Pete Townshend

The prosecution brought in evidence of child abuse from the early 90s case. None of them remained standing in court, and he was eventually cleared of all charges, which wouldn't have happened if there was strong evidence to prove his guiltyness. Pretty much all of the people brought forward by the prosecution eventually admitted MJ never did anything. he 'appeared' innocent to me and won the case in a unique and complete way. I usually don't care about 'stars', btu I really feel sorry for Mr. Jackson.

Arjen, you are misunderstanding the meaning of "cleared." He wasn't charged in this case with any of those earlier allegations, so he could not be cleared of them. He can only be cleared (found not guilty) of charges in the indictment. The evidence of earlier wrongdoing may have been weak because there was no wrongdoing or that evidence was badly presented. In either case, I agree with you in that evidence did not support this indictment. Nevertheless, if someone came forward with more evidence for those earlier, untried allegations, he certainly could be indicted and go to trial for those allegations, even though they were poorly evidenced this recent case.

As for MJ or Pete T., I have no strong opinion one way or another on either's legal entanglements, as I am not sufficiently informed of the facts. Moreover, I seriously doubt that anyone who has tried to follow either case in the media has a received a balanced view with enough facts to determine reasonably either person's guilt or innocence.

Arjen, I would say your last analysis is just wrong, at least in the US.

Case in point, OJ is found not guilty criminally, but guilty civilly. The burden of proof is different.

In a criminal case the standard of proof is proof beyond all reasonable doubt.

In a civil case the standard is that an allegation is more likely than not.

As a juror in a criminal case, you can be 95% sure the crime was committed exactly as described, but if there is just reasonable doubt, you must return a verdict of not guilty.

Nobody is ever proved innocent in a trial. The prosecution simply fails to make it's case.

Here is a snip from an AP News report:

*********************

Several jurors, including foreman Paul Rodriguez, said Tuesday that based on testimony during the four-month trial they believed Jackson may have molested other children in the past, but not the accuser in the current case.

"It's possible. Again, we couldn't weigh that with this case in particular because we were instructed by the judge that we were to look at ... the evidence that was presented to us just in this case," Rodriguez said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

Two other jurors of the six who appeared on the show raised their hands when asked if they thought Jackson may have molested other children but not the current accuser. "We had our suspicions, but we couldn't judge on that because it wasn't what we were there to do," said Eleanor Cook, a 79-year-old grandmother.

In an interview with The Associated Press, juror Raymond Hultman said he believed Jackson may have molested the two boys who testified during the lengthy trial. One of those witnesses denied being molested by Jackson in his testimony.

*********************

I agree with Greg. It's impossible to make a decision based on what you see and hear in the media. It's almost as bad as the crowds proclaiming his innocence based on listening to his records.

back on topic.

Great player writer and still can rock. Witness Live 8, Pete's guitar work was up there with the best.

As for all the rest of this thread, the problem is the same old one. Misinformation. Unless someone was in the room while Townsend was on his PC, or in the room when Jackson was doing whatever he is supposed to, how can we judge?

Simple, we can't.

But I would say that the misguided belied on here that a Court's decision is somehow above sctrutiny and bound to be correct ("he was found not guilty so it MUST be true!!!") is a load of old tosh.

Does anyone on here really beleive OJ didn't kill his missus? I doubt it. Does anyone on here not read the papers on a daily basis about huge miscarriages of justice.

We don't know, the police don't know, and sure as heck any million dollar defence lawyer will go out of their way to try and make sure that even when the police DO know, the poor old hury are left so dazed and confused that they don't know their own names by the end of most trials.

The Courts are no different to any other body run by us dumb humans. They still make mistakes. Nick is spot on, its about balance of probability. "He probably did it" and "he did it" are totally different.

What i don't like is the way the Jackson trial was turned into a circus. Even by Jackson himself - dancing on top of his van at the start of it all, what the heck's the guy thinking?

But hey........that's showbiz guys.

Over and out on this topic.

Matt

I liked the way your post started off, with the "back on topic", and then you went off topic! :evil: (kidding)

Townshend's leads are becoming much better than they were. the ox used to take the lead lines with his bass, it was pretty crazy, so now Pete says he has much more time for solos and leads, so his playing style is changing a bit. I can't remember where I heard him say this.

Taso

couldn't help but join in the ranting :lol:

Agree, Townsend is a better player now than ever, thought his solo's were great.

All the best

Matt

Tho Who was one of the first power trio's ( drums, bass, guitar) in rock music ( after link Wray and the raymen) so pete had to play rhythm and lead, and support a vocalist too. I don't think it was a matter of him not being able to play lead, a lot of the tunes thay did just didn't call for a lot of lead guitar. he was certanly able to do so :wink: Just listen to the album "Live at Leeds"--the dog

I'll second that, Dog, The Who Live At Leeds was the 2nd live album I ever bought...the first was "Get Yer Ya-ya's Out"...still have both albums somewhere, but I have them on tape and now CD as well...isn't upgrading a pain!!!!

:D :D :D

Vic

The Who wasn't a power trio at all. Entwisle was on bass, Daltrey played guitar, and Townshend played guitar. Moon was on drums. They had a keyboard player (can't remember his name) as well. The keyboard/synthesizer makes up a lot of their songs.

Pete stated that because Entwisle was really taking the leads on the bass, he was confined to rhythm playing.

Dude, I'm pretty shure Daltry never played guitar with the who :? look up power trio in websters rock-n-roll dictionary :lol: :lol: :lol: The who WAS a power trio ( in the sense that they had One guitar , bass and drums) :!: :wink: -the dog

The only time I ever saw Daltrey play guitar was way backin about 73, maybe 74, when he had a hit with "Givin' it all away"...I remember seeing him on Top Of The Pops, which was actually notorious for making musicians re-record their songs so as to sound slightly different from the recorded version...I think only lead vocals were done live...

I have never seen any footage of him playing liveon stage with a guitar.... or even studio footage...

But the tag "power trio" surely can't be applied to a four-piece band?

:D :D :D

Vic

How about the "Someone's missing Quintet"?

or the "Who's that guy trio"?

Afterthought...Daltrey did play two instruments on Who singles...Harmonica and Jew's Harp...both on "join together!" and the only single I can remember him having a hand in writing was "Anyway anyhow anywhere"....

:D :D :D

Vic

OK- :twisted: POWER QUARTET, you happy now :P :lol: :lol: %$#@*&!

But wouldn't power quartet just be your basic rock and roll band with rhythm guitar, lead guitar, bass, and drums?

Maybe it's sort of like the reverse of the usage in the baroque trio sonata. Trio there means 3 instrumental soloists with basso continuo accompaniment . Power trio is three instrumental backers with one vocal soloist

. Power trio is three instrumental backers with one vocal soloist

SEE! I'm not &#@$*&% crazy :twisted: :P :lol: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah--there going to take me away haha :twisted: :twisted: