Latest on MJJC

Is it a really good idea for the trial being televised?

marebear

marebear

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
5,594
Points
0
Location
Canada
I am wondering this because I have been watching a little of the Casey Anthony trial. I can't help but thinking about Murray's trial and if I can watch it. Especially when Murray's team will just do everything they can to make Michael look bad.

People say that the public can see the truth but when it comes to Michael people ignore it or think whatever suits them. You know what I mean? I guess I am just nervous about it. I feel kind of in the middle about it and I know it's going to be hard to watch.
 
marebear said:
I am wondering this because I have been watching a little of the Casey Anthony trial. I can't help but thinking about Murray's trial and if I can watch it. Especially when Murray's team will just do everything they can to make Michael look bad.

People say that the public can see the truth but when it comes to Michael people ignore it or think whatever suits them. You know what I mean? I guess I am just nervous about it. I feel kind of in the middle about it and I know it's going to be hard to watch.
Click to expand...

Good question.

Ultimately, I think it is NOT a good idea. I, too, have watched the Casey Anthony trial. Both sides are spinning STORIES, and the truth is somewhere in the middle of that. The JURY will have to decide, and not the media. But, if history repeats, then the press will have a field-day assassinating Michael's character, as will the defense strategy. That is NOT a good thing, and the less of that, the better.

During Michael's trial, the media reports were one-sided, and HORRIFIC! But in the end, and jury decided, and they decided rightly. The damage to Michael by media was incredible, from everything to his personal finances, to "hot air balloons," to "bathing in cow's blood." I fear the same, in the trial to come. That trial wasn't televised. Can you imagine how much WORSE it will be, when this trial IS televised? Character assassination, and selective reporting.

Michael kept a public, and a PRIVATE life. I think that because a jury will decide, the more Michael's private life can remain private, the better it will be. His CHILDREN will have to live through this trial!
 
I understand how you feel as the same thoughts has crossed my mind. The media isn't fair to Michael. It's rare if they are. I feel like Michael is the one going to be on trial and this time he isn't here to defend himself. I know this trial of Murray has to happen. I dread the whole thing.
 
Autumn II;3427264 said:
During Michael's trial, the media reports were one-sided, and HORRIFIC! (...)

That trial wasn't televised. Can you imagine how much WORSE it will be, when this trial IS televised? Character assassination, and selective reporting.
Click to expand...
There wil be some bias and sensationalism, that will be for sure (it would happen the same whether televised or not), but at least this time it won't be so easy for them to be one-sided.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html
"Looking back on the Michael Jackson trial, I see a media out of control. The sheer amount of propaganda, bias, distortion and misinformation is almost beyond comprehension. Reading the court transcripts and comparing them to the newspaper cuttings, the trial that was relayed to us didn't even resemble the trial that was going on inside the courtroom. "

http://mjtpmagazine.presspublisher.us/issue/lasting-impressions/article/interview-with-tom-mesereau
Tom: Well the media are not interested in justice or fairness, they are interested in business, and business to them is revenue and ratings. They love shock value, they love controversy and you have to look at the media with that in mind. To them this is entertainment. It’s not a quest for justice; it’s not a quest for fairness. In their mind it’s strictly entertainment, so they will focus on whatever they think entertains, and that makes themselves profitable.
You have to be very wary of the reports you hear about trials when those reports come through the media. At least in this case people will be able to watch it, as opposed to listening at the end of the day to very shallow, short summaries from the media.
 
Not looking forward to it because I think it will be painful to watch BUT at least we don't just have to listen to the media spin their take on it. We will get to see the truth of the trial.
 
There are both positives and negatives. I can't really tell whether it'll be a blessing or curse right now, until the trial starts :/
 
Now that I have seen the disgusting media's exploitation of the Casey Anthony trial as a
commerical money maker. I have to say NO, I do not want the media to be able to exploit Michael Jackson
ever again.
God bless and protect Kayle Anthony. :angel:
God bless and protect Michael Jackson and his children: Prince, Paris, and Blanket. :angel:
I pray for God's Justice here on Earth.
 
There is good side and bad side. But I want to see Murray's face when he has to prison.
 
Last edited:
CherubimII said:
Now that I have seen the disgusting media's exploitation of the Casey Anthony trial as a
commerical money maker. I have to say NO, I do not want the media to be able to exploit Michael Jackson
ever again.
God bless and protect Kayle Anthony. :angel:
God bless and protect Michael Jackson and his children: Prince, Paris, and Blanket. :angel:
I pray for God's Justice here on Earth.
Click to expand...

That is a VERY good point. We see the trial televised, but we also see the commentary, and especially by Nancy Grace. In the commentary, the "evidence" is twisted and bent to present ONE viewpoint. So, it won't be just the real-time trial that's televised, but endless COMMENTARY and clips from the trial. Edited, designed to present ONE point-of-view.

The Casey Anthony trial is a VERY good example of what will happen.

I can see advantages/disadvantages both ways, but given what's happened with the Anthony trial, I'd vote "no." (not that any of us have a vote. It will be whatever it will be.)
 
The only thing that I won't be able to stand when the Murray trial is televised is watching the verdict being announced and if he for whatever reason gets off easily. I don't think I could handle that. Watching the Casey Anthony verdict reading today made me feel very anxious. But I don't think it being televised will do much harm. I think it helps because now we will see both sides and not just the media's. It will also be painful to watch them essentially put Michael on trial.
 
I agree with all of you. The verdict today in the Anthony case didn't help me when it comes to Murray's trial. It's going to be hard and I don't know how much I will be able top watch to be honest.
 
No. The less media coverage, the better. The last thing we need is those assholes presenting their heavily biased version of the events, as is their custom.

For those of you making comparisons, the Anthony and Murray trial are two completely different things. The prosecution's case for the Anthony trial was predominantly held up by circumstantial evidence and the specific cause of death was never determined. The Murray trial is completely different. The defendant is not a regular citizen, but a doctor, therefore the manner in which they try him will be different and much less tolerant than the trial of a regular, non-medically trained citizen like Casey Anthony.

There really is no reason to be anxious. The evidence in the Murray trial is not circumstantial--it is direct evidence. The fact that Murray injected Michael with the propofol in a home setting is not circumstantial evidence. It is direct evidence of wrongdoing, as propofol is not meant to be used outside a hospital setting, and here we have a doctor injecting his patient with a solution which induces anesthesia when none is necessary.
 
marebear said:
I agree with all of you. The verdict today in the Anthony case didn't help me when it comes to Murray's trial. It's going to be hard and I don't know how much I will be able top watch to be honest.
Click to expand...

Yes, that verdict was very, VERY troubling. What happened was, the defense succeeded in establishing "reasonable doubt," and Casey was acquitted! I watched a lot of the trial, and felt in my heart that she was guilty! She had motive (wanted to be a party-girl, and the two-year-old was holding her back), and there was a "likely" cause of death. "Likely," was not good enough, under the law. She had searched for different murder methods on her computer, but THAT wasn't enough! This is going to be a very, very rough road ahead. . . .
 
Autumn II said:
Yes, that verdict was very, VERY troubling. What happened was, the defense succeeded in establishing "reasonable doubt," and Casey was acquitted! I watched a lot of the trial, and felt in my heart that she was guilty! She had motive (wanted to be a party-girl, and the two-year-old was holding her back), and there was a "likely" cause of death. "Likely," was not good enough, under the law. She had searched for different murder methods on her computer, but THAT wasn't enough! This is going to be a very, very rough road ahead. . . .
Click to expand...

All those things are assumptions and circumstantial evidence, none of them proving how Anthony would have murdered her daughter. Unfortunately, feeling something 'in your heart' is not sufficient evidence for law enforcement to send a person to his death, nor should it ever be. The media skewed the entire Anthony trial to such barbaric extents, it's no wonder people are all up in arms about the verdict. Anthony is indeed a very troubled and strange woman, but the truth of the events is that no one was able to conclusively determine how she would have murdered her child, if indeed she murdered her child at all.

The Murray case is built upon much more than mere circumstantial evidence, and the cause of death is well-known, right down to the substance, and Murray is at the center of it all. This is entirely different from the Anthony case.
 
I think it will be good for it to be televised. There will be spin & most people may only see biased clips - but I think in the long run, it will be better - as long as it is the entire thing.
 
Mikage Souji said:
All those things are assumptions and circumstantial evidence, none of them proving how Anthony would have murdered her daughter. Unfortunately, feeling something 'in your heart' is not sufficient evidence for law enforcement to send a person to his death, nor should it ever be. The media skewed the entire Anthony trial to such barbaric extents, it's no wonder people are all up in arms about the verdict. Anthony is indeed a very troubled and strange woman, but the truth of the events is that no one was able to conclusively determine how she would have murdered her child, if indeed she murdered her child at all.

The Murray case is built upon much more than mere circumstantial evidence, and the cause of death is well-known, right down to the substance, and Murray is at the center of it all. This is entirely different from the Anthony case.
Click to expand...

Yes, all that is true. Under the circumstances, I feel that the jury verdict was CORRECT in the Anthony trial, despite what I think is likely to have happened. And yes, there is far more evidence in the Murray case. It all comes down to the legal definition of "negligence," and "reasonable doubt." In the Anthony case, the defense offered a variety of scenarios to establish reasonable doubt. "Caylee drowned in the pool." "She was murdered by a meter-reader." And so on. The case against Murray is much stronger (and the charges lighter). Juries are mercurial, though. It's not over until it's over.
 
I watched a little coverage of the verdict and that Jane Velez? brought up Michael's name a few times. Implying some people get off because they are celebrity. It is stuff like that will bother me. These people don't care about Michael and probably don't care what happens in the trial. It's like an opportunity to bash Michael some more. I don't think I have the stomach for it this time.
 
smoothlugar said:
There wil be some bias and sensationalism, that will be for sure (it would happen the same whether televised or not), but at least this time it won't be so easy for them to be one-sided.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html
"Looking back on the Michael Jackson trial, I see a media out of control. The sheer amount of propaganda, bias, distortion and misinformation is almost beyond comprehension.
Reading the court transcripts and comparing them to the newspaper cuttings, the trial that was relayed to us didn't even resemble the trial that was going on inside the courtroom
Click to expand...

The above in Bold & Italic is a good way to describe what happened to some of the American people [& The people of other countries fooled by the tabloid media as well.] They were Fool,duped and tricked by The Media...And,Yes,there will always be those people who will remain narrow and/or close minded. This was a time when the media had crossed a fine line with too many other fine lines & news reporting had become and was so very uncertain.. unclear. Sad, Sad what happened to Michael, The Tabloid Media is vultures! Princess Diana and many others got attacked & hunted by this 'media news' all around 95-05. I hope now,I have faith that now days The People know the difference and we owe people such as Michael & Diana major respect for their courage under fire.

:heart:
souldreamer7
 
Autumn II said:
Yes, all that is true. Under the circumstances, I feel that the jury verdict was CORRECT in the Anthony trial, despite what I think is likely to have happened. And yes, there is far more evidence in the Murray case. It all comes down to the legal definition of "negligence," and "reasonable doubt." In the Anthony case, the defense offered a variety of scenarios to establish reasonable doubt. "Caylee drowned in the pool." "She was murdered by a meter-reader." And so on. The case against Murray is much stronger (and the charges lighter). Juries are mercurial, though. It's not over until it's over.
Click to expand...

I don't think the jurors bought that Caylee drowned in the family pool, however, the prosecution had burden of proof and they failed to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Anthony murdered her daughter, more importantly, they did not elaborate on how she would do such a thing. There was no DNA from Anthony on Caylee's duct tape, nor on her body. The methods the prosecution suggested as possible murder scenarios were never proven, etc. Even if the defence's stories are hard to believe, the burden of proof is not upon them since the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and since the prosecution failed to do such a thing, Anthony walks free.

Murray's case is completely different, because the method of death is well-known, and everyone knows he administered the medication and walked away. Once he returned, he failed to take appropriate steps to save his patient's life, instead panicking and attempting to hide evidence, improperly administering CPR, and waiting ages before calling the police. Negligence abundant.
 
marebear said:
I agree with all of you. The verdict today in the Anthony case didn't help me when it comes to Murray's trial. It's going to be hard and I don't know how much I will be able top watch to be honest.
Click to expand...


I have to agree. I became very concerned CA vs. Murray after letting the Anthony verdict sink in. My first thought was, "I hope this isn't the same "justice" served to Michael in a couple months." We just have to pray that the jury keep an open mind, regardless of their opinion of Michael (hate to say it like that). They are kept away from the media. My worry is that the broadcasters on In Session and HLN (Nancy Grace, specifically) will repeatedly bring up the molestation allegations. I have a bad feeling that is going to be brought up in the media again, just so they can remind the world about it. It's not needed but that is what is going to happen.

This trial is about bringing forth justice for Michael Jackson, not condemning him.

marebear said:
I watched a little coverage of the verdict and that Jane Velez? brought up Michael's name a few times. Implying some people get off because they are celebrity. It is stuff like that will bother me. These people don't care about Michael and probably don't care what happens in the trial. It's like an opportunity to bash Michael some more. I don't think I have the stomach for it this time.
Click to expand...

I remember this. She did imply that. I don't think I can deal with that either... :/
 
marebear said:
I watched a little coverage of the verdict and that Jane Velez? brought up Michael's name a few times. Implying some people get off because they are celebrity. It is stuff like that will bother me. These people don't care about Michael and probably don't care what happens in the trial. It's like an opportunity to bash Michael some more. I don't think I have the stomach for it this time.
Click to expand...

How is that "celebrity" thing a refernce to casey anthony? shes not even a real celebrity for crying out loud! God the media are so dumb they need to learn how to think before they speak and constantly refering mj's case to anthony's case is just utter stupidity.
 
I think that trials in general shouldn't be televised. They are serious matters that alter the lives of the two parties; by filming and airing it, it attracts the media circus and trivialises it in many ways.
 
blue_eyed_belle said:
I think that trials in general shouldn't be televised. They are serious matters that alter the lives of the two parties; by filming and airing it, it attracts the media circus and trivialises it in many ways.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.
 
8701girl said:
How is that "celebrity" thing a refernce to casey anthony? shes not even a real celebrity for crying out loud! God the media are so dumb they need to learn how to think before they speak and constantly refering mj's case to anthony's case is just utter stupidity.
Click to expand...

That Jane woman said that Casey Anthony has become a celebrity in a sense and then she brought up Michael's name and said how celebrities get off. It irritates me because i don't know if she was at Michael's trial because she acts like she thinks he got off b/c of who he was. If she is going to report about the Murray trial then she won't be unbiased and they will not be fair and that's not right. They are suppose to be objective and keep their petty comments to themselves.I feel like in general people don't care what happened to Michael. But they should. This was a DOCTOR treating him and I think if this happened to someone they knew and loved they would be outraged. I told my mom what if Murray gets off and she said "oh well" and then I said what if a doctor did that to me and my sister and then she saw it differently. It doesn't matter if you are a celebrity or not a doctor should not have done what Murray did.
 
Jane Velez-Mitchell is an idiot. Casey Anthony is no celebrity. The way the trial/case has been skewed by the media is akin to the distortion celebrity trials undergo, however, that on its own does not make Anthony a celebrity.
 
Jane Valez is an idiot.. Looking like a damn rat.. Michael didn't get off, Michael was innocent and his accusers were liars.. Maybe Jane Valez should talk to Aphrodite Jones about MJ's case, since she is clueless as hell
 
Mikage Souji said:
No. The less media coverage, the better. The last thing we need is those assholes presenting their heavily biased version of the events, as is their custom.

For those of you making comparisons, the Anthony and Murray trial are two completely different things. The prosecution's case for the Anthony trial was predominantly held up by circumstantial evidence and the specific cause of death was never determined. The Murray trial is completely different. The defendant is not a regular citizen, but a doctor, therefore the manner in which they try him will be different and much less tolerant than the trial of a regular, non-medically trained citizen like Casey Anthony.

There really is no reason to be anxious. The evidence in the Murray trial is not circumstantial--it is direct evidence. The fact that Murray injected Michael with the propofol in a home setting is not circumstantial evidence. It is direct evidence of wrongdoing, as propofol is not meant to be used outside a hospital setting, and here we have a doctor injecting his patient with a solution which induces anesthesia when none is necessary.
Click to expand...

Exactly!! there is nothing circumstantial about Murray. He injected MJ with anesthesia and left him alone to chat with his girlfriends. That is a fact. Besides Murray is on tape admitting to what he administered, and there are plenty of witnesses such as the bodyguard, the chef, the cook, MJ's kids and the EMT folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top