As to all you whining about CA justice; yeah, ok, we let go some who should be in jail but that's better than some parts of the country where innocent people are put to death.

UncleBuck4U: What time is it PDT?

Sheesh.

*reeling*

Maybe he didn't do it, OK?!

You crazy whities....remember something called the
Salem Witch burning? Too quick to pull the trigger.

Chill your paranoid characteristic gene pool and let the truth settle out in due time! Now how about some "W" truth now?

He went thru the trial, people. Thats all you can ask for.

Just because he is excessively weird, does not make him a molester, sorry...

I now give him the benefit of the doubt.

spleef420

Also, Robert Downey Jr. (like Tyson) didged a LOT of drug charges before he finally got put in jail. He goes back decades before his jail time with getting caught with drugs. Pleas bargains, deffered adjutication, etc.

I think Jackson really is innocent. Years and years of investigation should have revealed at least a scrap of evidence showing he's guilty if he actually does molest children. Money doesn't necessarily protect someone; it also attracts lawsuits and Jackson's a very easy mark for a fradulent suit. I don't need to explain the numerous facts indicating this woman's a con artist; everyone's probably familiar with them. If she got a guilty verdict she'd file a civil suit and clean Jackson out (guilty verdicts are admissible evidence in a civil trial and a virtual guarantee the court will find defendant civilly liable). This isn't like O.J. Simpson because there was actual evidence against O.J. Here, the only "evidence" against Jackson is: he's a weirdo who shares his bed with young boys. That shows he has problems, but not that he's a child molestor. Do most child molestors have a fixation with *being* a child? Not that I've ever heard. Most child molestors are adults who like to diddle kids. In contrast, Jackson seems to want to revert to being a child. That's quite possibly a distinct disorder from pedophilia, though the two may be hard for outsiders to distinguish. Regardless, there's no evidence showing he's guilty and in America, that means you're free.

ryantea44:
Your point is well taken, but you should know that nobody was burned at Salem. They were all hanged.

rags
/just the facts

Not to turn this toward politics (but I will):

What's the general feeling amongst those of varied political ideologies in regards to the guilt or non-guilt of MJ?

I can hear the cries of disappointment from thousands of potential prison husbands.

Executive Monkey
I don't need to explain the numerous facts indicating this woman's a con artist; everyone's probably familiar with them.

Could be. But she is hardly the only one to have made the allegations. Remember the LAST case against him that suddenly disapeared after an undislclosed amount of money was paid to the family, at which point they subsequently refused to cooperate with the criminal case? There have been quite a few large money settlements paid out over the years.

This case does not occur in isolation.

Bojangles Paladin: I seem to recall a late night vasaline call with MJ, a small boy in his bedrom and a raging boner.

Dude! Don't say that kind of stuff unless you want a visit from the cops!

Digitalstrange:

would you pay someone $20 Mil in blackmail money if you were not afraid they had something on you? Nah, me either.

How much do you think the legal fees cost? How much is public opinion worth when you're famous?

Once again, I'm not saying he did or didn't do it. I'm just saying that every time there's a hue and cry (as in these two cases), it has stunk to high farking heaven.

A smarter man would quit having unsupervised sleepovers.

slooser: hides in a secret compartment behind the wall of the changing room, diddling himself.

Ya you should know.
/Eh

LincolnLogolas [TotalFark]

Not to turn this toward politics (but I will):

What's the general feeling amongst those of varied political ideologies in regards to the guilt or non-guilt of MJ?
----------

I'm Libertarian. I believe in power of the people, the Constitution, and the presumption of innocence.

I applaud this verdict, as the case was not proven by the government prosecutors.

Those who disagree with the verdict are:
1) republicans
2) racists

Oh wait, those are the same things aren't they?

/flame on

It's like the OJ trial with a nicer glove.

If the rhinestone glove don't fit, you must acquit.

What irony it would be if one of NJ's 'alleged' victims blows Michael's head off one day. Even better if it was the child of one of the 'allegedly' bought off families.

The truth will out.

Rich people hire experts to cherry-pick the jury to get the results they want. More often than not, it works.

(Oprah's boy, "Tell-it-like-it-is-Phil," is one of those guys. They met when he chose her jury for her libel trial.)

LincolnLogolas:

What's the general feeling amongst those of varied political ideologies in regards to the guilt or non-guilt of MJ?


I don't have a clue. What's so obvious - is either explained away by rhetoric, an insistance that not all the facts are evident, or a lack of sympathy for the accuser, I watched the whole trial, and I have no idea how they could have come to that conclusion. People say he is wierd, - he is more than wierd - he is predatory. He builds a palace designed to lure children to him, sleeps with them, courts thier parents with favors. He is not a stupid man. He investigates the people he approaches, before hand. He has paid large cash settlements to the parents of children who have accused him of molesting them, repeatedly. All these things are not speculation - they are fact. Yet, somehow, people seem to think that a 46 year old man sleeping with small boys for a period of months in some cases, does not mean he is doing anything untoward. That he flies these children out of the country, seperates them from their parents, that the children all look alike to an extent, are the same age, same color, same everything makes no difference. That, when these children enter puberty - he disgards them. This is not 'charming' or 'eccentric' behaviour - it is very obviously predatory. But this is explained away. The explanations are so implauseably stupid, they beggar the imagination. He is 'innocent' - the man is a multi millionaire many times over who has been married twice - how is he innocent? It just blows me away. And it proves to me, how incureably gullible and stupid some people are, that its no wonder this guy can operate so openly, and not worry about it so much.

Like I said in an earlier thread - this guy approaches your kid - blow his head off. Its pretty obvious that no one will stop him, and that if you try - he will destroy you in public.

The jury in this case did the right thing (mostly). Given the serious credibility issues of the complainants (rightly or wrongly made by the defense), it would be very hard to say he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If they were not entirely certain, then they could not in good conscience deliver a verdict of guilty.

Which is a shame. Cause he's very likely guilty.

faethe

Yep. Bravo. You said it perfectly.

My goodness - look at all the rabid people in here...

Holy cow, everyone here is so certain he was guilty, we might as well not have even given him a trial. I mean, what's the point? -Everyone- knows he did it, right? That's enough to brand the man a pedophile, appropriate what it's taken him a lifetime to build, and throw him in jail for life, right?

Right?

Highroller48
//$20 says his career is finished, anyway

Sorry to say it, but his carreer was over years ago.

There's a little saying that goes something like this:

"If you hang out in a barbershop, sooner or later you're going to get a haircut"

This POS gets found not guilty. I think it's BS, personally. He's had numerous scrapes with lawsuits for the very same thing. Hopefully this nitwit's spidey sense is going off everytime he's thinking about getting around kids in the future. Unfortunately, he's a molester and this won't be the end of MJ's troubles.

He's guilty all the way and the only way to stop it will be to cut his dick and yams off.

He's a celebrity, I forgot.

BojanglesPaladin:

The jury in this case did the right thing (mostly). Given the serious credibility issues of the complainants (rightly or wrongly made by the defense), it would be very hard to say he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If they were not entirely certain, then they could not in good conscience deliver a verdict of guilty.


Well, and this is why the judge allowed in the prior testimony of persons who sued Michael Jackson, or accepted cash settlements from him. Very obviously, Jackson felt that 20 million dollars (about) was enough to buy off one set of parents. There were other settlements as well. This was all introduced to prove a method of conduct - as is so often the case in pedo cases. Children make extremely shiatty wittnesses - they lie, they get confused, they can't remember things. This is why it is easy to prey on them. And after watching this whole thing unfold - its obvious that its now even easier to prey on them, so long as the predator follows Michael's lead.

I bet that at this moment, Michael Jackson has smeared Vasoline all over himself and is having fun watching a midget spanking a Thomas Sneddon look-alike.

Big Party at the Neverland Ranch tonight. First drink is on Mike.

ryantea44: You crazy whities

Aahh yes. The "If he's black, he couldn't have done it" contingent rings in. News Flash: Michael Jackson isn't black.

QuesoDelicioso
That's enough to brand the man a pedophile, appropriate what it's taken him a lifetime to build, and throw him in jail for life, right?

Nope. It takes a conviction under due process of law.

But at least TRY to remember that while the prosecution did not prove him guilty beyond doubt, the defense came no where near proving him innocent beyond doubt.

To reiterate sans sarcasm: He's not guilty until a jury says he is. If he's as guilty as the consensus here would have him, then the prosecution should have made a slam-dunk case. If they couldn't, then perhaps things aren't as iron clad as you all think.

Not a jacko defender, and I have my doubts as to his innocence, but if you're going to have a justice system then you need to honor its verdicts. Justice For All.

QuesoDelicioso:

So why does this a-hole keep putting himself in the same situation over and over?

Sounds like a compulsion to me.

BojanglesPaladin: Sorry to say it, but his career was over years ago.

They are already planning a tour overseas. Jacko is still immensely popular in certain parts of the world.

one more thing...

never post when stoned

Nabb1

Yeah, that's sad. Bringing up a debate about Bush in threads having absolutely nothing to do with him is also sad. If you did it enough, people might think you were obsessed or something. Not me, though. I would never infer that some people just come here to read offbeat stuff and make snide comments just to distract them from all the other things in life for a few moments of jollity since we must devote all our time to debating our political views.

it's not even so much about being obsessed about bush/iraq or not allowing time to discuss offbeat topic and take a break from that stuff. it's the fact that it's the focus of the media. They know that we love having this shiat shoved in our faces, maybe because it feels good forgetting the, allow me to use a cliche, "acts of terror" that we are ourselves are and have been commiting overseas. Whether or not that's the reason that fox news still does fox news alerts and cnn the same and all the big tv news stations breakign NEWS ALERT - PARIS HILTON GOT farkED ON CAMERA, AND SOMEBODY BOOTLEGGED IT. NOW, IT'S ON THE INTERNET. LET'S ALL LOOK AT THIS WOMAN AND, UM, TALK ABOUT HER. !!!1
It's the tendency that's developed, and the money that reinforces that tendency. I watched the verdict, so did you. So did everybody. Allow me to transition into my daily rant.

I know that by merely typing this here, giving attention to the subject, i'm being logically inconsistent but bear with me.
fark MJ. That's right, and fark his trial too. That's okay if you want to find out you know, is MJ guilty? The man who sang 'thriller'?? But those of you who feel so convicted in your 'opinoin' of whether or not MJ is/was guilty or innocent, fark you especially. I'd open a newspaper and look in the nation/world section, one of the stories in there is bound to be about soldiers and people being killed in iraq, sudan, people are starving in ethiopia. Famine and fatality, not a possible child molestation being pulled off by a celebrity. Does it not strike an odd tone in anyone that one can form an opinoin and debate about it with someone else and that this debate of intuition would replace discussion or recognition of critical worldly events? I know it's not as fun people but the longer we keep turning our heads from this kinda stuff, the longer it's gonna keep going on. It's not so much that you and I are here talking about MJ, it's the fact that everyone has a tendency to be easily distracted and their attention shifted to "issues" or "news" like this. Guilty or innocent, as much as you'd like to think so, you still have no idea about what really happens in MJ's life and you have no idea what the contents of the trial were, the finite detail and testimony and cross ex that went on for what feels like farking years. In conclusion i'm not really mad, becuase let's face it - it is MJ. And damn it i want to know if the same guy who did the moonwalk and the zombie dance in thriller mollested a child. Really it's the media and the almighty $, and how the media really isn't the media anymore because they know we love being entertained by bs like this and paris hilton.

Pokey: Because he's apparently seriously f-d up. But like I said, until the jury says he's guilty, he walks.

BojanglesPaladin: Yep. Bravo. You said it perfectly.


Dude its just obvious. I mean - there is no excuse for this guys behaviour. The only thing I can think of, is that this is so totally bizzare, no one wants to listen to it, which is what he is counting on. Its like in that episode of the X-file where Jesse Ventura and Alex Tribec are both "Men in Black" who drive this monster truck? They tell the guy (Jose Chung) that he can tell anyone anything he wants, and they will never believe him. And hey, they were right.

SherKhan:
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by bread and circuses, distracted, oblivious, pwned.

As if you didn't already rule...you've made an old beatnik very happy.
</golf clap>

AlaJoe

Do I think He did it? Yes. Do I think reasonable doubt was made? Yes. The verdict on the molestation was the right verdict but I think it was unquestionable he was guilty of supplying alcohol to a minor

I did expect him to be found guilty of the lesser offenses on those 2 counts and get a wrist slap fine.

For those so completely convinced Jacko is guilty, put up or shut up. If the evidence is so overwhelming, then you should have no trouble finding some to post here.

Don't come back until you do. Don't worry, we'll wait.


(Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty", one of the founding principles that made America great? Or do you all prefer the French system of "guilty until proven innocent", since that is what you're arguing in favor of. Without evidence, it is unethical and unjust to convict someone, regardless of how much we may dislike him.)

Roxyblonde451

It's like the OJ trial with a nicer glove.

If the rhinestone glove don't fit, you must acquit.

I laughed far harder at that than it probably deserved, thank you.

Dire Bonobo:

For those so completely convinced Jacko is guilty, put up or shut up. If the evidence is so overwhelming, then you should have no trouble finding some to post here.

hey, heres an idea that should entertain your clueless mind. Why don't you tell us how his behaviour indicates that he is innocent?

I'd be beyond impressed if you fair and balanced folks could prove Michael Jackson is a child molester based on what you hear in the news.

QuesoDelicioso:

Pokey: Because he's apparently seriously f-d up. But like I said, until the jury says he's guilty, he walks.


So what will it take of a jury to convict a person who will always continue to do what they do (at least I didn't say do do) over and over again?

As I said in my previous post:

There's a little saying that goes something like this:

"If you hang out in a barbershop, sooner or later you're going to get a haircut"

It'll happen again. I bet my left nut.

insert_witty_remark:

I'd be beyond impressed if you fair and balanced folks could prove Michael Jackson is a child molester based on what you hear in the news.


How about proving he is not a child molester based on his own words in that documentary, and the evidence that would brought out at trial?