WOW Michael Jackson Is found Not Guilty on ALL counts

**Lee** · 06-13-2005, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by Squirt

Of course not.. that's obsurd. That's like saying owning a knife means you're automatically guilty of stabbing someone to death if accused. :wacko:

Yet at the same time, you are saying bcause Jackson owns a book that has several images of children in it he must be guilty LOL

I guess its one rule for us and another for celebs right?

Regards,

Lee

GLBTcity · 06-13-2005, 09:58 PM

It goes without saying, but what the heck!!!

This is the same judicial system that has put innocent men and women behind bars. And years later find out that they "were innocent".

Again, the same judicial system that found MJ innocent.

The judicial system is FAR from perfect as history has proven.

Take a block of Swiss Cheese, shoot some more holes in it, and it's still just a block of Swiss Cheese.

PapaBear

Dzinerbear · 06-13-2005, 09:59 PM

How many adults do you know put up amusement parks in their own backyard, have so much plastic surgery done to themselves that they change completely what they look like (right down to their race) and all of the other fucked up things that he's done.

Anyway, in the end it doesn't really matter because the jury didn't feel they had enough evidence to offer up a conviction. They heard it all, we didn't.

dzinerbear

**Squirt** · 06-13-2005, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by Lee

Yet at the same time, you are saying bcause Jackson owns a book that has several images of children in it he must be guilty LOL

I never said that. Why are you twisting what I've said? And it's not a book with images of children.. it's two books with homoerotic images of naked boys laying together, legs spread etc etc. Did you even see for yourself the books he owns with the links I provided? hhmmmmm

I said "It's when I saw the photos from that book I realized he had an affinity for naked boys and that these alligations, coupled with him sleeping with boys, coupled with him owning photos of naked boys, coupled with past alligations, means he's guilty. "

Being found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean he didn't do anything, it means they couldn't give them enough evidence to convict him.

I know you're just trying to get a charge out of me but at least do it logically LOL

**Squirt** · 06-13-2005, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by Dzinerbear

How many adults do you know put up amusement parks in their own backyard, have so much plastic surgery done to themselves that they change completely what they look like (right down to their race) and all of the other fucked up things that he's done.

Anyway, in the end it doesn't really matter because the jury didn't feel they had enough evidence to offer up a conviction. They heard it all, we didn't.

dzinerbear

I agree. I WANTED Jackson to be innocent. I believed he was innocent until proven guilty.. but when I looked up those two books.. and saw the images myself, that's when my gut feeling changed.

I think the legal system worked in that there was a lot of reasonable doubt. They should find him innocent because of the lack of credibility with most witnesses involved on the prosecutions side. Almost everyone had lost a suite with Jackson and this was their revenge. But again it's when I saw the homoerotic photos of naked boys from that book that I realized he had an affinity for naked boys and that these alligations, coupled with him sleeping with boys, coupled with him owning photos of naked boys, coupled with past alligations, means he's guilty, it just hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. :thumbsup:

AJ. · 06-13-2005, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Dzinerbear

I don't think Michael Jackson's a *********, I don't think he had sex with those kids. I think he's a fucked up adult who is some way thinks he still a kid or at the very least doesn't view himself as an adult.

dzinerbear

good call :thumbs: i totally agree.

Dzinerbear · 06-14-2005, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by Squirt

But again it's when I saw the homoerotic photos of naked boys from that book that I realized he had an affinity for naked boys and that these alligations, coupled with him sleeping with boys, coupled with him owning photos of naked boys, coupled with past alligations, means he's guilty, it just hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. :thumbsup:

You're just hyper-sensitive because you've got a kid.
dzinerbear

**Squirt** · 06-14-2005, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by Dzinerbear

You're just hyper-sensitive because you've got a kid.
dzinerbear

you could be right

Sana Chan · 06-14-2005, 09:50 AM

Woah...I'm gone for 2 weeks and much happens.

I must say I was torn on the issue. Yeah the guys a wierdo, I may be a former fan but he's still weird. I've always wondered how he's been able to cope with stardom since the age of 5.

But, the legal system did its job. They found doubt so they couldn't convict him. Frankly, I wasn't too impressed with the background of the mother in this case.

**basschick** · 06-14-2005, 10:07 AM

we worked with a drummer who collects books about serial killers - with pics. that didn't make him a serial killer.

we will never know whether michael jackson is guilty or not - because we weren't there, and because there was no real evidence. it's a good thing our legal system includes reasonable doubt, or i think all celebs would be found guilty of everything. i've noticed that when a celeb is on trial, everyone i know believes they are guilty - even though when a non-celeb is on trial, many people i know believe them innocent. i don't get that...

maybe he built that amusement park because he DOES like to look at young boys, but that doesn't mean he's schtupping them. as i recall, he built a lot of that stuff back when he didn't have anyone visiting him at all. i think his original plan was to build himself the childhood he missed. what he does with it now, none of us really know.