NationStates Jolt Archive

I understand the jury has passed a verdict, although we don't know what it is yet. All I can say is "Thank GOD" it's all over. Now maybe we can hear something actually ... like ... interesting on the news! I am so friggin' SICK of hearing about some idiot song and dance dweeb's shenanigans I could spit!

I find it interesting. I like seeing the justice system in action - whether it works or not.

P.S. a jury "renders" a verdict (sorry just thought you might want to know)

The only possible verdict is "pervert", although there is probably some sort of official jargon for it.

The only possible verdict is "pervert", although there is probably some sort of official jargon for it.

Yeah, "guilty."

I do hope they find the bugger guilty of something. I really do not think he is innocent though he may not be proven guilty.

man if hes guilty some cons will be licking there chops tonight. :eek:

Maybe he should be clapped in the stocks. And pelted with faeces. Elephant faeces.

I understand the jury has passed a verdict, although we don't know what it is yet. All I can say is "Thank GOD" it's all over. Now maybe we can hear something actually ... like ... interesting on the news! I am so friggin' SICK of hearing about some idiot song and dance dweeb's shenanigans I could spit!
AFAIC, the minimum he should get is be declared Terminally Creepy and be allowed
"No further contact with children of any species from any plane of reality - not even his Home Planet." :p

I am so friggin' SICK of hearing about some idiot song and dance dweeb's shenanigans I could spit!

Yeah, obviously so sick of it that you've started doing such a nice job of ignoring it by starting a thread about it.

Yeah, obviously so sick of it that you've started doing such a nice job of ignoring it by starting a thread about it.
Mee-ow

I understand the jury has passed a verdict, although we don't know what it is yet. All I can say is "Thank GOD" it's all over. Now maybe we can hear something actually ... like ... interesting on the news! I am so friggin' SICK of hearing about some idiot song and dance dweeb's shenanigans I could spit!

At least we didn't get non-stop coverage in the UK...unlike the Hutton report...damn biased lord.

Yeah, obviously so sick of it that you've started doing such a nice job of ignoring it by starting a thread about it.
I took it as, since the end is here (almost) he can finally vent his frustrations about the whole thing.

apparently we get to hear the verdict in about half an hour

man if hes guilty some cons will be licking there chops tonight. :eek:
"Hey there, popstar. Damn, I just dropped my soap. Pick it up, bwoay. Ohhh, f--- yeah..."

Note to self. Do NOT dwell on that image. :eek:

man if hes guilty some cons will be licking there chops tonight. :eek:

He won't be put inside with general population, he will be in solitary or something.

He won't be put inside with general population, he will be in solitary or something.
Is that the American approach to class, then? Rich famous white guy, gets a cell all to himself? :p

Is that the American approach to class, then? Rich famous white guy, gets a cell all to himself? :p

LOL, we just shove them in with the rest, case in point Jeffery Archer :D

The reason Jackon will be alone is "for the saftey of his person and the safe running of the facility"

The reason Jackon will be alone is "for the saftey of his person and the safe running of the facility"
LOL, still a funny thought though, if he was placed in a prison population appropriate to the nature and severity of his crimes, he'd need plastic surgery on his ass.

Of course, I'm totally pre-judging. I should be ashamed of myself. :( The man is innocent. For 20 more minutes. :p

LOL, still a funny thought though, if he was placed in a prison population appropriate to the nature and severity of his crimes, he'd need plastic surgery on his ass.

Of course, I'm totally pre-judging. I should be ashamed of myself. :( The man is innocent. For 20 more minutes. :p

there would either be an orgy or a lynching or both whatever case there will be a riot

Edit: IF he gets convicted

"Hey there, popstar. Damn, I just dropped my soap. Pick it up, bwoay. Ohhh, f--- yeah..."

Note to self. Do NOT dwell on that image. :eek:


That's why they use powdered soap in California prisons-takes longer to pick up.

Too gross - my apologies to all.

Anybody want to set up a last-minute betting pool?

there would either be an orgy or a lynching or both whatever case there will be a riot

Edit: IF he gets convicted
Oh come on, you're taking this thread way too seriously.

America: The only place where a poor, handsome black boy can grow up to be a rich, white woman.

Land of the Free indeed.

He's Guilty.

guilty!

Oh come on, you're taking this thread way too seriously.

What do you want me to say? They can use him as a hand warmer if the shower is cold?

Ewwwwww.

I'm betting on not guilty myself although I would hope it will be guilty.

If he goes to prison, he'll top himself within a year. He will have no money, no freedom and no face.

At least we won't have to listen to his dreary brand of rockpop in clubs and on the radio anymore. BBC Radio 2 are banning him from the airwaves if he is guilty.

I hope he is guilty. I have had enough of this. A few more moments, watching it on NBC right now.

This is what I hate about American media. There is little or no evidence he's guilty, but by putting him in the news he might as well be. Innocent until proven guilty my ass. It is precisely because of this that I would never take in underpriveleged or impovershed children unless I could afford to have someone act in a unbiased supervisory role.

As far as Jackson, people hear "he shared a bedroom with children" and it never occurs to them that his bedroom is bigger than most people's houses (it's two stories).

Edit: I'd like to say that when and if he is found guilty is the moment I will buy that he committed a crime. Right now, very little was shown in the media that suggests his guilt.

not guilty of anything judgement given

What I don't get are those who would "hope" that he is found guilty? Can someone explain to me why you would hope such a thing? If you know for a fact he is guilty then state your evidence. Otherwise why would you hope that someone has had sexual relations with children (if he is found guilty then that is what has happened)? WHy dont you instead hope that he is found innocent and that there was no sexual abuse that occured? Why would you make up your mind without evidence?

Great......I thought they were going to fry him too....

Also, if he is found guilty will this be the last we hear about it? No, of course not - we (well, not me) will be on the edge of our seats to hear what he ate in prison and what book deal he is striking up.

If he is found innocent is this the last we will hear of this child molestation stuff? Nope... so many of you that need to see him found guilty despite what the courts have said will still be saying he bought his way out and there will be appeals and blah blah blah.

Well, he's emotionally unstable, he's gonna have to sell Neverland - he's not gonna be all that much better out of jail.

What I don't get are those who would "hope" that he is found guilty? Can someone explain to me why you would hope such a thing? If you know for a fact he is guilty then state your evidence. Otherwise why would you hope that someone has had sexual relations with children (if he is found guilty then that is what has happened)? WHy dont you instead hope that he is found innocent and that there was no sexual abuse that occured? Why would you make up your mind without evidence?

Yes, exactly.

The answer to your questions is that the American media has already convicted him and why would we want to question the media. To do so is absurd. /sarcasm

Well... sure he's weird as hell, but weird doesn't equate molestor. *shrug*

I think he did it, just look at him. I realize that's not a valid legal argument, but still...

If only creepiness was a crime.

Well, he's emotionally unstable, he's gonna have to sell Neverland - he's not gonna be all that much better out of jail.

hes apparently going to rebuild his career :confused:

YAY!

Not because I give a shit about Jackson but this means that there was (probably) no sexual conduct with the kids and that is surely good news.

I'm glad he was aquitted. I'm not sure whther he did it or not, but I think the prosecution's case wasn't strong enough to convict him. The reason I'm glad he was aquitted is because I think he was given a fair trial, and the prosecution just didn't do their job. Also, he could be innocent.

They just announced that he's not guilty of all ten charges. DAMNIT!!!!!

Count 1: Conspiracy charges
Counts 2-5: Lewd Acts upon a child
Count 6: Attempted lewd acts upon a child
Counts 7-10: Administrating alcoholic distribution to children

All not guilty.

Jackson gonna PARTAY!

Jackson: "Let the molestation begin, babay!"

hes apparently going to rebuild his career :confused:

Ahahahahaha! Wait...you're serious? His No. 1s album flopped. I don't think he has much left, apart from them mad, die hard fans.

All accounts-not guilty.

Just because he is rich, he is left off easily.

Finally over. Now, if we can just get this out of our heads.

hes apparently going to rebuild his career :confused:
That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

The man is finished, washed up, he's no longer a singer, just a spectacle. I believe he recently released an album (a year or two ago). Nobody bought it.

They just announced that he's not guilty of all ten charges. DAMNIT!!!!!

Yay!

(I'm a closet Michael Jackson fan.)

I still say pervert.

Ah well. Better luck next time.

If he is a child molestor, I'm pissed. If he isn't, I don't really care, I'm just glad this damn trial is gonna get the hell out of my media soon! :p

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

The man is finished, washed up, he's no longer a singer, just a spectacle. I believe he recently released an album (a year or two ago). Nobody bought it.

only what I heard on TV

They just announced that he's not guilty of all ten charges. DAMNIT!!!!!


Why "dammit"? did you hope that children had been molested?

YAY!

Not because I give a shit about Jackson but this means that there was (probably) no sexual conduct with the kids and that is surely good news.

That's true, but a 45 year old man sharing a bed with children is not exactly good conduct.

Why "dammit"? did you hope that children had been molested?
Come on, just because he was convicted "not guilty" doesn't mean he's innocent.

All accounts-not guilty.

Just because he is rich, he is left off easily.


Rich people don't get convicted of anything? How did MJ get to the jury? the MJ mafia?

I'm not suprised.


[offtopic] Sorry Cogitation, didn't know links to that site were'nt allowed. It's not a graphic clip...no blood or anything, but .. it is violent.[offtopic]

We don't need two threads on the same trial. iMerge.

[offtopic] Sorry Cogitation, didn't know links to that site were'nt allowed. It's not a graphic clip...no blood or anything, but .. it is violent.[offtopic]I haven't seen the clip yet, so it's still under review.

Further comments about your "Jones" topic should go in "Moderation".

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I despise Michael Jackson, but I wont go against the Jury. This has done nothing positive to his image, and even though he's not guilty he isn't about to become a socially accepted person.

Either way, he's screwed.

Come on, just because he was convicted "not guilty" doesn't mean he's innocent.


lol - yes, being found not guilty means you are innocent. Thats the way it works.

lol - yes, being found not guilty means you are innocent. Thats the way it works.
No, it really doesn't. Verdicts can be bought.

All accounts-not guilty.

Just because he is rich, he is left off easily.

I think it was exactly the opposite. I doubt a twelve people just said let's let him go and molest more children because he's MJ. However, the media did say, hey, this guy had tons of plastic surgery and talks like a small girl, so he must be a child molestor. He's had to hear for years how his efforts to make the lives of sick and dying children a little less bleak make him child molestor. How is that getting left off easily?

What evidence did you see that proves his guilt?

SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- A California jury found pop superstar Michael Jackson not guilty Monday of all charges in his child-molestation trial.

Uber-Confusion/forum sp@mming at its best

lol - yes, being found not guilty means you are innocent. Thats the way it works.Being found "not guilty" means that the court thinks you're innocent. Unfortunately, no human is omniscient, the courts and jury included. So, for all practical purposes, what the court thinks will have to suffice.

I will express no opinion on this case.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

No, it really doesn't. Verdicts can be bought.

Give me a plausible scenario on how MJ bought the jury.

What a waste of time and money, the verdict was a foregone conclusion when you consider the OJ Simpson and Robert Blake cases, American Justice is a complete farce

Give me a plausible scenario on how MJ bought the jury.
I didn't say he did, I was simply saying that it can happen. And what Cogitation said, too! :D

What a waste of time and money, the verdict was a foregone conclusion when you consider the OJ Simpson and Robert Blake cases, American Justice is a complete farce

Don't compare this to OJ unless you can show a mountain of evidence against the man like you can against OJ. I haven't seen any evidence that MJ is guilty of wrongdoing.

Being found "not guilty" means that the court thinks you're innocent. Unfortunately, no human is omniscient, the courts and jury included. So, for all practical purposes, what the court thinks will have to suffice.

I will express no opinion on this case.

Being found not guilty means you are legally innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty. Found not guilty = innocent, as a matter of law.

Whether he is morally or factual without wrongdoing is a different issue, but he is innocent of the crimes of which he was accused.

Rich people don't get convicted of anything? How did MJ get to the jury? the MJ mafia?

No, they never get convicted, if they do, it is a slap on the wrist.

Welcome to America, where your found innocent or guilty based on how much money you have! :D

What a waste of time and money, the verdict was a foregone conclusion when you consider the OJ Simpson and Robert Blake cases, American Justice is a complete farce
Yeah, because a couple of rich people manage to hire high priced lawyers who plant the seeds of doubt in the jury's mind in America, it only happens in America, where impartial civilians get to hear even arguments and can discuss what they think. It's still such a total farce, despite the fact the thousands of criminals are constantly locked up.

Nowhere else are there celebrities, right? When British or French superstars get convicted, it's not like they receive high profile trials where they get off 99% of the time and when they don't it's a slap on the wrist. The justice in the rest of the world is just so fucking perfect, even in countries with kangaroo courts where your fate is sealed.

This America bashing thing is getting old, find a new hobby.

No, I suppose inviting prepubescent boys into your bed is socially acceptable behaviour, they'll make it compulsory over there soon

Being found not guilty means you are legally innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty. Found not guilty = innocent, as a matter of law.

Whether he is morally or factual without wrongdoing is a different issue, but he is innocent of the crimes of which he was accused.
He is legally innocent of the crimes of which he was accused. Sorry, Mr. (Or Ms.) Laywer, but surely even you will admit that the law/government system has its flaws.

EDIT: DAMMIT, I made a gender assumption. Fixed.

Being found "not guilty" means that the court thinks you're innocent. Unfortunately, no human is omniscient, the courts and jury included. So, for all practical purposes, what the court thinks will have to suffice.

I will express no opinion on this case.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

What the law says is what really matters. Sure, innocent people go to jail and guilty people get off and that is horrible in both cases, but anyone who thinks he is guilty now are just blowing smoke out their ass for who knows what personal reason. If you have an unbiased opinion about the case you aren't goign to think he is guilty without evidence. Innocent until proven guilty is how it works so yes he is innocent because he wasn't proven guilty. They should have been able to prove it seeing as how they were all over his house looking for evidence.

No, I suppose inviting prepubescent boys into your bed is socially acceptable behaviour, they'll make it compulsory over there soon
And I guess we're all perverts too, huh?

I think it was exactly the opposite. I doubt a twelve people just said let's let him go and molest more children because he's MJ. However, the media did say, hey, this guy had tons of plastic surgery and talks like a small girl, so he must be a child molestor. He's had to hear for years how his efforts to make the lives of sick and dying children a little less bleak make him child molestor. How is that getting left off easily?

What evidence did you see that proves his guilt?

Well, last case was settled off court so that at least raises suspicsions.

I really don't like/trust the media

Maybe OJ was really innocent

MJ was rich so he could have bought off the jury

Give me proof that beyond a doubt that he was innocent.

I didn't say he did, I was simply saying that it can happen. And what Cogitation said, too! :D


So, in other words you just want to believe that he is guilty?

No, they never get convicted, if they do, it is a slap on the wrist.

LOL.

It is definitely true that the rich are less likely to get convicted and sentenced severely.

That speaks more to how unfair our system is against the poor than anything else.

But rich people definitely have been convicted. Do I really need to go into examples?

Well, last case was settled off court so that at least raises suspicsions.

I really don't like/trust the media

Maybe OJ was really innocent

MJ was rich so he could have bought off the jury

Give me proof that beyond a doubt that he was innocent.

A jury have found him not guilty, all the proof that us normal people need.

Well, last case was settled off court so that at least raises suspicsions.

I really don't like/trust the media

Maybe OJ was really innocent

MJ was rich so he could have bought off the jury

Give me proof that beyond a doubt that he was innocent.

Lack of proof that he was guilty and therefore found innocent of all charges against him. that was easy. Now give me proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was guilty.

So, in other words you just want to believe that he is guilty?
No, I never said that, but I certainly don't want to believe to believe he's not guilty just because the government/law/media tells me to.

Give me proof that beyond a doubt that he was innocent.
Well, actually it works the other way 'round. He's presumed innocent, and someone has to prove him beyond a reasonable doubt guilty.

The whole crux of the matter rests on reasonable doubt, in civil cases in UK the burden of proof is based on the balance of probabilities, I believe on the balance of probabilities he's guilty, but unfortunately reasonable doubt is what is required and expensive lawyers are paid so much because that's what they can find. It's a shame court cases aren't about finding the truth but seeing who has the best legal team

A jury have found him not guilty, all the proof that us normal people need.

Since when is the jury an omniscient force? The members of the jury are human, therefore bribable, able to make mistakes and others.

Right now he could say, "HA HA HA. The jury was wrong.", then he couldn't get arrested, and he would technically be not guilty.

The jury found tons of people not guilty, does that mean that they were all not guilty? This is not Utopia we live in.

Well, actually it works the other way 'round. He's presumed innocent, and someone has to prove him beyond a reasonable doubt guilty.

I like the Canadian system better, where it is my way, if I am wrong, then my 5th grade teacher lied.

No, I never said that, but I certainly don't want to believe to believe he's not guilty just because the government/law/media tells me to.


He's not guilty because a jury of 12 people who actually heard all the evidence unanimously agreed he was not guilty.

That is why we have trials.

No, I never said that, but I certainly don't want to believe to believe he's not guilty just because the government/law/media tells me to.


All I am saying is that you seem to want to believe that he is guilty. I am happy to believe that he is innocent and happy to have the court of law say so because I like the idea that kids didn't get molested.

Lack of proof that he was guilty and therefore found innocent of all charges against him. that was easy. Now give me proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was guilty.

Lack of proof that he was guilty is not good enough.

He's not guilty because a jury of 12 people who actually heard all the evidence unanimously agreed he was not guilty.

That is why we have trials.
12 people can all agree he's not guilty and still be wrong.

I'd just like too say that I dont believe he is a paedophile but he is srioulsly messed up.

YES! He's not guilty!

More importantly, this means we get our media back! At least until something happens with J-Lo.

<snip>
And you condemn him because?

Lack of proof that he was guilty is not good enough.

Thats how the court system works. I'm sure if you were charged with child molestation and the prosecution didn't have evidence that you did anything wrong, you would think that it should be good enough to get you off. (pun not intended)

After the stress of his trial I heard he's taking a holiday, his legal team have advised him not to go to Tampa with the kids

The whole crux of the matter rests on reasonable doubt, in civil cases in UK the burden of proof is based on the balance of probabilities, I believe on the balance of probabilities he's guilty, but unfortunately reasonable doubt is what is required and expensive lawyers are paid so much because that's what they can find. It's a shame court cases aren't about finding the truth but seeing who has the best legal team

I love it when people complain when a defendant can actually afford decent legal representation. :rolleyes:

Most of the time the government has the vast advantage in resources. Do you doubt every conviction?

*snip (my bad)*

EDIT: The standard of proof for civil and criminal cases in the UK and the US are the same. Beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases and preponderance of the evidence in civil cases. It makes perfect sense and is important to civil liberties that the standard be higher in criminal cases.

Since when is the jury an omniscient force? The members of the jury are human, therefore bribable, able to make mistakes and others.

Right now he could say, "HA HA HA. The jury was wrong.", then he couldn't get arrested, and he would technically be not guilty.

The jury found tons of people not guilty, does that mean that they were all not guilty? This is not Utopia we live in.

Bribable? You make it sound like bribing a jury is easy. I suggest you watch too many movies. Now it's not good enough to find MJ guilty with little or no evidence, but now twelve people you've never met must have committed crimes as well. Nice.

Perhaps you or anyone here would like to present any evidence at all that he was guilty. As of yet, no one has. Why do you suspect that is?

I'd put forth that he spent years with numerous child actors, many of whom are well-known for their desire to just about anything for money, *ahem* Emmanual Lewis, Corey Feldman, et al. How many of those actors could have made tons of money from interviews and book deals by announcing that MJ molested them? How many did? If you know anything about molestors it's very likely that if he is a molestor that he molested those actors. Why aren't they coming forward?

*happy to hear that kids were most likely not molested as there was no evidence to the contrary*

have a good day bickering over the verdict MJ haters.

OK, I think we can all agree that the court presumes him innocent, and has failed to find him guilty.

However, equally, we all know he's a perv.

Is this the consensus?

lol - yes, being found not guilty means you are innocent. Thats the way it works.

Actually that is absolutely NOT true. Being found "not guilty" is not the same as being found "innocent" What it means is there was not enough evidence to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Me, I think he's guilty. The jury never got to hear the evidence about all the gay porn he had in his bedroom with young "barely legal" boys. It was thought of as too inflammatory. Bullshit. The jury should of been allowed to hear ALL the evidence and they did not. Nor did they get total access to the cases from 1993 -

I have the same feeling I had when O.J. got off. The American justice system or lack thereof makes me sick!

Since when is the jury an omniscient force? The members of the jury are human, therefore bribable, able to make mistakes and others.

Right now he could say, "HA HA HA. The jury was wrong.", then he couldn't get arrested, and he would technically be not guilty.

The jury found tons of people not guilty, does that mean that they were all not guilty? This is not Utopia we live in.

a jury is never a omniscient force, I never said that it was. But the point is he is not guilty. There is no way he can be found guilty so whats the point in us "we think he is"? We have less evidence than the jury and its not like we are inpartial either. Before this trial most of us already made our decision and we either have been proved right or wrong. End of story really

They should have been able to prove it seeing as how they were all over his house looking for evidence.

All they found were some porno tapes and A LOT of disney shit. This is not to mean that all acts have evidence. What if you said "I fucking hate you, stupid-ass motherfucker" to a cop? He would take you in and you would get charged disregarding that there was no way to prove this (unlss of course it was caught on tape, etc etc) It would be your word against a cops. No question over who carries the authority here, huh?

Let us recall: Child, "can't trust children because they want money and are liars"

MJ: Adult, "adults can't lie because they are the authority and they have money and are the worshipped god for hundreds"

In this situation, the child very may well have been molested but the evidence was destroyed (could be as almost all evidence can) and so Mr. Molestor can go and molest some more because he is obviously careful in covering the whole thing up.

WHEN COMMITTING A CRIME: Most smart criminals destroy all evidence, fingerprints covered with gloves, semen thrown away with the used condom, hair folicals unable to be found thanks to shaved head, etc. Evidence CAN, in fact, be easily gotten rid of in a moment's notice. This is not to say that this is the case here, but it very may well be.

Quilty people have gone free, innocent people have been thrown in jail. All it is is the jury's decision on the matter.

They could have been thinking about throwing MJ in jail, but then thought of al those children and adults who grew up worshipping the man and how crushed they would be the failure of their idol. They could've seen him as a national hero and so didn't want to shed light on an obviously touchy subject.
There are any number of reasons why the jury voted as they did. All we can do is stand back and hope they made the right decision, if it is, great! no children were molested and hurt emotionally, physically, or mentally if its not right, then we will have to wait and see if it happens again. This is all we can do: sit back and hope that the right thing for society was done.

I love it when people complain when a defendant can actually afford decent legal representation. :rolleyes:

Most of the time the government has the vast advantage in resources. Do you doubt every conviction?

And no, in the UK, there is also a presumption of innocence and the standard of proof of guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt.


If you read my post you would have seen I said civil cases which are covered by a different standard which is the balance of probabilities, I agree criminal cases require 'beyond reasonable doubt' I have been involved in enough of them

I like the Canadian system better, where it is my way, if I am wrong, then my 5th grade teacher lied.

appartently, your 5th grade teacher lied.

In Canada, there is a presumption of innocence and guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A defendant is not required to present any evidence -- let alone proof of innocence.

What happens in a criminal trial?
A criminal trial is a particularly serious matter because liberty, as well as the stigma of a criminal conviction, is at stake for the accused. Recognizing this, both common law and the Charter provide appropriate protection. For example, the prosecution must prove that the accused is guilty of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, if any evidence is obtained in violation of the accused’s Charter rights, such as through an unreasonable search and seizure, the judge may refuse to admit the evidence.

In a criminal trial, an accused person cannot be required by the prosecution to give evidence.

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/just/08.html

*happy to hear that kids were most likely not molested as there was no evidence to the contrary*

have a good day bickering over the verdict MJ haters.

agreed

*happy to hear that kids were most likely not molested as there was no evidence to the contrary*

have a good day bickering over the verdict MJ haters.
I don't hate him any more than I hate anyone else. In fact, I love and respect him immensely for his contributions to music.

Lack of proof that he was guilty is not good enough.

I think you killed Nicole Brown Simpson. Prove you didn't otherwise you're going upstate for a very long time. That would be a better system to you?

Well I'm not at all surprised by the verdict.

That's all I've got.

If you read my post you would have seen I said civil cases which are covered by a different standard which is the balance of probabilities, I agree criminal cases require 'beyond reasonable doubt' I have been involved in enough of them

My bad.

I did misread your post.

I do still think it is pathetic that people complain when a defendant has enough resources to match that of the state, but rarely question the convictions every day when the state has the greater resources.

I think you killed Nicole Brown Simpson. Prove you didn't otherwise you're going upstate for a very long time. That would be a better system to you?

Who is Simpson?

First of all I lack knowledge of who she is. Second I have people who can prove that I was at two places the whole day, for the past several years. Third is she even dead if she exists?

12 people can all agree he's not guilty and still be wrong.

Technically, if they agree he is not guilty, he legally is not guilty. Period. Technically, they can't be "wrong."

Theoretically, they can be wrong about whether he committed the acts of which he was accused. Definitely.

Of course, we execute people because 12 people agreed he was guilty. And they could still be wrong.

The jurors heard all the evidence. You haven't. Why do you assume they were wrong?

Now on the why I condemn him, or at least don't trust him. I don't condem him, I just think that if he had little boys, and possibly girls sleeping in his bed with him, and according to the one thing I heard or something, he had around 7 or so locks, then that may be good evidence not to trust him. He had employees who testified against him.

Now tell me honestly, if your neighbor (if you have one) did something like this, would you still think they are innocent?

THINK ABOUT THIS:

The jury could have had any number of reasons for voting him innocent:
They thought it would severely injure American moral for fameous people
They thought it would hurt the children and adults who worship him and his music to the point of a loss of any sort of will to live or trust.
They thought that with a second case, he may stop.
They thought he was actually, truly innocent.
They like his music so wanted him to stay to make more.

We can only sit back and hope they made the correct decision for the good of society and humanity.

Technically, if they agree he is not guilty, he legally is not guilty. Period. Technically, they can't be "wrong."

Theoretically, they can be wrong about whether he committed the acts of which he was accused. Definitely.

Of course, we execute people because 12 people agreed he was guilty. And they could still be wrong.

The jurors heard all the evidence. You haven't. Why do you assume they were wrong?
Yes, I understand that legally, he is not guilty.

I don't assume they were wrong, but I don't assume they were right, either. Why are people assuming I assume Michael Jackson is guilty? I don't. I just don't assume he's not guilty because that's what a bunch of other people say he isn't.

My bad.

I did misread your post.

I do still think it is pathetic that people complain when a defendant has enough resources to match that of the state, but rarely question the convictions every day when the state has the greater resources.

Actually, not knowing where you're from so I'm not sure this is relevant to you, but in my experience in the UK, once a lawyer earns his stripes so to speak he leaves the CPS and becomes a defence lawyer because that's where the money is. You see very few court experienced lawyers prosecuting in the UK. Clients on legal aid get more resources than the government who also will not go to court unless they think they have at least a 95% chance of a conviction in most cases

Actually that is absolutely NOT true. Being found "not guilty" is not the same as being found "innocent" What it means is there was not enough evidence to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

As a matter of law, being found guilty means you are innocent.

It may not mean that you did not commit the acts of which you are accused. It does mean you are innocent of committing the crimes of which you were accused.

Me, I think he's guilty. The jury never got to hear the evidence about all the gay porn he had in his bedroom with young "barely legal" boys. It was thought of as too inflammatory. Bullshit. The jury should of been allowed to hear ALL the evidence and they did not. Nor did they get total access to the cases from 1993 -

Um, the jury was shown rather large quantities of the porn found in Jackson's possession. And a rather great deal of evidence was admitted about his prior bad acts.

In fact, I am sure the jury heard more of both sets of evidence than you have.

They also heard the rest of the evidence of the case.

Have you personally heard any of it?

I have the same feeling I had when O.J. got off. The American justice system or lack thereof makes me sick!

How very special.

Does every conviction make you easily sick?

Do you protest every execution?

Or are you only upset by acquittals in high publicity cases to which you have partial information?

My opinion on this entire subject is a big fat I don't care.

Who is Simpson?

First of all I lack knowledge of who she is. Second I have people who can prove that I was at two places the whole day, for the past several years. Third is she even dead if she exists?

She's dead and she was murdered by knife. For all I know you weren't born when that occurred, but the point is that you shouldn't have to prove you couldn't have done it. They should have to show that you did it. Why would you want innocent people going to jail when you have reason to believe they are not guilty?

Also, I sincerely doubt you can prove where you were for the last seven years, unless you're in prison. Everyone could be found guilty of a crime if the burden of proof is on the innocent.

Just a thought.
Was the verdict "Not Guilty" or "Not Guilty as Charged"?

There is a subtle difference between the two.

Personally I will be glad to see the back end of this free promotion of an ageing no talent. :gundge:

You know what I will put money that he will make a comeback musically

Mesereau did an excellent job leading the defence. I'm delighted that the verdict was not guilty -- though I hope MJ has learnt his lesson now.

Mesereau did an excellent job leading the defence. I'm delighted that the verdict was not guilty -- though I hope MJ has learnt his lesson now.

What lesson is that? If you're happy he was not found guilty, then I'd like to believe it's not because you think he molests children. So what is the lesson? Don't try to make the lives of the sick and dying better by allowing them to play at your amusement park? Don't treat children like children? Would you think anything of it if a bunch of boys camped out in your living room and one of the mothers slept in the same room with them? More importantly, should you? Is our world so sick that we have to be afraid to have healthy interactions with children because some sick pervert might construe it to be sexual or might try to gain from it financially? Seriously, what's the lesson you hope MJ learns?

American Justice is a complete farceone word "Guantanamo"

Leave to you to try and hijack the thread and talk about something completely ridiculous.

the jugicial system of the United Sates of American needs a makeover

NOW!

the jugicial system of the United Sates of American needs a makeover

NOW!
i agree 100%

Just a thought.
Was the verdict "Not Guilty" or "Not Guilty as Charged"?

There is a subtle difference between the two.

Personally I will be glad to see the back end of this free promotion of an ageing no talent. :gundge:
guilty or not guilty are the only options in the US system. there is no "not guilty as charged"

Well, when you figure out what the 'jugicial' system is, let the rest of us know.

As for me:

1. The prosecution presented a bunch of crap that supposedly happened now, but had no proof except from a family with demonstrated tendancies to try to rip off SEVERAL companies and stars.

2. The prosecution tied these CURRENT charges to an extremely unlike sequestration/conspiracy scenario, which was totally idiotic.

3. The 1993 case was brought in to try to convince people that he has a 'record' of these things, but unfortunately he was not BEING TRIED for what happened in 1993.

I think he was innocent of doing anything to this ... family of thieving liars, and that the jury agreed. They were not trying him -- and it was not their PLACE to try him -- for what happened in 1993.

To those of you who dislike America's legal system who are from other countries...please...shut up. Your opinions are based on a very poor understanding of what goes on, and very few of your own countries noses are any better than ours. LOTS of celebrities (Robert Downey Jr, Martha Stewart, Michael Irving, Zha Zha Gabor, etc) have been tried and CONVICTED and spent TIME IN JAIL.

To those of you in America who don't like the outcome, too damn bad. I know most people think he's a child-raping maniac but there is this little thing called innnocent until PROVEN guilty. I didn't hear anyone complaining when cops shot a man 41 times for reaching for his WALLET and then getting off scot-free, or when they dragged and beat two gay people to death and got 5 years, or when lots of other total miscarriages of justice happened. Funny how this only pops up when a BLACK person gets sent up for some ridiculous crap and manages to get off.

You people disgust me.

What lesson is that? If you're happy he was not found guilty, then I'd like to believe it's not because you think he molests children. So what is the lesson? Don't try to make the lives of the sick and dying better by allowing them to play at your amusement park? Don't treat children like children? Would you think anything of it if a bunch of boys camped out in your living room and one of the mothers slept in the same room with them? More importantly, should you? Is our world so sick that we have to be afraid to have healthy interactions with children because some sick pervert might construe it to be sexual or might try to gain from it financially? Seriously, what's the lesson you hope MJ learns?

Seriously. Our world is that sick.

the jugicial system of the United Sates of American needs a makeover

NOW!

what part of it dont you like? the part where he was innocent until proven guilty or the part where the prosecution had to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt? or maybe you dont like him being tried by a jury of his peers?

Well, when you figure out what the 'jugicial' system is, let the rest of us know.

As for me:

1. The prosecution presented a bunch of crap that supposedly happened now, but had no proof except from a family with demonstrated tendancies to try to rip off SEVERAL companies and stars.

2. The prosecution tied these CURRENT charges to an extremely unlike sequestration/conspiracy scenario, which was totally idiotic.

3. The 1993 case was brought in to try to convince people that he has a 'record' of these things, but unfortunately he was not BEING TRIED for what happened in 1993.

I think he was innocent of doing anything to this ... family of thieving liars, and that the jury agreed. They were not trying him -- and it was not their PLACE to try him -- for what happened in 1993.

To those of you who dislike America's legal system who are from other countries...please...shut up. Your opinions are based on a very poor understanding of what goes on, and very few of your own countries noses are any better than ours. LOTS of celebrities (Robert Downey Jr, Martha Stewart, Michael Irving, Zha Zha Gabor, etc) have been tried and CONVICTED and spent TIME IN JAIL.

To those of you in America who don't like the outcome, too damn bad. I know most people think he's a child-raping maniac but there is this little thing called innnocent until PROVEN guilty. I didn't hear anyone complaining when cops shot a man 41 times for reaching for his WALLET and then getting off scot-free, or when they dragged and beat two gay people to death and got 5 years, or when lots of other total miscarriages of justice happened. Funny how this only pops up when a BLACK person gets sent up for some ridiculous crap and manages to get off.

You people disgust me.

Absolutely!

the jugicial system of the United Sates of American needs a makeover

NOW!

your right its too orientated on skin isn't it?


Please take this as it was meant, as a joke

Well, when you figure out what the 'jugicial' system is, let the rest of us know.

As for me:

1. The prosecution presented a bunch of crap that supposedly happened now, but had no proof except from a family with demonstrated tendancies to try to rip off SEVERAL companies and stars.

2. The prosecution tied these CURRENT charges to an extremely unlike sequestration/conspiracy scenario, which was totally idiotic.

3. The 1993 case was brought in to try to convince people that he has a 'record' of these things, but unfortunately he was not BEING TRIED for what happened in 1993.

I think he was innocent of doing anything to this ... family of thieving liars, and that the jury agreed. They were not trying him -- and it was not their PLACE to try him -- for what happened in 1993.

To those of you who dislike America's legal system who are from other countries...please...shut up. Your opinions are based on a very poor understanding of what goes on, and very few of your own countries noses are any better than ours. LOTS of celebrities (Robert Downey Jr, Martha Stewart, Michael Irving, Zha Zha Gabor, etc) have been tried and CONVICTED and spent TIME IN JAIL.

To those of you in America who don't like the outcome, too damn bad. I know most people think he's a child-raping maniac but there is this little thing called innnocent until PROVEN guilty. I didn't hear anyone complaining when cops shot a man 41 times for reaching for his WALLET and then getting off scot-free, or when they dragged and beat two gay people to death and got 5 years, or when lots of other total miscarriages of justice happened. Funny how this only pops up when a BLACK person gets sent up for some ridiculous crap and manages to get off.

You people disgust me.
It has nothing to do with race. I always wonder if a high-profile case has been dealt with properly, I always question authority figures, I always think celebrities are weird, and I never have any problem believing anyone is perverted and/or disturbed enough to commit any crime.

what part of it dont you like? the part where he was innocent until proven guilty or the part where the prosecution had to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt? or maybe you dont like him being tried by a jury of his peers?
maybe i don't like the child molestor getting off, hows that?

Seriously. Our world is that sick.

I agree. And I hope he never learns that lesson.

Well, the man is clearly innocent. This verdict should boost his record sales. No need to be guessing... see him topping the charts again...when...?

maybe i don't like the child molestor getting off, hows that?

He's not a child molester. That's what this verdict means.

maybe i don't like the child molestor getting off, hows that?

But there is hardly any evidence to prove that he is guilty of child molestation. I think people have been repeating that for the last eight pages of this thread. You just need to accept that the jury was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the said crimes.

"Not guilty" was the only right verdict...

maybe i don't like the child molestor getting off, hows that?
so you dont like that the prosecutor had to PROVE it? just being charged is enough for you to toss him in jail?

He's not a child molester. That's what this verdict means.
hey, i'm entitled to my opinion. what happend to freedom of speech?

maybe i don't like the child molestor getting off, hows that?

So you obviously prefer that people be convicted on no evidence, like you've done for MJ. I certainly hope if you are ever falsely accused of a crime with no evidence that the jurors have more of a conscience than you have.

hey, i'm entitled to my opinion. what happend to freedom of speech?

You're entitled to your opinion. We're entitled to think your opinion is unfounded. That's freedom of speech.

hey, i'm entitled to my opinion.

Your opinion isn't worth shit. People are innocent until proven guilty. He is innocent.

what happend to freedom of speech?

What happened to accuracy and judicial security?

hey, i'm entitled to my opinion. what happend to freedom of speech?
You should be able to say your opinions as you may see fit. Is he (MJ) a child molester? According to your laws, NO. Grand opinion that. Keep venting.

So you obviously prefer that people be convicted on no evidence, like you've done for MJ. I certainly hope if you are ever falsely accused of a crime with no evidence that the jurors have more of a conscience than you have.
well i thank you for your concern of my well being

You should be able to say your opinions as you may see fit. Is he (MJ) a child molester? According to your laws, NO. Grand opinion that. Keep venting.
oh i plan to
only as long as you ppl keep responding

The case shouldn't even have gone to court.

Your opinion isn't worth shit.
well at least we agree on one thing...

oh i plan to
only as long as you ppl keep responding
I'm not worried at all. I may not share the view of the jury, but that's the law of the land. Accept it, and let Michael golf with O.J.

I'm not worried at all. I may not share the view of the jury, but that's the law of the land. Accept it, and let Michael golf with O.J.
oh i never said i wouldn't accept it (and i'm glad someone compaired him to OJ, who by the way was convicted in civil court), but that dosen't mean i have to like it

well at least we agree on one thing...

Good of you to realise how silly it is of you to judge without evidence.

Good of you to realise how silly it is of you to judge without evidence.
lol, ur funny :p

Originally Posted by Tirinia
hey, i'm entitled to my opinion. what happend to freedom of speech?



I'll put this bluntly. You're entitled to believe whatever you like, including that bricks are secretly made out of pasta, that clouds are alien ships plotting to take over Angola, and that the moon landing was faked up.

That tends to make people look ... unintellecutally endowed.


Alternatively, you could believe that the white race was superior to all others, that most blacks were ignorant murdering raping savages, that American Indians were godless heathens who deserved to be murdered, and that most non-white races had a lower IQ.

That tends to make people look ... radically bigoted.


You can believe, that, despite the fact that a DA had years of effort and millions of dollars and various evidence, the best he could produce was a farce of an effort that relied on a band of pathetic con grifters and that he got shot down on ALL TEN CHARGES; that MJ is guilty.

Yes, that is your right to believe that.

If you choose to do so, however, please be aware that most people will consider you either unintellecutally endowed or radically bigoted. Or both.

Thanks for playing.

oh i never said i wouldn't accept it (and i'm glad someone compaired him to OJ, who by the way was convicted in civil court), but that dosen't mean i have to like it
I'm glad. You know what I'm saying. Jackson was said to be not guilty. So he must be not guilty, right? We should sit and wait for another Thriller.

Thanks for playing.
welcome

Now watch as the California District Attorney's office now tries to Al Capone Michael Jackson.

(Translation: They'll find a comparatively insignificant charge that's more likely to stick on Jackson and convict him on that technicality.)

The System worked wonders again, I'm astonished you can't see that.

The only possible verdict is "pervert", although there is probably some sort of official jargon for it.

I gotta say that I agree. I find it total bullshit that he has been acquitted.

I'll put this bluntly. You're entitled to believe whatever you like, including that bricks are secretly made out of pasta, that clouds are alien ships plotting to take over Angola, and that the moon landing was faked up.

That tends to make people look ... unintellecutally endowed.


Alternatively, you could believe that the white race was superior to all others, that most blacks were ignorant murdering raping savages, that American Indians were godless heathens who deserved to be murdered, and that most non-white races had a lower IQ.

That tends to make people look ... radically bigoted.


You can believe, that, despite the fact that a DA had years of effort and millions of dollars and various evidence, the best he could produce was a farce of an effort that relied on a band of pathetic con grifters and that he got shot down on ALL TEN CHARGES; that MJ is guilty.

Yes, that is your right to believe that.

If you choose to do so, however, please be aware that most people will consider you either unintellecutally endowed or radically bigoted. Or both.

Thanks for playing.

Though your examples were wonderful and your reasoning sound, you, sir, are a F#@%-tard. There is little to no doubt in my mind that he did it. I'm sorry, but you sound like one of those idiots who stand outside of Neverland Ranch praying for someone who gave children wine in order to make it easierr to touch them.

I think you're missing the point.

I don't particularly care what you think. If you actually think that someone as incoherent and mentally screwed up as Michael Jackson is compentant and crafty enough to cheat the system the way OJ did, then I wonder what mental instution you're writing this from.

I don't think ANY of the charges raised in this case were worth spit. I think that something happened in 1993 (you don't pay off people $25 million dollars if nothing happened) but that isn't what was being tried here, now WAS IT?

I suppose it's alright for you to railroad through some faked up garbage just to get the guy. If he's guilty, there's already a very special place for him and there's no lawyers who can save him from it.

But I don't belive that pack of clowns who testitified in this case, and I have problems believing that if he did it that the state, with all it's effort, couldn't find more evidence.

You can believe what you like.

I'm amazed at this thread.

I understand the strong feelings against pedophilia. I feel them myself. When I first heard the allegations against MJ I was quite sickened. When I heard there was an out of court settlement, I was more sickened. I never had bought any of his music, and vowed to make sure I never did. I turned off his songs, not because he'd know, but because they reminded me of him, and the acts that disturb me so much.

Later, I thought about how much going to trial for pediphilia would hurt his career, regardless of the verdict. Unfortunately for Michael (yeah, we're on first name terms these days, even if he doesn't know it), most of the damage was done. I still don't know if he ever did anything or not, but I do know that the little I heard from the media really wasn't enough for me to decide.

Now, years and years later, my housemate is a psychologist, who used to work at a government sponsored house for youth. I've had lots of discussions with her and, while I'm not a psychologist, I do have a better idea about a lot of things now than I did then. More than that, I trust her opinions, she's always been spot-on when discussing people I *do* know, and most things that's been verifiable has matched her opinions.
It was when we watched the documentary about MJ, the one that has him holding hands and admitting that he shared a bed with the children, that's when I really started thinking that he isn't a pedophile. He's obviously got serious, serious issues about his childhood, which he really hasn't come close to getting over. A large part of the issue for him seems to be that he never had a childhood, and he's really trying to get some sense of a childhood. Heck, honestly who builds a funpark, to help kids? It's a nice thing, really it is. But it's not a...normal thing. It's not, in my opinion, the "best" way to spend the money to help the kids. It's how I'd be likely to spend the money to help the kids, if I was still a kid. If I wanted to act like a kid. When talking about sharing a bed, I got more the sense he meant that in a "sleepover" way. Sleepovers are fun. They aren't sexual.

Adults are sexual. If I said "I had a sleepover with my best friend" you'd assume it's something sexual. If I said "my friend crashed at my place last night" you probably wouldn't. So we see, or hear about, this adult who shares a bed with children. To us, adults sharing a bed means some sort of sexual contact. No wonder we're worried! No wonder there are rumors! Heck, I wouldn't even be surprised if staff saw things like that happening and assumed it was sexual.

Then there's the "weird" factor. MJ is a weird, weird person. Every time I see a new magazine article about him (I avoid them, so it's always something new) I'm surprised at what he's doing, or what's being said. I'm like "Wow, I didn't see that coming". That scares people. It's much more comfortable to think to yourself "I'm not a pedophile, and that guy there is pretty similar to me". It's much harder to think that about someone so weird and wacky. I can't help but think "I don't know what he's doing. He's nuts. He could have done it". This is silly, do we honestly think that we can just point out all the normal people, and be sure that they're not pedophiles? Of course not. Doesn't mean the weird people aren't pedophiles either. But it doesn't mean they ARE.

Then we get this court case. I haven't been following it, but I really haven't heard of any evidence that MJ did anything wrong at all. Other celebrities have stood up and given testimony in his favor. That's a pretty big deal, for people who make their money based on their reputation. They're associating themselves with a potential pedophile, and putting their reputation on the line. I really don't think that many people would be willing to do that, even for a friend, unless they were pretty damn sure that he was innocent.

What it seems to be here is a simple case of someone being weird, and acting child-like. Because of his child-like behavior, he spends time with little children, including admitting to sleepovers. This scares people, as they assume it's sexual, what with him being an adult. If he was 10 years old, nobody would blink twice. He's rich, and a good target to exploit, even assuming that well-meaning people didn't misinterpret what he does and think they're doing a good thing by trying to stop him.

The media loves playing up how weird he is, and the pedophilia angle. It's crazy, he's guilty in the publics eye before he even goes to court. OF COURSE the media makes him look guilty. They want something exciting to say.

And that's why I'm really interested in the people that question the jury, and are upset that "a pedophile goes free". I'm interested in both the strong feelings against pedophilia (which is understandable), but also how they are so strong that you want this guy locked up, before knowing for sure that he did anything (which is less understandable). I'm also interested in how much the media shapes our opinions, and how much we assume he's guilty because he looks weird.

After all that, yes, it's innapropriate for a grown man to share his bed with children. But, really, I've been hearing about him doing that for years. He was talking about it in the documentary. Can't the parents say to the children "don't share a bed with him" if it's inappropriate? I'm sure they do. We don't know what's happened.
It's also inappropriate for me to share a bed with another girl while I'm in a committed relationship. I've done exactly that. Because of the situation, the people, and the trust I have with my girlfriend, I don't consider that particular case to have been inappropriate at all. Yet as a rule of thumb, I'd say it's inappropriate.

*sigh*
Not really sure if I even have a point. I'm just glad he got let off, it shows that the media doesn't yet have complete control over the government and legal system.....yet.

I
Dont
Care
He
Still
Scares
Me

Not guilty? Yeah Right.
I hope his face collapses and he suffocates. What a freak.

Not guilty? Yeah Right.
I hope his face collapses and he suffocates. What a freak.

Yes not guilty. Why do you seem do hate him so?

No! Mj is no way as cleaver as Oj,but his lawyers were,thats just shocking!!,as said above why pay $25,000,000 if your inocent when it would take about $500,000 to prove inoccent.Plus,as far as i can gather,the us system is "without doubt" so if the jury was hung then all charges are off.
No smoke without fire!!
And another thing that pissed me off,when in the UK Gary Glitter was accused of kiddyfideling ALL his songs got droped by the radio,MJ's have been on even more.
I still belive that the state hurried their case and could have proved his guilt with a little more research.
I wonder if his former wife will now do time for prjury as she ,on the rescord,recounter two completely different stories??

Damn, I'm sure a goodly amount of large men at the state pen will be crushed to hear the news. :(

Not guilty? Yeah Right.
I hope his face collapses and he suffocates. What a freak.

But he made Thriller.

Damn, I'm sure a goodly amount of large men at the state pen will be crushed to hear the news. :(
the hand warmers are cancelled then.

I have always thought he was a man who thinks he's a boy. He's a little kid inside. I had doubts about his guilt from the beginning. None of this started until he said in that interview that he slept in the same bed w/the kids. I think several people went "Ka-Ching"... and that's what this is about.

Yeah, he's the weirdest guy on Earth perhaps, but I do think he's innocent.

Though your examples were wonderful and your reasoning sound, you, sir, are a F#@%-tard. There is little to no doubt in my mind that he did it. I'm sorry, but you sound like one of those idiots who stand outside of Neverland Ranch praying for someone who gave children wine in order to make it easierr to touch them.

As I said, I think he's just an eccentric weirdo. HOWEVER, I am saying that based on not having the evidence in front of me. I was so sick of that crap I didn't pay attention, so perhaps my opinion isn't based on enough facts.

I still think he's a weird guy, but I didn't see him as a molester. And I'm not a F*#%TARD! ;)

Michael Jackson's image has been painted as a child molester by the constant media coverage on all the allegations, not to mention the insinuating jokes made by Leno, Letterman and other entertainers.

Whether or not he really did molest any child, he has become an example of the Repetition Propaganda succeeding.

Is that the American approach to class, then? Rich famous white guy, gets a cell all to himself? :p

The dude's black.

like I said before I still think he will come up with a top 40 album in the UK and the US.
and to respond to the "repetition propaganda" He was found innocent right?

The dude's black.


....right. Sure he's black.

I'm sorry, but the average black person's reaction to the verdict was "Great! He got off. He needs to sit his ass down, have a few stiff drinks, and leave the country and stay away from anyone younger than 21 for the next 10 years."

The next time this happens, I for one will simply assume that it's not worth my time even worrying about him. I agree with an earlier poster that he's just weird and not a pedophile...but just as others cannot state with certainty his guilt, I can't state with certainty his INNOCENCE.

Still, I find it a shame that for the money spent on this trial, we could be finding ways to go after pedophile priests.

I can't believe they actually found him not guilty!!

Shows whats wrong w/ the judical system in america!!

It's those damn activist judges!

he did it. I cant believe they let him walk

GOOD! Now I can accuse him of raping my sexxy ass!! I'm rich biatch!

he did it. I cant believe they let him walk
When you're rich and white, you can get away with anything.

If you are going to roam the streets and accuse an innocent man, I'm afraid I'm going to have to molest you.

When you're rich and white, you can get away with anything.

He's not exactly white, I think the closest color would be corpse.

How do you know he did it? Were you there? Did you witness it? Did you attend the court case? Or do you think we should just try people in the media? I can picture it now, you SMS your verdict like when you vote in American Idol with your mobile phones.

He's not exactly white, I think the closest color would be corpse.
I think he is pretty heavily caked with make up. I bet underneath he is translucent like a jellyfish.

I think he is pretty heavily caked with make up. I bet underneath he is translucent like a jellyfish.
Have you ever seen Dr. Phibes, I think that may be him.

I cannot say if he was innocent or guilty without viewing the evidence.

I think he is pretty heavily caked with make up. I bet underneath he is translucent like a jellyfish.

So he's one of the aliens from that Steven King book? That would explain alot. I don't think it was DC batteries though that he was wanting to plug into.:)

They just let him off because hes black, look how they let OJ off.

The case was ludicrous to begin with. It should have never gotten to trial. There was no solid evidence that he did anything wrong.

I cannot say if he was innocent or guilty without viewing the evidence.

First time I've seen a post that I agree with on this subject (not just here, multiple boards are ranting about this issue tonight).

We all know he's guilty, of at least some of the accusations.

However, this is a nice example of circumstantial evidence not being enough to convict someone. Get some real evidence, then try him again. If you cant, well, he either isnt doing it or you arent trying hard enough.

The case was ludicrous to begin with. It should have never gotten to trial. There was no solid evidence that he did anything wrong.
How bout slimy icky gooey evidence?

How bout slimy icky gooey evidence?

How about you kick yourself in the genitals?

If any of you had actually kept up with the trial, you would realize that the case against him was very flimsy. Had this been someone other than Michael Jackson, someone for whom the District Attourney does not have a grudge, there wouldnt have even been a trial. Michael Jackson got off free because the case against him was extremely weak. The entire case hinged on the impeached word of a family with a history of accusing people of abuse then demanding money. The family members who testified often contradicted each other and contradicted their own prior testimony. Even if Michael Jackson did do this, the outcome of this case illustrates only one thing, and it has nothing to do with race or money. It illustrates the boy who cried wolf concept, (had this family not had a history of falsely accusing people of abuse for money, they would have gotten justice the one time they werent lying).

How about you kick yourself in the genitals?
Do you want to Roshambo?

However, this is a nice example of circumstantial evidence not being enough to convict someone. Get some real evidence, then try him again. If you cant, well, he either isnt doing it or you arent trying hard enough.

Sorry, no double jeopardy in the USA. He can’t ever be tried for the same specific crime again, no matter what they find out.

Call up your friends, Michael Jackson got off. Or rather...he didn't get off, that's why he's going free. What a circus.

Don't get me wrong. I love MJ. I think the Moonwalker movie is probably the greatest thing to ever happen to independent film, with (maybe) the exception of Sophie Evans. Anybody that can lean that far forward without breaking what remains of his nose deserves some degree of respect.

For the record: Michael Jackson did it. To all of those kids and more. He did it to me and I'm printing up T-shirts. Don't look now, but he's probably doing it to you.

But really, all this press coverage? For the last ever, I haven't been able to turn to any channel that wasn't MTVH1 (they're one and the same, might as well acknowledge it) without the Jackson Trial being everywhere. I don't care. Social Security is dying, ditto the economy at large. We're at war with virtually everyone that isn't us. North Korea has nuclear weapons. Worse, Bush has "nucular" weapons. There is an ever-widening income gap. Is there not anything more pressing on the collective American mind than whether or not Jackson got a kid drunk and groped him?

Am I the only one who finds it funny that the title says Michael Jackon?

As in, "Bender, are you jacking on in there?".

>.>

Michael Jackson is a good example of what happens when Repetition Propaganda sticks in people's minds.

Let's face it, ever since the first allegations came out, Leno, Letterman, comedians, and Hollywood as a whole has been churning out "Michael Jackson is a pedophile" jokes left and right like they were Knock Knocks for years and years. Add his vitiligo and plastic surgery-damaged face and now most Americans are thoroughly convinced that Michael Jackson has to be a pedophile no matter how many trials prove otherwise.

Don't be suprised if the California District Attorney tries to Al Capone him now, ie come up with a significantly lesser charge than molestation, but a charge that's much more likely to stick for a conviction.

Sorry, no double jeopardy in the USA. He can’t ever be tried for the same specific crime again, no matter what they find out.

I didnt say re-trying him for the same crime. Just being vigilant, looking if he does anything again. If he doesnt do anything again, then its pointless to punish him, even if he did do it before.

guilty or not guilty are the only options in the US system. there is no "not guilty as charged"


Wrong.

I actually had the opportunity to listen to the verdict being read out by the foreman of the jury, on my way home today.

It included the following comment: "not guilty as charged".

This, to me, means not innocent.

I have always thought he was a man who thinks he's a boy. He's a little kid inside. I had doubts about his guilt from the beginning. None of this started until he said in that interview that he slept in the same bed w/the kids. I think several people went "Ka-Ching"... and that's what this is about.

Yeah, he's the weirdest guy on Earth perhaps, but I do think he's innocent.

Yeah. That's pretty much how I feel too.

Wrong.

I actually had the opportunity to listen to the verdict being read out by the foreman of the jury, on my way home today.

It included the following comment: "not guilty as charged".

This, to me, means not innocent.

I'm probably wrong, especially since I'm not American, but I thought 'not guilty as charged' was exactly the same as 'not guilty'.

...

BTW, I recommend the following spoof of The way you make me feel, if you haven't seen it:

http://www.atomfilms.com/af/content/cop_feel

It included the following comment: "not guilty as charged".

This, to me, means not innocent.

Not innocent of what pray tell? As far as the court is concerned, the allegations brought against him in this particular case were false, and thus no guilty verdict.

And the allegations were of child molestation and sexual misconduct were they not?

Too many people let their emotions blind them nowadays. The media isn't much help either since emotion is what sells. Particular when it arouses passion and hatred. Or outrage.

Im happy for Micheal just because your a bit wierd does not mean that you fiddle with kids.

And even if it did one has to question the moral fibre of the mother for letting them stay for as long as they did.

Apparently acting isnt lieing so leave Halle Berry only people!

All I am saying is that you seem to want to believe that he is guilty. I am happy to believe that he is innocent and happy to have the court of law say so because I like the idea that kids didn't get molested.

I was molested when I was 9, I did not lie, the guy who molested me got away with it...people said he was a good guy etc....so tell me why him being 'not guilty' in the eyes of the law makes me not get molested?

Its just foolish to think that a man who thinks its normal to tell people on TV that he thinks it's OK to share a bed with children, has no discernable grip on reality and is surrounded by highly paid 'yes' men too scared to lose the wage to speak up and tell him that he could help children without having them sleep in his room. The question you all need to ask is would you let YOUR kids go to Neverland? I sure as hell wouldn't.

The kid's mom is a criminal for leaving him alone with that mutant. If you're going to rail on our justice system, do it for leaving so many children with unfit parents.

the verdict is in he's innocent

I have always thought he was a man who thinks he's a boy. He's a little kid inside. I had doubts about his guilt from the beginning. None of this started until he said in that interview that he slept in the same bed w/the kids. I think several people went "Ka-Ching"... and that's what this is about.

Yeah, he's the weirdest guy on Earth perhaps, but I do think he's innocent.
My kids don't drink and watch gay porn.
That is not how I define an innocent little kid. He can't have it both ways. If he's a kid inside he shouldn't show interest in adult stuff. If he ain't then he's sleeping with small boys after drinking and watching gay porn. That is just plain wrong in any society (except perhaps todays America).

I can't believe they actually found him not guilty!!

Shows whats wrong w/ the judical system in america!!

Actually, it was obvious, the entire case was built on circumstantial evidence, and testimony from non-credible witnesses. The judicial system is just fine. It operated like it was supposed to.

I can't believe they actually found him not guilty!!

Shows whats wrong w/ the judical system in america!!

AMEN

Do you want to Roshambo?


lol!!!!! :D (sorry)

The case was ludicrous to begin with. It should have never gotten to trial. There was no solid evidence that he did anything wrong.


I agree.

Michael has to be innocent, afterall doesn't every middle-aged man just love sharing their bed with a bunch of pre-teen boys? Pass the Jesus juice. ;)

BTW He was just sharing his love with those children who desperately needed it.

Think of the kids! Or the person who always thinks about kids ...

As people have said - we haven't seen all the evidence, therefore we can never know whether it's true or not. So people should stop saying he DEFINATELY DID/DIDN'T do it.

I think that the mother was under investigation for defrauding the state over child benefit claims, or something similar. In the past they've claimed that they were assaulted by security guards while leaving a store (the guards suspected them of shoplifting :rolleyes: )

Most of the witnesses that did accuse Jackson of having acted very inapproriately with little boys were ex-employees that he had fired after they filed a law suit against him a few years back, so I'd hardly say they were unbiased.

In short: The case was full of holes and insubstantial, the defense team was brilliant in destroying the credability of the family. It would have been criminal to convict him.

Whether he's done it in the past is another story though :rolleyes:

Pick the poll option that best describes your view.

Edit: In the fourth option "Jackon" should be "Jackson"

The trial has left him physically and mentally destroyed.
If you were a music promoter, would you risk spending money on him? Not me.

I didnt say re-trying him for the same crime. Just being vigilant, looking if he does anything again. If he doesnt do anything again, then its pointless to punish him, even if he did do it before.I would hope to hell that a California District Attorney (not to mention the various law enforcement involved) would have something better to do with their time than stalking/harassing Michael Jackson.
...But really, all this press coverage? For the last ever, I haven't been able to turn to any channel that wasn't MTVH1 (they're one and the same, might as well acknowledge it) without the Jackson Trial being everywhere. I don't care. Social Security is dying, ditto the economy at large. We're at war with virtually everyone that isn't us. North Korea has nuclear weapons. Worse, Bush has "nucular" weapons. There is an ever-widening income gap. Is there not anything more pressing on the collective American mind than whether or not Jackson got a kid drunk and groped him?Exactly.

People in other threads seemed convinced that Michael Jackson was guilty, so I decided to put up a little poll on the subject.

Where is "He's guilty because I always thought he was"? :)

Where is "He's guilty because I always thought he was"? :)

In "other".

hes a weirdo and should be shot

Not guilty because the family were assholes, the parents should have been in the dock as much as Jackson.

yes, he's strang, but is it really any wonder? This guy was performing on stage at the age of 5. He didnt really have much of a childhood, being in the Jackson 5 he was always on stage, making records etc.. he never had the chance to sit and play with toys like any other regular kid.

And now he's all growed up and got lots of money, he's reliving his childhood, having his friends to sleep over, building a theme park in his back yard etc.. he's finally having the childhood he lacked as a child.

BHB
xxx

He's innocent because a court of law said he was.

He's innocent because a court of law said he was.

That is correct..

But the lynch mob says something different :sniper:


I would advice him to stay the f*** away from children, for at least 5 years.

He's because a court of law said he was.

AAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

thank you i needed that laugh. as if our court system actually works!! HA! with all those pinkos on the benchs?! they would never send one of their own to jail, NEVER!

AAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

thank you i needed that laugh. as if our court system actually works!! HA! with all those pinkos on the benchs?! they would never send one of their own to jail, NEVER!

Jackson's a pinko? Of course nevermind that it's the jurors that reach a conclusion, not the judge.

it was the "Jackson Distraction," a game to distract people from the truth of what is going on in the world. Sure, Michael Jackson is a weirdo who got children drunk and watched porn with them. I saw a bumper sticker about that saying, Michael Jackson for Pope.

"You've been struck by, you've been hit by a smooth criminal"
" I'm bad, I'm bad, you know it"

hmmmmmm?

we never saw the evidence so we can not make a judgement.

I didnt see much, if any of any existing evidence. From the limited information I saw, he appears to be guilty of at least some of the accusations.
From post verdict remarks be jurors, I'm disgusted that there wasnt more concrete evidence to nail him soundly.

The accusers parents appear to be low-life scum. There should be charges against them as its clear they used their child as bait.

Maybe Michael Jackson will change his ways now and stay away from the absurd behavior that would even allow charges like this to be filed against him in the first place.

US Constituton

Amendment XXVIII

No Star of Sports, Stage, Screen or Television shall be convicted of any crime within the borders of the United States.

This is the way it now is, so we might as well codify it.

just because hes a bit odd dosnt mean hes a pedophile.i think its disgracefull the way so many people were ready to laugh at him.whether he was guilty or not,what happned to innocent untill proven guilty?Hes been cleared of all charges but his reputation is destroyed forever.I hate this attitude people have,that just because their famous theyre fair game for all kinds of insults.this whole michael jackson thing has exposed a very ugly side of human nature---taking pleasure from a successfull person being torn down.Im not a huge fan of his music,and I don't know the details of the charges or the trial but I can safely say i am disgusted at how this mans dignity was crushed

People in other threads seemed convinced that Michael Jackson was guilty, so I decided to put up a little poll on the subject.While not determined Guilty of a particular Statute, The Gloved One is guilty of "casual paedophilia" by his own admission. Any adult male that admits to having young boys (and only young boys) regularly share his bed should be barred by law from having unsupervised contact with any child. Period.

The same would be true for someone who shared his bed with young girls... the key is in the admitted exclusivity and non-mixed genders during "non-sexual bed sharing".

Any parent that allows such unsupervised conduct between a 40 y/o non-parental-relative should be indicted for Child Endangerment.

US Constituton

Amendment XXVIII

No Star of Sports, Stage, Screen or Television shall be convicted of any crime within the borders of the United States.

This is the way it now is, so we might as well codify it.

It's pretty much true (except apparently for Martha Stewart).

My answer is "Other": Michael Jackson is innocent because he's famous, and celebrities can get away with murder.

And sometimes they do... like O.J.

While not determined Guilty of a particular Statute, The Gloved One is guilty of "casual paedophilia" by his own admission. Any adult male that admits to having young boys (and only young boys) regularly share his bed should be barred by law from having unsupervised contact with any child. Period.

The same would be true for someone who shared his bed with young girls... the key is in the admitted exclusivity and non-mixed genders during "non-sexual bed sharing".

Any parent that allows such unsupervised conduct between a 40 y/o non-parental-relative should be indicted for Child Endangerment.
What?so what,a child cant sleep in his parents bed because his dad is over 40?a friend of the family can be as close as a father.the only reason jackson admitted sharing his bed is that he genuinely believed it would not be taken up the wrong way.casual pedophilia?!he admited to hanging around with children,and if you think thats proof of foul play maybe ur the pervert

The fact is the man was sleeping with young boys. He had pictures of naked boys. He was known to be sleeping alone without other people in the room, in bed with some of these boys. Any normal person can have "reasonable doubts" as to Michael Jackson's behavior under those kinds of testimonies!
I mean come on, would you allow your little boy to sleep in a bed with Michael Jackson knowing these things?
The weird mother should never have been allowed to testify because her whole interaction with the court was ludicrous. She couldn't keep her story straight and any normal mother would have immediately protected her son by going straight to the authorities from the beginning, instead she was selling out her child and an embarrisment to the prosecution. Disgusting...
By the way, ever take a look at the history of known pedophiles? They are like serial killers, the majority don't stop. Try looking up on your computer a list of known pedophiles living in your area.

The fact is the man was sleeping with young boys. He had pictures of naked boys. He was known to be sleeping alone without other people in the room, in bed with some of these boys. Any normal person can have "reasonable doubts" as to Michael Jackson's behavior under those kinds of testimonies!
I mean come on, would you allow your little boy to sleep in a bed with Michael Jackson knowing these things?
The weird mother should never have been allowed to testify because her whole interaction with the court was ludicrous. She couldn't keep her story straight and any normal mother would have immediately protected her son by going straight to the authorities from the beginning, instead she was selling out her child and an embarrisment to the prosecution. Disgusting...
this is very true.i totaly agree,there was just cause for investigation,but not for the way he was treated before any judgement was passed,and the way he will continue to be treated.and ur dam right about that woman,im amazed it got this far.whatever about jackson,her motives wer suspect from the very beginning

What?so what,a child cant sleep in his parents bed because his dad is over 40?a friend of the family can be as close as a father.the only reason jackson admitted sharing his bed is that he genuinely believed it would not be taken up the wrong way.casual pedophilia?!he admited to hanging around with children,and if you think thats proof of foul play maybe ur the pervert :headbang:
Note that I said "non-parental relative". The closeness of the "friend" is irrelavant. It is the fact that the contact was unsupervised - and very specifically and intentionally unsupervised (why else have alarms on an internal door in your heavilly guarded house?)

Any other Male in this country that admitted to having "sleepovers" with young non-related children would either be (A) a poster boy for NAMBLA or (B) be "given" a restraining order preventing proximity to children.

MJ gets away with it because his Career has somehow given him a pass on the sociatal rules that we mere mortals must obey. :mad:

Mind if I say... who gives a shit... So he's not guilty, and I need to care why? Basically he was found not guilty because of lack of evidence... he's ruined so or so and his famous times are over anyway. I mean look at him, he's just a shadow of his former self.

:headbang:
Note that I said "non-parental relative". The closeness of the "friend" is irrelavant. It is the fact that the contact was unsupervised - and very specifically and intentionally unsupervised (why else have alarms on an internal door in your heavilly guarded house?)

Any other Male in this country that admitted to having "sleepovers" with young non-related children would either be (A) a poster boy for NAMBLA or (B) be "given" a restraining order preventing proximity to children.

MJ gets away with it because his Career has somehow given him a pass on the sociatal rules that we mere mortals must obey. :mad:
yeah i see wher ur comin from,but what i mean is that none of that is PROOF of anything.sory about the "maybe ur the perv"thing i got a bit carried away!Anyway whether jackson is an innocent victim or an evil bastard,he hasnt gotten away with it.everyones gonna think of him as "that child molester".the fact that he was brought to court is all people will remember.i think thats nearly as bad as the jail sentence.ur rite about celebrities getn special treatment,but they fall a lot farther and harder as well

i dont know if people keep trying to make money off him or he really is taking advantage of little kids, but he looks plain weird.

AAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

thank you i needed that laugh. as if our court system actually works!! HA! with all those pinkos on the benchs?! they would never send one of their own to jail, NEVER!
AAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
You think the USA is pinko?
:D

I mean come on, would you allow your little boy to sleep in a bed with Michael Jackson.the answer is no.
Also...I would never allow my little boy to sleep in a bed with you BrillantWoman...heck i dont even know if you are a "woman".

_____________________________________________________
and to save us some back and for debate:


Really, you would let your kid sleep overnight in his bed? Really?WL, I would never ever let my kids sleep in YOUR bed...(if i had kids)

but that does not make you a Child molester...does it?If you were sleeping...*snipyou are not answering my question ...spinBoy :DThat's because your question...My question is:
I would never ever allow my kids to sleep in your bed...does that makes you a Child Molester?

since you do not want to answer...i will.

No, it does not make you a Child Molester...

I would never allow my Child to stay overnight at your place or at Jacko's (or any strager s bed)...its called common sense.

I'm just surprised that NAMBLA and the ACLU weren't side-by-side defending MJ for his "right" to sleep with little boys.

just because hes a bit odd dosnt mean hes a pedophile...WTF.."a bit odd"? thats a big understatement... :gundge:

the guy is weird beyond belief...Jacko the wacko I call him...

but No...it does not make him a Child Molester.

WTF.."a biy odd"? thats a big understatement... :gundge:
Agreed.

the guy is weird beyond belief...Jacko the wacko I call him...

Everyone else calls him Wacko Jacko.

Innocent.. He's still a child in the head.

But not one that would molest children.

I was wondering what everyone thought about the recent verdict in the Michael Jackson trail. Personally I think the entire jury was made up of fuck'n RETARDS!!!!!!!!!! :mp5:

They were called to serve. You were not. You did not hear what they heard. You heard what they did not. You have no right to call them "fuck'n RETARDS" because you disagree with them.

I was wondering what everyone thought about the recent verdict in the Michael Jackson trail. Personally I think the entire jury was made up of fuck'n RETARDS!!!!!!!!!! :mp5:

I think the jury in this and other major public cases gets extensively briefed on massive quantities of evidence over the course of days or weeks that people commenting in threads like this don't have the first clue about beyond what they managed to absorb in the couple minutes they flipped through CourtTV and heard som talking head spouting off about the latest ratings grabber... and that such people should probably reserve judgement on the matter.

I think the jury in this and other major public cases gets extensively briefed on massive quantities of evidence over the course of days or weeks that people commenting in threads like this don't have the first clue about beyond what they managed to absorb in the couple minutes they flipped through CourtTV and heard som talking head spouting off about the latest ratings grabber... and that such people should probably reserve judgement on the matter.

Amen.

The trial was 14-weeks long. The jury heard 3 and 1/2 months of evidence and argument.

They deliberated for seven days.

All 12 agreed.

They may have been wrong, but they deserve a bit of respect. They know far, far more about the case than any of the nattering nabobs that are questioning the verdict.

(Note: I've made clear I don't like Jackson. I thought he would be found guilty. But -- like the rest of you -- I have no personal knowledge of his guilt or of the vast majority (let alone all) of the evidence. I have no tolerance for rape and child molestation. But I respect our system of justice. I respect the judgment of the 12 people that actually heard all the evidence and decided the case.)

I'm just surprised that NAMBLA and the ACLU weren't side-by-side defending MJ for his "right" to sleep with little boys.

Boy, lying slurs about the ACLU sure are funny. :rolleyes: