View Full Version : micheal Jackson
Right - Who thinks he's guilty?
Well its looking awful like hes guilty But he will probably get away with it though being a superstar he could go for saying its not a fair trial because of his status like oj simpson
Oi, JJC! Where are you when we need you?
Is 'e marsupial-justice early-warnan' system no workan' 'eday biyee?
Hop over here and get stuck in before 'at loon lynches yon poor white chiel over in Santa Maria.
Good job you're here DrSzin - I thought jjc would have bitten before now ;)
2little2late
04-Feb-05, 21:40
Guilty as charged.
But will probably get off with it because of his millions. He's bound to pay off the jury to find him not guilty. After all it won't be the first time. After paying Jordy Chandler to keep quiet he has actually admitted his guilt.
If he is found guilty he should be incarcerated for life. Then let him be banging his head "Off The Wall".
He won't get a fair trial that much I reckon is obvious. As to his guilt....he seems really naive and messed up after being treated badly by his parents.
Millions of people are treated badly by their parents but don't abuse children. poor excuse.
gravedigga
04-Feb-05, 23:58
Hmmm i'm no really sure what to make o it??
He's a right weirdo and there seems to be too many witnesses for it to be a conspiracy against him. I think he must be be guilty of some of the charges especially after reading some of the latest news stories, although i haven't really been following it in depth.
Should be castrated with no anaesthetic if/when found guilty then put away for life..
If a guy in his forties lived in your town/village and started talking to your son, then started buying him outrageous gifts, then asked him to stay at his house because he had some amazing games consoles and things he didn't have at home. Then wanted him to watch horror films so he was scared, then asked him to stay in his bed, take baths with him etc, but swore blind he only liked him as a friend and was completely innocent in his actions - would you be okay with it? Would you say - "I've lived here for years and know all about him - he's eccentric, but harmless"?
Why is it different because he's very famous?
If anybody gets accused of something like this they'd want to clear their name? Not buy off the witness?
THEN, after getting out of jail, so to speak, the first time, any innocent person would have put a complete stop to ANY little boys staying in his house, as people would be watching?
Then to admit that he has them in his bed but 'innocently'????
And another thing - when did you hear about girls staying at Neverland? If it's innocent and he just invites kids over as he 'loves' them surely there'd be a mix of boys and girls??
Not if he is only sexually attracted to young boys IMO.
No further questions your honour - prepare the chair!
Hope he goes down this time, pardon the pun, and gets his come-uppance in jail.
Rumour has it that he plans to release a new single if he goes to jail.
a cover version of
Johnny Cash - "Burning Ring of Fire"
Oi, JJC! Where are you when we need you?
Is 'e marsupial-justice early-warnan' system no workan' 'eday biyee?
Hop over here and get stuck in before 'at loon lynches yon poor white chiel over in Santa Maria.
Sorry Doc, still trying to work out who this Micheal chap is...
You're perfect for jury service!! though i suspect you wanted some dummie to post that didn't you?
Here is a test of whether you think he is guilty...
Would you be happy for your child to go to Neverland for the weekend without your supervision?
Hmmmm
You're perfect for jury service!! though i suspect you wanted some dummie to post that didn't you?
Oh don’t be so hard on yourself Rheghead; I don’t think you’re a ‘dummie’… just a little too eager to get in your snide responses every time I post. If you weren’t you might have taken a little more time to read my post properly and you might have noticed the spelling of Michael. :roll:
Here is a test of whether you think he is guilty...
That’s not a test of whether I think he’s guilty; it’s a test of whether, as a parent, I would consider the risk that he might be guilty.
So no, I wouldn’t let my child spend the night at Neverland… but that doesn’t mean that Michael Jackson isn’t entitled to the presumption of innocence in the eyes of the law.
Incidentally, I wouldn’t be happy for my child to grow up in a society where he wasn’t afforded the protection of due legal process either.
Perhaps that’s just too broad a concept for a narrow mind to comprehend?
As a former Police Constable, I see things in a more informed light than most. I am all for the presumption of innocence, it is the binding light that makes us all part of a civilised western democracy. But that arguement is for the likes of you, me and the politicians. The reality is somewhat different. I have had the displeasure of listening in court to heart bleeder's drivel and gangland intimidation.
One small example, many years ago, I was on duty and a chap walked past me and was urinating whilst walking, zigzagedly and blatently spraying his urine. I took his details and reported him for the offence.
At court, I saw him in the foyer and wondered why he pleaded not guilty to such a straightforward offence.
Well, unknown to me, he brought on nine witnesses to testify in court that he was at home babysitting at the time of the alleged offence!!!!!!
Well you can appreciated how I and my fellow constable thought of that when the magistrate took their word over ours!
So don't preach to me about what is right and what is wrong, all it boils down to is the petty game that lawyers have in court, then they meet up together for a blether later and joke about who got the better of who on the day. How priggish is that?
The law is a proverbial X, I know what really goes on....and I know the difference between right and wrong. Jackson may have his hour in court, but the truth is out there.
I watched the interview with Bashir. He actually did have girls staying over too, but that was quickly skimmed over. The boy he is accused of molesting had no negative body language, the very opposite, he sat beside Jackson, leaning towards him. His sister and brother also stayed over. Surely if there was something going on one of them would have raised the alarm.
I'm not saying I believe he's innocent, I would rather sit on the fence for now. But as the previous post says, it is more about the sceming of lawyers than actual justice, so whatever the verdict is, I doubt we can ever be sure.
Also, with refference to the parents of Jordy Chandler - If some one had abused my child, I would want to see him rot in jail - I certainly wouldn't take a bribe to stay quiet!
As a former Police Constable, I see things in a more informed light than most. I am all for the presumption of innocence, it is the binding light that makes us all part of a civilised western democracy. But that arguement is for the likes of you, me and the politicians. The reality is somewhat different. I have had the displeasure of listening in court to heart bleeder's drivel and gangland intimidation.
All I can say is that if your time on the force has made you so bitter towards the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty, it’s probably a very good thing that you are now a former police constable…
Making cheap insults just reveals your true personality, I would have expected nothing else from you. In my time as a constable I was commendated twice by my Chief Constable, so my track record is not in doubt.
No, I do believe in the presumption of innocence but as I say the verdict of a court is not a judgement on the real events that take place, it is a judgement on the evidence presented. It also depends on the personal understanding of what is 'reasonable'.
I take the view of if someone gives a long winding and flowery excuse as to why they are innocent, then in all reasonableness they are guilty. The simplest alibis are the best.
So if this Jackson case starts picking fault on the prosecution case every step of the way then you can bet he is guilty. If he sticks to to one simple and irrefutable alibi then he is innocent .
No idea but I guess he may just be a bit child like himself. He is one weird guy but should be treated as innocent for the moment. He's probably being taken for a ride.
Personally I think he has done 'something' wrong, not sure the extent of it though. He is very naive and is possibly being taken for ride by the parents of the child in question!
Part of the case against him is that he held the entire family against their will....
Why are no girls mentioned, only boys?! The documentary last week seemed very damning, there's no smoke without fire in my opinion.
On the other hand it's the parents of these kids that surprise me, who on earth in their right mind would let their kids sleep with a 40 year old bloke? Superstar or not, that is wrong!
Making cheap insults just reveals your true personality, I would have expected nothing else from you. In my time as a constable I was commendated twice by my Chief Constable, so my track record is not in doubt.
It’s not your ‘track record’ I question; it’s whether your current attitude (as displayed in two current threads on this board) would suit you for service. That’s not a ‘cheap insult’; it’s what I believe.
No, I do believe in the presumption of innocence but…
No, there can be no ‘buts’. Either you believe in the presumption of innocence, or you don’t; it doesn’t come with provisos.
I take the view of if someone gives a long winding and flowery excuse as to why they are innocent, then in all reasonableness they are guilty
[…]
So if this Jackson case starts picking fault on the prosecution case every step of the way then you can bet he is guilty. If he sticks to to one simple and irrefutable alibi then he is innocent .
Hang on, you’re saying that the prosecution can charge Jackson with seven counts of child molestation, two counts of administering intoxicating liquor to a minor and one count of conspiracy to abduct a child and the only way he can prove his innocence is to provide an alibi? Not only that, but if his defence lawyer – heaven forbid – tries to mount an actual defence against the charges he should be found guilty automatically?
Well, it’s a good job you believe in that old innocent until proven guilty thing… otherwise I might have thought you were shifting the onus of proof onto the defendant rather than the prosecution!
My current attitude has developed over the 17 years since I left, I am a realist not an idealist which you seem to be.
Surely if he proves an alibi then he has nothing to fear. The onus is on the prosecution to prove him guilty. But his alibi would have to prove that those drinks were not alcoholic or he had reasonable grounds to believe they were not alcoholic or to prove those minors were of consenting age. I fail to see where Jackson is going to play out his defence. Though in the last trial, he paid off his last accusers so I won't be surprised that he tries to do the same this time.
If it does go to a verdict, it will probably come down to what actually happened underneath the bedsheets, and under them there were only two witnesses, who will they believe?
Read Jordy Chandler's statement here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mjdec1.html
Makes the skin crawl. [mad]
But his alibi would have to prove that those drinks were not alcoholic or he had reasonable grounds to believe they were not alcoholic ...
Er, no! That would be tantamount to saying that Wacko Jacko is guilty until he can prove otherwise.
But I shall leave jjc to continue his good work here and on the Tony Martin thread, mainly because he is so much better at it than I am, but also because I don't have the patience he has!
Read Jordy Chandler's statement here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mjdec1.html
Makes the skin crawl. [mad]
Pretty damning stuff - but can we be sure it kosha? Would genuine statements really be released to the general public? I would've thought releasing such info would be prohibited.
I have read Jordy's statement. Why is information like that available to the worldwide public?
It should only be available to the police involved with the case and of course the jurors.
:eek:
I hope that the British Justice system works better than America's which seems to be more for the benefit of lawyers back pockets.
Also, with reference to the parents of Jordy Chandler - If some one had abused my child, I would want to see him rot in jail - I certainly wouldn't take a bribe to stay quiet!
But did you see the size of the "bribe"? The web page quoted above estimates that it was between $15 and $40 million. Dunno about you, but my moral principles would be severely tested by that amount of dosh -- however much I would like to think otherwise.
I have read Jordy's statement. Why is information like that available to the worldwide public?
Because it pertains to the Jordy Chandler affair of 1993, not to the current case.
I'm not sure what the consensus on that case is amongst the saner elements of the world's population, but here (http://webpages.charter.net/jasonevines/mj.htm) is another view of the events of a decade or so ago. I think I would have to do a little more homework in order to present an objective view.
[quote=katarina]Also, with reference to the parents of Jordy Chandler - If some one had abused my child, I would want to see him rot in jail - I certainly wouldn't take a bribe to stay quiet!
But did you see the size of the "bribe"? The web page quoted above estimates that it was between $15 and $40 million. Dunno about you, but my moral principles would be severely tested by that amount of dosh -- however much I would like to think otherwise.
hmmm; I suppose if you had that amount of money you could pay to have him 'removed' later!
just kidding - everyone has a price they say, but if I took the money, could I live with my conscience? I wonder!!!!
I'm not sure what the consensus on that case is amongst the saner elements of the world's population, but here (http://webpages.charter.net/jasonevines/mj.htm) is another view of the events of a decade or so ago. I think I would have to do a little more homework in order to present an objective view.[/quote]
I did think it a bit odd that the allegations only came after the father of Jordy Chandler gained custody. That poor little boy - either way he has been abused!
I guess we have to trust the jury.
"Twelve good men and true"
We can make our own minds up from the one sided cover we see in the press or on the telly but unless we are sitting in the court room we havent got access to the facts as the jury see it.
The jury will make the decision i hope - until then i will reserve judgement and presume that the truth will out
As Dave Chappelle said - Who knows? Michael Jackson and that kid knows, no one else does. Anyway, why did this kid want to meet MJ, he wasn't alive when Thriller was out. Everyone talks about how weird MJ is, but really what's so weird about him? He lied about getting plastic surgery, I'm pretty sure he's not the first person to do that. Do you know why he had so much surgery? He wanted you people to like him more. He may act a bit different from you and I but from as far back as he can remember he has grown up in a very surreal world. The truth is no one on this board knows anything about his ranch and what goes on there. We've just seen the bits the media want to use to make him look guilty. Do you want to help him get a fair trial, well stop watching, turn off your tv's and don't buy sleazy tabloid papers.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.