Can you believe it? I don't know what to think. Michael Jackson was the very first cassette tape I bought when I was like 10. What are your thoughts on the verdicts?
Mark
Printable View
Can you believe it? I don't know what to think. Michael Jackson was the very first cassette tape I bought when I was like 10. What are your thoughts on the verdicts?
Mark
Who DIDN'T have Thriller?!?
Good.
I have been given some faith in the US legal system now.
For them to have found him guilty really would have been a crime, i dont like the guy, i think he is weird but, at the same time, being weird isnt a crime.
Plus, all the evidence was circumstantial anyway.
Regards,
Lee
Circumstantial evidence didn't stop the jury from convicting Scott Peterson.
Now he can go back to molesting more young boys. :wacko:
Right and that was about the time my faith in the legal system started dwindling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xstr8guy
Perhaps Peterson should have had Jacko's jury instead, they actually seemed to know a bit about the 'beyond reasonable doubt' aspect of a trial ;)
Regards,
Lee
I don't think MJ will be quite so fortunate if this comes to bat for a 3rd Inning!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xstr8guy
Be it he is or he isn't guilty, MJ needs to keep little boys out of his house and out of his bed.
He has a theme park in his backyard... if he wants to spread smiles, laughter and love (and not little boys legs), let him do it in the theme park, not in his house.
PapaBear
Just look at one of the two books they found when searching his house. It is legal to own and is a depiction of the making of the movie "Lord of the Flies" so don't get freaked out by the link to the Google search results. If you click the second link those are some of the pics from the book. I think they are not appropriate and should be illegal. It is obviuosly soft kore K*porn in my opinion. Why it's legal is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
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.
The problem in this case was the credibility of the accusers mother and the accuser. He may not have done it to this boy, but my gut tells me he's done it with others.
They didn't say he wasn't guilty, just not beyond a reasonable doubt :thumbsup:
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
Did you read my post above and see the pictures one of the books he owns contains? If it wasn't michael jackson.. and was your neighbor, or a guy down the street... who'd been accused before, who sleeps with preteen boys, who owns books with naked preteen boys in them, and who was being accused again.. would you think the same thing, or is michael jacksons public persona in such conflict with the evidence that you can't consolidate the two?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzinerbear
I "think" he is guilty of "previous" child molestation charges. He shouldn't b sharing his bed with children. He built neverland ranch as a bait. I think if the mom of the acusser would of kept her mouth shut during the trial maybe he would of been found guilty. Her past in that JCPenny incident am sure had alot 2 do with it. The jurors have now said they didnt like her at all. She kept snapping fingers at them and making "weird" eye contact. In my opinon he likes to molest children. Why else would you sleep with children? Why is he not with a chick or a grown gay man ? I hope he learns his lesson.
YES I was watching that too how they said they were offended that she was staring at them constantly and snapping her fingers at them. One jurer said when she snapped her fingers at them she thought to herself "Don't you snap your fingers at me lady!" Pretty telling.Quote:
Originally Posted by curiousbunny
People don't sleep with other peoples children. Good parents don't give their children for other adults to sleep with. I can understand wanting to be like a kid again etc etc but my gut, and the evidence, tells me he's guilty.. or is coming close to doing it, and the thing that pushed me over that edge in that direction was seeing the pictures of those naked boys laying together, etc etc that he owned in those books. He was grooming kids if nothing else. No verdict in this case is a good one. It's a sad situation all the way round.
Exactly. if he really loves children in a non-sexual way why doesnt he sleep with his own children? He is a father or so he says. He should focus his attention on his old children. In that one interview he gave abc once he said "it feels good to have someone in bed" that's why he sleep with children. Well sleep with your own ! If I caught him with my nephew in bed id shoot him LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
Squirt,
We own a gun, does that mean we are automatically guilty of murder if we got accused?
Owning something legal or not, does not mean that any person is guilty of a crime until proven so in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now on the other hand, would i like Jackson near any of the kids i know? Not in a million years.
The mother should now be put on trial for wasting MILLIONS of dollars of tax payers money.
Regards,
Lee
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Exactly. I believe in our court sytem. It worked for me, thank God. No public lynching. The key here is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and the moment the mother took the stand and testified.. there was reasonable doubt. When her dubious past came into light.. there was resaonable doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Right... because common sense tells you that you don't want you child around a man that has pictures of naked boys playing and laying together, touching eachother, nore would you want any children you know sleeping with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
They didn't claim Jackson Innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.. they found that there is reasonable doubt he didn't do it.
I think she'll have her hands full with the state welfare system and JC Penny hopefully lol. I know when my case was thrown out I could have sued, and won, against the school district, the psycho who took me to court, and an insurance company.. but I just wanted it done. 9 months worrying about if the system will work, getting evidence, taped depositions, TV interviews etc etc.. you just want to get back to normal period. That's why I initially came to Australia.. to recharge my batteries. I wonder where Michael Jackson will go? What do you think he'll do?Quote:
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 LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
I guess its one rule for us and another for celebs right?
Regards,
Lee
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
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 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? hhmmmmmQuote:
Originally Posted by Lee
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzinerbear
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzinerbear
good call :thumbs: i totally agree.
You're just hyper-sensitive because you've got a kid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirt
dzinerbear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dzinerbear
http://www.theonlinenews.com/thanksfortheinfo.jpg
you could be right ;)
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.
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.
:specs: How can you b so sure ? ::wink:: lolQuote:
Originally Posted by basschick
I wouldn't collect stuff that am not obsessed about or passionate about so watch it ! lol you might b on his list LOL JK