Curse

Eskimo Bob · Jun 14, 2005, 08:09 AM // 08:09

Ohhh taking a bubble bath with 12 year old boys! Jackson needs help.

The government has been corrupt since day one. I swear politics have a IQ less than their shoe size.

DraieGardo · Jun 14, 2005, 08:24 AM // 08:24

I got 2 points of view

1 In no culture i know of does a man sleep in the same bed as a child that is not of blood. And if it were my child..well i wouldnt be stupid enough to let my child go off with another man unsupervised by me. Those parents are worse than MJ.(if he were guilty)

2 You dont know his life, you call him Guilty when you know not of the truth. Non of use do so how can we judge him. Hes been honest from the start about sharing his bed
which could easily leave him open to be set up.

PieXags · Jun 14, 2005, 09:47 AM // 09:47

True enough. And I don't want to hear that it's because he was a celebrity, they couldn't prove him guilty---plain and simple.

I mean hell we sent Martha to prison and SHE'S a celebrity, so there you have it. The simple fact is that we couldn't prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so he is by all means innocent by law. (Innocent until proven guilty people, lets not forget this.)

Cheers.

Shadow_Avenger · Jun 14, 2005, 10:16 AM // 10:16

Don't care, he may be guilty he may not, the people accusing him may be god fairing citizens and give any money they would have gained to charity as it was dirty money Or they could have been chatting rubbish and just wanting to fleese an easy life.

The civilised world is turning into a nanny state and if you aint in the "civilised world" bracket you are a potential terorist and your government needs replacing.

Ibutho Ukuziqhenya · Jun 14, 2005, 10:49 AM // 10:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramus

Jackson was acquitted on all charges, this is a sad day for the US court system. First OJ, now Jackson.

lol.... a sad DAY for the US court system??? Your system is so full of **** no wonder u got so much criminals running around! I could name loads of examples, but then again.... why should I waste my time with that? Search for yourself, compare the US court system with other systems (European countries for example), and you'll see why whackos like Jacko are allowed to run around in your country. And just to make things clear: I am not offending your country! I am just displaying my thoughts about the US court system.

Feli · Jun 14, 2005, 11:03 AM // 11:03

In fact, the european system of law is flawed as hell... well, as well.
Or do you really want to tell me it is a system serving justice that:

Hammers up to 10 years for a person who is into software piracy.
Gently punish a rapist with 2 years, which he can even walk around freely!?

Is THIS justice? Is software piracy really worse then rape? I highly... HIGHLY doubt it. Yet it is common standard in europe. Or would you call it justice having a young person commit over 200 crimes just to send him into HOLIDAY!? Paid by the country and honest people. Yeah, great justice there isn't it?

Don't blame the american court system if the european is just as flawed.

/edit:
About Jackson, i expected that to happen. Everyone said and expected that, though not everybody thinks he is innocent - they all knew he was getting away with it.

PieXags · Jun 14, 2005, 11:10 AM // 11:10

To the comment on the american justice system.

Keep things like that to yourself. The WORLD is corrupt. And nobody wants an argument like that brought up.

Canook · Jun 14, 2005, 11:24 AM // 11:24

im not of a fan of wacko jacko...but i do believe he was innocent...also wasnt the family of the boy caught for purgery in anoher court case? theyre a bunch of bullshitters.

=HT=E5Destroyer · Jun 14, 2005, 11:27 AM // 11:27

lol ok dont get me wrong guys but this is my view:

a group of our piers found him not guilty. we only got the info that we knew from the media. the jury saw alot more info. we do not have the rigth to say the jury system failed or that he is a molester. that is just prejudice. these jururs saw alot of info we may never know about. so i think if they found him innocent then he is.

however:

i think he is a weird freak that needs some help, i hate his music, and theres no way id let my kids be around him. the parents are just as guilty as him. what idiot parent lets there kid spend the night with him. my god.

as far as the us system failing. hmmm not true our prision systems are over populated and we have more criminals in our prisions then Europe so that was a false statement.

but oh well.

as far as a sad day. to me just another day..lol... now go play GW..hee

EchoSex · Jun 14, 2005, 11:47 AM // 11:47

Wow this thread got outta hand. Cool it on the insults yall- lets keep it civilized. Say your views, wether or not you agree, and move on. I thought I should say this though: If I found out some singer who turned himself into a white woman did anything with MY kid, there would be hell to pay. I don't want some creep "taking a bubble bath" with my kid. Wether or not he got away 'cause he has cash will probally never be know, but for christ sakes, atleast give this guy some time in a ward. After all, he did admit to alot of psychological problems, right? Any other person would've had to have gone through that (Go ahead, admit to the court that you tried to kill yourself before. Watch what happens. Even just threatening for it, you'll get put away.) So what SHOULD have happend (IMHO)? He should've -atleast- have gotten a few months in a whacky house.

Bergrom · Jun 14, 2005, 11:57 AM // 11:57

Personally, I believe Jackson molested at least some of those kids plus many others who were not part of this trial. That said, I don't believe the prosecution proved their case under American law.

I did not watch a great deal of the trial but did find it a curiosity. My understanding is that the prosecution took the following general approach:

1. A couple of books of young male nudes were found in Jackson's library. While disturbing to me, they must not have been deemed pronographic in nature or Jackson would have been charged with possession of child pornography as well.

2. Conventional porn was evidently found in Jackson's bedroom. The assertion by the prosecution was that Jackson used it to titillate his young victims and a prelude to making his advanced. This is supposedly a normal pedophile tactic. However, I am not certain the prosecution proved the magazines were viewed by the children or left there by Jackson. If had they done so, I suspect those would have been misdemeanor charges of little consequence since the main question was not if Jackson is a normal person but rather if he, in the eyes of the jury and the state, sexually molested the children.

3. Jackson was accused on making alcohol accessible to the minors but it does not seem the DA proved that Jackson was responsible for such nor that he was present if alcohol was consumed.

4. The prosecutor also raised the out of court settlement from several years ago.

5. Having attacked Jackson along these lines, the prosecution then summarized their points with something like, "Would you trust a man who keeps books of naked little boys in his library and puts alcohol/porn where minor boys can find it, to sleep with your son and NOT try something inapproriate? And if Jackson was not a pedophile, he would not have needed to settle out of court on the other case."

The problem with this line of thinking is multifold. It assumed the jury would see Jackson as a freak and thus in the worst light. It relied on circumstantial evidence that cast Jackson in a suspicious light and banked that the jurors would couple the evidence and assertions with their expected perspective that Michael Jackson is a real strange duck. Finally, it played to the fears of any parents on the jury. All of those considerations have some degree of merit and circumstantial evidence can be compelling enough to convict in some cases. However, in the Jackson case (or any other case involving sexual misconduct or homocide), there is a reluctance on the part of jurors just to send someone to jail and/or ruin their life on purely circumstantial evidence. There was no smoking gun! No pictures or videos of Jackson cavorting naked with the boys, no semen deposits, nada.

Nor do I think juries are necessarily stupid when it comes to evaluating out of court settlements. Contrary to how some view them, they are NOT an admission of guilt but a compromise in the face of a judicial reality that no outcome is certain and that justice is NOT always done. Innocent people can go to jail. The guilty can walk. Settling out of court (whether criminal or civil) is often the smart play. You may not do as well as you could at trial but you definately won't do as bad as you might either.

To summarize, all the evidence I am familar with indicates the DA bet the farm on showing Jackson as a suspicious acting freak so that the jurors would believe the worst. Much was alleged but none proven.

I am not at all surprised Jackson was found not guilty on the molestation charges and only slightly surprised that the alcohol for minors was also a not guilt verdict. I think a guilty man is walking free but that fault lies with the DA and misfortune in not finding that smoking gun or bloody knife.

BTW, OJ too was likely guilty and I think would have been convicted had the DA gone after Second Degree Murder or a lesser homocide charge. But what do I know?

What a tar baby!

EchoSex · Jun 14, 2005, 12:12 PM // 12:12

Bergrom said it for the rest of us. Bravo *Claps*. All the info is there that any one would need. Good job. Now maybe this thread'll calm down heh.

PieXags · Jun 14, 2005, 12:12 PM // 12:12

Jackson's whacko. His ranch is a looney bin in itself. That's why they didn't give him a few months in one for safe keeping. The WORLD is his nut house.

And the guy has no nose.

What more needs to be said?

Cheers.

Alodarn · Jun 14, 2005, 12:46 PM // 12:46

I must admit, I expected him to get slapped with somthing, just because of the amount of mud that was being thown.

Granted, he may of made some very poor judgements with letting children into his bed, but put yourself in his position for a moment. If you love kids (and I don't mean in a ikky way) and mourn your lost childhood and want to make them as happy as you can, how hard would it of been to deny them anything?

Lack of wisdom isn't a crime, and I hope he can bounce back from this, but I doubt it, with the demonizing that the media will now no doubt launch into.

(fyi I don't particularly like him myself, and I am not a fan, just glad that the jury saw through all the smoke and hoowey)

chalt2 · Jun 14, 2005, 01:29 PM // 13:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alodarn

I must admit, I expected him to get slapped with somthing, just because of the amount of mud that was being thown.)

This is exactly what the prosecution was beting on as well, and this is what MOST of the public got from the trial unfortunatley the jury is instructed by the judge to ignor this and deal ONLY with the facts of the case. Why is that unfortunate you ask well its because if the jury was to consider accusations and inuendo then there is NO doubt he would have been guilty but there was no facts proven NO two people said the same thing. It is the prosecution's job to PROVE that MJ did these things and prove it with hard factual evidence of which they had none.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alodarn

Granted, he may of made some very poor judgements with letting children into his bed, but put yourself in his position for a moment. If you love kids (and I don't mean in a ikky way) and mourn your lost childhood and want to make them as happy as you can, how hard would it of been to deny them anything? )

There is no law against poor judgement or bad taste, there are laws against harming and or molesting children, did MJ break any of those laws? Maybe but maybe doesn't count. Proof was the key here and it just wasn't provided to the extent it was needed.
As for making kids happy, well I could spend an hour or more offering ways in which a "family friend" could make kids happy and NONE of them include bathing together, sleeping together or anything else requiring Intimate togetherness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alodarn

Lack of wisdom isn't a crime, and I hope he can bounce back from this, but I doubt it, with the demonizing that the media will now no doubt launch into.
(fyi I don't particularly like him myself, and I am not a fan, just glad that the jury saw through all the smoke and hoowey)

I might have believed this had you not added the "fyi" but it helped me see through the smoke and hoowey.....

Ramus · Jun 14, 2005, 02:22 PM // 14:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrenJasper

You are the sad but hilarious product of our country's psychotic media.

Right, and you obviously know what "psychotic media" that I read and listen to right? Of course, you were at the court and you watched the entire thing. So you must not be going by any media either?

I mean, it's not as if Jackson hasn't payed off people before.

Volarian · Jun 14, 2005, 02:34 PM // 14:34

Two key things to think of...unfortunately a good point for both sides of the arguement.
1. how long did it take the jury to deliberate??? And they came back with not guilty?? I don't think so
2. Jackson continues to be found Not Guilty, because no one ever actually see's him being GUILTY (i.e. doing the things he's accused of..primarily the molestation)
Yes he's ecentric, strange, reclusive etc. but every single time an accuser goes publilc, it's not long before their story changes which makes this whole ghost chase harder and harder to prove.

Ramus · Jun 14, 2005, 02:43 PM // 14:43

Earlier the 70+ year old Juror was on Howard Stern. Its unbelievable to me how things work. She said because of the evidence she could not convict him. But that all the Jurors thought he was guilty, and that she would never let any of her children near him and how he needs help. So, let me get this straight. Theres not enough evidence to convict Jackson, (other then him sleeping in the same bed with children... who accuse him of molestation) but there was enough evidence to give the death penalty to Peterson? (Circumstantial!)

chalt2 · Jun 14, 2005, 02:48 PM // 14:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramus

but there was enough evidence to give the death penalty to Peterson? (Circumstantial!)

Apples and Oranges not a good argument

Ramus · Jun 14, 2005, 02:49 PM // 14:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by chalt2

Apples and Oranges not a good argument

They are apples and oranges, but it still brings up a good point. In that trial, there was only cirumstantial evidence. Peterson was in the right place at the right time to do the crime. His actions got him accused. In this case Jackson is sleeping with children who accuse him of molestation multiple times, is that not cirumstantial? Oh well, he can always go to europe where people will praise him as a superstar.