Is it just me or does something seem a little strange, not found guilty on one count?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ic/4604027.stm
Printable View
Is it just me or does something seem a little strange, not found guilty on one count?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ic/4604027.stm
All 10 counts - Not Guilty.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/13/ja...ial/index.html
You beat me to it John. ;) I was just writting a CC thread but was double checking where it should go.
Guess world Events is probably more fitting. :)
Strange indeed...
http://www.paulbgrimes.com/updates/updates.htm
I was pritty sure that he would have been guilty on the alchol counts? maybe he's a free mason :lol:
If you have $$ then you can do anything and get away with it. Look at the Scott Peterson trial.
He didnt have money and got the death penality.
Now, the Blake trial, he "had" money and got off too. Now thats one that should have went down.
The guy had gunshot residure on his hands and a gun yet still got off. :rolleyes:
Also, of course, OJ. He has money and got off too.
if you thought he was going to be found guilty, or if you thought he was guilty you were a fool!
people are just out for his money! and to think... what has this world come too?
What money can do, eh? :D
What do you mean, they found all kinds of evidence: kiddy porn magazines, alcohol, etc.
Sicko Jackson.
Ok this is a touchy subject so just before any major arguments break out to remind people that the AUP still stands and and violations of it including agressive comments to other members will not be tolerated.
Just a quick reminder i can see this thread breaking into an argument. Nothing bad yet though :)
I'm sure most people didn't think he would be found guilty... thanks to O.J., Blake, etc.Quote:
if you thought he was going to be found guilty, or if you thought he was guilty you were a fool!
But, whoever didn't think he IS guilty should stay away from young children.
I didnt think he would be found guilty but I think the majority knows he did it but just cant prove it beyond the reasonable
doubt that the court needs. :(
Thats not a fair comment to make, I didnt think he was guilty on all counts. No-One here can make a seriosu judgment to if he was guilty or not because all we have seen is media coverage and we all know what the media is like.Quote:
Originally Posted by pgrimes
Fact is he has been found not guilty.
You're right... it's much more sarcastic then fair. And, I agree that the media creates so much corruption and confusion, that who knows what really happened... only Jack and the kids no for sure... and maybe some security personnel.Quote:
Thats not a fair comment to make, I didnt think he was guilty on all counts. No-One here can make a seriosu judgment to if he was guilty or not because all we have seen is media coverage and we all know what the media is like.
Fact is he has been found not guilty.
I personally just think at the very least, it's not right for an adult to be "sharing beds", as Michael put it, with other peoples children.
It just seems like a kick the face to the justice system, like all the other celeb's and football stars, anyone with lots of money...... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
There is only one person who knows the facts ;)
Yup, it sure does. Us poor folks have to suffer the consequences for our actions. We are the responsible society, not the rich and famous.
Its his own fault anyways. He should have learned from the $20,000,000.00 payoff he had to do back
in 1993 for the same charges.
How COULD he be found guilty? Did you guys not hear about how much the victims lied in that case? It was like, yes he did it, wait no he didn't, yes he did, I changed my mind he didn't..and so on. No one gave a solid testomony.
Exactly, it was completely messed up by the prosecution. Plus, the credibility of the plaintiffs didnt help AT ALL.
They just wasted all our money. :(
I told my father last night that I thought he'd walk. The money meant that he prolly would walk, until I heard the case against him That is what really convinced me. Anybody without the money would not have been able to fight the charges, and would have lost. It's sad, but true.
like i said before... he did not do most of the things they accused him of!
people are just greedy little pests and dont have any sympothy for any thing or anyone other than themselfs! THEY JUST WANT HIS MONEY!!!
Well now he doesnt have money anymore. They just found 7 Rolls Royce's in one of his rented aircraft hangers. He forgot to pay
the rent on it so they were clearing it out and found them. :lol:
I personnally recon he's innocent, he's just a big kid that's easy to take advantage of.
good on you wacko jacko :wave:
I think he did it. There is no doubt in my mind that his "love" for little boys went to far more than once. But what does it matter? You can't prove it. Especially with the testimonies given. I guess all that money he gave them did shut them up.
If you think hes innocent then why does he need more then half a dozen locks on his bedroom door?
Would you let your children sleep in his bed with him unsupervised? I think not. I sure wouldnt ever!
well... how wierd! we get all of LA's channels (FOX, ABC, UBN, exc...) and NY's channels, and we were just watching LA's and they said they are about to announce the verdict! (about 25 second delay)
is BBC not telling the truth?
Post what they say. I cant watch tv here so you type it all out for us. :D
CNN said it was official in the link I originally posted.
The TV news here said it's official...
I would like to think that the jury listened to the facts and arrived at a fair decision. This has nothing to do with money spent on lawyers.
Granted money can buy a well versed lawyer. But well versed lawyers are not always expensive.
I have a firm belief in our system of justice here.
If the jury said not guilty then that is the truth. That is our system of justice in the USA.
I am not going to judge him based on the media stories or my personal dislike of child abusers.
I'm more bothered by the fact that the Catholic church has spent 1 billion dollars settling cases of abuse out of court - that's money that is supposed to go towards things much different then covering up pedophiles!
Yea they must be dealyed because it replayed the voice of the court women reading the not guilty verdicts!
Well szlamany, its just about the same between the chuch and MJ. They both spent allot of $$ and did some settlements (MJ in the past).
Back then they both were covering up "things"
The bottom line is: What's up with these parents who let their kids have a sleep-over with one of the five weirdest people in the US.....and the other four are his brothers!
OMG... so funny i forgot to laugh :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Regardless of the verdict his career is over. Also a not guilty verdict in criminal court does not preclude the (likely) possibility that he will be sued in civil court.
But a guilty verdict in criminal court would have guaranteed his civil payout!Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinLiss
I doubt his career's going to be over because of this. We forget easily.
I think there is too much money involved to be able to deduce any clear facts. I wonder if any of the jurers had a pay off? Maybe even the judge? Its a shame because I think that if that kid and his mother were lieing, then they should be the ones in court.
So you believe he was guilty of some of the charges against him? Would be interesting to know which chargesQuote:
Originally Posted by ALL
I think they found gay porn, not kiddy porn. You'll also find alcohol in lots pf peoples homes.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
I think that we have to trust the judicial system. Sure, there will be miscarriages of justice, and perhaps this is one of them.
A lot has been said here, that money buys justice. I don't buy it (sorry for the pun) Michael Jackson is $400m in the red by the end of the year, according to the prosecutors. That's hardly a healthy situation for an individual to be in, is it?
If you are saying that money buys you 'justice' then, then by implication you are inferring that the jury was bought out. I can't accept that. Of course, it's possible, but with the amount of gutter journalists sniffing around, and the sheer magnitude of the trial, it's unlikely that anyone would have even tried, let alone accepted, financial incentives - unless they were a moron.
What surprised me even more about the whole affair is the idea that a consensus opinion rather than evidence seemed enough to bring the case to trial.
I'm not surprised that he got found innocent of the abuse charges, there just didn't seem to be enough credible evidence to remove all doubt. I thought he might of been found guilty of giving alcohol to minors but the charge was actually giving alcohol to minors for the purpose of abuse.
I don't think this will affect his music (which has been going downhill anyway) as all the radio stations are playing his songs again.
Totally agree. Esepecially in light of the fact that there were similar accusations made in the past. Why would you even take the chance regardless of the outcome of the last charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I don't have a problem with that, it's the jurors who I don't trust. :pQuote:
I think that we have to trust the judicial system
Bottom line is the prosecution f'd it all up. But, no matter, everyone involved will make money somehow.
well it's a start.Quote:
Michael Jackson's lawyer Thomas
Mesereau has said the singer will no
longer share his bed with young boys.
Surely he should have said that at the start of the trial, rather then wait to the end? O well just have to wait and watch to see what he does next.......Quote:
Originally Posted by DeadEyes
And yet none of us were in the court and heard all of the evidence.... so we can't even begin to judge whether the jurors were "right" or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
Tg
I thought they found Magazines that displayed Boys enjoying the outdoors, clothed and naked. These Mags were given to Michael from some fan, and supposidly are an artistic display of children at play.Quote:
Originally Posted by davebat
Not Porn of any sort.
Yes, I mentioned that in post #8. They magazines that the classic pedifile reads. They were categorized as kiddy porn.
If he didnt want them then he could have thrown them away.
The entire trial was shoved down our throats every time you turn on the tv or radio. Nothing was kept from the public except one question the jurors asked the judge during deliberation.Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
Good thing I live in a cave. I was barely aware that this trial was going on, and heard nothing about it until I heard that the jurors had taken a break for the weekend.Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
What really gets me is how ecstatic some of the crowd became when the verdict was announced. These are probably the same people who voted for Arnold and (if they're old enough) Regan.
Whats wrong with Reagon? He was a good president.
Arnold, now being a movie star, cant go Hollywood since he already did that when he got into acting, but now hes gone beyond that.
What did he do that was good?Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Bringing down the Berlin wall was part of his credits.
Ask the NicaraguansQuote:
Originally Posted by MartinLiss
i have just noticed this thread and i myself have taken a great interest in this thread
i Believe that Micahel Jackson slept with children which is obviously wrong but i do not think that he would have sexually assaulted or innapropriately touched them or asked them to perform sexual actions with him.
Just wanted to put my view through
oh and
dont think this is true as the courts dont normally EVER accept bribesQuote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
One of the jurors was recently quoted as saying that he believes that Michael molested children in the past but that the prosecution did not prove that he molested this child.
well either way, the fact is he was found Not Guilty.
So either the american system is messed up or... he didnt do it :)
Pino
I agree with the second one, he didnt do itQuote:
Originally Posted by Pino
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron_Smith
Oh, sorry, you're being serious.
He kept Jimmy Cartert and Walter Mondale out of the white house.Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinLiss
Who Cares about Mike Jackson. He hasn't been able to sing worth a dam since he was 10 years old. Any way what kind of parent lets her kids sleep in the same bed as that twisted freak. BTW, they won't get a penny in civil court because It can be argued that the mother was negligent and the history of perjury won't help. OJ lost in civil trial because Nicole Simpsons family was not negligent nor had a history of embezzlement.