View Full Version : Jacko is innocent
Well so much for all the theories posted about Jacko earlier on these boards. Loads of lawyers get rich, what else is new?
dragonfly
14-Jun-05, 09:11
aye and I wonder how many jurors are now more affluent [disgust]
I'm glad he got off. I don't know why, but I feel he is innocent and prison would have destroyed him. Maybe I just don't want him to be guilty - I guess he's destroyed now anyway.
lassieinfife
14-Jun-05, 09:27
It wont stop the get rich quick american parents sending their kids to stay with him........ [disgust]
I said all along he was innocent
I think his music is great, don't think much of all the plastic surgery tho
His best song i love is "Earth song" brilliant song gives me butterflies everytime i hear it
webmannie
14-Jun-05, 09:34
weird justice system when one of the jurors can come out and say afterwards that he believes Jackson "probably has molested boys."
lassieinfife
14-Jun-05, 09:36
sorry but I cant stand jackson in any shape or form dont like his music either...something wrong when the guy has to" play "with himself in every video he has made [lol]
'Jacko' was not found INNOCENT, he was found NOT GUILTY. There is a difference. He was found not guilty (due to lack of, or not credible evidence) of these offences against one specific boy during one specific time frame. It was probably difficult to find him guilty in these circumstances but I feel that if more kids had been able to give evidence then it would have been a GUILTY verdict across the board.
The prosecution against him would not have been taken lightly you know. Purely because of his status they would have tried to get as watertight a case as possible before he was even charged. It is just unfortunate that the only child witness prepared to take the stand was not the most credible one and his evidence therefore could not be believed beyond a doubt. This was not about money or race but about someone using a position of power to conduct child abuse.
As for all the screaming fans making a show of themsleves outside the court, get over it - the bloke is a paedophile.
Fifi,
there is no such verdict as "Innocent" there are only "Not Guilty" or "Guilty" or in Scotland "Not Proven", maybe this would have been more accurate.
Its history now,lets all give it a rest
lassieinfife
14-Jun-05, 11:43
as you say golach its history............... untill the next time [disgust]
weird justice system when one of the jurors can come out and say afterwards that he believes Jackson "probably has molested boys."
Why? Jackson was not charged with 'probably molesting boys... at some time or another', he was charged with specific crimes against a specific person.
It was up to the prosecution to prove those crimes and they could not.
'Jacko' was not found INNOCENT, he was found NOT GUILTY. There is a difference.
No, there really isn't. By your logic everybody is a criminal until they are taken before a court and told that they are innocent. Are you a murderer? Are you a thief? No? Has a court told you that because if not then I'm afraid that you certainly aren't innocent. :roll:
He was found not guilty (due to lack of, or not credible evidence) of these offences against one specific boy during one specific time frame. It was probably difficult to find him guilty in these circumstances but I feel that if more kids had been able to give evidence then it would have been a GUILTY verdict across the board.
If… if if if if if…. :roll:
IF more kids were available to give evidence and IF their evidence were substantial and believable then MAYBE the verdict would have been different.
IF I find fifty children to testify against you in a child abuse trial and IF their testimony is substantial and believable then I could probably get a GUILTY verdict across the board too… but that doesn't mean a thing here, in the real world.
Jeesh!
Purely because of his status they would have tried to get as watertight a case as possible before he was even charged.
And yet their case failed… does that mean that a) the evidence wasn't there or b) Jackson is a secret CIA operative whose black-ops friends put pressure on the jurors. I'm starting to suspect that some people around here would rather believe option b! :roll:
It is just unfortunate that the only child witness prepared to take the stand was not the most credible one and his evidence therefore could not be believed beyond a doubt.
Ha! Fifi you really need to think a little before you start typing. The only child witness wasn't credible and his evidence couldn't be believed… yet you still think that Jackson is guilty. Where's your evidence?
Fifi,
there is no such verdict as "Innocent" there are only "Not Guilty" or "Guilty" or in Scotland "Not Proven", maybe this would have been more accurate.
Its history now,lets all give it a rest
Oxford English Thesaurus :- INNOCENT = Not guilty, guiltless, blameless, clear, inculpable etc
I find it amazing that people here can make accusations when a 14 week trial and the might of the prosecution could not prove him guilty of ANY of the charges made. Some people better hope Jacko's lawyers don't read these pages.
I would be more worried about the mentality and motivations of the parents who let their children associate with a man who is such a supposed obvious risk to kids.
Ok jjc, I am not going to get into verbal spats with you 'cos I think you would argue that black is white to get a rise out of someone! (quite appropriate when discussing MJ!...) The point I was making was that although he was found not guilty under these circumstances I do not think he is entirely 'innocent'. Obviously, I don't have any evidence myself as I was not there but there was testimony during the trial from adults of alcohol, pornography, boys in the bed etc which has got to be questionable behaviour. Only those involved know the truth so we are all speculating.
I only hope that the fact they were able to bring charges at all will make the parents of children going to Neverland think twice about trusting someone just because he is famous.
The point I was making was that although he was found not guilty under these circumstances I do not think he is entirely 'innocent'.
Fifi, your statement above is not entirely accurate. What you said in your first post was:
[...] This was not about money or race but about someone using a position of power to conduct child abuse.
As for all the screaming fans making a show of themsleves outside the court, get over it - the bloke is a paedophile.
There is a huge difference between the two claims. In fact the latter is probably libellous -- I hope we won't be watching you on trial next week :eek:
Seriously, I'm not surprised that jjc jumped on you. One lesson I've learned on these boards is that it's important to distinguish between stating well-established facts and expressing a personal opinion.
One sequence of events was almost inevitable this morning:
Someone would express unhappiness with the outcome of the trial, and state unequivocably that Jacko's a paedophile anyway (or something similar);
jjc would appear, dissect the post, and point out the errors in the first poster's ways. :D
My only question was: "Who would express their unhappiness?" My best guess turned out to be ranting irrationally elsewhere on these boards. I was "close, but no banana" -- as the Wacko one might have said to Bubbles...
Ok jjc, I am not going to get into verbal spats with you 'cos I think you would argue that black is white to get a rise out of someone!
It's got nothing to do with 'getting a rise out of someone', this is about me trying to put into words my utter, utter disgust at the way in which the court of public/media opinion holds jurisdiction over the court of law.
Time and time again somebody with a little bit of fame gets accused of a crime and we are inundated with people judging them to be guilty before charges have even been pressed. The media swoops and follows the accused like a pack of vultures and we sit in our living room lapping up every detail like a pack of nodding dogs!
Personally I think that we see one of the lowest and most shameful sides of humanity whenever these accusations are made and it sickens me.
Worse, we've all become so used to the whole sorry situation that it has started to leech into our every-day lives. How many threads have we had pulled/locked here this week alone because people couldn't help themselves but 'name and shame' those who they suspected of crimes?
Obviously, I don't have any evidence myself … Only those involved know the truth so we are all speculating.
Actually no, we' aren't all speculating. Not all of us are speculating about crimes which he has not been accused of. Not all of us are speculating about hidden evidence that has yet to be presented. Not all of us are so hell-bent on bringing down an innocent man that we are willing to accuse 12 men and women of corruption. Some of us are quite happy to leave the decision of guilt or innocence in the courts where it belongs.
The point I was making was that although he was found not guilty under these circumstances I do not think he is entirely 'innocent'.
Oh no, you went much further than that. You flat-out stated that 'the bloke is a paedophile.".
I'm going to have to stop this post now because the sheer ignorance of your statement has left me so dumbfounded that I am on the verge of unleashing the kind of torrent that would see me banned! [mad]
cliffhbuber
14-Jun-05, 14:44
One might opine that the basic issue here is the admission of that the principle party of the Moon Walk has publicly stated that he enjoys being in bed with boys. (never a girl)
Regardless of innocence in deed, is not the idea wholly repugnant?
Why would any adult want, let alone publicly state, a desire to be with young boys (family aside) even if its 'only' lying side by side on the same bed?
....unless a person is different from the accepted norm.
the best
Cliff from across the Atlantic in yer Colonial Hinterland of Upper Canada
Notes: the US media often portrays news in the form of good ole 'Yellow Journalism'.
It has become a given on US political talk shows that Jacko is not only a "wacko" with tendencies of a pedophile, but also the parents of boys who were allowed to sleep over at NeverLand are not only daft, but completely irresponsible.
Although I said earlier that I'm glad he got off, I still think the guy is weird, and I can't understand any parent allowing their child to sleep with ANY adult other than a close relative. I do feel sorry for MJ, because he is in a prison of his, or maybe his family history's making, but the only reason I can see for the families of the accusers letting their children share his bed, is that they hoped some of his wealth would trickle their way.
webmannie
14-Jun-05, 16:27
Why? Jackson was not charged with 'probably molesting boys... at some time or another', he was charged with specific crimes against a specific person.
It was up to the prosecution to prove those crimes and they could not.
Just find it a weird statement from a juror, it was my first thought when i heard it. I'm not going to waste time debating and justifying why, he's not guilty. THE END
Now if he lived on the same street as me I would care.[/quote]
Well one things for sure now that everything is out in the opening about jackson any parent that sends there kids there for a sleep over have only themselves to blame now
Let's face it:
1) Who would have him over to babysit?
2) If, instead of being a "celebrity" - he lived at the end of your street - you would have him run out of town and he would definately be on a register.
Those people that are still proclaiming him to be a paedophile are surely no different from those who would never have accepted a guilty verdict.
Surely no-one will now let their children near him? That's got to be a result of sorts.
2little2late
14-Jun-05, 19:35
I heard that, after the verdict yesterday, Michael and his family went to Neverland to celebrate.
Michael's mum suggested hiring a DVD. Michael then replied, "I'll get Alladin"
To which his mum replied, "Michael! don't start those tricks again".
DannyThe Manny
14-Jun-05, 20:02
All this stuff about innocent / not guilty reminds me about a fellow I knew who was up in the sheriff court for a traffic offence. After being found not guilty he was speaking to someone who said 'I see you got off with it then'. As he said 'No, I was found not guilty'.
It seems that some people prefer, guilty once you've been accused even though the court found otherwiset, because 'there's no smoke without fire, and you know what they say in the papers, etc etc etc', rather than innocent until proven guilty.
champagnebaby
15-Jun-05, 06:14
Well i for one was shocked at the verdict! :eek:
The reason it's taken me so long to post on the subject is cos i didn't know what to think - still don't really :confused
I DO think that 12 jurors wouldn't give a not guity verdict for nothing.
And after reading certain things about Gavin Arvezos mom making her boys 'learn' their stories(and other things)that there must be something not right about the woman, but i guess that's obvious cos she let her boy spend so much time with MJ. So i do now believe she maybe part of a conspiracy to frame MJ.
I DO think it's very weird for him to be sharing a bed with other peoples kids though, i mean it's just not natural is it?
I guess we should put our faith in the jury and believe they have made the right decision and go with that.
i thought he might of been found guilty on at least a few of the charges. it would probably of been a good thing if he went to jail, he would of been number one all over the world this weekend.
i was in the pub when the verdict got announced. got drunk... yey!
Anyone wanna take bets on how long it will take for a film to be made of it?
Anyone wanna take bets on how long it will take for a film to be made of it?
I heard it is already in the pipeline and that there is a surprise alternative ending. Apparently this involves Jacko facing trial by members of Caithness. org and it ends with Jacko nailed up on a cross alongside someone from CASE and another from Norfrost. It seems that the three of them are singing "Always look on the bright side of Lyth" as the credits roll against a backdrop of torrential rain.
That's brilliant scorrie! :lol:
Who's gonna play Jacko in the film?
George Brims
15-Jun-05, 22:41
You would have to find a black-haired albino woman with no nose. Going to be tough!
I heard it is already in the pipeline and that there is a surprise alternative ending. Apparently this involves Jacko facing trial by members of Caithness. org and it ends with Jacko nailed up on a cross alongside someone from CASE and another from Norfrost. It seems that the three of them are singing "Always look on the bright side of Lyth" as the credits roll against a backdrop of torrential rain.[/quote]
:D [lol] :D [lol]
Brilliant
[lol]
You would have to find a black-haired albino woman with no nose. Going to be tough!
Victoria Beckham?
Victoria Beckham?
Need to spend a fair bit o cash feedin her up first, she makes Jackson look like a whale.
Let's face it:
2) If, instead of being a "celebrity" - he lived at the end of your street - you would have him run out of town and he would definately be on a register.
No he wouldn't, because if he was not who he was, no one would be allowing their children to share his bed in the first place! The mother who says saw him licking her son's head, still did not remove the child. Those people are as good as selling their children.
Let's face it:
2) If, instead of being a "celebrity" - he lived at the end of your street - you would have him run out of town and he would definately be on a register.
No he wouldn't, because if he was not who he was, no one would be allowing their children to share his bed in the first place! The mother who says saw him licking her son's head, still did not remove the child. Those people are as good as selling their children.
Agree totally! I do wonder if the American jury is representative of the people, in that they see MJ in the international spotlight and (possibly subconciously) erred on the side that didn't "tar with the same brush" - the country?
I listened to a US radio station that was phoning up listeners and asking them how many people on the sex offenders' register were within their zip code. Some guessed around "5" to be told that there were "250"!
Just a little bit worrying -that.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.