Michael Jackson Not Guilty [Archive]

View Full Version : Michael Jackson Not Guilty

99%

06-13-2005, 09:27 PM

Jackson not guilty on all accounts:cool2:

Jackson not guilty

Jurors acquit pop star of all molestation charges

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/06/13/jackson.homepage.main.2.gif

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/images/1.gifhttp://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/LAW/06/13/jackson.trial/story.1655.mj.arr.pool.jpg

Check your fav unbiased media servor for more info... :shifty:

.

muchspl3

06-13-2005, 09:29 PM

The Teflon Molester

Wallace_Askew

06-13-2005, 09:34 PM

He should at least have been found guilty of caring too much :lol:

But seriously, the man should be in jail. He is now a god to NAMBLA members everywhere!

NeoTheOne

06-13-2005, 09:41 PM

Man o man , another crimnal set free , dammit , lol , well deep down inside i still think that he bribed the jury to make the favour under his favour

bigboab

06-13-2005, 09:45 PM

Ten charges, all not guilty?
Has this been a trial by the papers? Have we been getting the full truth from the courtroom or a biased view from the press?
I still would not trust him with kids though, guilty or not.:ph34r:

The prosecution said we will get him eventually. So much for American justice. Did they say the same about O.J.?

Snee

06-13-2005, 09:45 PM

There's something wrong with the man, I think he ought to be institutionalized for a bit, 'cos he ain't right in the head, but the parents to that kid should be in prison for sure.

Man o man , another crimnal set free , dammit , lol , well deep down inside i still think that he bribed the jury to make the favour under his favour :blink: wtf

99%

06-13-2005, 09:50 PM

nobody is 100% innocent

bigboab

06-13-2005, 10:04 PM

nobody is 100% innocent

I hope you never become a maternity nurse.:(

Busyman

06-13-2005, 10:04 PM

I'm satisfied with teh verdict.

If Mike still keeps having kids sleep over, I hope he gets jail whether he's innocent in the future or not....him and the children's parents.

:dumbmotherfuckerswhoringtheirkidsout:

BigBank_Hank

06-13-2005, 10:13 PM

I thought all along he would be acquitted. I don’t think that the prosecution presented a rock solid case. The defense never had to prove weather or not Jackson was innocent all they had to do was poke holes in the prosecutions case and put doubt into the minds of the jurors. The same thing happened during the O.J. trail. The defense did an amazing job of proving that there were to many inconsistencies to convict.

99%

06-13-2005, 10:19 PM

innocent and innocense...

he was aquited on ALL 10 charges - if one had be off... it would leave doubt...

as someone above stated - is the juridical system to be trusted - we will never know either which way what really happened in the mind of a person who is charged or have we become too sk(c)eptical or simply judgemental?

bigboab

06-13-2005, 10:22 PM

peat moss

06-13-2005, 11:33 PM

3RA1N1AC

06-13-2005, 11:42 PM

well at least now it's finished and they can move on to a more important matter: suing George Lopez for that $300 they claimed he stole from their son.

http://www.omnitv.ca/newimg/flash/george_lopez.jpg
this guy. from the tv show called "George Lopez."

anyway. if in fact MJ did it and the evidence just stunk, the lesson must be that if you want to entrap MJ with a child molestation scandal THEN FIRST BE AN ANGEL so that people will believe your testimony when you fail to produce any evidence worth looking at. don't be a deplorable bunch of parasites like the Arvizo family and expect to win.

DanB

06-13-2005, 11:52 PM

I just can't believe it

GepperRankins

06-13-2005, 11:56 PM

the fact that he was aquitted on everything suggests that he's guilty. he definately did give alcohol to minors for instance, but was found not guilty

BigBank_Hank

06-14-2005, 02:02 AM

Adster

06-14-2005, 02:27 AM

good now the media can STFU

I knew he was Innocent all along

just that fucked up media which like to manipulate idiots who believe it

maebach

06-14-2005, 02:36 AM

a nearby institution already had a cell open for him. I fogot which one, it was on CNN a few days back

3RA1N1AC

06-14-2005, 03:52 AM

The prosecution said we will get him eventually. So much for American justice. Did they say the same about O.J.?
i don't know what that means. is american justice supposed to be the shoe of a giant prosecutor coming down and smashing everyone who's ever accused. if they don't have the evidence and the prosecution's witnesses are completely ridiculous & unbelievable, then the defendant goes free (should go free, anyway)... as prescribed by american justice. *shrugs*

Adster

06-14-2005, 07:10 AM

he was found NOT GUILTY in the court of law so get the fuck over it!!

{I}{K}{E}

06-14-2005, 07:13 AM

Can he now 'claim' his money back, the money he needed to spent to fight his innocence?

(dont think the family can affort that , but just curious how that works)

Off-topic replies will be removed! this is the The Drawing Room not the Lounge.

Kickbutt424

06-14-2005, 08:44 AM

I dont think so... unless he sues back?

I dont really think we can comment on whether or not the jury made the right decision because we weren't in the court-room. All we have to go on is the media, which can be really biased. For example, people here think he is either guilty or not depending on what channel they watch their news on (2 main ones in Aus, makes it easier).

Adster

06-14-2005, 09:02 AM

59% of australians said he is not guilty those who did the poll

I just think the media is full of manipulation

yes the guy is wiered and has a few problems but no not a pedofile.. I think people just going by way strange and queer person he is rather then go by the true facts..

GepperRankins

06-14-2005, 10:01 AM

the fact that he was aquitted on everything suggests that he's guilty. he definately did give alcohol to minors for instance, but was found not guilty

That’s ridiculous. Someone who was found not guilty on ten counts means that they were in fact guilty?
he was found not guilty of a charge he definately was guilty of. meaning the prosecution were soft on him. how many other charges was he really guilty but let off for.

manker

06-14-2005, 10:05 AM

That’s ridiculous. Someone who was found not guilty on ten counts means that they were in fact guilty?
he was found not guilty of a charge he definately was guilty of. meaning the prosecution were soft on him. how many other charges was he really guilty but let off for.The charge was giving alcohol to minor so that he could molest them. They couldn't prove that he gave it to them for that purpose.

Him giving them alcohol wasn't the issue.

vivitron 15

06-14-2005, 10:34 AM

him giving them alcohol was one of the options the judge gave them (according to the bbc this morning)

But How can anyone of you sit here and say "well he's guilty of this"...or "its ridiculous he got of..." or whatever.

How many of those saying stuff like this were jurors in the case? or lawyers of the case? In other words - How many of you have seen the evidence presented? How many of you know anything about it?

The guy was found "not guilty" - this means there isnt enough evidence for anyone to prove he is guilty, so until you can back up your allegations, dont speak!

manker

06-14-2005, 11:27 AM

him giving them alcohol was one of the options the judge gave them (according to the bbc this morning)Well, I don't think giving a minor alcohol if they are lawfully in your own home is an offence in the UK provided they are of a certain age - 12 I think, and even younger if it's your own child or if the child's parents are present. I really don't know about the US.

As I understand it, the lesser charge that you speak of would have been administering alcohol but not molesting the child. This doesn't preclude intent of molestation and is presumably why they didn't convict since they couldn't be sure.

As to the rest ... all we do is discuss hear'say and news reports. Mostly I can never back up my assertions with hard fact 'cos googling is such a chore, it's just my opinion.

ahctlucabbuS

06-14-2005, 02:51 PM

In a sense, Tom Sneddon succeeded regardless of Michael Jackson beeing acquitted, as the responses of some here illustrates.

He will forever be labeled as the guy who might be a pedophile.

I don't know if he did it or not (see, I'm doubtful myself), but beeing acquitted certainly doesn't clean his name.

Atleast it illustrates the power some people have in their posession over others.

If he reallt is innocent he should atleast sue back, and not do as the case is now to move on and forget about the case.

BigBank_Hank

06-14-2005, 02:51 PM

That’s ridiculous. Someone who was found not guilty on ten counts means that they were in fact guilty?
he was found not guilty of a charge he definately was guilty of. meaning the prosecution were soft on him. how many other charges was he really guilty but let off for.
What evidence do you have to support that to say it with such certainty?

vidcc

06-14-2005, 03:39 PM

Jackson is guilty of being an idiot.

He should have taken precautions after the last case... which I believe he was innocent of because if anyone touched my kids I want them in jail, no amount of money would justify dropping the charges.....

Jackson should have said "no more children in my life", but if he came across ( no jokes) a "sad case" like the boy with cancer then he should have made sure at no time was he alone with the child...cover himself.

On the flip side as we see here everyone has doubts about jackson because the finger pointed and once it points it doesn't matter if he is guilty or innocent, the tar sticks, so why did this mother allow her child to stay over unsupervised?. If jackson had been found guilty I would suggest the mother should also have faced charges of aiding and abetting.

By all accounts this was a conservative jury in a conservative area. They looked at the evidence, nothing else.

Rat Faced

06-14-2005, 03:46 PM

OMFG... me and Hank are in agreement?

He was found "Not Guilty", ergo he is innocent unless further evidence appears.

As the Jury was made up of 8 women and 4 men, and 2 of them had been sexually abused as children, i'd say that the fact it wasn't a hung Jury speaks volumes as to the quality of evidence presented.

Everyone knows, and knew then, that he was/is a little strange and "Different" ... that doesn't mean he is the devil incarnate, or that an accusation is the same as proof of any crime.

I'm surprised at you Gepper... would you have burnt witches in the middle ages too?

TheNobleEU

06-14-2005, 04:01 PM

As the Jury was made up of 8 women and 4 men, and 2 of them had been sexually abused as children, i'd say that the fact it wasn't a hung Jury speaks volumes as to the quality of evidence presented.

Precisely.

A jury member was on CNN this morning, who said basically that he personally feels Jackson is guilty ("all those years sleeping with little boys, *something* must have gone on, I don't believe they just sat around and watched movies and ate popcorn"), but the star witness and his mother (infamous "person #80?") were reduced to zero credibility, and the jury had no choice but to acquit of the charges as presented in the case.

Isn't this the second such investigation? More surely to come.

Cheers,
-Noble

JPaul

06-14-2005, 04:21 PM

bigboab

06-14-2005, 08:34 PM

Agreed,

They found him not guilty of the charges laid, based on the evidence produced.

It is quite possible that some of these people believed him to be a child molester and found him not guilty.

That's the way it works chaps.

I agree. Close the subject in this instance. If any parent in the future allows their children to take part in any of these 'activities', then charge them first. That would give the prosecution a better case if the parents were found guilty of 'neglect.

TheNobleEU

06-14-2005, 08:37 PM

JPaul

06-14-2005, 08:50 PM

Hey JPaul, long time no see.

I wonder how much of Jackson's money has to do with it -- 'letting their kids hang out with Michael' might have been permissable in the parental eye in hopes of getting some freebies for the family... (which he was known at times to give).

Think all the parents weren't exactly stupid, but rather greedy?

Looking for reasons to rationally explain stupidity as always,
-Noble
Nice to see you old bean, I trust the studies of ancient Aramaic go well.

I tend to agree, the parents may well have subconsciously rationalized the situation with a view to accepting the "freebies" of which you speak.

The human mind can be wonderfully blind when called upon. I am pretty certain that said parents (on a superficial level) actually believed the subconcious rationalizations. However I also suspect that Mr Jackson may also genuinely believe that he did nothing wrong. I personally think he probably did (do something wrong).

The problem is that I believe said offences to be absolute, which creates something of a quandry in my own mind. I see that the actions, in and of themselves are wrong. However I also see him as a product of a seriously dysfunctional upbringing. Which makes everyone here, including him, a victim.

A monochrome World would be nice.

<HELLS^ANGEL>

06-15-2005, 01:10 AM

If the asshole don't fit ................ya jurys gotta acquit. :unsure:

hostix

06-15-2005, 08:05 PM

the man is wierd, doe to his life. But i dont think he's guilty!
He may have had kids sleep in hes bed but he is so fucked he does`ent se anything sexuel in it!!!

3RA1N1AC

06-17-2005, 07:15 PM

I agree. Close the subject in this instance.
well, that's the sensible thing, right? but it's still possible that this family may bring a civil lawsuit against MJ for money. despite the mother's claims that she doesn't want "the devil's money." looking at her past, when has she ever NOT wanted money from a celebrity?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061500328.html

He was found "Not Guilty", ergo he is innocent unless further evidence appears.

As the Jury was made up of 8 women and 4 men, and 2 of them had been sexually abused as children, i'd say that the fact it wasn't a hung Jury speaks volumes as to the quality of evidence presented.

not only the quality of the evidence, but the quality of the witnesses. when the evidence isn't obviously sufficient, the jury must then rely more on witness testimony which is all about credibility. they brought out witnesses who'd either had criminal pasts, had personal grudges against MJ, had previously sued MJ, had sold info about MJ to tabloids, etc. the prosecutor said he can't choose the victims or "vet" the witnesses, but he certainly can choose his battles, and would've been wise to choose more carefully. he could have abandoned the case upon realizing that he didn't have one. or at the very least he could've used a better strategy, thrown the accuser's mother to the lions instead of portraying her a saint, and tried to salvage the accuser's credibility by disconnecting his character from his mother's.

i've read some post-trial comments from anti-MJ pundits (legal/political types) who'd been calling for conviction all along, and it seems as though they wanted him to be punished in this case for things he might've done in other cases... and they see it as a moral failure (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20050615.shtml) on the jury's part to not carry out such punishment against an arrogant libertine (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-surreal12jun12,0,1150177.story) who's been "getting away with it" for too long. but he wasn't on trial for things he might've done (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20021122.shtml) to other people, he was on trial for what this particular family said he committed against them, and the judge and jury had the apparent wisdom to understand this distinction. in contrast, the pundits lacked the wisdom to distinguish between "innocent" and "innocent in this particular case."

the jury looked at 600+ pieces of evidence, saw nothing very interesting, and looked at the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and decided in essence "oh, YUCK. i wouldn't want these people to come into my home... they'd prolly ransack the place and then claim i molested them. they're unbelievable." which is what the jury's supposed to do: decide on the facts of this particular trial, not settle everyone else's old grudges.

edit: yeah i know, this thread's already worn out. i think that's the last i've got to say on the topic, here.

Voetsek

06-17-2005, 07:52 PM

Money = Justice?

99%

06-17-2005, 08:01 PM

very weird.....dreamt M.Jackson was coming over for dinner
got stressed about making arrangements to get him from the airport cause i dont have a car....

Arm

06-17-2005, 09:09 PM

I wish everyone would stop pretending they know everything about the Michael Jackson case. :rolleyes:

Wallace_Askew

06-18-2005, 01:39 AM

The Onion does it again; "Enchanted By Own Innocence, Michael Jackson Molests Self"

http://www.theonion.com/

GepperRankins

06-23-2005, 11:03 PM

i've been watching all these micheal jackson specials on telly.

the fans are morons. how the hell can any perquisite from locking him up?

zedaxax

06-23-2005, 11:14 PM

innocensence is for the naive
guilty is for those that know life

KaBuTo

06-25-2005, 11:07 PM

and the saga continues......

dwightfry

07-01-2005, 09:56 PM

I nearly went out of my mind argueing jacksons case in the beginning. (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=5687&page=1&pp=30&highlight=jackson) (I'm surprised no one called him Jacko) And in the end it got the best of me. I didn't know what to believe in those last few days. I'm relieved by the verdict. He may be strange, but I always felt that he was trying to do the right thing.

manker

07-01-2005, 10:02 PM

I nearly went out of my mind argueing jacksons case in the beginning.I think you acheived it, mate (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showpost.php?p=50356&postcount=26) :ermm:

dwightfry

07-01-2005, 11:09 PM

oops... I guess it was the wrong posts. I did a lot of argueing about it back then. I can't seem to find the one that I was looking for. I believe it was mainly between J2k4 and I. Either way, it went on for days.