If it was any of us were even "accused" of what he has been we would more than likely be behind bars right now, especially if the press had got hold of the story.
Just goes to show its the green that gets the celebrity off.
I didn't follow it but thought that he would get off from the start. I blame the parents for putting their kid in the situation in the first place. I still don't know how anyone can be on a jury for such a long time. I have had jury duty 5 times with the longest trial being 2 weeks. Asking a group of people to change their lives for several months to listen to this is wrong. The justice system has to change. The grand juries need to throw out suits that are not strong enough to have a reasonable chance of conviction. The right to have your day in court is one thing, to stay there several months is another.
If it was any of us were even "accused" of what he has been we would more than likely be behind bars right now, especially if the press had got hold of the story.
Just goes to show its the green that gets the celebrity off.
j.
This is true, though I blame our criminal justice system rather than money for this. That said, this was all about cfharacter and Michael Jackson is hella creepy... if this thing weren't so blatantly contrived no amount of money would've saved his ass.
Maybe he'll settle down and get married, have a kid... oh yeah. Already tried that. And I didn't intent any double entendre there. I meant fathering a child! Jeez... what were you guys thinking!!!?
i was going to say.. didnt he have a kid at one point/still does??? thought he tried marriage once also
Personally I thought he was up shit creek, but I guess with MJ's stature the jury wanted to see a photo of a kids cock in his mouth before they'd convict him.
Personally I thought he was up shit creek, but I guess with MJ's stature the jury wanted to see a photo of a kids cock in his mouth before they'd convict him.
everyone knows that he mulested childrend, or prolly did.. however, there wasnt really any "hard core" evidence for him to be convicted... despite the fact everyone knows he did... so.. thats where he got let loose.. there wasnt any supstantial evidence.. as the fellow that the quote is from pointed out...
Actually, I think many juries (including this one) would have convicted him given the rather shocking testimony of the boy. Only problem, part of it was fantasy, part of it was so unlikely that it was almost impossible to be true, and the rest of it was overshadowed by that crazy mother of his. So even though the kid sounded credible on his own, there was no evidence to back his claims up, and lots of evidence to refute them. So, as far as i can tell, not guilty is not only the 'correct' verdict, but also the just verdict in this case.
please tell us all, on what basis do you think that 'he probably did do all those things'? Because he's been accused?
Because a kid with a crazy lying money grabbing mother made an accusation? (I'm not talking about the MJ case here, but her divorce and claim against the department store).
Why is it so difficult to believe that a jury listened to the eveidence, weighed it up, and decided that there was nothing to prove beyond all resonable doubt?
And please, this case has zero to do with OJ. OJ got off primarily because the police planted evidence to make sure a guy they knew to be guilty would be convicted. And frankly, I'd prefer a guilty man to go free than for police to think that it's OK to plant evidence if they are sure of a man's guilt.
MJ is a loon, no doubt. From what I have read about his childhood, his 'marriages', his children, it seems to me s*x is just not on his radar screen. As such, I can believe him when he says he just sleeps, and doesn't touch. Several people testified to that effect.
"...Personally I thought he was up shit creek, but I guess with MJ's stature the jury wanted to see a photo of a kids cock in his mouth [or vice versa] before they'd convict him.
MJ is a loon, no doubt. From what I have read about his childhood, his 'marriages', his children, it seems to me s*x is just not on his radar screen. As such, I can believe him when he says he just sleeps, and doesn't touch. Several people testified to that effect.
......
mmm well the truth is out there, but certainly MJ has a different set of ethics than most of us. edit: he probably has a very different concept of sex than most of us...
well, at one time, gays and lesbians were thought to have a psychological pathology, and needed to be treated for it... \
please tell us all, on what basis do you think that 'he probably did do all those things'? Because he's been accused?
Because a kid with a crazy lying money grabbing mother made an accusation?
Nope.
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
Why is it so difficult to believe that a jury listened to the eveidence, weighed it up, and decided that there was nothing to prove beyond all resonable doubt?
This is obviously what happened. But it doesn't also mean (as some erroneously think/state) that it means he has been "proven innocent".
Well...there was a lot of circumstantial evidence (the abundance of pornography in his home for one) and he's admitted sleeping with (some) boys in his bed. Also, he'd been accused in the past and settled (for a VERY large some of money..$25M I think) out of court. These things combined fit into the "if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck" category to me. No "smoking gun" so to speak. But enough to raise some eyebrows.
Additionally just because "mom" lied about somethings and may have tried to extort some $ from him doesn't necessarily mean there is no truth at all to the accusations.
Quote:
Originally posted by iMac David
PS in the eyes of the law he has been proven innocent - I don't think there's a verdict of 'possibly guilty but we're not sure so we'll let him off'.
He has been found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is subtly different...true he cannot be charged again with this same crime. But it also may only mean that the prosecutors did a poor job proving the case (perhaps because of poor evidence and witnesses). In other words, it only means he wasn't proven guilty...not that actually isn't guilty. He may very well be.
Ya know, the thing is (considering the American justice system), if he had been a black man he would have got life or the chair!
sorry, couldn't resist...
...but on a serious note, does anyone not consider it strange that MJ only allowed BOYS to stay overnight? As I recall, not one girl/female (besides his "wives", which is also questionable) has shared his bed. Why the preference? Does this not convey a sense that something is not quite right here?
In other words, it only means he wasn't proven guilty...not that actually isn't guilty. He may very well be.
I guess you're right, but in the same way in the eyes of the law you weren't proven guilty of shooting Kennedy, but you very well may be.
I realize the guy engages in some twisted activities, but on the other hand he has been hanging around with young boys - and chimps since the early 80ies. Somehow I have the feeling people are more eager to take offence since his popularity started to diminish. Besides, of all the boys he spent the night with, only two were at this trial to confront him. A repressed memory case from 1990 who got a big paycheck in '93, and today's accuser. All others refused to testify or testified in favor of him. Even the current boy said nothing happened until the very last week at Neverland, at the most unlikely of times given the circumstances. I don't know, maybe I have too much fate in people.
I guess you're right, but in the same way in the eyes of the law you weren't proven guilty of shooting Kennedy, but you very well may be.
You are quite right. Of course there isn't much in the way of evidence to even suggest such a thing. For one, I have never been to Dallas, TX in my entire life...which didn't begin until 1968.
I'm not saying that he DID...I just THINK there is a better than 50% chance (from everything I can see). Maybe he is the naive, unwitting victim of nefarious do-badders. At the very least he ought to be convicted of stupidity for putting himself into an accusable position (sleeping with young boys? C'mon!) Of course the parents here deserve a smack upside the head too.
Comments
If it was any of us were even "accused" of what he has been we would more than likely be behind bars right now, especially if the press had got hold of the story.
Just goes to show its the green that gets the celebrity off.
j.
reg
Originally posted by johnrp
TRAVE$$$$$$$$$$$$TY
If it was any of us were even "accused" of what he has been we would more than likely be behind bars right now, especially if the press had got hold of the story.
Just goes to show its the green that gets the celebrity off.
j.
This is true, though I blame our criminal justice system rather than money for this. That said, this was all about cfharacter and Michael Jackson is hella creepy... if this thing weren't so blatantly contrived no amount of money would've saved his ass.
Originally posted by Omega
Celebrity fight with Iron Mike Tyson?
there ya god
Originally posted by tonton
Maybe he'll settle down and get married, have a kid... oh yeah. Already tried that. And I didn't intent any double entendre there. I meant fathering a child! Jeez... what were you guys thinking!!!?
i was going to say.. didnt he have a kid at one point/still does??? thought he tried marriage once also
Personally I thought he was up shit creek, but I guess with MJ's stature the jury wanted to see a photo of a kids cock in his mouth before they'd convict him.
Originally posted by AquaMac
I can't believe anyone would let MJ sleep with there child in the first place.
yea, but this is the US.. and theres a lot of crud that happens here...
Originally posted by Xool
"That's just ignorance... ignorance..."
Personally I thought he was up shit creek, but I guess with MJ's stature the jury wanted to see a photo of a kids cock in his mouth before they'd convict him.
everyone knows that he mulested childrend, or prolly did.. however, there wasnt really any "hard core" evidence for him to be convicted... despite the fact everyone knows he did... so.. thats where he got let loose.. there wasnt any supstantial evidence.. as the fellow that the quote is from pointed out...
please tell us all, on what basis do you think that 'he probably did do all those things'? Because he's been accused?
Because a kid with a crazy lying money grabbing mother made an accusation? (I'm not talking about the MJ case here, but her divorce and claim against the department store).
Why is it so difficult to believe that a jury listened to the eveidence, weighed it up, and decided that there was nothing to prove beyond all resonable doubt?
And please, this case has zero to do with OJ. OJ got off primarily because the police planted evidence to make sure a guy they knew to be guilty would be convicted. And frankly, I'd prefer a guilty man to go free than for police to think that it's OK to plant evidence if they are sure of a man's guilt.
MJ is a loon, no doubt. From what I have read about his childhood, his 'marriages', his children, it seems to me s*x is just not on his radar screen. As such, I can believe him when he says he just sleeps, and doesn't touch. Several people testified to that effect.
And to think I'm not even particularly a fan!
David
Originally posted by Xool
"...Personally I thought he was up shit creek, but I guess with MJ's stature the jury wanted to see a photo of a kids cock in his mouth [or vice versa] before they'd convict him.
Originally posted by iMac David
......
MJ is a loon, no doubt. From what I have read about his childhood, his 'marriages', his children, it seems to me s*x is just not on his radar screen. As such, I can believe him when he says he just sleeps, and doesn't touch. Several people testified to that effect.
......
mmm well the truth is out there, but certainly MJ has a different set of ethics than most of us. edit: he probably has a very different concept of sex than most of us...
well, at one time, gays and lesbians were thought to have a psychological pathology, and needed to be treated for it...
Originally posted by iMac David
Chris C
please tell us all, on what basis do you think that 'he probably did do all those things'? Because he's been accused?
Because a kid with a crazy lying money grabbing mother made an accusation?
Nope.
Originally posted by iMac David
Why is it so difficult to believe that a jury listened to the eveidence, weighed it up, and decided that there was nothing to prove beyond all resonable doubt?
This is obviously what happened. But it doesn't also mean (as some erroneously think/state) that it means he has been "proven innocent".
My guess was wrong - you don't think that "he probably did it" because he accused MJ.
So why do you think he he is guilty?
Regards,
David
PS in the eyes of the law he has been proven innocent - I don't think there's a verdict of 'possibly guilty but we're not sure so we'll let him off'.
Originally posted by iMac David
So why do you think he he is guilty?
Well...there was a lot of circumstantial evidence (the abundance of pornography in his home for one) and he's admitted sleeping with (some) boys in his bed. Also, he'd been accused in the past and settled (for a VERY large some of money..$25M I think) out of court. These things combined fit into the "if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck" category to me. No "smoking gun" so to speak. But enough to raise some eyebrows.
Additionally just because "mom" lied about somethings and may have tried to extort some $ from him doesn't necessarily mean there is no truth at all to the accusations.
Originally posted by iMac David
PS in the eyes of the law he has been proven innocent - I don't think there's a verdict of 'possibly guilty but we're not sure so we'll let him off'.
He has been found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is subtly different...true he cannot be charged again with this same crime. But it also may only mean that the prosecutors did a poor job proving the case (perhaps because of poor evidence and witnesses). In other words, it only means he wasn't proven guilty...not that actually isn't guilty. He may very well be.
...but on a serious note, does anyone not consider it strange that MJ only allowed BOYS to stay overnight? As I recall, not one girl/female (besides his "wives", which is also questionable) has shared his bed. Why the preference? Does this not convey a sense that something is not quite right here?
Speculate...
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
In other words, it only means he wasn't proven guilty...not that actually isn't guilty. He may very well be.
I guess you're right, but in the same way in the eyes of the law you weren't proven guilty of shooting Kennedy, but you very well may be.
I realize the guy engages in some twisted activities, but on the other hand he has been hanging around with young boys - and chimps since the early 80ies. Somehow I have the feeling people are more eager to take offence since his popularity started to diminish. Besides, of all the boys he spent the night with, only two were at this trial to confront him. A repressed memory case from 1990 who got a big paycheck in '93, and today's accuser. All others refused to testify or testified in favor of him. Even the current boy said nothing happened until the very last week at Neverland, at the most unlikely of times given the circumstances. I don't know, maybe I have too much fate in people.
Originally posted by SpcMs
I guess you're right, but in the same way in the eyes of the law you weren't proven guilty of shooting Kennedy, but you very well may be.
You are quite right. Of course there isn't much in the way of evidence to even suggest such a thing. For one, I have never been to Dallas, TX in my entire life...which didn't begin until 1968.
I'm not saying that he DID...I just THINK there is a better than 50% chance (from everything I can see). Maybe he is the naive, unwitting victim of nefarious do-badders. At the very least he ought to be convicted of stupidity for putting himself into an accusable position (sleeping with young boys? C'mon!) Of course the parents here deserve a smack upside the head too.