|
Post by gill on Jun 14, 2005 9:23:22 GMT -5
I'd noticed on the Pro site, they were all outraged at Michael Jackson's verdict, (surprise surprise) saying he'd weasled his way out of it. They claimed that "This is a victory for NAMBLA (the North American Man Boy Love Association)"
Another argument was . . .
"From where it sit it looks like injustice served, pedophilia served, high-priced flim-flam lawyers served, and anything but justice served. Did I say pedophilia served? Definitely pedophilia served. It's the same open barn door that so many guilty murderers have used to escape justice (open barn door = reasonable doubt). He looks like he just stepped out of Madame Tussaud's wax museum in London. He's a freak who got away with it because he has $$$"
This is shocking. So suddenly they're attacking him as a pedophile because hes gotten plastic surgery, and has money??? Which is wrong. Michael Jackson has serious money problems, and is in debt of something like $200 million!
They're even accusing Jackson of crimes he did not commit, like giving alcohol to children. Hes just been proven innocent of this, and all of his alleged offences.
"When he gave booze to the little boys, do you think he was just being sociable?" Can anyone explain to me how Pros are always so sure the judge and jury who condemns offenders to death are always right, and just in their sentencing, yet when they do not condemn a man, who is clearly innocent, the judge and jury are suddenly wrong?!?!?
Regards, Gill
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Jun 14, 2005 9:29:07 GMT -5
I'm not supprised. I guess all you have to be is accused to be guilty in their eyes.
|
|
|
Post by damaris on Jun 14, 2005 9:30:55 GMT -5
I'm surprised that he got off also. I was pretty sure that he would get convicted but I guess not.
|
|
|
Post by gill on Jun 14, 2005 9:47:02 GMT -5
I'm not surprised. There wasn't a shred of hard evidence against Jackson. The charges were all brought about by pathetic women, with no credibility looking to suck the money from a big name entertainer. I'm more concerned with the fact that so many parents allowed their children to spend so much time with Jackson, especially with a profile like his. I'd call that neglect, and deem them to have a brass neck to complain about the goings on while they had their backs turns. It is also ironic that there were no black jurers. But, I believe these people looked at the "evidence" and came up with what they considered a fair verdict. Regards, Gill
|
|
|
Post by mikebook on Jun 14, 2005 9:49:42 GMT -5
The American Legal System in action...It is not perfect, but it is the best system we have...
|
|
|
Post by truth1 on Jun 14, 2005 10:32:57 GMT -5
I'd noticed on the Pro site, they were all outraged at Michael Jackson's verdict, (surprise surprise) saying he'd weasled his way out of it. They claimed that "This is a victory for NAMBLA (the North American Man Boy Love Association)" Another argument was . . . "From where it sit it looks like injustice served, pedophilia served, high-priced flim-flam lawyers served, and anything but justice served. Did I say pedophilia served? Definitely pedophilia served. It's the same open barn door that so many guilty murderers have used to escape justice (open barn door = reasonable doubt). He looks like he just stepped out of Madame Tussaud's wax museum in London. He's a freak who got away with it because he has $$$" This is shocking. So suddenly they're attacking him as a pedophile because hes gotten plastic surgery, and has money??? Which is wrong. Michael Jackson has serious money problems, and is in debt of something like $200 million! They're even accusing Jackson of crimes he did not commit, like giving alcohol to children. Hes just been proven innocent of this, and all of his alleged offences. "When he gave booze to the little boys, do you think he was just being sociable?" Can anyone explain to me how Pros are always so sure the judge and jury who condemns offenders to death are always right, and just in their sentencing, yet when they do not condemn a man, who is clearly innocent, the judge and jury are suddenly wrong?!?!? Regards, Gill I believe he was guilty. But, the prosecution did a horrendous job presenting their evidence. Tom Sneddon was in such a rush to prosecute, it cost him a conviction. A juror was even interviewed where he said he thought Jackson was a pedophile, but, there was reasonable doubt. America does not like to convict its celebrities (i.e. Jackson, O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake, ect...).
|
|
|
Post by gill on Jun 14, 2005 10:41:08 GMT -5
No. You're right that America doesn't like to convict it's entertainers, just those in lower economic circumstances. But if there was a shred of evidence against Jackson, he would have been found guilty on at least one charge. He's innocent, as proven. Gill
|
|
|
Post by truth1 on Jun 14, 2005 11:44:33 GMT -5
No. You're right that America doesn't like to convict it's entertainers, just those in lower economic circumstances. But if there was a shred of evidence against Jackson, he would have been found guilty on at least one charge. He's innocent, as proven. Gill Well, from what I understood when the verdicts were read, they were all tied in to each other. It would have been hard to convict him on the administering an intoxicating agent to a minor to assist in the commission of child molestation charge, while not finding him guilty of a lewd act of a child under 14.
|
|
|
Post by mikebook on Jun 14, 2005 12:30:50 GMT -5
I really was not keeping up with this case...Too confusing...
|
|
|
Post by raindrops on Jun 14, 2005 12:37:23 GMT -5
Michael Jackson would never have been found guilty though he had 100 charges against him. Alot of reaction from people that they are spilt down the middle on this verdict. Some believing he should have been found guilty and other believing he should have been found guilty.
Whatever happens to Michael Jackson now ?? Rest assured his name is now dragged through the mud. People will never look or trust him in the same way as before this went to trial. As for his music career who knows what the future will hold for him.
|
|
|
Post by mikebook on Jun 14, 2005 12:38:54 GMT -5
He can have a reality tV series...Record a new album, whatever...
|
|
|
Post by raindrops on Jun 14, 2005 12:40:34 GMT -5
hmmm look what happened when he let Martin Bashir into his home. He ended up in court.
Something tells me he might lay low for a bit wait until the dust settles and then make a come back.
|
|
|
Post by freerob on Jun 14, 2005 13:54:12 GMT -5
I'm not supprised. I guess all you have to be is accused to be guilty in their eyes. Well I was absolutely gob-smacked MJ got off. Here in the UK, the census was he was guilty. I mean, I ask you, being in the dock TWICE for similar offenses? (okay in the dock ONCE but in peoples eyes twice) But as a person, he was vunerable. As a celebrity, he was just an IDIOT. Being naive is no excuse. How can someone with ALL his 'advisor's' be THAT naive and have children sleep in his bed? That is WRONG. the verdict has been given. he is vindicated, but personally, I doubt the truth was told. That mother buggered up the prosecution. However, he's off, AGAIN. Let's hope none of OUR children are invited to Neverland. Isn't it AMAZING??? When you HAVE money, you are ABOVE the law? What a sad country.
|
|
|
Post by ela on Jun 14, 2005 13:56:56 GMT -5
I really don't know if he is guilty or not, I've not been into this case too much to be honest... But I think that he is the clear example to show that: If you are accused and you want to win, you must have MONEY .
|
|
|
Post by freerob on Jun 14, 2005 14:00:01 GMT -5
I really don't know if he is guilty or not, I've not been into this case too much to be honest... But I think that he is the clear example to show that: If you are accused and you want to win, you must have MONEY . Gill, without a shadow of a doubt, that is a FACT. It's ALL about money and politics... not about the accused or the victim.
|
|