Curse

Pevil Lihatuh · Jun 14, 2005, 06:03 PM // 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mango Midget

I wonder How much Jackson Paid the Judge/Jury?

well he's in $155mil debt... hehe j/k

I haven't followed it at all, so I'm not gonna say omg he's guilty or anything but i will say that considering i read no newspapers or watch any news, just pick up the odd thing (everyone runs into the news occasionally) that there is clearly something wrong in michaels mind... his intentions may be good but there is definately something weird up there. Now I know his 'image' is Wacko Jacko but there's taking it too far and there's actually coming off wacko... i seriously think he needs some psychiatric help of some kind.

lol but i do think the best thing from this trial has to be the quote from him, something along the lines of "I'm gonna stop saying things that can be used to make accusations"... surely that occurred to him a few years ago when the first child molestation comments were being made?

chalt2 · Jun 14, 2005, 06:31 PM // 18:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramus

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.

Yes BUT in Peterson's trial the people and witnesses against him were very stout and they ALL said the same thing, the witnesses for him were weak, some were discredited and the case was presented VERY well to the Jury by the prsecution. That case was all in exact contrast to the MJ trial were the witnesses against him were weak and the ones for him were strong, while the prosecution presented the case poorly.

DarrenJasper · Jun 14, 2005, 06:52 PM // 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramus

Right, and you obviously know what "psychotic media" that I read and listen to right?

The ones that report on the Michael Jackson case, right? Yes, the psychotic ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramus

Of course, you were at the court and you watched the entire thing.

No I wasn't, and neither were you. So your claims that he paid them off, was obviously guilty, etc. are useless and based on nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramus

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

Baseless assertions make baby Jesus cry.

Now I will not try to argue that Jackson isn't eccentric because I agree that he does seem that way. In any case I'm amazed that, like with all these crackpot lawsuits, no one has even dreamed of blaming the parents who knowingly leave their children alone with this colorful man. I don't think he molested any kids, but if there was even the shadow of a chance that he might, what responsible parent would leave their offspring alone with him? They're the ones I want to see on trial, just like the parents who blamed Grand Theft Auto after their kids went joyriding in the family car.

Sir Skullcrasher · Jun 14, 2005, 07:13 PM // 19:13

look out kids, He back agian!! run for your life!!

Ramus · Jun 14, 2005, 08:15 PM // 20:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrenJasper

So your claims that he paid them off, was obviously guilty, etc. are useless and based on nothing.

Its based on the fact that he payed off a family to drop molestation charges in the past. The assumption is that he payed off some other people as well this time around.

DarrenJasper · Jun 14, 2005, 08:41 PM // 20:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramus

Its based on the fact that he payed off a family to drop molestation charges in the past. The assumption is that he payed off some other people as well this time around.

There, you're doing it again. Evidence please?

And even saying there was money involved, you have no way of knowing what the jurors or thought or that "there was no way they could have found him not guilty".

chalt2 · Jun 14, 2005, 09:21 PM // 21:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramus

Its based on the fact that he payed off a family to drop molestation charges in the past. The assumption is that he payed off some other people as well this time around.

Assuming gets us no where, it got the prosecution nowhere, assuming is just bad form...

Gaele · Jun 14, 2005, 09:55 PM // 21:55

I couldn't have put it better myself - if I were someone who viewed life through a straw. All who are sane want him dead? Come on, let's not get all patriot here, you're beginning to sound like 'We Hate Goths' thread.

Heron Fensbanel · Jun 14, 2005, 09:57 PM // 21:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by ty3c

Edited, sorry, this isn't appropriate speech. Not your fault, Heron.

Gosh. Overreact much?

DarrenJasper · Jun 14, 2005, 10:18 PM // 22:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by ty3c

Edited again, not your bad either.

Well, thanks for representing my opposition. lol

Jackell · Jun 14, 2005, 10:24 PM // 22:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrenJasper

They're the ones I want to see on trial, just like the parents who blamed Grand Theft Auto after their kids went joyriding in the family car.

Your my hero for this thread.

Seriously people, the jurors may have thought he was guilty, but it wasn't proven enough. BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. That's how your supposed to convict someone. As someone who was threatened by the American Legal System and got off because of the reasonable doubt thing, I applaud the juries decision for upholding the reasonable doubt that our judicial system is based off of.

Accusations with little proof do not convict a man. It must be definitive proof. Read 12 Angry Men. It'll do ya some good.

Ramus · Jun 15, 2005, 12:11 AM // 00:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrenJasper

There, you're doing it again. Evidence please?

And even saying there was money involved, you have no way of knowing what the jurors or thought or that "there was no way they could have found him not guilty".

Yes, and I said, "I assume that he paid them off." Im just taking a general guess that some money was passed around, theres no evidence to back it up.

DarrenJasper · Jun 15, 2005, 12:29 AM // 00:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramus

Yes, and I said, "I assume that he paid them off." Im just taking a general guess that some money was passed around, theres no evidence to back it up.

Okay, well then you understand why I took issue with it. Our media seems to train us that it's okay to slander people with rumors and empty accusations without any need for concrete evidence.

ManadartheHealer · Jun 15, 2005, 12:47 AM // 00:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarrenJasper

Our media seems to train us that it's okay to slander people with rumors and empty accusations without any need for concrete evidence.

The media does whatever sells. Saying "Hey, so-and-so who is famous rapes dead bodies" sells more (copies of whatever)than "Some philanthropist helped to feed starving people". It's why I never watch the news, and have never gone within a 100 foot radius of a tabloid magazine or the equivalent on TV.

PieXags · Jun 15, 2005, 01:03 AM // 01:03

Didoms. Don't watch the news, don't read Time magazine or any of that crap. I don't enjoy hearing about who raped and brutally murdered who today.

I don't like bad thoughts. Bad thoughts make me sad.

Weezer_Blue · Jun 15, 2005, 01:20 AM // 01:20

I'm not saying Jackson didn't do all that stuff, which I think he did, but I think the entire case is a load of bullshit for 2 reasons:
1) Why would anyone let their child go to "neverland ranch"?
2) What 13 year old boy in his right mind would go to "neverland ranch"?

So really, the entire thing is bullshit. "hey! son! go over to michael jacksons, and get molested so we can cash in!"

ManadartheHealer · Jun 15, 2005, 01:27 AM // 01:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weezer_Blue

So really, the entire thing is bullshit

You win the grand prize; a trip to the gigantic ranch of some eccentric old guy with a rollercoaster, monkeys, and no nose!!

Dreamsmith · Jun 15, 2005, 02:23 AM // 02:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramus

How many children do you know go around accusing people of sexual molestation?

Almost none of them, if you don't ask them about it. Almost all of them, if you ask them the right questions, or ask them any questions repeatedly and persistently enough. I still remember the whole Scott County fiasco all too well.

Bergrom · Jun 15, 2005, 02:57 AM // 02:57

Weezer Blue's comments were clever and funny but hit on a sad truth. The vast majority of people who read these forums would never intentionally do something to place their child at risk. That said, not everyone has the advantage of coming from a moderate to strong moral background. Not everyone is financially solid. Desperate people take desperate chances. It is not unknown for drug abusers to prostitute not only themselves but their children in order to feed their habit. You don't even have to be addicted to drugs or alcohol to stoop that low. Simple greed with allow parents to involve their children in child porn rings.

I don't find it the least bit incredible that the alleged victims mother might have intentionally orchestrated this circus to extort money from Jackson or pave the way for a trial. Not that I am accusing her of such deviousness and deviency. I am just noting such reprehensible behavior has been documented in others in the past and will happen again in the future.

I happen to think Jackson is guilty but his guilt was not proven to the satisfaction of the jury. Based on what I have read and heard, I tend to agree. Most people look at this case and think that this is just another example of a defense attorney getting a guilty man off the hook. Not true. The job of a defense attorney is to ensure the State clearly proves it's allegations against the accused in order to avoid a gross miscarriage of justice - sending an innocent man to jail for a crime he did not commit.

If the prosecution had done its job, Jackson might well have been found guilty. Choosing lesser charges with lighter burdens of proof might have helped. The alcohol charges failed to stick despite witnesses claiming they SAW Jackson providing wine to the children (in admitedly small amounts) because the DA went for a stronger charge that tied such actions to an intent of committing a criminal act against the child. The mother was a loose cannon from jump street. The DA should have moved heaven and hell to keep her off the stand. In the end, they went for the home run and just struck out.

Despite my feelings on Jackson's guilt and my concern that other children may be victimed in the future, a couple of things should be borne in mind.

1. Jackson was not kidnapping children off the street. They were being offered to him by parents of questionable mental capacity and/or moral integrity. I personally think the police and DHR ought to be asking some parents why they even allowed their young boys to be alone with Jackson at Neverland Ranch.

2. Although I tend to be quite conservative by American standards, I have a real problem with fear sending innocent people to jail for crimes they did not commit. Accusations of homocide or sexual misconduct (especially the latter), will haunt a person for the rest of their life. Even if exonorated, suspicions linger. You cannot give a man back the ten years he spent in jail for a crime he did not commit even though someone else has since confessed. You cannot give an executed man back his life. Pity the women of Salem, Massachusetts who were hanged as witches based on allegations by young girls that were later repudiated. Jackson may well be guilty but I take comfort in a jury that looks upon a case as heinous as this one and has the courage to say, "we think he's guilty but the case was not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt."

I'd rather let my boy sleep in a pen with starving and rabid Rotweilers than spend the night with Michael Jackson. Still, the verdict is in. Jackson is a free man...I think....he might be a man, at any rate. Once was...

Traps · Jun 15, 2005, 03:01 AM // 03:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weezer_Blue

"hey! son! go over to michael jacksons, and get molested so we can cash in!"

lol its so true.. some people are so desperate for cash. idk still about the Mj case id say hes guily for some things but he gets away with all of the convictions.

ive got an idea lets all go to Mj's house for a nice train ride and some cookies.

anyone with me?