"wstüssyb raped me!!" - Linda
"no I didn't!!" - wstüssyb
I hope you both got some pleasure
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I didn't want to believe that he'd molest children so of course I wanted him to be found not guilty. That doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do it I know. If he did do it I hope this has been a lesson to him and it NEVER happens again.
I just know the lengths people will go to to get money from people. I think the defense did a good job proving these people to be just that.
I just know the lengths people will go to to get money from people. I think the defense did a good job proving these people to be just that.
Hey Fatty, I'm good thanks. Hope you are keeping well! That's more than enough love for one thread.
On topic - He's encentric, he's guilty of some improper stuff. But that's not what he was in court about, and the things he was in court for, he's innocent of.
On topic - He's encentric, he's guilty of some improper stuff. But that's not what he was in court about, and the things he was in court for, he's innocent of.
hmm, never happen again...didnt he have a trial like this some years ago?
fool me once, shame on you.
fool me twice, shame on me.
fool me once, shame on you.
fool me twice, shame on me.
I wonder how much he bribed the jury. lol
fuck you. You all just can't handle the truth! I told all of you - he's innocnet, definitely innocent and the jury has spoken!! yay!!
linda, don't proclaim his innocence so loudly! it has nothing to do with innocence...any dumb redneck knows that the American Constitution says that you get a fiar trial, and guilt has to be proven BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUNT. This verdict simply means that this dirty bastard got off because tHEY weren't 100% sure of his guilt...should civilised society really be rejoicing putting another twisted paedo back at the ranch in this manner?
Guys, with respect...M.J. has..
1) He has money, power, clebrity, fame & and army of the highest paid best lawyers.
2) Legal analysts said that over 100 police and Nat'l Guard were stationed around the area surrounding the courthouse for fear of mass rioting, & violence and innocent people being killed...if the verdict was read as Guilty.
3) Legal analysts said the same thing as BOTH #1, and #2, when O.J. Simpson got off and was found innocent.
4) While I applaud the USA justice system and would NOT want to live in other countries where, as here you ARE innocent til proven guilty, and have rights to a trial by your peers...
...the USA judicial system has its flaws and is NOT foolproof.
MANY innocent people go to jail, even for murder.
One man here in Maryland spent 30 years in jail in solitary confinement for raping and murdering a little girl, until evidence, and the REAL murderer who was found, set the innocent man free.
Now HE is suing the state of Maryland and rightfully so, as his life is gone and ruined.
Many a GUILTY person, gets off scott free, & is found innocent for anything from a technicality, to a hung jury, to lots of money for great lawyers, to even fear of repurcussions like the ones I discussed that legal analysts stated above.
It's a sad thing when you have to station police and the national Guard around a courthouse, for fear of people going off on a mass/violent rampage if M.J. had been found guilty.
1) He has money, power, clebrity, fame & and army of the highest paid best lawyers.
2) Legal analysts said that over 100 police and Nat'l Guard were stationed around the area surrounding the courthouse for fear of mass rioting, & violence and innocent people being killed...if the verdict was read as Guilty.
3) Legal analysts said the same thing as BOTH #1, and #2, when O.J. Simpson got off and was found innocent.
4) While I applaud the USA justice system and would NOT want to live in other countries where, as here you ARE innocent til proven guilty, and have rights to a trial by your peers...
...the USA judicial system has its flaws and is NOT foolproof.
MANY innocent people go to jail, even for murder.
One man here in Maryland spent 30 years in jail in solitary confinement for raping and murdering a little girl, until evidence, and the REAL murderer who was found, set the innocent man free.
Now HE is suing the state of Maryland and rightfully so, as his life is gone and ruined.
Many a GUILTY person, gets off scott free, & is found innocent for anything from a technicality, to a hung jury, to lots of money for great lawyers, to even fear of repurcussions like the ones I discussed that legal analysts stated above.
It's a sad thing when you have to station police and the national Guard around a courthouse, for fear of people going off on a mass/violent rampage if M.J. had been found guilty.
Just goes to show, if you're famous and have tons of money, you're always "innocent."
Well, clearly the American justice system has its flaws, but it's the best sytem anyone has come up with thus far.
Everyone knows that in such criminal cases the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to show evidence that would lead a jury to come to a verdict that is beyond any reasonable doubt. Now if we could convict people with anything less than that, the system would be severalfold worse than it is as of now.
And I'm sure that riots and such were not a reason for the jury to return a not guilty verdict, unless someone here has heard that (inadmissable) evidence used in the trial proceedings. Of course, then again, the jury members always have their biases, even when they should disregard something.
I can't honestly say I have done extensive research on Michael Jackson, or anything pertinent to here, but I would like to know what evidence you all are basing your opinions off of. I would like to be educated in this thread instead of reading another ad hominem argument. Thanks!
Everyone knows that in such criminal cases the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to show evidence that would lead a jury to come to a verdict that is beyond any reasonable doubt. Now if we could convict people with anything less than that, the system would be severalfold worse than it is as of now.
And I'm sure that riots and such were not a reason for the jury to return a not guilty verdict, unless someone here has heard that (inadmissable) evidence used in the trial proceedings. Of course, then again, the jury members always have their biases, even when they should disregard something.
I can't honestly say I have done extensive research on Michael Jackson, or anything pertinent to here, but I would like to know what evidence you all are basing your opinions off of. I would like to be educated in this thread instead of reading another ad hominem argument. Thanks!
People are saying that because for this case a jury found him not guilty, we can be 100% sure that MJ is not a paedophile.
I disagree.
I disagree.
Here is the history of the trial ... a starting point i guess ... I will have to read it some time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_trial_of_Michael_Jackson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_trial_of_Michael_Jackson
People are saying that because for this case a jury found him not guilty, we can be 100% sure that MJ is not a paedophile.
I disagree.
But the true question is, have any logical people said this?
Here is the history of the trial ... a starting point i guess ... I will have to read it some time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_trial_of_Michael_Jackson
Ew...wikipedia.
Well, you're right. It is a start.
I'm just surprised about the alcohol, and I'm glad he's out, if indeed all that stuff happened, they should put the kids parent's in jail, for still sending them there when all the stuff is said about him
There is nothing right about a 30/40 year old guy having young boys sleep over at his house, sorry.
The guy loves kids because of their innonence and because he never was a normal kid himself. Now I don't love kids or anything but I can imagine that he does, even so much that he takes them into his bed and sleeps with them. So what? It's not that different from sleeping with teddy bears although I admit it is a bit unusual. The guy never made the impression on me in all those documentaries and stuff as someone who could hurt a fly so he certainly wouldn't "hurt" his precious kids because he's not THAT wacko (that balcony scene was also blown out of proportion).
People just believe what they want to believe, namely some weird-looking creep doing something scandalous. It's a good thing those money-hungry liars didn't win, because that's what this was all about if you ask me.
I'm not a huge MJ fan by the way.
An excerpt from the article:
Adult materials found at Neverland were both heterosexual and homosexual, though legal. However, some had fingerprints of the two brothers on them; Jackson is alleged to have shown these adult materials to the brothers for the purpose of grooming, and gave them alcohol. Both were allegedly for the purpose of lowering inhibitions to sexual behavior. Jackson denies; he claims that the accuser and his brother were sometimes “out of control” at Neverland, and read his magazines and drank his alcohol without permission, though it could be reasoned that these items could easily have been made unavailable.
On 10 March 2005, the judge was on the brink of issuing an arrest warrant and forfeiture of the bail, when Jackson was an hour late for the trial (see also WikiNews).
The accuser's brother testified that on two occasions, each during a few seconds, while not been seen, he had seen that Jackson had outercourse with the apparently sleeping accuser (counts 4 and 5). Details of the sexual act on the second occasion contradict what the accuser's brother told psychologist Katz, according to Katz' testimony before the Grand Jury. He explains this by saying that there were actually three occasions.
The boy admitted that he had lied under oath in an unrelated court case.
During the alleged sexual incidents, Jackson wore underpants, and the accuser wore underpants or pajamas. On one brief occasion the brothers saw Jackson naked. According to the accuser's brother, Jackson's penis was erect, but according to the accuser it was not. Even if the incident was non-sexual this was special to the brothers, because they had never seen a naked adult before.
The accuser told a school administrator at a date after he had left Neverland that Jackson had not molested him. Later, at the trial, he said that this was not true, that he had lied because he was already teased after the airing of the Bashir documentary, and he feared that the teasing would get worse if he would have told the truth, which, as he now said, is as follows: on one occasion Jackson manipulated the accuser's genitals for about five minutes, causing the accuser to ejaculate (count 2); the next day Jackson started it again (count 3) and also tried to guide the accuser's hand to Jackson's genitals, but the accuser pulled away (count 6).
The accuser said that he was happy at Neverland, and that only after leaving did he realize he didn't want to be there anymore.
Adult materials found at Neverland were both heterosexual and homosexual, though legal. However, some had fingerprints of the two brothers on them; Jackson is alleged to have shown these adult materials to the brothers for the purpose of grooming, and gave them alcohol. Both were allegedly for the purpose of lowering inhibitions to sexual behavior. Jackson denies; he claims that the accuser and his brother were sometimes “out of control” at Neverland, and read his magazines and drank his alcohol without permission, though it could be reasoned that these items could easily have been made unavailable.
On 10 March 2005, the judge was on the brink of issuing an arrest warrant and forfeiture of the bail, when Jackson was an hour late for the trial (see also WikiNews).
The accuser's brother testified that on two occasions, each during a few seconds, while not been seen, he had seen that Jackson had outercourse with the apparently sleeping accuser (counts 4 and 5). Details of the sexual act on the second occasion contradict what the accuser's brother told psychologist Katz, according to Katz' testimony before the Grand Jury. He explains this by saying that there were actually three occasions.
The boy admitted that he had lied under oath in an unrelated court case.
During the alleged sexual incidents, Jackson wore underpants, and the accuser wore underpants or pajamas. On one brief occasion the brothers saw Jackson naked. According to the accuser's brother, Jackson's penis was erect, but according to the accuser it was not. Even if the incident was non-sexual this was special to the brothers, because they had never seen a naked adult before.
The accuser told a school administrator at a date after he had left Neverland that Jackson had not molested him. Later, at the trial, he said that this was not true, that he had lied because he was already teased after the airing of the Bashir documentary, and he feared that the teasing would get worse if he would have told the truth, which, as he now said, is as follows: on one occasion Jackson manipulated the accuser's genitals for about five minutes, causing the accuser to ejaculate (count 2); the next day Jackson started it again (count 3) and also tried to guide the accuser's hand to Jackson's genitals, but the accuser pulled away (count 6).
The accuser said that he was happy at Neverland, and that only after leaving did he realize he didn't want to be there anymore.