Sakurako Hino Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 News - CNN Jacko not guilty on all counts. Enough said.WTF... Dude had guilty written all over his face... well, whatever is left of it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asche Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 The US justice system is soo tweaked.... money buys innocence it seems. :sigh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostwriter Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 Ever occur to you lot he might just be innocent?He's been found not guilty. Leave him alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakurako Hino Posted June 14, 2005 Author Share Posted June 14, 2005 Samhra, sorry, but Jacko creeps me out. Big Time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asche Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 My thoughts are, if he was stupid enough to put himself in the position(s) he did, he ought to get in trouble. He should have never had the kids over and slept with them, whether or not he touched them. Doing that leaves too much room for people to "assume" what goes on and thus the problem.To me, he is an oxygen theif needing to be eradicated.This is just my $.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostwriter Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 Oh look, he's nuttier than a fruitcake and no denying it, but he's been acquitted, so we should drop it already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jager Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 I will side with Samhra on this one. Sure, he is a freak, but look at the way he was raised. I think he has no conception of what normal and/or acceptable behavior is. He has been a star since he was five, and is kind of trapped in a childhood fantasy.That makes him a nut, not a child molester.I guess I put a lot more faith in twelve fellow citizens to figure out what is what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David 'Dr. Troll' Smith Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 I talked to someone who followed this thing and the "the kids are sleeping with him" might be a bit overblown. His bedroom is big enough to fit the average 2 story house.The problem is both sides might be right. His accusers might have been right... as well as being shakedown artists. At the same time, he is a real easy mark and they were shakedown artists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conduit Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 Quote:Originally posted by Jager: I will side with Samhra on this one. Sure, he is a freak, but look at the way he was raised. I think he has no conception of what normal and/or acceptable behavior is. He has been a star since he was five, and is kind of trapped in a childhood fantasy.That makes him a nut, not a child molester.I guess I put a lot more faith in twelve fellow citizens to figure out what is what. Lots of people have messed up childhoods. Some of them become child molesters. Just because he has been a star since he was 5 doesn't mean he should be found not guilty. All child molesters live in a fantasy world, where they feel that their actions are acceptable. Should the legal system say, "well you did come from a broken home, so I guess you don't have to go to jail"? Why should he be afforded the luxury?That being said, I agree with you and Samhra. He was found not guilty of those crimes. It's time to let it go. I don't need hourly news updates about what Michael is doing. I'm looking at you CNN . I trust our legal system and the jury. I think that these jurors were in a tough spot. I wouldn't want to be on a jury that sent the King of Pop to jail.However, I do think he has molested children. I think he will continue that trend.What baffles me the most is, why do these people let their children stay there? If this woman suspected him of molesting her son, then why would she continue to let him stay there? In his room! Money? 15 minutes of fame? I hope not.If I was that kid, my mom would have stabbed him in the face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Preston Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 I do not think a tough childhood is an excuse for him being a child molester, if he is one. I think it helps us understand why he is as odd as he is.I do not think it was a matter that twelve people decided sending the King of Pop to jail was a bad idea as much as they took his defense's view of the matter over that of the prosecution witnesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David 'Dr. Troll' Smith Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 There is an article on Slate.com that basically says he is *way* too abnormal to be a molester. It also says he doesn't fit the profile (and comments on how twisted his upbrining was). Slate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asche Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 There is no excuse. I strongly believe that this is just another example of celebrity clout going too far. (ie, OJ simpson, Robert Blake,etc..) Then you take the average Joe Criminal and he gets sent to prison 9 times out of 10. Of course his money was only able to get the average defense lawyer and not a TEAM of lawyers. (ie, Van Damme, Peterson, etc..)Its the rule of money at its finest, at least apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Preston Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 The problem still boils down to twelve people in a room trying to make sense of this. The prosecution didn't make its case.The defense maintained at least a sense of reasonable doubt, which is our chosen means of criminal litigation.I would point out that in the vast majority of criminal cases it is the State that has the vast preponderance of money and resources, not the defendent. Does that mean that the State is wrong in the majority of case because it is richer? God, I hope not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asche Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 haha.. well this is a topic that can be debated for and against until the moon falls out of the sky. Unfortunately there are too many profound non-absolutes involved that no one can prove, or disprove. So with that, I will say s'long to this topic.It's senseless to debate something like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conduit Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 I read the Slate article. There were some good points and some of it was crap. It's all my personal opinion of course.I'd just like to make one final plea to News organizations. Please, please stop talking about it. He was found innocent, which means he didn't do anything. There are other, more important, things happening in the world. What about that earthquake off the coast of California? Any aftershocks or abnormal tide action? I wouldn't know because EVERYBODY is busy covering Michael Jackson.Thank You Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David 'Dr. Troll' Smith Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 Does that mean that the State is wrong in the majority of case because it is richer? God, I hope not.Having money on your side doesn't make you wrong. Even aside from that, the defendant has his own advantages as well.I sat on a jury once. The defendant had money and a much better lawyer. The state's rep was sick with the flu and not at the top of her game. The cops hadn't done a very good job either (it was the arresting officer's first case of this nature and he hadn't been trained yet). There were also equipment issues.The guy's lawyer made the most of everything. He did a real good job.We found the guy guilty anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timeslip Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 If I were to make a (somewhat belated) guess at the truth, I'd say that Michael Jackson is, at his core, still a child. Essentially, his "sleeping with kids" thing was a matter of an emotional 11-year old craving peer approval via a sleep-over, not someone seeking out children with sexual intent. Is Michael Jackson screwed up? Certainly. Is he a child molestor? Doubtful in the extreme. Would I let a kid of mine spend time at the Neverland Ranch? Only if I was there to keep an eye on him or her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.