Michael Jackson Trial Results

I agree with big D, the jury had the evidence and they saw everything in a much more reliable point of view than the rest of the world. All we got to see were snippets of evidence provided by money grabbing media organisations who like to make us believe what they want. NEVER believe what you read in tabloids how many times to i have to say this to people!!
I don't believe he was guilty of ANY of those charges, he might seem a bit twisted in the head but then again so are a lot of people and it doesnt make them criminals! Also, any other studiers of psychology would know that there is no way to define what is 'normal' for humans. Just a bunch of unwritted social acceptances which we obey, which differ all over the world etc

The point is im glad that he's been found not guilty. I hope that he gets some councilling, he would NEVER have survived a sentence in prison!

with what little of the evidence i saw on skys recreation i would not myself of found him guilty, apart from the word of the boy himselft they had smurf all, they were trying to convict him as a pedophile on the basis he has a copy of playboy.

I never thought that he was guilty in the first place. It’s always been my theory that he no longer has anything that could be considered genitals…

I feel sorry for him. Jackson obviously has mental issues, and I'm glad he got off. I don't think the mother was very credible, and obviously the jury didn't either.

Quote:

---

they were trying to convict him as a pedophile on the basis he has a copy of playboy.

---

Which is pretty stupid. People look at porn. It's a fact of life.

Quote:

---

The point is im glad that he's been found not guilty. I hope that he gets some councilling, he would NEVER have survived a sentence in prison!

---

So true.

I agree with ed here.

Well we all new Michael Didn't do it. I mean let's look at the evidance

• Only the money hungry adults said Michael did it. The Kids where on Michael's side. I would be completly against my molester if it happened to me!
• The First boy to be "Molested" (Joride) Was under the influence of drugs. and is still a fan of MJs
• The Kids who were SUPOSEDLY molested kept going back to Michael AFTER he was acused. If Michael Molested them. Why would they go back to him?
• Michael would Never harm a child.
• Michael isn't gay.

can i just ask why anyone cares?

it's because jackson is famous.

if this trial had been with the celebrity then noone would have cared.

this is just another child abuse case. it doesn't truly matter in the grand scheme of things. (talking about the media). noone really cared about arvizo. they cared about some celebrity.

it's the same with any news it's only special if a celebrity is in it. and it has more impact if the people can speak english (have you ever really cared when some mother is crying in a different language?)

it's a horrible thing that this case was given as much publicity as it was purely because not of the crimes committed but because of the status of the accused.

it's a sign that society does not actually care about tragedy but rather about fame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbomber72000

WTF, thats gay. He should have gotten at the very least the Alchahol (I know, it's spelled wrong, I'm just too lazy to look it up). Good old American justice at work.

---

lol that is so true,I think they did it because he was a big star or they didnt want him to get menhandle in jail by other guys.I think he did it the first time.

Quote:

---

Well we all new Michael Didn't do it. I mean let's look at the evidance

Only the money hungry adults said Michael did it. The Kids where on Michael's side. I would be completly against my molester if it happened to me!
The First boy to be "Molested" (Joride) Was under the influence of drugs. and is still a fan of MJs
The Kids who were SUPOSEDLY molested kept going back to Michael AFTER he was acused. If Michael Molested them. Why would they go back to him?
Michael would Never harm a child.
Michael isn't gay.

---

Aside from the last one, I agree. Sexual orientation has little to do with this, plenty of straight men molest little boys. (sick bastards.)

Well, of course, you've got...


- Jackson has a long history of child molestation accusations, and even if most of them are not true, some of them have to be.
- Jackson also has a history of settling out of court--meaning, he paid the kids and families millions of dollars to drop the case without going to court, which wouldn't have hurt his image any more.
- Plenty of people--maids, housekeepers, groundskeepers, etc.--that don't really have anything to gain from the case testified concerning Jackson giving drugs and alcohol to the children.
- Many of those same people testified that Jackson was often found naked with the children, with his hands on their privates, (his hands on) their hands on his privates, or his hands on his privates.
- Of course the kids went back to him, the guy was richer'n hell and had everything a kid could want.
- There's no telling if the guy is queer or not. His ex-wife still won't answer whether or not their marriage was consumated.

However, none of us have the amount of evidence that the jury had, so there's not much of a way for us to know, unless we already had an opinion about it.

I honestly don't know what to think, but I'm leaning more towards "not guilty" for the following reasons:

-The first time he was accused, once he paid money, the parents left him alone. If I had a kid who was molested, I don't care if it were the leader of the world, I wouldn't stop until that man was stuck behind bars for a good long time with a bunch of lonely large men, if you get what I mean. I wouldn't be like "Oh, a big bag of money? Gee, that'll protect future kids from what happened to my kid. Thanks!"

-The mother this time pretty much shot herself in the foot the whole trial. If she had just stuck with "He molested my son" and maybe the alcohol thing, she would've gotten farther. Instead, the whole time, she rambled about being held hostage and being bugged. She also has a history of doing that.

I doubt I'll ever know if he's guilty or not though. Sasquatch's points were pretty good too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MJN SEIFER

Well we all new Michael Didn't do it. I mean let's look at the evidance

• Only the money hungry adults said Michael did it. The Kids where on Michael's side. I would be completly against my molester if it happened to me!
• The First boy to be "Molested" (Joride) Was under the influence of drugs. and is still a fan of MJs
• The Kids who were SUPOSEDLY molested kept going back to Michael AFTER he was acused. If Michael Molested them. Why would they go back to him?
• Michael would Never harm a child.
• Michael isn't gay.

---

Gayness is irrelevent. As to the rest -- I think that in the most recent case, the child came forward first, followed by his mother pressing charges. It isn't just money hungry kids. In fact, MJ is about the ONLY celeb I can think of right now that has been accused of child molesting. Bill Gates isn't in court every few years over child molestation, Nelly isn't. Heck Prince has never been accused of molestation.

As far as going back, well no. 1 his house is an amusement park. Two -- sometimes kids can be convinced by the molestor that this is how they show their love. So they aren't neccessarily going to hate a guy that is doing things that they are being told is the way to show love. It's sorta complicated because kids, especially young kids don't really understand sexual things yet.

Can someone explain to me why the jury is allowed to effectively sell theirs stories? And US tv can mock him? this would never be allowed in Britain. Brits keep their dignity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renzokuken_RedDragon

Can someone explain to me why the jury is allowed to effectively sell theirs stories? And US tv can mock him? this would never be allowed in Britain. Brits keep their dignity.

---

:laugh: That is just hilarious!

But seriously....:laugh:

Why shouldn't they be able to sell their stories? The trial is over and he isn't going to be put back on trial with this exact case again. It would be double jeopardy which is against the law....brits keep their dignity :laugh: Where do you come up with this crap? :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renzokuken_RedDragon

Can someone explain to me why the jury is allowed to effectively sell theirs stories? And US tv can mock him? this would never be allowed in Britain. Brits keep their dignity.

---

The Brits are just as sensationalistic as the U.S. And you know that the British audience will eat up this stuff just as much as the American public. The entire world has lost their dignity.