Jackson - Not Guilty on all counts

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:20 pm

I bet this means they will leave him alone now.

JMEaT · Post by **JMEaT** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:31 pm

Meh, sure the dude's a little off, but there wasn't enough hard evidence against Jacko. It could have happened, but they didn't do a good enough job of proving it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:38 pm

Just because he's not guilty doesn't mean he's note a general weirdo of a slimeball.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:46 pm

Weirdo = yes.
Slimeball = I don't think so.

He's just a disturbed person who really needs some help.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 3:57 pm

Mobius wrote:He's just a disturbed person who really needs some help.

Not sure if I'd say "just"... but aside from that, I agree.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:05 pm

Gooberman wrote:I bet this means they will leave him alone now.

Not a chance. He's a wierdo... the tabloids will still find things to dis him with.

Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Admiral Thrawn** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:09 pm

Mobius wrote: He's just a disturbed person who really needs some help.

Hi, my name is Pot! You must be Kettle. Hey look at you! You're black!

Sorry, couldn't resist

Nosferatu · Post by **Nosferatu** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:19 pm

snoopy wrote:
Gooberman wrote:I bet this means they will leave him alone now.
Not a chance. He's a wierdo... the tabloids will still find things to dis him with.

If you listened to the prosecutors comments on CNN afterward, he made a fairly scarey admission at one point. He caught himself, but he almost as much as admitted that he has a vendeta against MJ.

I hope someone got a recording of that.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:46 pm

I guess that begs the questions of who "he" is in Goob's post, I assumed it was MJ himself, not the little dude.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:04 pm

Nosferatu wrote:If you listened to the prosecutors comments on CNN afterward, he made a fairly scarey admission at one point. He caught himself, but he almost as much as admitted that he has a vendeta against MJ.

"He" here means "the prosecutor". "He" in the original post referred to MJ, though.

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:57 pm

Lothar wrote:
Nosferatu wrote:If you listened to the prosecutors comments on CNN afterward, he made a fairly scarey admission at one point. He caught himself, but he almost as much as admitted that he has a vendeta against MJ.
"He" here means "the prosecutor". "He" in the original post referred to MJ, though.

I think Snoopy should have said 'him' instead of 'he.' Should Gooberman's post read Will they leave MJ alone -or- Will they leave MJ's alleged victim alone?

That's my take, anyway.

Concerning MJ, I think he should take his own advice: Beat it.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:25 pm

He would do well to keep an empty house for a while.If he wants to help kids, then visit them in Cancer wards with other around.

There's a lot he can do besides running a fun park.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:42 am

you've been hit by, you've been struck by, a smooth criminal

after MJ's admission in an interview that he thinks "sharing your bed with a child is a beautiful thing" does anyone really think he's not just a little strange? or even guilty? even tho they couldnt prove it " beyond a resonable doubt " the courts might have found him innocent, but they found OJ innocent also

just goes to show if you have the coin you can do anything you want

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:10 am

The word is already out that this trial costs so much that it will be a cold day in hel| before they go after him again. Barring that is, some unforseen glowing evidence.

If he really does molest little boys this aquittal will simply give him more confidence that he can continue without getting caught. If he really is innocent ... well ... good for him.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:14 am

CUDA wrote:after MJ's admission in an interview that he thinks "sharing your bed with a child is a beautiful thing" does anyone really think he's not just a little strange? or even guilty?

No question that he is strange. But guilty? I don't know; I didn't see the evidence. I wasnâ??t paying attention to the trial.

As far as him being guilty just because he "shares his bed with a child", I couldn't disagree with you more. I share my bed with my daughter; we take naps together all the time. Does that make me a child molester?

While it may be inappropriate for him to do that with a child that he not closely related to, that still doesn't make him a child molester.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:25 pm

Iceman wrote:If he really does molest little boys this aquittal will simply give him more confidence that he can continue without getting caught. If he really is innocent ... well ... good for him.

I wonder how much parents would do, though. I mean, he isn't getting anywhere close to my furture kids... what parent would let their kid go to MJ's park thing after all the negative publicity?

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 4:23 pm

ohwell, i figured he would get off.

probably payed several jurors heaps of money....

he will always be "Micheal Jack-Off" to me.

Vertigo 99 · Post by **Vertigo 99** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:37 am

Yea, he payed the jury monopoly money to ignore unexistant evidence.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:38 am

I don't really pay attention to 'celebrity justice'

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 3:42 am

snoopy wrote:
Iceman wrote:If he really does molest little boys this aquittal will simply give him more confidence that he can continue without getting caught. If he really is innocent ... well ... good for him.
I wonder how much parents would do, though. I mean, he isn't getting anywhere close to my furture kids... what parent would let their kid go to MJ's park thing after all the negative publicity?

did you see triumph at MJ's hearing on conan obrien? some lady he interviewed said she'd let MJ babysit her kids because she trusts him. some wierd people out there, for sure. and it aint just MJ.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:52 pm

Mobius wrote:Weirdo = yes.
Slimeball = I don't think so.

He's just a disturbed person who really needs some help.

Exactly. His father is the one thats the pervert IMO.

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:53 pm

i didn't really follow the trial, just bits i heard over the international news.
but kurupt are you saying that there was evidence that he was molesting children? i'd like to hear it (i'm not being sarcastic, i really would like to hear it coz i havn't been following the case).

from what i've heard, it seems like he's harmless. a bit crazy yeah, but harmless. what was teh most convincing evidence that he molested kids? anyone?

Aggressor Prime · Post by **Aggressor Prime** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 9:25 pm

He has money, let's leave it at that.

s. · Post by s. » Wed Jun 15, 2005 9:53 pm

and likes little boys

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 7:41 am

Allegedly

Jackson - Not Guilty on all counts

Jackson - Not Guilty on all counts

Re: Jackson - Not Guilty on all counts

Re: Jackson - Not Guilty on all counts

Re: Jackson - Not Guilty on all counts

Re: Jackson - Not Guilty on all counts