Michael Jackson verdict announced [Archive]

Katie

06-13-2005, 03:26 PM

Huh....I don't know what I think.

Sad situation for the kid (thought I do not think anything bad happened to him) Sad situation for MJ...he's just like a big overgrown 10 year old. I don't think any more of him really...just a big kid...

MJ needs to quit having sleepovers. Hope he learned his lesson.

Ryona

06-13-2005, 03:34 PM

I'm actually quite pleased with the verdict. Michael Jackson is just a big kid like Katie said, and he's a poor soul who has had to endure the stones casted at him by the media.

Anarky

06-13-2005, 03:41 PM

Poor MJ, he had so much to endure. Trust me, a trial is never easy on the nerve, no matter how small and trivial it might seem. I remember our last action as a family with a dad: Trial. God, that was something.

But you should hear the Germans: "He is guilty", "I hope he rots in hell", "That bastard"...

Mecha Cow

06-13-2005, 03:41 PM

...

I could rant on and on about this, but I'm in no position to discredit those judges, so I'm just going to have to assume their verdict was the right one, even though I'm not so sure.

At least Jackson's reputation is now as ruined as his face after all of this.

I'm sorry if I'm stepping on any toes here, the guy is a great artist, but his music doesn't change that he's messed up in the head.

Barkworm

06-13-2005, 03:42 PM

I truly don't believe that he didn't do anything. I don't think that he raped the kids but I just can't believe that there's no truth to all the charges. It would have been good for him to be forced to spend some time at a psychiatry.

Anarky

06-13-2005, 03:42 PM

...
I'm sorry if I'm stepping on any toes here, the guy is a great artist, but his music doesn't change that he's messed up in the head.

Quite true, but think about it. He thinks of himself as Peter Pan, leader of the lost boys. And as a leader (and protector) you don't harm those children in any way. I know this sounds very odd, but with odd people you have to have odd thoughts.

Leonardo Mystic

06-13-2005, 03:44 PM

I've lost all faith in the Judicial System... That's all I've got to say.

Anarky

06-13-2005, 03:47 PM

I've lost all faith in the Judicial System... That's all I've got to say.

Do you have proof that he hurt those children in any way?

Peanut

06-13-2005, 03:51 PM

I'm happy with this. I do think MJ needs some help though.

Leonardo Mystic

06-13-2005, 03:53 PM

Anarky

06-13-2005, 03:57 PM

No, but it is my understanding he had so much evidence stacked against him. How could they just ignore that? I believe if it were anyone else, they would've thrown the book at them, and locked them in prison for an undisclosed amount of years.
What if that so-called evidence was all a lie? They probably didn't ignore that, but rather deemed it as a lie, which it probably was.

And it is still "In dubio pro reo" - Innocent until proven guilty. And not the other way around.

With any other person... I don't know, but it might very well be as you say. But it might also not be the case. Ther wouldn't be that much media coverage though.

Voltron

06-13-2005, 04:00 PM

You mean he beat it? Wow, what a thriller of a case! I guess they offered enough evidence to show that Michael wasn't as bad as everyone thinks he is. Either that, or he's actually dangerous...a real smooth criminal.

raphael_is_cool

06-13-2005, 04:00 PM

The whole Peter Pan thing sounds like a weak defence though, to be honest, Anarky.

I'm not saying I think he was guilty but out of all 10 charges I'd thought something would come of it.

You mean he beat it? Wow, what a thriller of a case! I guess they offered enough evidence to show that Michael wasn't as bad as everyone thinks he is. Either that, or he's actually dangerous...a real smooth criminal.

He's invincible

Anarky

06-13-2005, 04:08 PM

The whole Peter Pan thing sounds like a weak defence though, to be honest, Anarky.
It is, indeed, but if you have a guy who claims to be Peter Pan, who do you look at when you want to understand his actions? Not the person, but Peter Pan.

You mean he beat it? Wow, what a thriller of a case! I guess they offered enough evidence to show that Michael wasn't as bad as everyone thinks he is. Either that, or he's actually dangerous...a real smooth criminal.
And the trial is history and will remain as a ghost in the media world. :D

raphael_is_cool

06-13-2005, 04:10 PM

It is, indeed, but if you have a guy who claims to be Peter Pan, who do you look at when you want to understand his actions? Not the person, but Peter Pan.

Yeah, but he could just be saying that.

Anarky

06-13-2005, 04:13 PM

Yeah, but he could just be saying that.
He could, granted, but he reaffirmed it after stating it. Also, there are so many Peter Pan-references in his behaviour, in his estate even, that this sure doesn't seem like an act.

raphael_is_cool

06-13-2005, 04:14 PM

If other things reaffirm it, fair enough.

It just seems also like a Dr. Frankenstein case. He wanted to create life but good intentions don't always turn out for the best.

Hannah

06-13-2005, 04:28 PM

Damn it! oo; MJ flippin' SCARES me. He's so disgusting. I can't beleive they let that... THING.. go free.

Ryona

06-13-2005, 04:29 PM

Beware the cold hold of the media... :teek:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/Ryo_Saeba/american20media.jpg

Anarky

06-13-2005, 04:30 PM

Damn it! oo; MJ flippin' SCARES me. He's so disgusting. I can't beleive they let that... THING.. go free.
And believe it or not, there's pedophiles out there who might be ashamed to be the same species as he is.

And some people might like some serious conversation, especially in such an interesting and controversial issue.

Hannah

06-13-2005, 04:34 PM

I'm not serious by saying that he scares me?

Anarky

06-13-2005, 04:36 PM

I'm not serious by saying that he scares me?

Probably not. I can't imagine you running away form a guy who just wants to get his shopping done. I can't imagine you checking under your bed every night, looking for MJ. I just can't.

Did you know, that resocialised child molesters might be living in your neighbourhood.

Hannah

06-13-2005, 04:41 PM

Probably not. I can't imagine you running away form a guy who just wants to get his shopping done. I can't imagine you checking under your bed every night, looking for MJ. I just can't.
I wouldn't go as far as looking under my bed, but yes, I would run from him. I'd get as far away as I could.

verminator_x

06-13-2005, 04:50 PM

the media circus is finally over and again the money and fame strikes victory as it did 11 years ago. i love alot of michael jacksons music and as a stage performer in hes golden years he was amazing and very few did match him in dancing and entertain. i dont think he has raped or sleeped with a child but i think a lot of bad things has happend in neverland that will never come out and maybe thats just ok.

That Matt Guy

06-13-2005, 04:55 PM

What a colossal waste of time and money.

Jo Dawn

06-13-2005, 05:04 PM

No surprise. I never thought they would find him guilty. And not because he's 'Michael Jackson'. Because, besides my thoughts on the matter aside, there was enough doubt with the charges. 'Reasonable doubt.' Hello, it's not the first time the mother of the child tried this on wealthy people.

At least Jackson's reputation is now as ruined as his face after all of this.

No it's not. This isn't the first time charges have been brought against him. People still like and support him, and always will.

And it is still "In dubio pro reo" - Innocent until proven guilty. And not the other way around.

Exactly. We as a people seem to ignore that fact. As shown quite often. *rolls eyes*

The whole Peter Pan thing sounds like a weak defence though, to be honest, Anarky.

Have you ever seen a documentary on him? It's not an act. It's what happened after the childhood he was never given the chance to have, the abuse he endured, and other factors.

He doesn't frighten me. I like him, but I feel rather bad for him.

You mean he beat it? Wow, what a thriller of a case! I guess they offered enough evidence to show that Michael wasn't as bad as everyone thinks he is. Either that, or he's actually dangerous...a real smooth criminal.

*claps* Well done... :)

ThirdMarioBro

06-13-2005, 06:07 PM

Good. I really don't think he did anything to that kid, and I think it was all a setup. He does need help, just not for those reasons.

Spitfire

06-13-2005, 07:23 PM

I dont think he molested kids but I do think he is a strange one....Im glad he didnt get nailed though

The Stryker

06-13-2005, 10:24 PM

Wow.....Suprising, Another celeb gets off scot-free.

:roll:

Anarky

06-13-2005, 10:30 PM

Wow.....Suprising, Another celeb gets off scot-free.

:roll:
And because he's a celebrity he should be burned?

I don't get you people, how can you tell that someone is guilty/should be punished without knowing details of the case and/or the accused? Why do you want to see him suffer so bad?

Mecha Cow

06-14-2005, 07:12 AM

No it's not. This isn't the first time charges have been brought against him. People still like and support him, and always will.
I'm sure he still has plenty of fans, but do you see him making a comeback after all of this? I don't.

'Innocent until proven guilty' doesn't really work when someone's identity is made public even before he is put on trial (Granted, this is a celebrity, it would have been difficult to keep this under wraps, but you get my point). Jackson may have been voted not guilty, but he'll always be a pedophile in the eyes of many people. Sad but true.

Anyway, as I said in my last post, I have no right to claim the verdict was unjust, so I'm going to assume Jackson really didn't molest any children. Still, I find it somewhat odd that he was unanimously voted 'not guilty' on all charges; I could have sworn he once admitted to sharing a bed and giving alchohol to a child.

He may be a big kid, but even kids can tell right from wrong. I hope he learned his lesson and decides to grow up.

Anarky

06-14-2005, 07:30 AM

I could have sworn he once admitted to sharing a bed and giving alchohol to a child.
I can't remember the booze-bit, but he said that he shared his bed with a child. But sharing a bed with a child doesn't necessarily mean you're a pedophile, right? And if sharing a bed with a kid is a crime, then every parent on this planet should be put in prison (remember when you had nightmares as a kid?).

KROW

06-14-2005, 07:55 AM

And because he's a celebrity he should be burned?
Quite frankly, in the U.S., celebrities get certain liberties when breaking the law that us "normal" folk don't get. Robert Downey, Jr. got ordered to do rehab when caught with drugs, whereas anyone one else would have spent 20 years in prison.

Also, Paris Hilton was caught on camera shoplifting a videotape of herself, and so far, she wasn't charged with anything. Anyone else would have been run down by the cops and cuffed, then later serve 20 years for it.

And speaking of shoplifting, can anyone tell me what happened to Wynona Rider when she was caught stealing?

Then there's Paula Abdul's hit and run case. She's still on American Idol, smiling and looking all cutesy, when anyone else would have suffered dearly for such a thing.

But... as far as my thoughts on Jackson being acquitted, in the words of the great Rob Van Dam, "Whatever."

Mecha Cow

06-14-2005, 09:19 AM

I can't remember the booze-bit, but he said that he shared his bed with a child. But sharing a bed with a child doesn't necessarily mean you're a pedophile, right? And if sharing a bed with a kid is a crime, then every parent on this planet should be put in prison (remember when you had nightmares as a kid?).
That's true, sharing a bed with a child does not immediately make someone a pedophile. However, it doesn't exactly help his case. I can say that if I had children and discovered they had shared a bed with an adult stranger, I would beat the crap out of the guy without a second thought.

He might not have had any sexual intentions, but he really should have known better.

JameO

06-14-2005, 09:42 AM

He Couldn't Stop Till He Got Enough!

Anyways, I am glad he god off. He does need help, but all these attacks by the media is just pathetic. But seriously, let your kid stay with MJ? Worst decision that parent made. But I agree, he should be forced to get help.

BartAllen

06-14-2005, 11:55 AM

I wouldn't go as far as looking under my bed, but yes, I would run from him. I'd get as far away as I could.
why? your a little girl. he finds you icky. :lol:

little billy jean is not his lover. or was he? :lol:

Jo Dawn

06-14-2005, 12:25 PM

Billie Jean was a girl. ;)

BartAllen

06-14-2005, 02:11 PM

Billie Jean was a girl. ;) i realize that. i actually have most of whacko jackos CDs, but i was just using the name billy, because its mostly a boys name.. ;)

Leonardo Mystic

06-14-2005, 05:04 PM

KROW

06-14-2005, 05:07 PM

Don't know if anyone saw the news this morning, but the jurors were flown out to New York by ABC, and interviewed. All but one of them admitted they knew M.J. was guilty of the crimes. However, because the case only focused on that one specific boy, whom M.J. didn't do anything to, they had to find him innocent of all charges dealing with that boy.

Now how messed up is that?
Not entirely messed up. Apparently this brings to light the phrase, "got off on a technicality."

Barkworm

06-15-2005, 01:07 AM

What the f*ck? Now that is ridiculous.

Ryona

06-15-2005, 01:22 AM

Oh, boy... :roll:

Michael Jackson finally gets justice and some crap from the media has to knock him down again...

It's bad enough the media created a fictional monster known as "Jacko", now they have to further harrass him after he's been proven innocent?

*sighs* Oh, how I loathe American media...

06-15-2005, 04:22 AM

I really don't care if he gets thrown in jail or let off with no charges or just sent back in time. He's just another person, no matter how wonky in the head he might be. I think that some things don't add up, but it's the legal system - Take it as it comes. Just do what you want with him. Say he's innocent, say he's guilty, say he needs help, but I'm going snowboarding. Couldn't care any more or less

Jo Dawn

06-15-2005, 06:37 PM

Here's MY thing. It's OVER. He's INNOCENT, as decided by a jury of his peers. The people and the media need to accept that, as it will not change, and let it go. What they say isn't gonna change the case. As, well, it's OVER.

ThirdMarioBro

06-15-2005, 06:44 PM

Thank you.

verminator_x

06-15-2005, 07:07 PM

and now hes gonna sue martin bashir

Barkworm

06-16-2005, 02:24 AM

He's INNOCENT, as decided by a jury of his peers.
That's a pretty important point though. He's not necessarily innocent, but he was declared to be not guilty by the jury. If he actually did it or not we'll never know.

BartAllen

06-16-2005, 05:32 AM

Don't know if anyone saw the news this morning, but the jurors were flown out to New York by ABC, and interviewed. All but one of them admitted they knew M.J. was guilty of the crimes. However, because the case only focused on that one specific boy, whom M.J. didn't do anything to, they had to find him innocent of all charges dealing with that boy.

Now how messed up is that?
well, its the truth.. he is guilty.. hes molested boys. back in 93 he payed the family off to leave him alone. he himself admitted to giving alcohol to childern.

Anarky

06-16-2005, 06:29 AM

Don't know if anyone saw the news this morning, but the jurors were flown out to New York by ABC, and interviewed. All but one of them admitted they knew M.J. was guilty of the crimes. However, because the case only focused on that one specific boy, whom M.J. didn't do anything to, they had to find him innocent of all charges dealing with that boy.

Now how messed up is that?

It's not messed up, it's only professional. The phrase is "in dubio pro reo". And there was a lot of "dubio" for this "reo". I mean, even the kids who were there made different statements, so even if he would have been truly guilty, then the boys messed up.