| tupincs 08.06.2005 08:52 |
The Jury is discussing, experts say we'll have the judgment on Friday. What do you think? What will the 12 say? What do you say? Is he guilty or innocent? And why? |
| Forever88 08.06.2005 08:58 |
I think he is guilty but he doesn't realise it. he just touches kids and doesn't think anything of it. |
| tupincs 08.06.2005 09:23 |
I thought the same thing. Jackson just doesn't know that his activity isn't right, it is a crime. In my opinion he shouldn't be sent to prison, but in a mental hospital. Don't misunderstand me! I like Michael, at the first point for his music, but I think he's ill. |
| deleted user 08.06.2005 09:25 |
I think he deserves prison. |
| iGSM 08.06.2005 09:28 |
I'd wager a not guilty on it. |
| Janet 08.06.2005 09:29 |
I think Michael Jackson knows exactly what he is doing. For years he has painted this picture of himself as a childlike Peter Pan, a total innocent never wanting to grow up. Well now we know that his "Neverland" is full of pornography (including naked young men) and alcohol, neither of which are illegal, but it sure shoots the innocent waif picture to hell. I think he has conned us all. He claims to love all children, yet you never hear of girls staying in his room at Neverland, only young boys. You can love children without having 13 year old boys sleep in your bed everynight. I certainly feel he is guilty of some inappropriate behavior, and though he might be found guilty on some of the charges (such as serving alcohol to children) I doubt he'll do time. |
| Mr.Jingles 08.06.2005 09:35 |
I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. If the jury finds that there's not a definite proof that he has molested children, he shouldn't be named guilty. I however think that he shouldn't be allowed to bring children to have sleepovers on his 'Neverland Ranch', and should be forced to receive psychiatrict counseling. When you're 45 and you act like a 7 year old, you're definitely mentally insane. |
| David Lee Rocks 08.06.2005 09:48 |
I don't think this is going to be another OJ-like many other people do. I say this because Michael Jackson IS weird, and the jury will probably hold that against him. Even my mother-a lifelong Michael Jackson fan, says he is weird. IF he is guilty (haven't made up my mind if I think he is or not) I think it is partly psycological, usaully I say paedophillia is a preference, not an illness, as certain people believe. However, I think in HIS case, he does need help. If he is innocent, then I am gonna feel bad for him, because he will no longer be known as 'Michael Jackson, the guy who sold 50 million copies of Thriller, the guy who took the music video to the next level, the guy who influenced all the pieces of shit in the hip hop world today', he'll be 'Michael Jackson, the guy who touches children'. |
| David Lee Rocks 08.06.2005 09:50 |
Mr.Jingles79 wrote: I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. If the jury finds that there's not a definite proof that he has molested children, he shouldn't be named guilty. I however think that he shouldn't be allowed to bring children to have sleepovers on his 'Neverland Ranch', and should be forced to receive psychiatrict counseling. When you're 45 and you act like a 7 year old, you're definitely mentally insane.Totally agree. |
| Mr.Jingles 08.06.2005 10:32 |
Long before becoming a Queen fan I was a devoted Michael Jackson fan. I still remember being 4 years old and watching all those videos from 'Thriller' on TV. I'd record them on a Betamax and then watch them an endless number of times with my friends while we tried to immitate all his dance moves including the 'Moonwalk'. It's sad that the same guy who back in the early 80s was undoubtely 'The King Of Pop' and loved by just about everyone, is now extremely despised and turned himself into some kind of freak monster. If Michael Jackson is truly guilty, then let's hope JUSTICE is done and let him face the consecuences. ...and if not, then the guy needs to have his freakin' head checked. |
| YourValentine 08.06.2005 10:44 |
Michael Jackson shows that you cannot establish healthy relationships when you come from an abusive family. I don't know American laws but when he was in Germany a while ago people could not believe that he is allowed to treat his children that way and to isolate them from normal people. Apparently, nobody knows where his youngest child comes from, that's incredible, The whole trial showed that money rules over dignity and greed is the worst enemy of human decency. How can parents leave their kids in the care of such an obviously disturbed man without asking questions? how can the mother of the Jackson kids give up her rights for money? I don't think he is guilty as charged but a lot of abuse happened in this family without anybody caring and the children are the victims in any case just as Michael Jackson himself was already a victim as a child. |
| David Lee Rocks 08.06.2005 10:59 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote: To be quite honest, I couldn't care less. I think this ought to be treated the same as any other case of child molestation: the whole county is talking about it, but outside the county you hardly hear anything, and no one outside the state knows of it.I beg to differ. |
| Mr.Jingles 08.06.2005 11:10 |
YourValentine wrote: Michael Jackson shows that you cannot establish healthy relationships when you come from an abusive family. I don't know American laws but when he was in Germany a while ago people could not believe that he is allowed to treat his children that way and to isolate them from normal people. Apparently, nobody knows where his youngest child comes from, that's incredible, The whole trial showed that money rules over dignity and greed is the worst enemy of human decency. How can parents leave their kids in the care of such an obviously disturbed man without asking questions? how can the mother of the Jackson kids give up her rights for money? I don't think he is guilty as charged but a lot of abuse happened in this family without anybody caring and the children are the victims in any case just as Michael Jackson himself was already a victim as a child.I totally agree with you. Also, one thing that I've always questioned... If Michael Jackson claims to care so much about children, how come he's spending so much money on all this luxury shit for his 'Neverland Ranch' while millions of poor children around the world are starving to death? |
| doremi 08.06.2005 12:13 |
Mr.Jingles79 wrote:Both YV & Jingles..hats off to both of you.YourValentine wrote: Michael Jackson shows that you cannot establish healthy relationships when you come from an abusive family. I don't know American laws but when he was in Germany a while ago people could not believe that he is allowed to treat his children that way and to isolate them from normal people. Apparently, nobody knows where his youngest child comes from, that's incredible, The whole trial showed that money rules over dignity and greed is the worst enemy of human decency. How can parents leave their kids in the care of such an obviously disturbed man without asking questions? how can the mother of the Jackson kids give up her rights for money? I don't think he is guilty as charged but a lot of abuse happened in this family without anybody caring and the children are the victims in any case just as Michael Jackson himself was already a victim as a child.I totally agree with you. Also, one thing that I've always questioned... If Michael Jackson claims to care so much about children, how come he's spending so much money on all this luxury shit for his 'Neverland Ranch' while millions of poor children around the world are starving to death? And agreed, with his millions, he could help starving, dying children in 3rd world & war torn nations. Why doesn't he spend his time and money more effectively and with PURPOSE, instead of indulging HIMSELF, by bringing sick & vulnerable children to Neverland and plying them with his money & life of luxury to..perhaps...have his way with them. |
| Mr.Jingles 08.06.2005 13:02 |
The only thing that seems to be working for the benefit of Michael Jackson during this trial is the fact that the people who are accusing him as well as the prosecutors seem to be just about as crazy as him. According to reports the Jury doesn't seem to be very convinced of their allegations, which have been apparently over-exaggerated and over-dramatized by the accusers, so much to the point that there's been reports of members of the Jury laughing during testimonies. The mother of one of Michael Jackson's accusers testified that she's been receiving death threats from anonymus sources apparently linked to Michael Jackson. Later on, she testified that her allegations were not true, and she lied under oath. Celebrities like Jay Leno, Macaulay Culkin, and Chris Tucker claimed that they've been pestered with phone calls to not come in defense of Michael Jackson. To this point, you don't know which wacko to believe in. |
| The Fairy King 08.06.2005 13:04 |
His biggest mistake was indeed taking these kids in his home. This made him instantly vulnerable for these kinda accusations. I don't think he's guilty of these charges at least i didn't see any real evidence...which they claimed there were. I don't believe the kid that accused him, cuz of his mom had accused several people of the same crime... He's just fucked up cuz fame came to him at an early stage, like many others. He had a abusive father and brothers and when u have wealth u can build this wall around u and never grow up. He can't survive in prison...poor lad :( |
| Mrs Taylor 05 08.06.2005 13:11 |
Innocent |
| GreatKingSam 08.06.2005 14:14 |
The guy is innocent. He may be messed up in his head, but I do not for one minute think he has it in him to hurt a child. I think that yes - he does sleep in the same room as kids, possibly even a bed, but I do not think that he touches them innapropriately. That is not to say it is right to do so, but just because society says it is wrong, it doesn't mean it necessarily is. Unfortunately, in his isolated world, I don't think he sees past the smiles on the kids faces. He just doesn't want people to have a childhood like him. Unfortunately, as many others who happen to not be international pop superstars know, sometimes in your quest to stop what you hate, you can sometimes find you become exactly that. If they have no evidence against him, the man is innocent. And a man he still is, regardless of how he looks. Is if fair to destroy a man's life on the basis of "possibility"?. Not at all. Let's hope they decide sensibly. |
| doremi 08.06.2005 14:15 |
Mr.Jingles79 wrote: The only thing that seems to be working for the benefit of Michael Jackson during this trial is the fact that the people who are accusing him as well as the prosecutors seem to be just about as crazy as him. According to reports the Jury doesn't seem to be very convinced of their allegations, which have been apparently over-exaggerated and over-dramatized by the accusers, so much to the point that there's been reports of members of the Jury laughing during testimonies. The mother of one of Michael Jackson's accusers testified that she's been receiving death threats from anonymus sources apparently linked to Michael Jackson. Later on, she testified that her allegations were not true, and she lied under oath. Celebrities like Jay Leno, Macaulay Culkin, and Chris Tucker claimed that they've been pestered with phone calls to not come in defense of Michael Jackson. To this point, you don't know which wacko to believe in.In agreement with you here. I think the jury, EVEN if they think he even MIGHT be guilty, will come back with an innocent verdict...because the evidence...sucks. The accusers and witnesses are a circus sideshow cast of con artists and characters with their own issues and personal & financial agendas, and I would not want to convict anybody on the basis of these nutjobs and connivers out for a buck. Without solid, credible witnesses, accusers, and evidence...there is no case really. I just hope for Jackson's case, if he gets off the hook with this, that he is 1) innocent] 2) if he is guilty, he puts an IMMEDIATE end to his insideous practices and gets a clue. |
| Lisser 08.06.2005 14:33 |
I just hope Michael Jackson didn't do what he is accused of. I grew up listening to him. I loved his music. I just don't want to believe that he'd do something as twisted as what he is accused of. I think that the accusers are out for his money. I might be thinking that bc I refuse to believe that Michael Jackson is incapable of molesting children. I am 99% sure this is why I think he is innocent. I just hate to think he'd do this. But when you look at the evidence that was found in his house, you just can't turn your cheek. There is no doubt that he is a "little" odd and he gets more and more odd as the years pass by. I'd like to believe that he just doesn't know how to act appropriately bc he's been in show biz almost his whole life!! It's been said numerous times that his father was abusive and controlling. I don't think anyone doubts that. If he's found guilty, I'd like to see him get the help he needs in some sort of inpatient psychiatric setting or a controlled environment where he can be taught the appropriate way to interact with adults and children. I agree with whoever said he doesn't realize that the things he does are just not normal and are against the law in most cases. I don't think him being in jail would do any good to anyone. He needs help. I'm convinced he has not one clue on how to behave like an adult, a father, a son, a brother, an uncle, or a friend to anyone. Whatever happens, I just hope he gets the help he needs or this will happen over and over and over again. |
| wstüssyb 08.06.2005 14:59 |
hard to picture MJ in prison...he wont last a day without special treatment. |
| deleted user 08.06.2005 16:59 |
<h99>Forever88</h99> wrote: I think he is guilty but he doesn't realise it. he just touches kids and doesn't think anything of it.I agree w/ ya |
| doremi 08.06.2005 17:27 |
wstüssyb wrote: hard to picture MJ in prison...he wont last a day without special treatment.But DON't drop the soap! |
| brENsKi 08.06.2005 18:14 |
at this moment in time MJ's hoping for a hung-jury what he actually said was "are they hung? - well hung? can i have a looksee"? |
| Janet 08.06.2005 18:15 |
Oh dear...LOL! |
| doremi 08.06.2005 18:16 |
<B><font color=#ff7f00>Brenski</B> wrote: at this moment in time MJ's hoping for a hung-jury what he actually said was "are they hung? - well hung? can i have a looksee"?LMFAO!!!! |
| brENsKi 08.06.2005 18:18 |
look, i'm working within the confines of some very old and very substandard material here, i think i'm doing ok-ish apols if these have been in here before q. what's the difference between MJ and a Tesco's carrier bag? a. one's made of plastic and dangerous to kids, the other is for taking your shopping home in q. what's the difference between MJ and Israel? a. Israel got out of Jordan in the nick of time |
| Janet 08.06.2005 18:20 |
More than ok-ish ;-) |
| Mr.Jingles 08.06.2005 19:13 |
I don't think Michael Jackson would like to see what it feels like pick up the bar of soap. ...besides, he's the one who is used to react when someone drops the rubber duckie. |
| doremi 08.06.2005 19:42 |
Stay away from the Mr. Bubble! Drop that rubber duckie NOW! |
| inu-liger 08.06.2005 20:57 |
I'd feel more sorry for his children, if they're really his. They're REALLY gonna need to be shielded from the public, before they get asked questions like: "Your dad's a child molestor, isn't he?" etc. :P |
| tymd 09.06.2005 02:42 |
sam, you don't think it is wrong to innapropriatly touch a child ???? if this is not wrong there is no such thing as right and wrong.God help us all |
| Mr Drowse 09.06.2005 05:31 |
Arlene R. Weiss wrote:And don't drop your nose :)wstüssyb wrote: hard to picture MJ in prison...he wont last a day without special treatment.But DON't drop the soap! |
| GreatKingSam 09.06.2005 06:10 |
tymd wrote: sam, you don't think it is wrong to innapropriatly touch a child ???? if this is not wrong there is no such thing as right and wrong.God help us allI assume you are reffering to me TYMD? Well, if you read my post, in no way did I say that. What I actually said was that there is a difference between if - in your mind - you are innocently spending time with kids and happen to sleep in the same bed with them (innocently as in you are doing it becuase you want to make a difference to their lives and just want to make these kids happy for however long it may be possible), and molesting a child becuase you are sick in the head. I do not for one minute believe - for all his faults percieved by the oh so correct society - he is sick enough to molest, let alone hurt a child. He may do things like cover their faces and unfortunately dangle them off a balcony, but in fairness, as stated many times in this topic, he has some characteristics of a child in the way that he perhaps doesn't think things through to their conclusion before hand becuase - to him - he isn't doing anything wrong as such. Why? Becuase he's innocent. However, what about the Arvizo parent/guardians? Surely, if your kids wanted to go stay round any adults house, let alone Michael Jackson's, surely you'd raise an eyebrow and at the very least say "no you're fucking not", just out of sheer caution and concern not becuase something is going to happen. What's the difference there? Is it becuase, in society, they are viewed as pretty much normal? Surely it's inconcievable to think that they wanted millions of dollars out of him? Actually, it's not is it. At the end of the day, there is a VERY clear difference between "illegal" and "wrong in the view of society". Should someone get jailed for 18 years for something that society views as wrong? I don't think so, and I don't think it's worth destryoing a man's life for that either. |
| GreatKingSam 09.06.2005 06:13 |
|
| GreatKingSam 09.06.2005 06:15 |
|
| Janet 09.06.2005 07:04 |
Michael Jackson is not an innocent(by innocent I'm not talking about the trial, I'm speaking of his persona.). They found much pornography and alcohol in his home. He has been to rehab for addiction to prescription drugs. He is on prescription drugs now. If he is an innocent, nonsexual waif, what does he need pornography for? You can't have it both ways. He wants you to BELIEVE he is an innocent. Even his former wife Lisa Marie Presley said that she truly did love him, but that he has everyone snowed. He has a public persona, the "innocent childlike" Michael Jackson, and a very different persona when he is in private. Yes he was abused as a child. But there are alot of people that are abused that grow up to lead normal productive lives. There comes a time when you have to take responsibility for your own life and actions. It amazes me that so many people are willing to overlook his rediculous behavior just because of who he is. How could a 46 year old man sleeping in bed with a child make a positive difference in the child's life? My son is 18 now, but if he would've come home at 12 and said "when I slept over Frank's house last night his dad asked me to sleep in bed with him" I would be furious, and so would any other parent on this board. I hold the parents of these victims responsible too. Is rubbing elbows with the famous so important to them that they will throw their own child to the wolves? Its disgusting. |
| freesia 09.06.2005 09:39 |
What Ive never been able to understand is, why the HELL MJ puts himself in this position. Any normal person (or anyone other than someone with ulterior motives) would not have these kids in his house FULL STOP. I think the parents are just as much to blame, because I know one thing I sure as hell wouldnt let my kids go to anyones house who I heard was suspected of messing about with them, Michael Jackson included! Neither would any other self respecting parents. I do however think, that he is ill, (who on earth would do what he has done to his face, and hold his opinions of having young boys in his bed as A-OK if they wernt ill), I think if he is found to be guilty, then it should be a mental hospital, as I think he would try to take his own life in prison. Dont get me wrong, I think its a complete tragedy for someone as talented as MJ to end up in this state, but he isnt the first (Gary GLitter), and he wont be the last. However, he should not be treated any differently to anyone else, if the proof is there and he is guilty, well tough, if not, lets hope he gets some help, and can rebuild his life and finally quit (hopefully he will have learnt) having children share his house, if not, he deserves all he gets. |
| Mr.Jingles 09.06.2005 10:22 |
Not like I'm trying to take Michael Jackson's position, but remember that back in 1993 Michael Jackson was first accused of sexually molesting a boy and then they later settled out of court for a concealed amount of money some claim to be between 2 and 50 million. This comes to two possible conclusions... - Michael Jackson's accuser and his mother successfully scammed him. Michael in this case wouldn't have molested this kid, but he sure prefered to give them money in order to make them shut their mouths and not bring another lawsuit. - Despite of molesting this kid, his mother is still willing to take money over justice. What kind of fucked up parent do you have to be, to let free the person who sexually molested your child and receive money instead? That's like selling your own child, and it's sickening to think that a parent could do such a thing. |
| flash00. 09.06.2005 12:21 |
imo i think jacko is guilty as hell, did you know he borrowed the cash off liz taylor to pay the chandler kid, jacko has always said he's A-sexual not interested in sex or booze but then he reads porn mags and gets drunk!!! then sleeps with kids c'mon if it was your next door neighbour he'd be locked up and if all that crap about lost childhood, his die hard fans say noooo he would never do that his music is great.. the thing is he's not being judged on his 9-5 job its his personal life do you think the police and prosecution would go all this way on a high profile case if they thought for one minute he was innocent they'll know a hell of a lot more info than us and all the gory details, the man is a weirdo. the thing is i love his music from the 80's |
| brENsKi 09.06.2005 12:27 |
Inu-Liger<h6>-a.k.a. Richard Guilbault- wrote: I'd feel more sorry for his children, if they're really his. They're REALLY gonna need to be shielded from the public, before they get asked questions like: "Your dad's a child molestor, isn't he?" etc. :Pi know - that's a really shit deal, especially when you add to the fact that they already think he's a waxwork model who makes shit music still, you don't get to choose your parents...poor mites |
| flash00. 09.06.2005 12:35 |
lollll !! someone said why does he put himself in this position like any child abuser they cant stop, i mean why the fuck does he talk like that even his voice coach said to him why do you talk like that talk for? the coach also said jacko's talking voice is pretty deep but imo its to come across sweet young and innocent and to appeal to youngsters, what about that rich business man from uk for when he was a kid jacko used to phone him for hours and then start talking filth saying are you touching yourself because i am which freaked the kid out, now this business man didnt want to get involved because he has built himself a good business and is very wealthy so why would he lie for money? when he's already rich! also whatabout when jacko had a gay affair with liberace's young blonde boyfriend in the very early 80's |
| GreatKingSam 09.06.2005 14:30 |
Wow, you all seem to know him so well! I'm glad you've all come on here and told us these obviously true stories! None of it seems like tabloid crap at all. Tell me, were you there when all these things happened? |
| dragonzflame 09.06.2005 19:46 |
Probably innocent. I seriously think that he's just lost touch with the adult world and adult morals and just can't get what people find so dodgy about a man sleeping with other people's kids. Hopefully this trial will give him the slap he needs to finally figure this out. |
| GreatKingSam 10.06.2005 06:36 |
He is innocent. The problem is, whether this is unfortunate or not - that sleeping in a bed with children for innocent reasons (regardless of how society views this)isn't illegal. Molesting them is. I think what they have to look at is the fact that, in his mind, he is doing nothing illicit (as well as the fact nothing illicit is going on). However, whether the courts do it or not (which is VERY LIKELY) Mike's people will have to impose some form of strict watch on him to make sure he doesn't spend so much time with kids in such innapropriate places (and I don't mean their groins, I mean his bed). Anyway, apparently he's been quoted as saying he is going to relocate to Europe when he has been "proven innocent" as he never wants to live at Neverland again after the manner in which the police forcefully and unfairly invaded it. |
| tupincs 10.06.2005 09:53 |
Sorry, US-friends. But it seems to me, a Europian, that people in America often overstate it with sexual issues. A friend visited school in the US, and she told me that she had known a family. They refused to watch Schindler's list, a movie about the holocaust, because there were naked people in it. Back to Jacko. I naturally couldn't say if he had anything with this young boy. There' an idea that makes me really mad. I think Jackson could do anything on his farm, if he wouldn't have insulted Sony boss, Tony Motolla. Just before the trial opened MJ gave an interview (which is very rare in his case). He spoke about the way Sony exhausts his artists. It's interesting that in the same month the counsel had enough evidence to start the trial. Coencidence? |
| KillerQueen840 10.06.2005 09:59 |
<B><font color=#ff7f00>Brenski</B> wrote:Lol, I do feel really bad for them as well. But you know, they're probably happy that they get to wear those ridiculous things over their faces...especially when they're near their dad. ;-)Inu-Liger<h6>-a.k.a. Richard Guilbault- wrote: I'd feel more sorry for his children, if they're really his. They're REALLY gonna need to be shielded from the public, before they get asked questions like: "Your dad's a child molestor, isn't he?" etc. :Pi know - that's a really shit deal, especially when you add to the fact that they already think he's a waxwork model who makes shit music still, you don't get to choose your parents...poor mites |
| GreatKingSam 10.06.2005 10:12 |
Tupincs... You do know Michael Jackson doesn't actually live on a farm? And the Sony boss is actually called Tommy Mottola? And the "interview" Michael did was actually more of a press conference/rally, regarding Sony being racist towards it black artists (and before anyone says anythign I know he has a white face, but, he is a black man). I can all but promise you this case isn't built upon his and Sony's falling out with each others. It's about a greed ridden family and a man called Thomas Sneddon - who, incidentally, hates Michael. |
| Mr.Jingles 10.06.2005 10:19 |
The whole deal with Sony is just Michael Jackson being a whiny pussy. Michael Jackson was pissed off because back in 2001 Sony refused to over promote 'Invincible'. I could understand Tommy Motolla's position because the album was just mediocre, so why promote an album that is not so good and people are not going to buy. The thing with Michael Jackson is that he thinks he's still THE KING OF POP, and he's NOT. |
| GreatKingSam 10.06.2005 10:24 |
Well said. And you're correct about people talking about they found perfectly legal pronographic magazines in his room... he is a 46 year old, regardless of how the public percieve him, he IS allowed porn!? But, the bigger picture is, the opposition have tried to you small facts like this against him, rather than anything solid per se. Which makes me think they are clutching at straws. And when his ex wife, Debbie Rowe testified - they thought it was gonna be against Mike, but it was actually for him. Perhaps that is the biggest clue? Who knows. But, fingers crossed, if and when he gets proven innocent (possibly it will be more likely there is isnufficient evidence to prove otherwise but anyway...) he 'cleans his act up' per se and just gets his head down quietly and starts to make some more music, for himself if not just for his fans. |
| GreatKingSam 10.06.2005 10:27 |
Mr.Jingles79 wrote: The whole deal with Sony is just Michael Jackson being a whiny pussy. Michael Jackson was pissed off because back in 2001 Sony refused to over promote 'Invincible'. I could understand Tommy Motolla's position because the album was just mediocre, so why promote an album that is not so good and people are not going to buy. The thing with Michael Jackson is that he thinks he's still THE KING OF POP, and he's NOT.Actually, I thought it was quite good. From the point of view compared to his other great albums, it isn't as commercially great, but it is very strong, and different to a lot of his other stuff, much more "black" dare I say. And you say Sony wouldn't "over-promote"... they didn't promote the labum hardly at all. A large poster put up in Times Square and two singles was poor. A further two singles were scheduled for release, both videos and production to be funded by Jackson himself, "Unbreakable" with Mel Gibson, and "Whatever Happens" with Carlos Sanatan - but Sony were basically "lazy" and just didnt ever get round to sorting it out. Perhaps Jacko's method to "show them up" wasn't the best way, but people do things out of anger - and if you're a touch wierd up top too... |
| Janet 10.06.2005 10:31 |
Fruit Side, that is my WHOLE point! Of course a MAN having porn, or drinking alcohol is not illegal, I stated that in my first post on this topic. But, Michael Jackson has passed himself off for years as a totally NONSEXUAL innocent Peter Pan who never grew up. What is a person like that interested in porn for? He claims that he loves children and that he built Neverland for them to visit and feel safe. Well then why would you have those items where innocent children could possibly get their hands on them? It is a fact that the accuser's fingerprints were found on a pornographic magazine along with Jacksons. |
| Janet 10.06.2005 10:35 |
Okay, I don't want to argue. You have your opinion, I have mine. Perhaps every man over the age of 35 should crawl into bed to sleep with a 12 year old tonight, since its all so normal and wonderful. Have a nice day. |
| Mr.Jingles 10.06.2005 10:49 |
GreatKingSam wrote:I'm realizing that you're right about that one. I've seen albums that sound far worse than 'Invincible', but still get much better promotion.Mr.Jingles79 wrote: The whole deal with Sony is just Michael Jackson being a whiny pussy. Michael Jackson was pissed off because back in 2001 Sony refused to over promote 'Invincible'. I could understand Tommy Motolla's position because the album was just mediocre, so why promote an album that is not so good and people are not going to buy. The thing with Michael Jackson is that he thinks he's still THE KING OF POP, and he's NOT.Actually, I thought it was quite good. From the point of view compared to his other great albums, it isn't as commercially great, but it is very strong, and different to a lot of his other stuff, much more "black" dare I say. And you say Sony wouldn't "over-promote"... they didn't promote the labum hardly at all. A large poster put up in Times Square and two singles was poor. A further two singles were scheduled for release, both videos and production to be funded by Jackson himself, "Unbreakable" with Mel Gibson, and "Whatever Happens" with Carlos Sanatan - but Sony were basically "lazy" and just didnt ever get round to sorting it out. Perhaps Jacko's method to "show them up" wasn't the best way, but people do things out of anger - and if you're a touch wierd up top too... I still think 'Invincible' is very mediocre compared to the albums Michael did from 'Off The Wall' to 'Dangerous', but it's sort of a decent album depending on how you see it. There's some great songs like 'Whatever Happens', 'Unbreakable, 'Butterflies' and 'You Rock My World', but crap like '2000 Watts' is just painful to listen. |
| brENsKi 10.06.2005 12:06 |
Unfortunately, when he was told that if he pleaded guitly he'd get "banged in the slammer" for eight years he had slightly differnt kind of banging in mind |
| brENsKi 10.06.2005 12:09 |
Fruit Side wrote: I've never seen an interview of him saying he is not interested in sex. Michael Jackson is a 46 year old man, who drinks wine, has back problems, and looks at LEGAL porn magazines. Seems like a normal man to me.a very curious defence angle...why didn't his defence use it? please don't pursue a legal career...with you as a defence lawyer jeffrey Dahmer, Charlie manson and Mark Chapman would all get off...and the world would be a less safer place for it |
| GreatKingSam 10.06.2005 12:41 |
They did kinda use that... When they brought up about the porn found, they just said kinda "have a laugh, he's a 46 year old man who lives alone... how many 46 year old men dont or have never looked at legal porn?". And as for "both MJ's and Gavin's finger prints were on the magazine..." argument - is there NO CHANCE whatsoever that they happened to look at the same pages on DIFFERENT times!? |
| Janet 10.06.2005 12:46 |
Sure there is. But when a man knows that multiple children are in his home most everyday, including his own, would he not make sure that items like pornography and alcohol would not be available for them to explore? As I said, I really don't want to argue about this anymore. The fact is, if it was a normal everyday citizen and not Michael Jackson we would not even be having this conversation. |
| GreatKingSam 10.06.2005 12:55 |
Well said. Exactly, there is no real evidence. There's very much "reasonable doubt", which by law means he is innocent. I think there is more to say the family are scamming him than otherwise. By the way, you all keep bringing up about how in 1993 when he paid off the Chandler's to end that case, what you don't read about is how he used to pay for them to go on holidays, fly them out to see him, buy them a family car etc And the best bit is, the bit I love - the father of the family was a producer of plays, and had asked Jackson to fund his new stage show AND also help pay 75% towards an extension on the side of their house... Mikey said no and guess what? Two weeks later he was in court! |
| Janet 10.06.2005 12:59 |
Whether we feel he is guilty or innocent is irrelevant. The judge obviously felt there was enough evidence pointing to his guilt or there would not have even been a trial. The jurors will decide, and whatever the verdict is, we must accept. |
| Janet 10.06.2005 13:09 |
I didn't say we had to agree, I said we'd have to accept. |
| bitesthedust 10.06.2005 14:07 |
<font color=#FF399> Linda Of The Valley wrote: um...ok...goes without saying that we have to accept the verdict but doesn't mean we have to agree to it. I thought this whole thread was to disxuss the issue and that's what we're doing. I think he should be accounted as not guilty until proven guilty. And the so-called 'evidence' is finding a porno mag in his house and taking the families 'witnessed incidents' as correct. In this case I could go around bringing everyone to court with charges such as this. The sad thing is that Michael clearly loves these children that have brought him to court - not in a molesting way IMO but a true compassion...and as said previously, he pays for their holidays, cars, and to stay in his ranch...what do they give in return? and the poor man is in such a state...A man/woman is innocent 'til proven guilty.... |
| Janet 10.06.2005 14:07 |
Well..lol! Whether you or I agree with the verdict its not going to change is it? Thats why I said we'd have to accept whatever it was! :-) |
| GreatKingSam 10.06.2005 14:17 |
Yo Linda... I hate to say it but, if this case drags on for much longer without a verdict, and his weight and apparently health keep declining per se, seriously or not, I think there is a high chance he may take his life before the possibilty of getting locked up for 18 years. Remember back in 1993 he got addicted to morphine and demerol, I wouldn't rule out that he's addicted to pain killers again, coz he lost an awful lot of weight back then. It is a horrifying thought that he could get locked up, and even more so that he could take his life. I just hope they make the right decision. |
| Janet 10.06.2005 14:42 |
The case was presented before a grand jury first. If the grand jury determines that the defendant is more believable than the charges brought against him/her, the case can be dismissed. If the grand jury believes the evidence is strong, the case goes to trial. |
| brENsKi 10.06.2005 15:52 |
Janet wrote: The case was presented before a grand jury first. If the grand jury determines that the defendant is more believable than the charges brought against him/her, the case can be dismissed. If the grand jury believes the evidence is strong, the case goes to trial.exactly, quite often cases are dismissed BEFORE they go to trial in britain the courts make distinction between Trial committals and conviction hearings convictions hearing go to crown court for sentencing where the defendent pleaded guilty at magistrates court trial hearing are where the defendent has pleaded not guilty at magistrates court |
| Maz 11.06.2005 00:11 |
Anybody else see Triumph the Insult Dog at the Jackson Trial? |
| onevsion 19.06.2005 20:58 |
let´s just say that i´m really glad that we don´t have a Jury in the Netherlands to decide wether a person is guilty or not. I don´t know if MJ is guilty. Don´t have an opinion about it because I don´t know the case. |