Jackson Not Guilty

Chat about stuff other than Transformers.
User avatar
TOLSON
Protoform
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:48 am

Post by TOLSON » Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:58 am

gah that monster is free no soubt in my mind he didnt molest them kids the guy is screwed up his daddy flogged him he had no friendsand his awkward around the opposite sex like on the bashir interview lisa mariewanted to sex him up and he was all crying and scared and didnt want to this guy is a posterchild for pedophiles and his free to reoffend i mean they found he has hidden dungeons behind bookshelves,the kids knew what his wang looked like and got it right aparently it is like a barbers pole with tanned rings around it yechhhhh so uh point is his a freak

AND THATS THE END OF THAT CHAPTER

User avatar
dEcEpTiCoN MEGAtron
Protoform
Posts: 1860
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2001 4:00 am
Location: Nor Cal

Post by dEcEpTiCoN MEGAtron » Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:22 am

Originally posted by TOLSON
gah that monster is free no soubt in my mind he didnt molest them kids the guy is screwed up his daddy flogged him he had no friendsand his awkward around the opposite sex like on the bashir interview lisa mariewanted to sex him up and he was all crying and scared and didnt want to this guy is a posterchild for pedophiles and his free to reoffend i mean they found he has hidden dungeons behind bookshelves,the kids knew what his wang looked like and got it right aparently it is like a barbers pole with tanned rings around it yechhhhh so uh point is his a freak

AND THATS THE END OF THAT CHAPTER


Yo Denyer. You wanna handle this one? :rolleyes:

I'm not surprised he was found not guilty. From what I'd seen, the prosecution was torn a new a-hole everytime by Jacko's lawyers.

User avatar
CounterPunch
Protoform
Posts: 3394
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2002 5:00 am
Location: What?
Contact:

Post by CounterPunch » Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:38 am

Originally posted by TOLSON
gah that monster is free no soubt in my mind he didnt molest them kids the guy is screwed up his daddy flogged him he had no friendsand his awkward around the opposite sex like on the bashir interview lisa mariewanted to sex him up and he was all crying and scared and didnt want to this guy is a posterchild for pedophiles and his free to reoffend i mean they found he has hidden dungeons behind bookshelves,the kids knew what his wang looked like and got it right aparently it is like a barbers pole with tanned rings around it yechhhhh so uh point is his a freak

AND THATS THE END OF THAT CHAPTER


SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT UP!!!

If you are going to insist on a complete lack of f*cking punctuation then kindly remove yourself from the board, its gettin VERY annoying.

Also, once again, what proof do you (if thats the point of your post, its incoherence baffled me) or does anyone else have that he's guilty? Loads of people here have said he's guilty, yet they have no evidence for it.

Being weird isn't a crime and it doesnt constitute to him being a child molesterer, I've done weird things when it comes to this girl I like, it doesn't mean I'm a stalker.

User avatar
Cyberman
Posts: 1287
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 9:30 pm

Post by Cyberman » Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:08 am

Originally posted by Redstreak
everyone knows he did it, they proved he did it,


I didn´t know he´s guilty. Still don´t, in fact.
What proof? Testimonies by those most profiting from him being guilty?
Originally posted by Bombshell
Oh, I dunno. It's not like we should have expected it. After all, all the evidence did was basically say he did it. :rolleyes:

I didn´t follow it closely, but what evidence?
Originally posted by Rodimus Convoy
He's just totally creepy.


So what? Being creepy isn´t a crime, neither is being stupid.

--

Quite frankly, I´d like to know what makes this case so special. There are numerous child molesters around the globe, most of them fould guilty WITH proof, but in this one case where there isn´t really any proof(I´ll agree that he´s a sick man, but I seriously doubt he´d knowingly hurt anyone), the whole world is is uproar.

Just because he´s famous? Treat it like any other case, I´d say.
In a perfect world, this would be a signature. As it stands, it's just the lack of.

User avatar
Jetfire
Posts: 6434
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2000 5:00 am
Location: Hard traveling hero.

Post by Jetfire » Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:25 am

Originally posted by Denyer
He's an idiot, and he tried to buy a family life. Anything beyond that... dunno. I know I hate lynch mobs more.

Originally posted by Redstreak
Further proof that the legal system is ****, and that defense attorneys rely on starstruck idiots;


Nope. this trail was done rather well. There is no evidence that Jacko ever miss touched a child. The jury made the right decision. There was no evidence.

The mother has a history if lying to celebs to get money out of them. Telling them of fake charties and milking their links to sting more celebs. She also didn't go to the police but went to a high profile lawyer. Hardly has justice at heart.

The kids kept changing their story through out.

To remotely claim there was any evidence that Jacko was guilty is as Denyer reflected mob culture mentality.

It's barbaric to claim

the #### is your accusing a proven innocent man in a trail that was well done with no evidence has dozens of people vouching that they have never seen jacko do such a thing.
This isn't the OJ case. Jacko was stung by a money grabbing mother who is willing to use her children to rinse as much money as possible.

Originally posted by Redstreak
everyone knows he did it, they proved he did it, and yet he gets off.

God I hate this.


"Everybody"? so every saw him did they?
6 billion witnessed Jacko fiddle kids?

Your talking rubbish. Have your own opinion but in the context of this case Jackson is proven to be innocent. Based on the evidence presented, and there was none bar the character of a kid who couldn't even stick to one story,
Originally posted by the_escaflowne_2k

Im interested to see how the tabloids will run with this, i can imagine the Sun seething. I may just have to read the front pages when i get my bread in the morning.


they are positive about it. this trail had no smell of foul play and clearly on the evidence and the bad character of the acussers Jacko the right decision was made.
Originally posted by Denyer
If they did, there would be no question.

Or is this like people "know" there's a god and what it wants for everybody, or "know" that their little Jimmy would never misbehave at school?


:up:
Originally posted by Sir Auros
What really lost this case was the mother's track record for hustling.


Exactly my point. Also the complete lack of evidence Jacko did anything. Except the claim by her son. Of course changing your story half way through greatly helped them to lose the case too.
Image

User avatar
Jetfire
Posts: 6434
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2000 5:00 am
Location: Hard traveling hero.

Post by Jetfire » Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:41 am

Originally posted by the_escaflowne_2k
I highly doubt it, his last major album sank and that was before this.


By the way you missed the pun. I was seriously asking that.
Image

User avatar
-Predaking-
Protoform
Posts: 719
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2001 4:00 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Post by -Predaking- » Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:08 am

I just think it's somewhat unprofessional that Nancy Grace and majority of Court TV anchors talked as if Jackson is indeed child molester just because he slept with young boys. Yep its very disturbing and abnormal to have adult man sleeping with young boys but hardly a proof that Jackson is a pedophile. In this country you need proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict someone and they being lawyers (Court TV people) should know this better than anyone and yet they still hammer away at Jackson even after the acquittal was handed down. Nancy Grace really should be more objective and keep some of the opinion to herself since she's the moderator.

User avatar
Chromia
Posts: 2587
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 12:44 am
Location: Gallifrey

Post by Chromia » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:21 pm

Originally posted by CounterPunch
SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT UP!!!

If you are going to insist on a complete lack of f*cking punctuation then kindly remove yourself from the board, its gettin VERY annoying.



A bit off topic, but I agree!:rant:

Kid, please introduce yourself to ALL the keys on your keyboard, not just the letters and numbers.

>>rant over<<

User avatar
the_escaflowne_2k
Protoform
Posts: 639
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 11:12 pm
Location: Under a cloud, no atlas though [Manchester].

Post by the_escaflowne_2k » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:35 pm

Originally posted by Jetfire 2.1
By the way you missed the pun. I was seriously asking that.


I did notice it but only after i'd posted , unfortunatly my net connection ended and my comp wasn't in the mood for reconnecting at the time, so i couldnt edit . Can't wait for my landlord to get round to introducing broad band.
Image
"all i can say is that my life is pretty plain, you don't like my point of view you think that i'm insane"

User avatar
RID Scourge
Posts: 13262
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2001 4:00 am
Location: In ur newz forum. Reading ur newz!

Post by RID Scourge » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:08 pm

Originally posted by wreckie
I've heard very little about it, but hearing one of the female jurors say she came to a decision when the mother of one of the alleged victims clicked her fingers at the jury ("Don't you click your fingers at me, lady!") didn't fill me with confidence in the American justice system.


And if I were there to hear that, I'd say "What a great way to decide your verdict, lady. If Jacko had done the same thing, would you have changed your verdict to guilty?" Whether or not she clicked her finger at the jury is irrelevant to the verdict . . .

I really hope that he learns to stay away from kids from now on. I also hope that parents have the sense not to allow their kids near him.

User avatar
Denyer
Posts: 32326
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2000 4:00 am
Custom Title: Shooty Dog Thing
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:26 pm

Originally posted by dEcEpTiCoN MEGAtron
Yo Denyer. You wanna handle this one?
I'm a mod, not an editor... [/McCoy]

Listen up kids: punctuation and sentences are your friends. Especially when trolling. A well-written troll is more likely to pass unnoticed. But I digress... it takes a lot longer to read fractured English than it does to read something where the poster has been arsed to write clearly. If it's worth typing, it's worth typing so that you don't look like a GameFAQs brat.
Originally posted by Jetfire
a history of lying to celebs to get money out of them
That bears repeating. Previous MO and previous targets.
Originally posted by Rodimus Convoy
Just because he's the 'King of Pop' doesn't mean he can go around sleeping with little kids!!!
Actually, he can. He isn't permitted to do anything sexually inappropriate in the process, is possibly what you were reaching for as the neurons flared.
Originally posted by RID Scourge
I really hope that he learns to stay away from kids from now on. I also hope that parents have the sense not to allow their kids near him.
Yup.

User avatar
Sir Auros
Posts: 12980
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA
Contact:

Post by Sir Auros » Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:46 pm

Originally posted by Jetfire 2.1
Nope. this trail was done rather well. There is no evidence that Jacko ever miss touched a child. The jury made the right decision. There was no evidence.

The mother has a history if lying to celebs to get money out of them. Telling them of fake charties and milking their links to sting more celebs. She also didn't go to the police but went to a high profile lawyer. Hardly has justice at heart.

The kids kept changing their story through out.

To remotely claim there was any evidence that Jacko was guilty is as Denyer reflected mob culture mentality.

It's barbaric to claim

the #### is your accusing a proven innocent man in a trail that was well done with no evidence has dozens of people vouching that they have never seen jacko do such a thing.
This isn't the OJ case. Jacko was stung by a money grabbing mother who is willing to use her children to rinse as much money as possible.
Look, it's me and Jets agreeing! Seriously, you guys ranting and raving about how he "got off the hook" are pissing me off. As Denyer said, it's stupid lynch-mob bullsh*t. Many of you are probably the same knuckleheads who decided he was guilty before the trial even started. As has been said before, the family has been caught trying to defraud Welfare, JC Penny, Chris Tucker, George Lopez, etc., the kids kept changing their stories, the mother and child were both belligerant witnesses, and there wasn't any evidence for a conviction.

Looking into it further, it looks like the reason he got off with giving alcohol to a minor was because the charge was for giving alcohol to a minor for the purpose of molestation. Had it simply been giving alcohol to a minor, he would have gotten a conviction on that.

User avatar
Galvatron91
Posts: 8359
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Keeping the world safe from crappy posts

Post by Galvatron91 » Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:16 pm

Originally posted by Jetfire 2.1
Or is he too out of touch with the kids?


Isn't being in touch with the kids what got him in trouble in the first place?
Image

User avatar
Bombshell
Posts: 7516
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2001 5:00 am
Location: ...especially when he was kicking Spike's ass. ;)
Contact:

Post by Bombshell » Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:06 pm

Originally posted by Galvatron91
Isn't being in touch with the kids what got him in trouble in the first place?


OUCH!

User avatar
Jetfire
Posts: 6434
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2000 5:00 am
Location: Hard traveling hero.

Post by Jetfire » Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:41 pm

Originally posted by Galvatron91
Isn't being in touch with the kids what got him in trouble in the first place?


That's the point ;)

If he can't keep his hand of the pulse of young kids and what gets them excited these days he just won't be on the up.
Image

User avatar
Redstreak
Protoform
Posts: 5062
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2001 4:00 am
Location: Motown

Post by Redstreak » Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:25 pm

Originally posted by Jetfire 2.1
Nope. this trail was done rather well. There is no evidence that Jacko ever miss touched a child. The jury made the right decision. There was no evidence.

The mother has a history if lying to celebs to get money out of them. Telling them of fake charties and milking their links to sting more celebs. She also didn't go to the police but went to a high profile lawyer. Hardly has justice at heart.

The kids kept changing their story through out.

To remotely claim there was any evidence that Jacko was guilty is as Denyer reflected mob culture mentality.

It's barbaric to claim

the #### is your accusing a proven innocent man in a trail that was well done with no evidence has dozens of people vouching that they have never seen jacko do such a thing.
This isn't the OJ case. Jacko was stung by a money grabbing mother who is willing to use her children to rinse as much money as possible.




"Everybody"? so every saw him did they?
6 billion witnessed Jacko fiddle kids?

Your talking rubbish. Have your own opinion but in the context of this case Jackson is proven to be innocent. Based on the evidence presented, and there was none bar the character of a kid who couldn't even stick to one story,



they are positive about it. this trail had no smell of foul play and clearly on the evidence and the bad character of the acussers Jacko the right decision was made.


:up:



Exactly my point. Also the complete lack of evidence Jacko did anything. Except the claim by her son. Of course changing your story half way through greatly helped them to lose the case too.


Jets, you are being very naive about this. This trial was "well done" in whose judgment? Yours? You're hardly qualified to render verdicts on anything regarding how a trial is executed unless you're a lawyer, involved in criminal justice, or otherwise. I question that based partly on the differences between the American and British legal systems. I don't know what you know about our system, so I will raise doubt unless you provide something. Well done is your opinion, not the basis for an argument. For accusing me of talking rubbish, you're not exactly saying anything to make me believe that you have any facts or reasons to back it up that are worth considering.

Have you not been following what jurors have been saying, btw? This was never about the facts. One juror said he wasn't going to stick his neck out and vote him guilty. Another as stated above made up her mind not on the facts, but because the accuser's mother clicked her fingers at them.

I've been listening to dissections on the radio for weeks even before the verdict, and have seen some coverage on news channels. Most legal experts in this country thought the prosecution's case was strong enough, and that he would be convicted if it were based on facts and testimony alone. The kid exhibited behaviors consistent with an abuse victim, and for him to have been lying, he woulda had to put on a performance that most actors would die to give. No, Jets. I don't know where your information is coming from here, but nothing you're saying here is any more than rhetoric and nowhere have you given me anything other than saying that I'm talking **** and my thinking is mob mentality. The prosecution had a parade of witnesses who attested to one thing or another about Jackson. The only reason he was not convicted was because the jurors saw the mother as you did. No one who left their kids with Jacko can be considered parent of the year; each of them had some problem or issue or another that, as it was, when brought to trial would be a major hole. Ergo, if he did do it, and I believe he did, he could do it with impunity because said holes would inevitably cause a jury to exonerate him. Attacking the victim is an old lawyer trick, and it clearly worked here. But also, most experts said the kid did very well on the stand.

Juries are, despite the oath they swear, sometimes incapable of setting aside prejudices when they are so strong as celebrity. There was no way he was ever getting convicted. The problem mainly is that the interpretation of "reasonable" doubt in the case especially of a celebrity can, and is, taken to mean "shadow of a doubt". They had a solid circumstantial case, yes it had holes, but not every case is the picture of rock solid perfection, and juries have convicted with less. Jurors are required to reasonable and I do not believe these twelve were mainly due to celebrity status, and I've provided evidence from their own mouths to back that up.

And before you give me lip, I have an extensive criminal justice background, I'm educated on the law and the process. Writing the kind of novel that I did required a lot of research on the legal system, plus when I was in school I did study criminal justice in addition to English.

Yes, I did believe he was guilty before it started, but that does not impact my opinions or judgments. I believe he was guilty in 93 too; the testimony of that kid was found and I believe is on the smoking gun. Read it if you haven't already. The bottom line here is they believed Debbie Rowe and Macaulay Culkin, not someone who is the son of a woman with questionable values and morals. If she were the perfect mother, you maybe get a conviction. But again, no mother worth her salt would ever get put in this situation to begin with.

User avatar
Clay
Posts: 6945
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:19 am
Location: Murray, KY

Post by Clay » Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:38 pm

Originally posted by Denyer
Previous MO and previous targets.


MO?

User avatar
Galvatron91
Posts: 8359
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Keeping the world safe from crappy posts

Post by Galvatron91 » Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:40 pm

Jason, I'm going to go with the "why the **** do you care?" comment and call it good. Did he molest one of your relatives? Did you witness him doing this molesting? Does what he did or did not do in any way alter your life? No...

You aren't a lawyer, you weren't involved in the trial. From the evidence presented in this case, the only thing I can determine that Jackson is guilty of is being a complete whacko who gave booze to kids.

People in America need to let this sort of **** ****ing go. We have grander priorities that you people are missing the boat on entirely. Some 50 million Americans have NO HEALTHCARE, unemployment grew again last month oh and we have this little war in Iraq going on that is bleeding the country dry. Yet, people are all worked up over what some has been may or may not have done...meanwhile there are real sex offenders out there committing rapes and murders daily going unpunished. It's your country guys...

User avatar
Denyer
Posts: 32326
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2000 4:00 am
Custom Title: Shooty Dog Thing
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Denyer » Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:47 pm

Originally posted by Clay
MO?
Modus operandi.

http://www.answers.com/modus+operandi&r=67

Lit. "mode/manner of operation".

"A distinct pattern or method of operation esp. that indicates or suggests the work of a single criminal in more than one crime."

User avatar
Redstreak
Protoform
Posts: 5062
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2001 4:00 am
Location: Motown

Post by Redstreak » Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:48 pm

The bottom line, Erik, is I'm quite sick with the celebrity obsessed country we live in. I care because no one should be afforded special status, especially in the commission of crimes and judgment by juries. Celebrities are above the law, it has been proven at least thrice now(simpson, blake, jackson). He didn't do anything to me or you, but that's not the point. The point is what I said before; if he's crazy Mike down the block, he's not walking the streets a free man today. And that bothers the living hell out of me.

Locked