Michael Jackson is NOT GUILTY

[Turambar]

In that case i better make sure i dont sleep in the same bed as any blokes because then ill be a homosexual?

Are you seeing the flaw in your logic here? Whether there was a need for it or not and whether you agree with it or not does not make the man a pervert.

Turambar wrote:
In that case i better make sure i dont sleep in the same bed as any blokes because then ill be a homosexual?

Are you seeing the flaw in your logic here? Whether there was a need for it or not and whether you agree with it or not does not make the man a pervert.

We have different interpretations of perversion then.

[cecilia]

In that case i better make sure i dont sleep in the same bed as any blokes because then ill be a homosexual?

who cares? if you are adults i don't care a rats behind what may or may not be going on.

i'm not a prude (where's that whale penis???)  :-P

but in MJ's case we are talking about children. and children is where I draw the line. it doesn't matter if he's really "doing" anything with these kids. you just don't put children in a strangers bed.

period.

[bloodline]

Prepare for Paedogeddon!!!

"But today, the number of children having sex with adults is beyond belief. If you define a child as anyone under 30, the figure is over 86%. Institutional paedophilia spreads wide rife."

[Turambar]

who cares?

My point exactly.

[PMC]

In a new development, Michael Jackson was contacted by a member of the British Press and was asked how he felt about being acquitted of all charges:

"Chamone motherf****r!  Ah'm f***ing innocent of all those motherf*****g charges!"

[Cymric]

Wayne wrote:
Michael Jackson, not guilty by reason of celebrity. Nothing else needs be said.

Not quite true: the actual evidence was paper thin and suggested rather than proved. The members of the jury were quite aware of the difference; no mean feat in a country which in a remote location on Cuba seeks to do exactly the opposite! I am quite sure that Jackson did things which were revolting as well as highly illegal, but unfortunately for all the children who didn't press charges, the witnesses who did were not exactly stellar. That is vastly unfair and morally inexcusable, but laws and trials were never about fairness or justice. They are about, well, laws.

In any case, the participants in this muppet show have emerged badly scarred. Jackson will never be able to hold another party for children at his home, unless he is separated from them with barbed wire and kept under continuous camera surveillance. His image, already tarnished, has sunk pretty much to rock bottom after this mediashark feeding frenzy. And perhaps it makes parents in general wonder just a little bit more about taking sensible precautions before handing over your child to someone you don't really know. Even if it is a celebrity.

@Cymric,

Several of the jurors themselves when interviewed said that "I'm fairly certain that he has done some of the things for which he was accused, but the prosecution simply didn't make their case beyond a shadow of doubt in this instance."

So, blame it on the bleepy prosecution, or more accurately, you can blame it on the fact that Jackson could buy the best defense attorneys which are usually far better than the local District Attorney in almost every case.

An average or poor person would have been lynched on the same exact prosecution case within a week of the start of the trial.

Hence, not guilty by reason of celebrity.

Wayne

[Cymric]

You penned down a non-sequitur. Prosecution was bleepy, but that does not mean an unfavourable ruling is caused the salary of the defense lawyers. There are more causes. If you put lousy witnesses on the stand---and that was something the Dutch papers strongly suggested---you can expect them to be gunned down by any lawyer, no matter how many zeroes there are on his pay cheque. A trial is not a game where you ask the other party to go easy on your witnesses just because you are not so good a lawyer, or the witness simply stinks!

In addition, your argument is very subjective: there are plenty of examples where the salary of the lawyer did not do a thing because the evidence was so overwhelming. I am quite sure you wouldn't have mentioned it were Jackson found to be guilty. But you will remember the sentiment that the jury verdict was solely caused by big money and big star status.

I really feel very sorry for the children who did not see justice served, but as I said before, laws and trials are not about justice. This concludes my contributions to this discussion. I have made my point clear and see little reason to continue elaborating it.

I really feel very sorry for the children who did not see justice served

As do I, I think that's the source of my frustration over this issue.  There is simply the indication that even the jurors think he's a pedo, but that the prosecution simply failed to prove it's case.  As a lawyer friend points out though, the prosecution's job to make the case is only half the equation.  The other being the strength of the defense's "ripping apart" of the prosecution's case.

I tend to wonder whether a lot of the witnesses were simply intimidated by the whole process and scope of the trial.

In the end, regardless of what happened, I can only hope that no parent is stupid enough to endanger their kids with this wacko any more.

On top of that, I understand MJ's about 300 million in debt (before the trial even started) and will more than likely now start suing everyone trying to scoop his way out of the hole.

PMC wrote:
In a new development, Michael Jackson was contacted by a member of the British Press and was asked how he felt about being acquitted of all charges:

"Chamone motherf****r!  Ah'm f***ing innocent of all those motherf*****g charges!"

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

"I wanna see the llamay's. Show me the motherf*cking llamay's!" ;-)

[Tripitaka]

Without all the evidence in front of me I judge no one. Here in the U.K. we have seen rock solid convictions blown apart years later, with the real guilty parties often walking free.
The question is the same the world over:

IS THE SYSTEM WORKING?


 :pint:

>  IS THE SYSTEM WORKING?

Only for the rich.  The system doesn't work for the average person accused of a crime, whether or not they're even involved.

[Tripitaka]

Wayne wrote:
>  IS THE SYSTEM WORKING?

Only for the rich.  The system doesn't work for the average person accused of a crime, whether or not they're even involved.

Damn right. I still object to being a "subject" to the crown. Monarchy sucks.
Still, some people in the world don't even get to express an opinion as to do so could bring hardship or death. That sucks even more.

[CU_AMiGA]

Hey Yo!

:lol:

Michael Jackson - NOT GUILTY!

Regards,

Hey Yo!

While the toast is funny (thank you), "Hey Yo!" is about as annoying as Michael Jackson, Doommaster, or people who end every sentence in "ya know?".  Please find another catch phrase.

Wayne