Michael Jackson- Embarassment to Society

[sfleuriet]

BREAKING NEWS- Michael Jackson found NOT GUILTY on all 10 counts. I 100% totally DISAGREE with all of this. This "man" needs to be thrown into jail forever.

[Kwitko]

:ninja:

[Camman]

BREAKING NEWS- Michael Jackson found NOT GUILTY on all 10 counts. I 100% totally DISAGREE with all of this. This "man" needs to be thrown into jail forever.

Not that I'm a big MJ Fan or anything, but honestly like I don't get why you disagree with the jury? I mean, they have been listening to testimony and seeing evidence for months, they're obviously the best suited to make the decision, I don't see how you can say you disagree unless you have some evidence of your own to the contrary. Sure, he acts a little ridiculous, and definitly not somebody I'd let my kids hang around (it's just as much the parents fault after they knew what kind of person who was and how this has happened before), but that's the way our justice system works.

I'm just glad it's over, I'm tired of hearing about it, all "entertainment news" is garbage anyway.

[entropy]

I'm just glad it's over, I'm tired of hearing about it, all "entertainment news" is garbage anyway.
No kidding.

I'm not sure. While I haven't been following the case at all (because he's a moron), he does have a lot of money. I'm not saying he did pay them off, in some way, shape, or form, I'm just saying it's out there. I wouldn't put it past him...

Edit:
Changed "Werd" to "No kidding" because the tone doesn't carry so well over the internet. I don't really talk like that, I just like making fun of people who actually do.

[sfleuriet]

...since he's a celebrity, he got off easy and didnt get convicted. thats how it always is in hollywood. and in a few months, im sure he'll be back in court. probably innocent again.

[sfleuriet]

(because he's a moron)

true that

[Gargoyle]

I'm actually a little surprised. Not factoring evidence into the equation, I figured the typical American thought Jacko was a freak, and they'd take advantage of the situation to lock him up. But then again, I've never understood celebrity worship.

More than anything, I'm glad it's over.

[FormFactor]

I didn't really follow the case that closely, but I heard they found child porn at his ranch. Did he not get charged with that or what? I mean, thats physical evidence. He should be found guilty of at least that.

[sfleuriet]

I didn't really follow the case that closely, but I heard they found child porn at his ranch. Did he not get charged with that or what? I mean, thats physical evidence. He should be found guilty of at least that.

seriously!! but remember hes a celeb and has millions of dollars, so that makes the jury (who im SURE knew all about the case before being asked to come to jury duty) very leaneant in the first place!!!

There is probably no fair trial for any celebrity in the united states. maybe they should start taking these cases to other countries.

[Dexter]

Not that I'm a big MJ Fan or anything, but honestly like I don't get why you disagree with the jury? I mean, they have been listening to testimony and seeing evidence for months, they're obviously the best suited to make the decision, I don't see how you can say you disagree unless you have some evidence of your own to the contrary.



Cam makes an important point. Sometimes "Not Guilty" simply means "Not Enough Evidence."

Dexter...

[Nomad]

He's not guilty, just creepy.

[Armo]

He's not guilty, just creepy.

[sfleuriet]

He's not guilty, just creepy.

I'd say he's both :p

[Spinner]

Before I start, I am no more a Michael Jackson supporter than I am a Michael Jackson hater, I don't personally know the man, and have not seen him first hand or third hand, commit any crime. Apart from maybe some of the tracks on his Invincible album.

You have to defer to the judgement of the jury, none of us can disagree with their verdict because none of us have seen all the facts/evidence.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but saying the man needs to be thrown into jail for ever is a statement that can't be supported logically, unless of course you see the world media as being more factual and un-bias than the U.S justice system.

Michael Jackson may actually be guilty of some of the acts he's just been found innocent of, but he may also actually be innocent just like he’s been found.

The point is, if you truly believe in the ideals that have shaped the U.S. justice system, innocent until proven guilty being one prime example, then you can't disagree with this result. Do you believe that people should be proven guilty before being condemned?

I look upon some people’s perception of Michael Jackson as being a very modern personification of one of humanities greatest weaknesses, "people fear what they don't understand".

Michael Jackson is certainly weird, but failing to conform to normality is not a crime, and not being understood by people is also not. Just because I personally don't understand Michael Jackson, it doesn't mean I should condemn him. Just because he does things that we can relate to bad deeds, doesn't mean he's guilty of them.

Look at his life, it has hardly followed a path that any of us can relate to from our own experiences, so our perceptions of his behaviour can't really be as substantiated as they would be if we were trying to analyse the behaviour of say, a stereotypical paedophile.

I accept the verdict, because there is no other logical choice and I refuse to condemn a man when I haven't seen all the facts.

This isn't designed to insight a mass debate, but it is designed to maybe open some of your minds a little, with no disrespect intended. :)

[bothered]

Totally agree Spinner, nicely put. I think he's weird as well but he's been to court and that's that. I always felt a little sorry for him, He's had a very strange, unusual life, I am an ordinary working bloke with a wife and kids but concide myself far richer than MJ, I certainly wouldn't swap places with him.

[Leonardo]

I originally didn't follow this trial until one day I heard arguments from both sides. Usually, I avoid most anything involving a broo-ha-ha over celebrities. (I think most of them are empty heads, looking for a life.) Well, anyway, I did follow this trial, taking an interest in the arguments posited by both sides. What REALLY got my interest was when I learned the background of Jackson's accusers. The facts I did learn about them destroyed any credibility they had with me. Gold diggers, opportunists, lawsuit hogs.

I believe like so many that Jackson emotionally imbalanced, has strange tastes, and is troubled. I also think letting children not your own sleep in your bed is suspect at best.

Based on what was available to me via the media, I think Jackson had his day in court and received justice. I don't admire the man; and he certainly invited scrutiny into his private life. But I do not think the jury had any direct evidence that would conclude, beyond reasonable doubt that Jackson was guilty. Certainly I will respect an opinion that says he is guilty, but he has not been proven guilty.

(What's all this about "child pornography" - all I've heard are rumors and nothing solid. Does ANYONE have a credible source for this?? Possession of child pornography in and of itself is a crime. He was not charged with such.

[qparadox]

Here's where the child porn stuff comes from:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/183843p-159444c.html

Make of it what you will. It, along with most of the prosecutions witness seem to lack credibility. While I do feel some sympathy for MJ, I feel a lot more sympathy for the accuser. I do believe MJ's innonence, but it appears to me that this boy has had his mind twisted and contorted a million different ways by his mother. Not only has he had to endure the suffering caused by cancer and its treatment, but he's been used a pawn to extort money. In my opinion child services should be the one investigating the mother ... not Michael Jackson.

As a note, I consider myself a Jackson "neutral" but the evidence I have seen and heard about from the news seems to be logically explainable by the scheming parents theory.

[Leonardo]

OK, finally something in print. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that still does not strike me as credible. Gossip column? Not saying it's a lie, but just doesn't seem credible. Also, the piece didn't say anything about child pornography, which so far seems to be unsubstantiated.

[qparadox]

That was were the allegation grew from though, it was one of those things that just kept getting multiplied by the media. I think at one point I heard this story contorted to "Michael Jackson was caught masturbating to child pornography." I'll leave you to guess which news channel that was ....

Its one of the most terrible results of instant news, one station makes a mistake, another copies it and voila suddenly pure fallacy because undisputed fact. Its pretty amazing ... and pathetic.

[Clutch]

I would put money down that over half the jury grew up with his music. Case closed :shakehead

[tcith]

OK, finally something in print. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that still does not strike me as credible. Gossip column? Not saying it's a lie, but just doesn't seem credible. Also, the piece didn't say anything about child pornography, which so far seems to be unsubstantiated.


From what I understand only heterosexual adult porn was found on the ranch. Similiar to what is found in an average adults home.

There where fingerprints of some of his accusers on pages of a hustler magazine I believe -

links

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/25/jackson.trial/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/21/entertainment/main681973.shtml

[sfleuriet]

I would put money down that over half the jury grew up with his music. Case closed :shakehead

verrrry good point :thumbsup:

[primesuspect]

almost as good as the Star Wars Episode I version:

http://ryoni.com/news/124/ARTICLE/1446/2005-06-11.html

;D

[RWB]

I haven't kept up with the case, nor did I fully read the thread.

1) He admited to sleeping with the children, but not to sexually assaulting them as far as I know.

2) He's creepy.

3) He paid off the last two(?) cases which is illegal since it was a criminal court and not a civial court(settlement).

4) Creepy as hell....

5) He shoudl have been sent to jail over the child ledge fiasco. You or I would have instantly.

6) WTF is wrong with this guy?

7) Does he actually have any of his own kids? They have blonde hair and white skin.... go figure.

8) It was a fair and just case, possibly ignorant. But he should have been put through a Texas court, he'd have been on death row ten years ago. :ninja:

9) There is no doubt he's as creepy as he is misguided. If you think sleeping with strange children is a normal thing, something is wrong with you and you need help in a locked up sanitarium or wherever they throw weirdo's.

We should ban all further mentioning of MJ, Micheal Jackson, and anything relating to him as I am sure many of us are sick and tired of hearing about it not only on TV(which I no longer watch becuase of this kind of crap) but also on forums in which people create new posts talking about a person they claim to hate and am sick of hearing about..... *cough*

This is my last post ever mentioning MJ in any way other than as an insult or joke. :vimp:

[sfleuriet]

almost as good as the Star Wars Episode I version:

http://ryoni.com/news/124/ARTICLE/1446/2005-06-11.html

;D

OMG that video it hilarious!!! hahaha evvvryone has to watch that!

[Leonardo]

The whole point of this thread is not whether Michael Jackson is creepy or not, it's whether a defendent and a plaintiff had their fair day in court. I say they did.

If you look at the trial evidence, it least what came across the media, the prosecution had a weak case - accusations, legal girlie magazines, and alcohol in the home. The primary accusers were caught contradicting significantly what they had said before the trial.

I'm rather neutral about MJ's music, and don't give flying feces about celebrity. I did enjoy Thriller and some of the Jacskson 5 Motown productions; but I honestly tried to look at the trial as fact, evidence, argument, and rebuttal.

So what that Michael Jackson has paid off accusers before. Wake up! That is business as usual for anyone with money. Lawsuits (tort) is a multi-billion dollar industry in this country. It's a lot less painful to pay off an accuser, even in frivolous suits than it is to undergo weeks, months, or years of expensive litigation, meanwhile watching your life or business being bruised to death by your distraction.

By the way, ABC news (radio) today played excerpts from one of the juriy member's interview. He stated that at the beginning of jury deliberation, several (I think half) of the jurors thought Jackson was guilty. But as they started tabulating the lies of the chief witnesses (accusers), they changed their mind, that there was indeed reasonable doubt.

MJ gives me the creeps just as he does most ordinary males, but that doesn't make him legally guilty. Look, I realize a lot of the comments here are sentiments of feelings... I feel the same way.

[Clutch]

It is very hard for a celeb to have a fair trial these days and times IMHO.

[Buddy J]

With this over, what will be the media's new source for infotainment?

[primesuspect]

oh there's still plenty. We've still got Paris and Jessica, Bengelina Jofleck, and more! :shakehead

[Nomad]

lol, "Wouldn't want to compromise your dignity would you?"

[-tk]

:bawling: whatever happened to that cute little black kid that used to sing "I Want You Back".....