| doremi 13.06.2005 17:16 |
NOT GULITY ALL 10 CHARGES I listened to it live on CNN Radio. Here is the article update. link |
| Megamike The GREAT 13.06.2005 17:20 |
I am shocked that he wasn't found guilty of providing the alcohol!.. |
| Haystacks Calhoun 13.06.2005 17:21 |
Now, can we hang this Sneddon guy!!! |
| wstüssyb 13.06.2005 17:25 |
I wonder how much he bribed the jury. lol |
| MercuryArts 13.06.2005 17:25 |
Unbelievable!!! A sad day in this country! |
| _amadeus_ 13.06.2005 17:27 |
Bab baba loo loo, ba bap bap bo, TUTTI FRUITTI! |
| doremi 13.06.2005 17:28 |
As I said on one of the other many M.J. Topics. legal analysts said that over 100 police & Nat'l. Guard were stationed in the entire area around the courthouse...(translation, they anticipated mass rioting if M.J. was found guilty..which many people STILL say was the main reason O.J. got off, not just that he was rich/famous...but people were AFRAID to find O.J.)... ..and M.J. guilty...so M.J. was found innocent "by reason of fear of mass rioting, people being killed, looting)...stupid huh? |
| wstüssyb 13.06.2005 17:29 |
fuck you. You all just can't handle the truth! I told all of you - he's innocnet, definitely innocent and the jury has spoken!! yay!! WTF is your problem? Your attitude is worse then a cat in heat. he's guity, if you never even heard of him you would think the same, only reason he was deemed not guity was becuase he is famous. |
| Saint Jiub 13.06.2005 17:31 |
As I said, Money talks and bullsh*t talks too. I am not surprised, as the American justice system is pathetic. |
| doremi 13.06.2005 17:35 |
Read this excert from CNN's article about the jury pool. One member VISITED Neverland...excuse me...that person should NOT have been allowed to be a juror. I have served Jury duty myself. Thats should disqualify you immediately from being a juror as it will make you subjective and partial. "Members of the jury came from a pool of 200 people from Santa Barbara County, just north of Los Angeles. The eight-woman, four-man jury ranged in age from 20 to 79,.... ....including a 21-year-old male paraplegic who said he once visited Neverland Ranch, where Jackson has a mansion, zoo and small amusement park." |
| Janet 13.06.2005 17:45 |
Agree with Rip. |
| eggy 13.06.2005 17:48 |
Correct decision, ta. |
| Mr.Jingles 13.06.2005 17:50 |
Michael Jackson might be a complete freak, and his apperance and weird behavior might give a lot of people the impression that he's guilty. Yet not many people know that his accusers have been proven to be a team of con artists who would reach the lowest levels to make money from extortion. Who should we believe... I guess we'll never know. |
| wstüssyb 13.06.2005 17:51 |
There is nothing right about a 30/40 year old guy having young boys sleep over at his house, sorry If some guy on my block was doing that, what do you think is gonna happen? MJ is just famous, and he has fans, thats why he is innocent, if he was some random guy off some block that was put to this trail with this evidence, he would be sitting in a prison block right now. |
| -fatty- 2850 13.06.2005 17:51 |
At the risk of hijacking this thread.... Hiya eggy, long time no see. Hows trix? your old pal fatty. |
| Serry... 13.06.2005 17:52 |
"wstüssyb raped me!!" - Linda "no I didn't!!" - wstüssyb I hope you both got some pleasure |
| Lisser 13.06.2005 17:55 |
I didn't want to believe that he'd molest children so of course I wanted him to be found not guilty. That doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do it I know. If he did do it I hope this has been a lesson to him and it NEVER happens again. I just know the lengths people will go to to get money from people. I think the defense did a good job proving these people to be just that. |
| eggy 13.06.2005 17:57 |
Hey Fatty, I'm good thanks. Hope you are keeping well! That's more than enough love for one thread. On topic - He's encentric, he's guilty of some improper stuff. But that's not what he was in court about, and the things he was in court for, he's innocent of. |
| wstüssyb 13.06.2005 17:57 |
hmm, never happen again...didnt he have a trial like this some years ago? fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me. |
| brENsKi 13.06.2005 18:02 |
<font color=#FF399> Linda Of The Valley wrote:linda, don't proclaim his innocence so loudly! it has nothing to do with innocence...any dumb redneck knows that the American Constitution says that you get a fiar trial, and guilt has to be proven BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUNT. This verdict simply means that this dirty bastard got off because tHEY weren't 100% sure of his guilt...should civilised society really be rejoicing putting another twisted paedo back at the ranch in this manner?wstüssyb wrote: I wonder how much he bribed the jury. lolfuck you. You all just can't handle the truth! I told all of you - he's innocnet, definitely innocent and the jury has spoken!! yay!! |
| doremi 13.06.2005 18:03 |
Guys, with respect...M.J. has.. 1) He has money, power, clebrity, fame & and army of the highest paid best lawyers. 2) Legal analysts said that over 100 police and Nat'l Guard were stationed around the area surrounding the courthouse for fear of mass rioting, & violence and innocent people being killed...if the verdict was read as Guilty. 3) Legal analysts said the same thing as BOTH #1, and #2, when O.J. Simpson got off and was found innocent. 4) While I applaud the USA justice system and would NOT want to live in other countries where, as here you ARE innocent til proven guilty, and have rights to a trial by your peers... ...the USA judicial system has its flaws and is NOT foolproof. MANY innocent people go to jail, even for murder. One man here in Maryland spent 30 years in jail in solitary confinement for raping and murdering a little girl, until evidence, and the REAL murderer who was found, set the innocent man free. Now HE is suing the state of Maryland and rightfully so, as his life is gone and ruined. Many a GUILTY person, gets off scott free, & is found innocent for anything from a technicality, to a hung jury, to lots of money for great lawyers, to even fear of repurcussions like the ones I discussed that legal analysts stated above. It's a sad thing when you have to station police and the national Guard around a courthouse, for fear of people going off on a mass/violent rampage if M.J. had been found guilty. |
| Michael Allred 13.06.2005 18:14 |
Just goes to show, if you're famous and have tons of money, you're always "innocent." |
| Music Man 13.06.2005 18:25 |
Well, clearly the American justice system has its flaws, but it's the best sytem anyone has come up with thus far. Everyone knows that in such criminal cases the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to show evidence that would lead a jury to come to a verdict that is beyond any reasonable doubt. Now if we could convict people with anything less than that, the system would be severalfold worse than it is as of now. And I'm sure that riots and such were not a reason for the jury to return a not guilty verdict, unless someone here has heard that (inadmissable) evidence used in the trial proceedings. Of course, then again, the jury members always have their biases, even when they should disregard something. I can't honestly say I have done extensive research on Michael Jackson, or anything pertinent to here, but I would like to know what evidence you all are basing your opinions off of. I would like to be educated in this thread instead of reading another ad hominem argument. Thanks! |
| DeaconJohn 13.06.2005 18:31 |
People are saying that because for this case a jury found him not guilty, we can be 100% sure that MJ is not a paedophile. I disagree. |
| Saint Jiub 13.06.2005 18:45 |
Here is the history of the trial ... a starting point i guess ... I will have to read it some time. link |
| Music Man 13.06.2005 18:58 |
DeaconJohn wrote: People are saying that because for this case a jury found him not guilty, we can be 100% sure that MJ is not a paedophile. I disagree.But the true question is, have any logical people said this? |
| Music Man 13.06.2005 19:00 |
Rip Van Winkle wrote: Here is the history of the trial ... a starting point i guess ... I will have to read it some time. linkEw...wikipedia. Well, you're right. It is a start. |
| MexQueenFM 13.06.2005 19:07 |
I'm just surprised about the alcohol, and I'm glad he's out, if indeed all that stuff happened, they should put the kids parent's in jail, for still sending them there when all the stuff is said about him |
| Future Manager 13.06.2005 19:11 |
wstüssyb wrote: There is nothing right about a 30/40 year old guy having young boys sleep over at his house, sorry.The guy loves kids because of their innonence and because he never was a normal kid himself. Now I don't love kids or anything but I can imagine that he does, even so much that he takes them into his bed and sleeps with them. So what? It's not that different from sleeping with teddy bears although I admit it is a bit unusual. The guy never made the impression on me in all those documentaries and stuff as someone who could hurt a fly so he certainly wouldn't "hurt" his precious kids because he's not THAT wacko (that balcony scene was also blown out of proportion). People just believe what they want to believe, namely some weird-looking creep doing something scandalous. It's a good thing those money-hungry liars didn't win, because that's what this was all about if you ask me. I'm not a huge MJ fan by the way. |
| Saint Jiub 13.06.2005 19:12 |
An excerpt from the article: Adult materials found at Neverland were both heterosexual and homosexual, though legal. However, some had fingerprints of the two brothers on them; Jackson is alleged to have shown these adult materials to the brothers for the purpose of grooming, and gave them alcohol. Both were allegedly for the purpose of lowering inhibitions to sexual behavior. Jackson denies; he claims that the accuser and his brother were sometimes “out of control” at Neverland, and read his magazines and drank his alcohol without permission, though it could be reasoned that these items could easily have been made unavailable. On 10 March 2005, the judge was on the brink of issuing an arrest warrant and forfeiture of the bail, when Jackson was an hour late for the trial (see also WikiNews). The accuser's brother testified that on two occasions, each during a few seconds, while not been seen, he had seen that Jackson had outercourse with the apparently sleeping accuser (counts 4 and 5). Details of the sexual act on the second occasion contradict what the accuser's brother told psychologist Katz, according to Katz' testimony before the Grand Jury. He explains this by saying that there were actually three occasions. The boy admitted that he had lied under oath in an unrelated court case. During the alleged sexual incidents, Jackson wore underpants, and the accuser wore underpants or pajamas. On one brief occasion the brothers saw Jackson naked. According to the accuser's brother, Jackson's penis was erect, but according to the accuser it was not. Even if the incident was non-sexual this was special to the brothers, because they had never seen a naked adult before. The accuser told a school administrator at a date after he had left Neverland that Jackson had not molested him. Later, at the trial, he said that this was not true, that he had lied because he was already teased after the airing of the Bashir documentary, and he feared that the teasing would get worse if he would have told the truth, which, as he now said, is as follows: on one occasion Jackson manipulated the accuser's genitals for about five minutes, causing the accuser to ejaculate (count 2); the next day Jackson started it again (count 3) and also tried to guide the accuser's hand to Jackson's genitals, but the accuser pulled away (count 6). The accuser said that he was happy at Neverland, and that only after leaving did he realize he didn't want to be there anymore. |
| iron eagle 13.06.2005 20:45 |
am sure this will be analized and debated for eons i like this take on it from msnbc.com Where the defense won: Cross examination of prosecution witnesses Calling witnesses who corroborated their theory of the case such as Azja Pryor (actor Chris Tucker’s ex-girlfriend) Not having Jackson testify, but getting his story in front of the jury through the outtakes of the Bashir documentary Calling to the witness stand the paralegal of the law firm who handled the JC Penney lawsuit Calling to the witness stand the lawyer who represented the accuser's mother in the JC Penney lawsuit Proving the accuser’s mother committed welfare fraud Prosecution's downfall: The accuser's mother Confusing graphics relating to telephone calls in connection with the conspiracy charge Not addressing the problematic time line Not making clear when Jackson was at Neverland at the same time as the accuser so the window of opportunity was clear Not addressing the issue of the chimes. Jackson’s bedroom had a series of chimes that would ring when you were approaching the corridor to his bedroom and again once when you opened his bedroom door. The accuser’s brother testified he entered Jackson’s bedroom while Jackson was molesting his brother, but if the chimes went off, wouldn’t Jackson have heard them and stopped? Did the chimes go off? Were they not working? Was Jackson too intoxicated to have heard them? The prosecution should have done a better job of addressing the question of the chimes, because it is a fact against which the accuser’s credibility can be weighed. -- i was surprised with the make up of the jury they didnt get him on at least something i did not believe the kid or the mother--too many holes..incosistentcies and for me as much as sneddon bringing up the past to show a pattern-- jc pennys and the families own attorney showed a pattern of lying for money... what he is guilty of is being a idiot-- |
| PieterMC 13.06.2005 21:56 |
shammon - oooooooowww oooooo hooooo *grabs crotch* |
| Erin 13.06.2005 21:59 |
wstüssyb wrote: hmm, never happen again...didnt he have a trial like this some years ago? fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.No, no, no...you got that saying all wrong. President Bush got it right: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." |
| iGSM 14.06.2005 00:26 |
I hear he had that embroided on a pillow. |
| The Mir@cle 14.06.2005 02:40 |
It's a good thing he's found "not guilty". I think Jackson is a bit sick in his head (Wacko Jacko), but the accuser did it all to gain money and publicity. |
| GreatKingSam 14.06.2005 04:19 |
People seem to be missing the point... he was in court for "apparently" molesting this kid, however - there is a very definable difference between molesation and "JUST" sleeping in a bed with a kid even if, in your head, it is innocent with nothing bad or dangerous (he he) going on. They weren't trying to send him down for that per se, but for molestation. They didn't have enough reliable evidence to prove the Arviso's were not fabricating the whole thing. Thus, not guilty. Pleased for him. It's a relief. Let's hope he sorts himself out as much as Michael Jackson can. |
| YourValentine 14.06.2005 05:11 |
I agree. He was not charged for being weird or for his lifetsyle. That a jury of 8 women and 4 men, many of them parents themselves, found him innocent in ALL counts proves how weak the case was. It's a good thing that jurors did follow the rules and evaluated the actual evidence instead of expressing their own moral judgement in the verdict. |
| GreatKingSam 14.06.2005 05:38 |
Definitely. The jurors didn't just toss a coin and call heads for guilty tails for not-guilty... people seem to forget that it wasn't Michael Jackson who bought himself innocence, it was the decision of those people who had all the facts, who were there throughout, and who had time to sit and think about what was the right decision on the basis of what they had in front of them. And in this instance, I like to think they made the right decision from the point of view of I think that there was more to suggest that the Arviso's were a bunch of scammers (given the instability of the majority of their arguments, the bent facts etc) than there was to suggest Michael Jackson had done more than sleep next to a kid in a bed. |
| Janet 14.06.2005 06:12 |
I just saw one of the Michael Jackson jurors being interviewed on television this morning. With his own mouth he said that he truly believed that Michael Jackson has most likely molested little boys, and that he felt like Jackson could not have possibly spent 365 straight days sleeping alone in bed with a young boy and nothing happen. But that the evidence in THIS particular case just couldn't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. So there you have it, the jurors themselves don't even believe he is innocent, but they had to follow the "reasonable doubt" rule and find him "not guilty". |
| YourValentine 14.06.2005 07:38 |
Isn't that what a court should do, Janet? Even if a juror "believes" or "feels" that Jackson might have molested a child in his life - he was not a charged of "probably having molested some children" in his life. He was charged of a specific crime and the prosecution was unable to prove this accusation. Therefore he was aquitted. And that is right. It's easy to blame people, spread rumours and ruin their reputation but the state is not allowed to throw people into jail based on such unproven rumours. The rule of law has to be observed for any citizen, rich or poor, weird or mainstream normal. In Germany wre had a child abuse case some years ago when a whole family was tried in court and in the end they were all aquitted. The case had been started by a group of kindergarten advisors who believed they could read abuse from some drawings by children of the same family. During the 2 year trial nobody believed anyone was innocent but in fact they were. It became most obvious when a 5 year old child pointed to the prosecutor when asked who had touched her inappropriately. The children had been manipulated to an extent that was borderline abuse in itself. |
| Janet 14.06.2005 07:43 |
Absolutely! The jury did exactly what they had to do under the circumstances. I was more making the point that just because someone is found "not guilty", it doesn't mean that they are innocent. It only means there wasn't enough evidence to convict them. |
| Mrs.Taylor 14.06.2005 08:00 |
What chance he'll just retire quietly from the public eye, sell Neverland and downsize to a little house with a white picket fence and blend in? |
| GreatKingSam 14.06.2005 10:05 |
Michael Jackson cannot afford to live the quiet life. Invincible, despite what quick-to-judge people say, was all in all a good album. To Michael's standards, it perhaps wasn't. But when again is he going to make another Dangerous? Another Thriller? He's not. But, what he can do, is make more music. As long as he enjoys it, go for it. For all its - in places - over-production, Invincible was a good album. I for one will buy any further music he makes. He needs to make some money, and I think other than selling Neverland and his Beatles' catalogue rights, his only sure fire way of making ALOT of money would be to tour, or do some of them shows in Vegas (as have been suggested) where they pay SHED loads of dollar. He is apparently gonna move to Europe (London and Paris being the main two places). I think time away from the Yanks will do him good. He needs to reinvent himself, take some time out etc. But I think he'll come back with a bang. Maybe not a huge Michael Jackson sized bang, but a bang bigger than most can wish for. |
| Mr.Jingles 14.06.2005 10:18 |
I'd have to say that 'Invincible' was good for the most part, but it had it's share of shit songs like '2000 Watts'. |
| GreatKingSam 14.06.2005 11:07 |
Definitely. Maybe ten years ago, 2000 Watts might have been good, but not now. The Lost Children wasn't a favourite of mine I have to say. Although, Butterflies, Heaven Can Wait, Whatever Happens, that track with the clever rap thing made by speech from the dead presenter of The Twilight Zone or whatever were all very good. Especially Butterflies. And a couple of the early tracks, Unbreakable, Heartbreaker etc werent too bad either. And it had some very good ballads too, Speechless and You Are My Life were good in my opinion. I think he wanted a Dagerous part 2, but it didn't quite get there. |
| brENsKi 14.06.2005 12:34 |
Michael Allred wrote: Just goes to show, if you're famous and have tons of money, you're always "innocent."he's doesn't anymore - he's approx $40m in debt!!! LOL - and he'll have to sell his Paedo-groooming ranch now to pay for it... |
| wstüssyb 14.06.2005 13:46 |
Fruit Side wrote:If you had a brain you would understand that the jury is visible to everyone in the courtroom, as they sat to the right of MJ during the whole trial. As every jury has to be present during everything.wstüssyb wrote: I wonder how much he bribed the jury. lolIf you were even smart, you'd know he didnt' SEE the jury until towards the end. So next time before you even attempt to call me out, get your IQ up to atleast half mine before trying to act like a smart ass. |
| wstüssyb 14.06.2005 17:18 |
Oh my bad....in the history of mankind a jury has never been bribed... |
| doremi 14.06.2005 18:01 |
wstüssyb wrote: Oh my bad....in the history of mankind a jury has never been bribed...I SERVED Federal Jury Duty in 1985 for a drug kingpin murderer. This was the SECOND trial as the first trial, was a MISTRIAL, because the "accused", Peanut King...had threatened to murder the witnesses and jurors of the first trial, and he DID kill one witness from the 1st trial. Lucky me got to serve a month jury duty, and he tried to throw the trial again so he could get off on a technicality. Every day, he would jump up in his chair, stare down each of us jurors and scream "I'm Gonna Kill Every One Of You"! Every day the judge & baliffs would stop the proceedings and charge him with contempt. Every day, the judge would call us jurors in his chambers to ask if we were "influenced" and thus now subjective. Well of course we were. But we jurors took a pact in the jurors' chambers/room to say to the judge..we were NOT "influenced"..so that this slug could be convicted, which we did do to him. Found his ass guilty as sin. |