Printable View
Not Guilty on all 10 Charges.
No abduction, No Attempt on lewd acts with a minor and no actual lewd acts with a minor. Not even the Alcohal charge. I at least thought he would get that one.
What does everyone think about this semi-butnotreally-important news?
Saw on the news that the jury found him innocent. Trying to get a link for it.
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/150...headlines=true
Discuss.
EDIT: Of course, Ed posted this somewhere else at the exact same freaking minute. So, I guess just discuss it there.
~Threads merged -Necronopticous
Shame.
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.
Yet another mockery of the United States justice system. File this away with O.J. Simpson.
Dont diss O.J., he's my uncle! Just Kidding
This is going to cause outrage. Should be interesting to say the least.
What does this have to do with OJ? I'm still pretty convinced he did it, but I think this is once again a case ofQuote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
More Money = Better Lawyers = Get off Scott Free.
I say its good for him. Unfortunatly this will probably never die down but at least his legal worries are over.
I think everyone wants to say he is guilty from everything in the past but this family lied under oath and has a bad history among other things. They were not credible enough to believe for all the molestation.
At least the alchy had other witnesses. Even if it is just the lesser charge.
I sense LARGE backhanders here.
This is a complete outrage but I think most of us saw it coming. In the words of Chris Rock "We like Michael so much we let the first few kids slide!"
I still dunno what to think about Michael Jackson. :/
See...O.J. had overwhelming evidence against him, yet wasn't found guilty...as with Jackson... Do I really need to explain this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon
Im convinced the truth is somewhere in between. Im confident hes not inncocent but I dont think hes gone as far and done as much as hes made out to be.
No man is completely innocent.
Hence the term "not guilty".
The O.J. Simpson acquittal in criminal court(he was found against and fined something like $30 million in civil court) was largely due to the incompetence of the judge and prosecution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
I have to say, I think the prosecution messed up in this case, too. There is such a thing as "too many witnesses."
I honestly believe that Michael is disturbed in the head. So yeah, I'm glad he's not going to prison. But he should really seek mental help and he should be kept away from children, even his own.
It's kinda sad to see how far he's fallen.
Sasquatch this is a momentus occasion. The first time I have ever agreed with anything you have said. Must be a full moon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
I didn't pay enough attention to the fiasco to have a solid opinion on whether or not he was guilty, since I already know my children won't be visting Uncle Wacko Jacko. I'm glad he's not going to prison though. That would be like... sad. He's way too messed up for prison. He would probably just lay down and die.
I dunno if he's guilty or not, but he's unusual.
Yay.
I think it's easy for us to say "oh he's clearly guilty" but I think we should trust the jury. I highly doubt they let him slide because they like Thriller.
Here's the thing.
If he was found guilty on a significant number of charges, a lot of people would be making exactly the same complaints from the other side of the fence. There's no way the legal system could really have come out of this looking good, because many people would never accept 'guilty', and many people would not accept 'not guilty'.
I am, however, surprised he didn't even get the alchohol stuff.
Im with Shulup on this, and I dont quite get why mostly everyone here believes he is guilty, or were you all hoping for another Martha Stewert?
I didn't follow the trial, so my input doesn't really count for anything, but I don't think he is guilty of child molestation. (I dont know what else he was accused of though). Yeah, I think he's a creep, but I don't think he has molested anybody.
Exactly. The jury had the job of assessing all the evidence and deciding whether he was guilty or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
None of us have seen that evidence. All we've had to go on is the media hype, which is absolutely never reliable.
Now, I don't know whether Jackson was guilty or not. But a jury clearly decided that there was not proof beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. You can't send a man to prison with the eternal stigma of a criminal conviction, when there's still a reasonable doubt that he might be innocent.
People say he got off because he could afford good lawyers?
Pffft. The prosecution in this case was the United States Government, the biggest and most powerful body of its kind in the world. Besides, no lawyer can actually alter whether somebody was factually guilty of a crime or not. That's a common misconception.
Do *I* think he's guilty? I really don't know. There have been a lot of allegations, from a lot of sources, for a considerable period of time. But if a jury of honest, impartial Americans could not conclude that he was guilty, then I'm in no position to try to impose a different result.
Think about it this way... whether he's guilty or not, this trial has damaged his wealth, health and reputation - more than it would for any 'regular' person facing the same charges.
Whenever a court case is decided in a way that somebody disagrees with, they often say that it "makes a mockery of [country]'s justice system". I find this interesting: rather than accepting that results will not always favour them, they take this one result and hold it up as 'proof' that an entire establishment is fundamentally flawed. It happens all the time, no matter how a case is decided.
I want to make the sexist but true statement that if the moleste had not been a boy but a girl instead this whole trial would have been substanically different and maybe even found guilty just because it was a girl.
I bring this up because of how often a woman and get a guy in a
I agree. With all the charges and all the accusations they must have been pretty sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
I personally never thought he was guilty, although I understand that I really don't and will never know, but I'm glad to see him get off.
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.
Which is pretty stupid. People look at porn. It's a fact of life.Quote:
they were trying to convict him as a pedophile on the basis he has a copy of playboy.
So true.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!
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.
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:
Originally Posted by bbomber72000
Aside from the last one, I agree. Sexual orientation has little to do with this, plenty of straight men molest little boys. (sick bastards.)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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MJN SEIFER
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.
:laugh: That is just hilarious!Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzokuken_RedDragon
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzokuken_RedDragon
This is a good point, and it reminds me of a prior discussion concerning relationships. I do remember at least one specific person talking about how it doesn't matter how young somebody is even in a sexual relationship, because there can still be feelings from both partners. By this logic--or lack thereof--child molesting is fine, as long as the molestor convinces the child that it's okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon
It is. It is. He's like...a living legend, or so they say, but people like me who didn't know him in his prime have to see him like this and well; it's disillusioning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel <3
And he's innocent until proven guilty. Something the mother of that boy was completely and totally unable to do, given her ridiculously schizophrenic stories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
.
Well the California court systems have been the shame of the federal Justice System for decades. If there was anywhere this guy could get off, it was California.Quote:
Originally Posted by metro
Justice at last!
he was innocent all along! the law finally did something right. those money grabbin', theivin' gits....(can i say that?)
michael jackson is innocen.t get over it. i don't care if he did it or not. fact is molestor or not he was found innocent in a fair trial before a judge and a jury of his peers. he is now and for every more innocent.
please note we are now returning to the topic at hand.
You didn't have to delete all the awesome posts though ;_;Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
How would you know if the law over here finally did something right? The law does plenty of things right. Oh yeah, you can say git because it is just retarded euro-slang :D I had to say it. It was a legit response ;_;Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Bahamut
I heard they asked some of the members of the jury about it and a few of 'em said they did think he was a child molester, just not of the "victims" in the trial.
That wasn't exactly what I was getting at. More that the child is being manipulated by the molestor who tells the kid over and over that the molestation is just a normal way to show "love". In fact if you've ever seen an interview of an adult molested as a child, it seems that this tactic is fairly common, as every one of the survivors say the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
http://www.jimhopper.com/hope/
Quote:
As a child I was raised in a very fragile environment. I do not recall ever having a father. My stepfather was a severe alcoholic, and he would often go days without coming home. Through all of the tough times my parents had, we went through countless babysitters. None like the babysitter I had when I was six. He was only 13 years old at the time. He introduced my brother and I to new games. What he didn't tell us is that he actually sexually abusing us. After the games he made it very clear that we were not tell anyone, not even our parents.
Which is why it's the greatest...I'd personally rather have a chance of living through what I was falsely accused for rather than being killed for it, thanks. So I'll stay in California and you can stay out of California. Everyone is happy. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
I just love how people who know nothing and aren't even involved talk like they know more than people who have studied the situation and are professionals.
Awww....I was so hoping he'd be screwed. but by the law! Haha. Okay, i didn't really believe that kid when he said all that crap but when i heard michael jackson did it before in the 90s, i started to wonder.
But then again, the kid coulda been lying just so his parents could fill thier dirty pockets.
Or, Michael Jackson really is a child........you know.....
I dunno.
Whatever you say.He might have done these things but the Jury was pretty smart in this case.There wasn't much evidence in the court pointing against Jackson.They didn't have any recorded evidence no video evidence .Just human testimony and this is what happens when the Prosecution slacks off like this..I don't even think the police bothered to try and get a warrant to bug his house to trace his phone lines to have hidden video survallence of what goes on in his place.This lack of effort results in this.Now jackson was pretty much lucky that the prosecution was just too incompetent and hopefully he doesn't screw aorund like that.Because next time he does then a full investigation will literally go into work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
I actually think the people out there were wanting his money. After all the drama, the Wacko Jacko! Who else better to get money? I support Jackson(i aint a fan of his music or anything though) by what i see and i think he is messed up in the head, and that people are trying to get his money because of that. But then again part of me doesnt care, since this news is just for TV ratings. Whether he did it or not before is IRRELEVANT, because did he do it NOW? The jury didnt think so.
BTW i think the USA justice is just a great slideshow for the most part anyway. Not 100%, but enough for me.
I liked JAckson's music up to his Thriller ablum.
Anyway California's justice system is horrible and so is Texas's justice system.Texas sends so many inocent people to death its freaking amasing that they still evne have a state population.
This thread is a testament to how you want somebody to burn just to placate your drama lusting. There was virtually no evidence short of a pile of testimony, which doesn't count for much in a court room (as opposed to physical evidence).
I've been saying he's not guilty months ago. Where's my parade?
I just said that lol but yeah basicly thats the hold issue with it.Thats why I wasn't surprise that Jackson go off due to the fact that it was nothing but testimony .Never watch tv shows such as the John Abrahms report because I think they're just a bunch of idiots.The whole thing with the jackson trial was that they tried too hard to get him and just off of little kids's testimonies.Thats pretty sad and low to try to convict someone in prison.
lol brits have dignity?bah they are sensationalistic as the US audience is.Man that was freaking hilarious I kept reading it and reading it but i didn't wanna say anything aobut it up until now lol :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzokuken_RedDragon