation and express their thoughts and opinions in good taste and in accordance with respect for Michael Jackson and other fans alike. We strive to maintain a friendly atmosphere that is welcoming to all community members. That means keeping conversation on topic and within the scope of Michael Jackson as an entertainer and philanthropist. Profanity, degrading comments, off topic conversations will be removed and users subject to being banned.Monitored n managed by the Estate. So Front=The Estate.The Estate=Branca n McLain.So there's no question, really, that Branca n McLain are in on the hoax.Again, I'm sure this is only news to me because I tend to be slow on stuff like this. I just haven't seen it spelled out as of recent. However, one would think Branca n McLain would have better things to do, being high powered lawyers n all, then to babysit a FB page on a nearly daily basis. Not that it would have to be one of them, per say. Just interesting.Ps. FB has recorded that the page was launched on 12/19/2007.
DescriptionThis is the official Michael Jackson Facebook page monitored and managed by the Estate of Michael Jackson with support of Sony Music Entertainment. Fans are encouraged to express the memories, join the conversation and express their thoughts and opinions in good taste and in accordance with respect for Michael Jackson and other fans alike. We strive to maintain a friendly atmosphere that is welcoming to all community members. That means keeping conversation on topic and within the scope of Michael Jackson as an entertainer and philanthropist. Profanity, degrading comments, off topic conversations will be removed and users subject to being banned.
Interesting Candid Camera video.
From the defense point of view this would have been the ideal get-out-of-jail-free card - you cannot convict my client if the victim and date are mere allegations i.e. not proven. So why did Chernoff not kick up a fuss??
You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginYou are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginYou are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginBut if it was not a real court, not operating under real judicial laws (and was merely an entertainment movie), then WHY the need for the word "alleged"? NO OTHER MOVIE (or TV show) has been found, using the world "alleged"--so why would it be needed in this case, if there was no need to in other court movies?We could perhaps write it off as merely a hoax "clue"; but that seems like a rather shallow explanation, especially since it came at the END of the whole trial--where many clues had already been given, and what was the need to slip in one more clue at the end? Just for fun? And even if one more last minute clue was needed: why would "alleged" be a prime candidate for the final clue? Why not something, anything--other than a LEGAL term, that covers LEGAL situations?? :judge-smiley: ... "NO OTHER MOVIE...other court movies" ...interesting wording there TS. Yes; and interesting also that these words came under the hypothetical situation, which was mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph: "But if it was not a real court ..."So IF it was only a movie, then (and only then) no OTHER movies or court movies use "alleged" in the verdict. There seems to be no valid reason for this anomaly. However, if it was NOT only a movie, then there is a simple explanation for the "alleged"--to keep things legal, since Michael Joseph Jackson was not legally and actually a victim (he was merely an alleged victim).You're right, and I think the movie is one aspect of the trial. Can't footage from a televised trial be used in a movie, without having permission from those who participated in the trial - like witnesses, court people, etc? Because it's already public record. Like in movies where they show televised footage of real world events - like Presidential speeches, interviews, famous people doing stuff, car chases, other court footage from famous trials. There are a number of movies that use actual footage, for whatever reasons.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginYou are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginBut if it was not a real court, not operating under real judicial laws (and was merely an entertainment movie), then WHY the need for the word "alleged"? NO OTHER MOVIE (or TV show) has been found, using the world "alleged"--so why would it be needed in this case, if there was no need to in other court movies?We could perhaps write it off as merely a hoax "clue"; but that seems like a rather shallow explanation, especially since it came at the END of the whole trial--where many clues had already been given, and what was the need to slip in one more clue at the end? Just for fun? And even if one more last minute clue was needed: why would "alleged" be a prime candidate for the final clue? Why not something, anything--other than a LEGAL term, that covers LEGAL situations?? :judge-smiley: ... "NO OTHER MOVIE...other court movies" ...interesting wording there TS. Yes; and interesting also that these words came under the hypothetical situation, which was mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph: "But if it was not a real court ..."So IF it was only a movie, then (and only then) no OTHER movies or court movies use "alleged" in the verdict. There seems to be no valid reason for this anomaly. However, if it was NOT only a movie, then there is a simple explanation for the "alleged"--to keep things legal, since Michael Joseph Jackson was not legally and actually a victim (he was merely an alleged victim).
You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginBut if it was not a real court, not operating under real judicial laws (and was merely an entertainment movie), then WHY the need for the word "alleged"? NO OTHER MOVIE (or TV show) has been found, using the world "alleged"--so why would it be needed in this case, if there was no need to in other court movies?We could perhaps write it off as merely a hoax "clue"; but that seems like a rather shallow explanation, especially since it came at the END of the whole trial--where many clues had already been given, and what was the need to slip in one more clue at the end? Just for fun? And even if one more last minute clue was needed: why would "alleged" be a prime candidate for the final clue? Why not something, anything--other than a LEGAL term, that covers LEGAL situations?? :judge-smiley: ... "NO OTHER MOVIE...other court movies" ...interesting wording there TS.
But if it was not a real court, not operating under real judicial laws (and was merely an entertainment movie), then WHY the need for the word "alleged"? NO OTHER MOVIE (or TV show) has been found, using the world "alleged"--so why would it be needed in this case, if there was no need to in other court movies?We could perhaps write it off as merely a hoax "clue"; but that seems like a rather shallow explanation, especially since it came at the END of the whole trial--where many clues had already been given, and what was the need to slip in one more clue at the end? Just for fun? And even if one more last minute clue was needed: why would "alleged" be a prime candidate for the final clue? Why not something, anything--other than a LEGAL term, that covers LEGAL situations?? :judge-smiley:
... Thanks TS for picking out my post, but I’m curious that though I’ve listed Sony as among the harmful forces towards MJ, it was surely Sony that introduced the sequel to TII, of TIAI where it was discovered the redirect site, and our introduction to you, our guide and friend. In fact Sony could be supporting and involved with the whole hoax, (see Bec's post above) IDK. The issue MJ had in 2002 was over Tommy Mattola, not Sony, as he even said at his 45 birthday party. At 7:30 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login So I’m still not clear on that.
... A valid reason for using the word "alleged" in the verdict when referring to victim and date is a hoax court aspect. It sort of annuls the whole trial, imo.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginYou are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginYou are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginYou are not allowed to view links. Register or LoginBut if it was not a real court, not operating under real judicial laws (and was merely an entertainment movie), then WHY the need for the word "alleged"? NO OTHER MOVIE (or TV show) has been found, using the world "alleged"--so why would it be needed in this case, if there was no need to in other court movies?We could perhaps write it off as merely a hoax "clue"; but that seems like a rather shallow explanation, especially since it came at the END of the whole trial--where many clues had already been given, and what was the need to slip in one more clue at the end? Just for fun? And even if one more last minute clue was needed: why would "alleged" be a prime candidate for the final clue? Why not something, anything--other than a LEGAL term, that covers LEGAL situations?? :judge-smiley: ... "NO OTHER MOVIE...other court movies" ...interesting wording there TS. Yes; and interesting also that these words came under the hypothetical situation, which was mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph: "But if it was not a real court ..."So IF it was only a movie, then (and only then) no OTHER movies or court movies use "alleged" in the verdict. There seems to be no valid reason for this anomaly. However, if it was NOT only a movie, then there is a simple explanation for the "alleged"--to keep things legal, since Michael Joseph Jackson was not legally and actually a victim (he was merely an alleged victim).You're right, and I think the movie is one aspect of the trial. Can't footage from a televised trial be used in a movie, without having permission from those who participated in the trial - like witnesses, court people, etc? Because it's already public record. Like in movies where they show televised footage of real world events - like Presidential speeches, interviews, famous people doing stuff, car chases, other court footage from famous trials. There are a number of movies that use actual footage, for whatever reasons. Not sure if you remember the beginning of this discussion. The original question was whether witnesses, jury, etc, could be used as "actors" in a mere movie (not a sting), if the people themselves did not know that it was fake (like Candid Camera). They may know in advance that it would be televised, but this does not mean that they would know in advance that it was merely entertainment (if indeed that's all it was). Legally, it's almost certain that the "actors" would need to know and agree in advance, not merely know that it would be televised, but also know that it was fake--UNLESS there is a serious sting involved, then that would change everything.P.S. If the sting was only on the media and fans (and public), and not dealing with one or more areas of illegal corruption, then a simple movie would do the job (no need for an FBI sting, no need for "alleged", no need for jury to go down the toilet, etc. Unfortunately, the media telling lies and the fans and public believing the lies is NOT illegal (and therefore a sting on them would not need to have a real legal court involved, etc).
I hope that this is getting clearer, so that we can get back to the question of what went to UCLA.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login... A valid reason for using the word "alleged" in the verdict when referring to victim and date is a hoax court aspect. It sort of annuls the whole trial, imo.More than 100 pages into this thread, it seems that I need to clarify the definitions of hoax court and sting court.Hoax court = entertainment, punk the media and public, etc.Sting court = FBI doing serious investigation into illegal criminal activities, etc.The question on this level is whether the Murray trial was hoax court, or sting court, or both. I have recently stated that it is both (and have indicated the same, all along). However, don't believe it just because I say so; go by the evidence that we have access to. And that evidence includes the usage of the word "alleged" in the verdict. So if it was MERELY a hoax court (not a real court involved, only a rented courtroom and actors for a movie): then there would be no need for the word "alleged" in the verdict (and no need for jury to go down the toilet, and there WOULD be a need for the witnesses and jury to know in advance that they were merely acting in a movie). I hope that this is getting clearer, so that we can get back to the question of what went to UCLA.
Well after reading all these TS_comments posts I have learned something for sure:1- The trial was a HOAX court + STING court because it's clear that FBI was involved investigating criminal activities.2- That there was not a real body most probably a dummy on the stretcher heading to UCLA.3- TS doesn't want to talk about BAM, why? is it still far away? does he want to distract us from BAM in order to get shocked by Michael? :icon_mrgreen: :smiley_abuv: :affraid: