The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Sad day in the entertainment world. First Farrah Fawcett. Now Michael Jackson.

It's so strange that he's dead considering he's only 50.

I grew up listening to his music and I know billions of others did as well.

I have a bunch of songs on my iPod and I will play them tomorrow out of respect for him.

Sad sad day.

Just heard.

RIP Michael and Farrah

It has been a rough day for hollywood. RIP to the thriller and the angel.

And Ed McMahon died yesterday.

Wow. Flipped on the TV and... damn... I'm hearing it was a massive heart attack or cardiac failure and the autopsy will be done tomorrow. I'm also hearing about massive prescription abuse, mainly narcotics, although I'm sure there will be broad speculation until some facts are released.

I was never a fan, but I do recognize the significant contributions to the music industry Jackson made and the huge loss suffered today. He'll be missed by billions around the world.

Man, early 80s, it was nothing but Charlie's Angels and Micheal Jackson growing up. This has got to be one of the worst days for the entertainment industry.

I was never allowed to stay up late enough to watch the Ed and Johnny, but EVERYONE knows Ed.

Truly a sad week.

I still have the poster. My mother never let me put it up on the wall, and it's still unwrapped in the sleeve.
As for the other 'entertainer', I'm a father of five. 'nuff said.

tcwest10 wrote:I still have the poster. My mother never let me put it up on the wall, and it's still unwrapped in the sleeve.
As for the other 'entertainer', I'm a father of five. 'nuff said.

Last time I checked, he was never found guilty. In fact, the criminal case was never brought to court because of lack of evidence.

He did some stuff that I wouldn't be comfortable with (hell, my kid wouldn't have been there), but there's no contrete proof that he was a pedofile. If there was, then wouldn't he have done time? From what I remember and what I looked up this morning, sounds like a case of a family wanting to get paid.

Thriller will always be one of my top 5 albums. As for the man, who knows about the things he was accused of. My tendency is to believe that where there's smoke, there's fire, but we'll never know for sure.

If there was, then wouldn't he have done time?

Are you serious?

VetSkinsFan wrote:

tcwest10 wrote:I still have the poster. My mother never let me put it up on the wall, and it's still unwrapped in the sleeve.
As for the other 'entertainer', I'm a father of five. 'nuff said.

Last time I checked, he was never found guilty. In fact, the criminal case was never brought to court because of lack of evidence.

He did some stuff that I wouldn't be comfortable with (hell, my kid wouldn't have been there), but there's no contrete proof that he was a pedofile. If there was, then wouldn't he have done time? From what I remember and what I looked up this morning, sounds like a case of a family wanting to get paid.

I personally find it strange that a man would sleep in the same bed with other peoples children, but I will save that argument for another time. I look at Michael Jackson's death as losing a great entertainer that was adored by millions of people. It is an unfortunate death that many people find shocking.

VetSkinsFan wrote:He did some stuff that I wouldn't be comfortable with (hell, my kid wouldn't have been there), but there's no contrete proof that he was a pedofile. If there was, then wouldn't he have done time? From what I remember and what I looked up this morning, sounds like a case of a family wanting to get paid.

Seriously, if you have the money, you can get away with a lot. Money affords you access to the best defense attorneys (which he had), and also allows you to pay off victim's families. Especially in the case of little children, and statutory rape, often the only evidence that is available is the victim's testimony...and with enough money, you can pay the family enough to keep their kid from talking to the police (along with a strong non-disclosure agreement, of course).

RIP. I'm thankful and loved him as an artist and was ofen concerned for him as a human being.

PulpExposure wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:He did some stuff that I wouldn't be comfortable with (hell, my kid wouldn't have been there), but there's no contrete proof that he was a pedofile. If there was, then wouldn't he have done time? From what I remember and what I looked up this morning, sounds like a case of a family wanting to get paid.

Seriously, if you have the money, you can get away with a lot. Money affords you access to the best defense attorneys (which he had), and also allows you to pay off victim's families. Especially in the case of little children, and statutory rape, often the only evidence that is available is the victim's testimony...and with enough money, you can pay the family enough to keep their kid from talking to the police (along with a strong non-disclosure agreement, of course).

That's all well and true, but we'll never know for sure. As I've stated, I wouldn't have let me child get in that situation in the first place, but that's just me. I guess the only thing we do KNOW is that he was NOT convicted of any child molestation or anything else concerning that child.

Bottom line, by hook or by crook, legally, he's not a child molester. Anything otherwise is speculation.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:He did some stuff that I wouldn't be comfortable with (hell, my kid wouldn't have been there), but there's no contrete proof that he was a pedofile. If there was, then wouldn't he have done time? From what I remember and what I looked up this morning, sounds like a case of a family wanting to get paid.

Seriously, if you have the money, you can get away with a lot. Money affords you access to the best defense attorneys (which he had), and also allows you to pay off victim's families. Especially in the case of little children, and statutory rape, often the only evidence that is available is the victim's testimony...and with enough money, you can pay the family enough to keep their kid from talking to the police (along with a strong non-disclosure agreement, of course).

That's all well and true, but we'll never know for sure. As I've stated, I wouldn't have let me child get in that situation in the first place, but that's just me. I guess the only thing we do KNOW is that he was NOT convicted of any child molestation or anything else concerning that child.

Bottom line, by hook or by crook, legally, he's not a child molester. Anything otherwise is speculation.

Well, to be fair, saying he is not is speculative as well. The absence of a conviction does not convey a lack of guilt. He was pretty clearly engaged in inappropriate relationships with children -- at the very least. I don't buy the "gosh, he just gave -- whoever it was -- $20 million because the pressure was too great" rationalization.

It's still innocent until proven guilty, right? Did I miss something since Obama was elected? I guess NOT GUILTY is waht I'm getting at. I should have been clearer; hI shouldn't have said he didn't do it, but it's clear as day that he wasn't convicted in any court of law of actually DOING it.

Payment in a civil case(which actually settled out of court) and being found guilty in a criminal case are two totally different circumstances. OJ was innocent, but still paid the families of the people he as accused of killing.

VetSkinsFan wrote:It's still innocent until proven guilty, right? Did I miss something since Obama was elected? I guess NOT GUILTY is waht I'm getting at. I should have been clearer; hI shouldn't have said he didn't do it, but it's clear as day that he wasn't convicted in any court of law of actually DOING it.

To be absurd, Hitler was never convicted of anything in a court of law, either.

Seriously, you don't pay a 20 million dollar settlement if you're innocent, Vet.

you don't pay a 20 million dollar settlement if you're innocent, Vet

Bingo.

In all fairness, and not in regard to Jackson's innocence or guilt specifically, but not all celebrities that pay a settlement for a civil law suit to go away are guilty either. That's exactly why some folks motivated by shady lawyers go after celeb's, in that they know the celeb doesn't want bad publicity and will in many cases pay a settlement for the case to just go away. Folks get their money and guess what... they go away, which leads one to believe the money was the initial motivation to begin with. I know that's what a civil suit is all about... but just saying...

SkinsFreak wrote:In all fairness, and not in regard to Jackson's innocence or guilt specifically, but not all celebrities that pay a settlement for a civil law suit to go away are guilty either. That's exactly why some folks motivated by shady lawyers go after celeb's, in that they know the celeb doesn't want bad publicity and will in many cases pay a settlement for the case to just go away. Folks get their money and guess what... they go away, which leads one to believe the money was the initial motivation to begin with. I know that's what a civil suit is all about... but just saying...

Agreed completely. But the magnitude of that particular settlement was enormous.

PulpExposure wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:In all fairness, and not in regard to Jackson's innocence or guilt specifically, but not all celebrities that pay a settlement for a civil law suit to go away are guilty either. That's exactly why some folks motivated by shady lawyers go after celeb's, in that they know the celeb doesn't want bad publicity and will in many cases pay a settlement for the case to just go away. Folks get their money and guess what... they go away, which leads one to believe the money was the initial motivation to begin with. I know that's what a civil suit is all about... but just saying...

Agreed completely. But the magnitude of that particular settlement was enormous.

Oh, I agree. But just to play devils advocate, how much would it have cost him in attorney fees from a drawn out civil suit of basically his word verses their word, and how much would he have lost career wise due to bad press and publicity from slanderous testimony in a drawn out lawsuit, again of his word verses their word? It's a lot of money to you and I, but for someone of his stature and wealth, the attorney fees would be astronomical and the potential loss for the celeb's future career earnings is probably immeasurable. Many times celebs are easy targets for just that reason. Again, just saying...

SkinsFreak wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:In all fairness, and not in regard to Jackson's innocence or guilt specifically, but not all celebrities that pay a settlement for a civil law suit to go away are guilty either. That's exactly why some folks motivated by shady lawyers go after celeb's, in that they know the celeb doesn't want bad publicity and will in many cases pay a settlement for the case to just go away. Folks get their money and guess what... they go away, which leads one to believe the money was the initial motivation to begin with. I know that's what a civil suit is all about... but just saying...

Agreed completely. But the magnitude of that particular settlement was enormous.

Oh, I agree. But just to play devils advocate, how much would it have cost him in attorney fees from a drawn out civil suit of basically his word verses their word, and how much would he have lost career wise due to bad press and publicity from slanderous testimony in a drawn out lawsuit, again of his word verses their word? It's a lot of money to you and I, but for someone of his stature and wealth, the attorney fees would be astronomical and the potential loss for the celeb's future career earnings is probably immeasurable. Many times celebs are easy targets for just that reason. Again, just saying...

Well, remember, that I work as an attorney (and I've worked on a few corporate settlements)...that figure...20 million in 1993, raised serious eyebrows from me. That's in the realm of "there's enough evidence to cause a lot of issues at trial, but we're instead going to pay you off and not admit guilt."

PulpExposure wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:In all fairness, and not in regard to Jackson's innocence or guilt specifically, but not all celebrities that pay a settlement for a civil law suit to go away are guilty either. That's exactly why some folks motivated by shady lawyers go after celeb's, in that they know the celeb doesn't want bad publicity and will in many cases pay a settlement for the case to just go away. Folks get their money and guess what... they go away, which leads one to believe the money was the initial motivation to begin with. I know that's what a civil suit is all about... but just saying...

Agreed completely. But the magnitude of that particular settlement was enormous.

Oh, I agree. But just to play devils advocate, how much would it have cost him in attorney fees from a drawn out civil suit of basically his word verses their word, and how much would he have lost career wise due to bad press and publicity from slanderous testimony in a drawn out lawsuit, again of his word verses their word? It's a lot of money to you and I, but for someone of his stature and wealth, the attorney fees would be astronomical and the potential loss for the celeb's future career earnings is probably immeasurable. Many times celebs are easy targets for just that reason. Again, just saying...

Well, remember, that I work as an attorney (and I've worked on a few corporate settlements)...that figure...20 million in 1993, raised serious eyebrows from me. That's in the realm of "there's enough evidence to cause a lot of issues at trial, but we're instead going to pay you off and not admit guilt."

No, I remembered that you're an attorney and concede that your knowledge and insight in this field far exceeds mine. And I completely understand what you're saying. I was just playing devils advocate and thinking from a celebs perspective, that even if innocent, what's the financial trade off of a settlement verses a long, drawn out, highly publicized court battle, when in many cases, the plaintiff is merely looking for a settlement to begin with? That's why I don't buy that all celebs who pay settlements are, in fact, guilty.

I think it would be a tough decision from the perspective that attorney fees could be astronomical and the potential damage to the future career could be costly as well... meaning if he didn't offer a settlement and went the distance in a long, drawn out trial, would this have ultimately cost him $20 million anyway?

SkinsFreak wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:In all fairness, and not in regard to Jackson's innocence or guilt specifically, but not all celebrities that pay a settlement for a civil law suit to go away are guilty either. That's exactly why some folks motivated by shady lawyers go after celeb's, in that they know the celeb doesn't want bad publicity and will in many cases pay a settlement for the case to just go away. Folks get their money and guess what... they go away, which leads one to believe the money was the initial motivation to begin with. I know that's what a civil suit is all about... but just saying...

Agreed completely. But the magnitude of that particular settlement was enormous.

Oh, I agree. But just to play devils advocate, how much would it have cost him in attorney fees from a drawn out civil suit of basically his word verses their word, and how much would he have lost career wise due to bad press and publicity from slanderous testimony in a drawn out lawsuit, again of his word verses their word? It's a lot of money to you and I, but for someone of his stature and wealth, the attorney fees would be astronomical and the potential loss for the celeb's future career earnings is probably immeasurable. Many times celebs are easy targets for just that reason. Again, just saying...

Well, remember, that I work as an attorney (and I've worked on a few corporate settlements)...that figure...20 million in 1993, raised serious eyebrows from me. That's in the realm of "there's enough evidence to cause a lot of issues at trial, but we're instead going to pay you off and not admit guilt."

No, I remembered that you're an attorney and concede that your knowledge and insight in this field far exceeds mine. And I completely understand what you're saying. I was just playing devils advocate and thinking from a celebs perspective, that even if innocent, what's the financial trade off of a settlement verses a long, drawn out, highly publicized court battle, when in many cases, the plaintiff is merely looking for a settlement to begin with? That's why I don't buy that all celebs who pay settlements are, in fact, guilty.

I think it would be a tough decision from the perspective that attorney fees could be astronomical and the potential damage to the future career could be costly as well... meaning if he didn't offer a settlement and went the distance in a long, drawn out trial, would this have ultimately cost him $20 million anyway?

Yeah, but paying out without refuting the claims in open court has the same effect on the celeb's image in the public eye, so six in one hand, half a dozen in the other. And settling has the added detriment of encouraging other gold-diggers to file similar claims.

^Yep, I'd have to agree with that.