Page 2 of 3

Re: Michael Jackson

Posted: June 13th, 2005, 9:53 pm
by England
Bengali is absoultly right all we know is what the media wants us to know. Still from what the media was saying it sure seemed like he was guilty. It is true that people will say alot of things to get money but it takes a weird person to say your child was molested. Maybe he did it maybe he didnt but personally i think he did it. It should be good to hear some of Leno's jokes tonight since the gag order is finished.

Re: Michael Jackson

Posted: June 13th, 2005, 10:28 pm
by arssites
In my opinion from what I hear he should be guilty. I guess I should have learned a little bit of something last year when the media invaded our town and falsely reported a lot of things. But we always will make assumptions on what the media reports.

Posted: June 14th, 2005, 8:37 am
by AndysCheerGrl06
I feel he payed everybody in that court room to vote him as not guilty. It's BS anymore.

Posted: June 14th, 2005, 9:34 am
by crfan4ever
I think he is guilty but at the same time I am glad that the stupid parents that let their children go over to his house did not get any money from him. If they only reason they let them go over their was so they could press charges against him later to get some money then they are just as guilty and should be tried on prostitution charges.

Re: Michael Jackson

Posted: June 14th, 2005, 10:39 am
by fleaflicker
I too, think he was guilty, but I also think that the verdict given was fair. All the prosecution really had was eyewitness accounts, and with the questionable motives of the accusers, they could have been lying. If they had some videotapes, or perhaps some conversation between Jackson and the boy at that time or whatever, some hard, concrete evidence, they could have put him away. But as I said, all they had was questionable testimony from the accusers and some other people who were (formerly) associated with Jackson, and might have wanted to get him. The evidence simply wasn't there to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Another thing that worked against the prosecutor was the accuser's mother, who, as it turns out, was the star witness for the defense. You can read the story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8209181/?GT1=6657

Anyways, while I'm almost sure he molested some children, I have to agree with the verdict, since there is room for a reasonable doubt. What the prosecution should do if they want to stick him is this: Get a warrent for Jackson's home, then do a bit of a search while discretely placing some bugs around his house, such as a video cam or taping device in his bedroom, perhaps another one in his dining room, stuff like that. Also, they could search for child pornography on his computer and see if he has any of that. Then, if this ever comes up again, perhaps they'll have taped conversation (or even a cam) of what happened there, as well as child porn charges if that doesn't work. That would be enough to stick it to him. But as it is, right now, they don't really have jack.

Re: Michael Jackson

Posted: June 14th, 2005, 4:44 pm
by Pale Rider
I heard that SADDAM wants to have the venue of his forthcoming trial changed to Santa Maria California.

Re: Michael Jackson

Posted: June 14th, 2005, 6:21 pm
by once a runner
Flea, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you against the Patriot Act? But yet it's ok to "discretely placed some bugs" in Michael Jackson's home? Like it or not, according to laws of our society, he's an innocent man and deserves the same rights as all innocent people.

With MJ's history, any self-respecting parent would have to be nuts to leave their child alone with him. In the eyes of the law he's innocent, but in the eyes of common sense, stay away from him.

Re: Michael Jackson

Posted: June 14th, 2005, 8:20 pm
by Pale Rider
I just knew from the beginning on THIS case it was only a matter of time before MJ walked. They couldn't prove anything earlier, they had no concrete evidence here either. It should have been thrown out when Leno testified the Mother tried to shake HIM down for money. Oh well, maybe something good will come out of this trial, if MJ is hurting so bad for money, maybe Paul McCartney will 'buy back' what should rightfully be his, namely the entire Beatles' song copywrights. He would have had them years ago, but MJ outbid him. MJ should have stuck with Motown.

Posted: June 14th, 2005, 8:55 pm
by shychic6
he should have been found gulity. i dont get it. if he wasnt a celeb he would have been gulity.

Posted: June 15th, 2005, 1:09 am
by JungleJuice2
Maybe Janet showed the jury her boobie to persuade them in their decision.

Love him or hate him, he still made some dang good music.