Michael Jackson Verdict

[Paul Markham]

To me Jackson is a predator of children. Though not evidence it does start me doubting his motives of befriending children.

He had a very close shave before and bought off the family. Any normal person would of stopped befriending children immediately, to continue lays him open to further doubt and problems. He continued.

Pedophiles do not think they are doing anything wrong. Jackson carried on as before still having children into his house, staying over night and getting way to close to them.

It is totally irrelevant whether the accusers family make money from this, they can become billionaires. The charge is did Jackson abuse the child not how much will the family make from it.

What concerns me is the lack of other people to step forward to corroborate the accuser. But would you step forward if you had been abused?

Jackson’s word against his accusers, Jackson did not take the stand we do not have his word.

[basschick]

paul - first off, the law here requires that any juror with a "reasonable doubt" find him innocent. it's the law.

second, he may be a predator of children, but consider this. this guy is fucking RICH. once he was accused once, it seems only obvious to me that other parents who hope he'll settle out of court are going to jump on that bandwagon to try for some quick cash.

after all, he was accused before, and the parents knew it. why were their kids even with michael jackson? anything is possible, and we'll never really know, but would you send your child to hang without you with an accused ****? would anyone do that who didn't want a paycheck?

i'm not really saying he did or didn't do it - i have no idea. but i see it as at least possible that he did not.

[Squirt]

..., the law here requires that any juror with a "reasonable doubt" find him innocent. it's the law.

Just on that basis he's innocent in the legal sense. The woman pleaded the fifth, was proven BEYOND a reasonable doubt to be a liar in court, therefore, just using pure logic, he's innocent.

When you have a mother of a child that has a history such as hers, you have to think the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. The first place they went wasn't the cops, it was an attorney, and not any attorney, the SAME ONE which got the previous big settlement. Another thing people don't think about here when they say there are so many accusations that are so similar to the other case... they have the same shady attorney.. hello! He could tell them EXACTLY what to say to make it seem like Jackson's done it again.

Because of my court case and what I went through, I'm not at all quick to judge but as far as if Jackson is a child molester in reality, not just in the narrow eyes of the law, yes I think he is. I think he's a **** because after they showed evidence from that book that chronicled Lord of the Flies and I looked it up on the internet to see exactly what they were talking about.. you had to be a serious ****, or an actor in the movie, to want to keep that particular book. He has books of naked boys, he has mostly boys sleep in his bed, and that's not a good combination. Whether he molested this kid is hard to tell from the evidence.

[longboardjim]

from what i've observed as "evidence" i don't see anything other than "unfounded" testimony.
i personally don't feel he did it , but then the law is not founded on feelings so either he had a good defense! , the accusers had a bad offense! , the media "over-sensationalized!" the whole "court-experience" making the truth impossible to see , only time will tell where this goes!
i really don't know what is "sicker!" , that a child may have been assaulted? , or that the public is that "entertained!" by it.
m*chael jackson is not above the law! , but then he is not what i would consider your average citizen.
being flung into "super-stardom" at such a young age and never really having a "childhood" makes him "child-like" and at his age would make him suspect of being guilty.
there are people out there that truly love children and not in a "sexual-sense!" and i do not want to give them the impression that they are doing something wrong.
i have been entertaining the idea of adopting! , however for obvious reasons , i would have to stop my dealings in the "adult-industry" to even be considered as a serious applicant and of course for personal reasons i would not want to raise a child in this climate.
and before i lose my train of thought! , i'm tired , i'm going to bed!

sincerely ~ ..."so jimmy? , can you tell the class what your father does for a living?"...

[HotMaleVideos]

From what I understand, MJ's insurance company settled the '93 case. Suposedly against his wishes. He didn't pay any of it, at least not directly.

This time around, the prosecution wants the jury to believe that MJ molested the kid after the Bashir documentary aired, after the media frenzy began, after the molestation investigation began. Which is a hard pill to swallow.