dunganick Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 so he was cleared, im not certain what to think, if he ever did do anything he certainly wont be doing it again thats for sure :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulos Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 hmm, cant say agree with their decision, not that it was ever in question though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemini Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 It was a certainty that he was never going to be found guilty, and I said so when this topic was first aired on the site. I had no doubt whatsoever that this media circus was never going to convict him regardless of guilt or innocence. It would appear that anyone in America who has reached the “Cult” status that Jackson has, can and will, be able to do anything they like with impunity. Such is the way of this grubby little world, where shooting is deemed to be perverted whilst messing around with kids is thought to be OK….especially with this lot in power. :< G.M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth0689 Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 I wonder if the jury are any better off now :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longnetter Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 (edited) My thoughts exactly, everyone has a price, even an American juror, he owes millions, so, what's a few hundred thousand more to him? :( Edited June 13, 2005 by longnetter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hill billy Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 in some ways i feel sorry for him because at the start there was just a couple of aligations against him then every one else just jumped on the band wagon, but the other part of me thinks chop his bits off then he can't do it again :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peejay Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 kiddie fiddler--- guilty.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the last engineer Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 Michael Jakson guilty ,how could you think such a thing ,that sweet innocent white boy , now if he was a coloured kid it'd be a differant story :( . Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rarms Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 I think your all being a bit cynical, yeah in some cases money talks, but the mother of the accuser had done this stunt about three times befoe (making fake claims) and in this case I think he was innocent. He is screwed in the head, but I dont think he is a kiddy fiddler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badsworth Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 Guilty - Guilty - GUILTY!!!!!! The American justice system is F........ Up! Would any of the jury let their child spend a night in his bed? I don't think so. Will he do it again? I don't think he can help himself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axe Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 You know, i'm not even sure I care. Jackson may have been guilty but then so must the parents for letting their children stay with him. Most of them have claimed damages and dont have a money problem anymore....what a surprise! He was tried and found innocent. People say money talks, does it? I know that Jackson is reported to be in debt to the tune of 200 Million. You can be sure of one thing though.......this thing aint over. There will be the interviews of the jury members , he said she said type thing. Then the interview with the man himself. The constant barrage of arguments from openents and supporters. And then, oh my god, the Micheal Jackson onslaught of music. I never really liked his music and I just know that all the stations are going to be playing it. Theres even talk of a Jackson 5 round the world tour...argghh!! One things for sure, i'm gonna be spending more time in the field and if he ever offers to baby sit my kids, he's gonna get good firm size 9 up the Jackson 5! :( Regards, Axe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 Whether he did it or not, the Prosecution was never going to convince a Jury, when their chief witness embellished his statement to the Court, against what he originally said to the Police. His Mother confessed to sending her children to an acting school, so they got their stories right when she admitted lying to extort money, claiming sexual assault (out of Court settlement of £80,000) from a Department Store, after lodging a complaint about their Security Guards. Plus loads of other inconsistencies. The American system is based on ours and before someone can be declared guilty, there has to be "no reasonable doubt". You couldn't trust this crowd, as far as you could throw them. As in the O J Simpson case, the blame lies with the Prosecution, who didn't prepare the case well enough, they were in too much of a hurry to make names for themselves. Michael Jacksons "career" is over though, too much smoke to convince most people that he is completely innocent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 badsworth I couldnt dissagree more! he has been proved innocent and I for one agree with it? ooh and dont compare his trial to say O.J who bloody well was guilty and everyone knew it! this guy(whacko) has had a list of charges as long as your arm thrown at him,mainly by a state prosecutor who was "after" him big style most came accross as "make ups" not ONE stuck? christ even some of the prosecution witnessess supported jackson? I believe justice was done and the result is NOT as aresult of media hype .who he is etc etc who let kids sleep with him? was it not the parents! should they not be charged with neglect? perhaps bucks and cars were more of a concern than the kids welfare? this guy is well mixed up but he is no preditor!! I said from the outset he came accross more of a whacko than a piedo? even the "evidence" and the tape of that scumbag bashir worked against the prosecution. On your premise that he "quote" is guilty guilty guilty!! can you tell me what of? yes he is a whacko yes he bloody well thinks he is peter pan yes he likes (genuinly) kids! but is that a crime! be a few off this site getting porridge if being a nutter is illegal I would rather lock up every social worker who has let a kid down, or every parent that would rather go out on the **** or be high on drugs, not giving a toss about how and if the kids are dragged up! only for them to become "pests" to others. The guy has been found innocent lets LIVE with it cheers Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wookie Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 I heard the interviews with the jury... From the sounds of things, they didn't like the mother and decided on not guilty because of that, not because of the evidence. I still reckon he did it. Wookie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonno 357 Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 Alot of the media are saying "Found Not Guilty" No mention of the word innocent. I wonder why Jonno Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemini Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 (edited) There is more to this than meets the eye. The DA that was after him knew a lot more than he was able to prove in a court of law, and had been after Jackson for quite a while. The police officer in the O J Simpson case was in the same position and was made to look like a racist liar by the prosecution in order to get Simpson off the hook. In a world where money talks we are going to see more and more cases like this. Just allowing children to sleep in the same bed as himself was supposed to be a crime, but even though this had been admitted he still got away with it. So it does make me wonder why this charge was ignored in favour of a “Not guilty” verdict. I well remember many years ago a certain “Artist” sued an American newspaper for millions because they had implied that he was homosexual. He won, the paper lost and had to pay up. Years later this artist “Liberace” died of AIDS caught whilst pursuing his normal Gay life. Money, influence, notoriety and adulation all help when in court, and this was no different. I think a great travesty of justice has just occurred, but as I can’t do anything about it then I won’t lose any sleep over it. As for the parents of those kids…….involuntary euthanasia springs to mind. :< G.M. Edited June 14, 2005 by Gemini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurch Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 I notice more than one juror has said they consider that Jackson probably was guilty but there wasn't enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 Michael Jacksons "career" is over though, too much smoke to convince most people that he is completely innocent. Being America... its probably the stepping stone to greater things....!!!! Ronald Reagan, Arnie Swartzeneger and now senator Michael Jackson?? After all he has been aquitted so he could stand for election.... :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 I think a great travesty of justice has just occurred, True enough but consider Michael Jacksons side ... Would someone in his position ever receive a "Fair Trial" in the American courts :( Personally I think he is mentally unstable but I dont think he is a paedofile. Unfortunately he is living in a "different world" to us. FM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longnetter Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 Jacko's lawyer is getting cocky now, he's boasting that he could even get Stevie Wonder a driving licence! :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurcherboy Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 badsworth I couldnt dissagree more! he has been proved innocent and I for one agree with it? ooh and dont compare his trial to say O.J who bloody well was guilty and everyone knew it! this guy(whacko) has had a list of charges as long as your arm thrown at him,mainly by a state prosecutor who was "after" him big stylemost came accross as "make ups" not ONE stuck? christ even some of the prosecution witnessess supported jackson? I believe justice was done and the result is NOT as aresult of media hype .who he is etc etc who let kids sleep with him? was it not the parents! should they not be charged with neglect? perhaps bucks and cars were more of a concern than the kids welfare? this guy is well mixed up but he is no preditor!! I said from the outset he came accross more of a whacko than a piedo? even the "evidence" and the tape of that scumbag bashir worked against the prosecution. On your premise that he "quote" is guilty guilty guilty!! can you tell me what of? yes he is a whacko yes he bloody well thinks he is peter pan yes he likes (genuinly) kids! but is that a crime! be a few off this site getting porridge if being a nutter is illegal I would rather lock up every social worker who has let a kid down, or every parent that would rather go out on the **** or be high on drugs, not giving a toss about how and if the kids are dragged up! only for them to become "pests" to others. The guy has been found innocent lets LIVE with it cheers Keith A rousing speech Keith, it could have ended up being another diatribe but didn't. It was sound :( LB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catamong Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 Yes, the Guy's a complete weirdo..., but, were any of us in court to hear all of the evidence..:(? No we weren't, so lets not rubbish the decision made by those unfortunate Jurors who had to listen to all of the ******** from both sides..he was found not guilty by them after they had carefully considered all of the evidence, so let's leave it at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemini Posted June 14, 2005 Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 Mmm, well we may not have heard the evidence but that doesn’t mean we haven’t heard some of the comments made by the jurors. Some of them have indicated that they did think that he was guilty, but that the evidence wasn’t up to it, and one silly woman actually said that she came to her own conclusions because she didn’t like the mother. ****** the evidence, she didn’t like the woman in the dock!!!!!!! Nah, there is something wrong when he is found not guilty even when the charge of supplying alcohol to a minor is disregarded. It’s something that is taken very seriously in America and he actually admitted to it, and yet they still found him not guilty of it. And it’s a charge that carries a prison sentence in the normal course of events. Even the judge gave an indication that the jury could convict on this charge alone. But they chose to ignore the judge and gave their own verdict. How can you admit to doing something and then be found not guilty of it, even when the judge tries to advise on the legal points :( Definitely something wrong with the outcome. G.M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 Mmm, well we may not have heard the evidence but that doesn’t mean we haven’t heard some of the comments made by the jurors. seems even the jurors comments are subjective? ie depends which tv reporter is asking? SKY yesterday interviewed juror 3 and juror 5 juror 5 oldish white woman says quote- most of the jurors came into the trial with FIXED views?but after spending months listening to ALL the evidence we in no way could agree to a guilty verdict so even the jurors with very fixed views agreed to a not guilty verdict. Juror 3 younger woman of mixed race says again we listened made our decision on what was put before us and a verdict of not guilty was the ONLY decision we could have made! perhaps it should also be noted the sneddon the da after whacko stood down shortly into the trial and let his no2 take over? reason? he didnt "connect" with the jurors, does that mean he came over as a liar?you tell me! so there we have it beyond reasonable doubht and innocent till PROVED guilty saved the day. cheers Keith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hill billy Posted June 15, 2005 Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 i heard some thing about that he is goin to make a book on his trial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.