BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT

Subject: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: s6k
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 06:23 PM

EE-HEE!! CHAMONE!!!! WHOS BAD!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 06:35 PM

He was found not guilty of that particular offence, but many of the jurors were not convinced of his total innocence.....

Whatever happens, it's doubtful he'll ever have the same sort of audiences as he's managed previously.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: kendall
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 06:57 PM

In Britain they say "Not proven".

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: gnu
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 06:58 PM

Wrong... this is the beginning of his comeback. Just watch.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Phot
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 07:02 PM

Who cares? I can't stand the man, the music, or the hype.

Chris

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 07:12 PM

The man is a true GENIUS.

What a loss to the world!!! Jail Time!!!

Just think what he could have done with 23 hours a day - to create, create, create - totally unfettered by the bums of little boys.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: michaelr
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 07:53 PM

Jacko, OJ, that washed-up Beretta actor...

What this shows is that if ya wanna commit a crime, come to California! The police can't collect evidence, the DAs can't present it coherently, and the juries won't convict.

Sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: s6k
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 07:56 PM

he is a genius, and nobody can deny that.

like or dislike the man, but the music he made was legendary.

good luck to him, especially in the face of people (especially from the UK) who claim he was guilty as hell, yet none of them have ever met the man, or spent 1 minute in the courtroom listening to evidence.
and most have probably never set foot on american soil either

just look at the woman suing... she admitted fraudulently getting $20,000 in a scam in the past. they are all in it for the money.

either way, jackson is a genius, its just a shame that even though he has been found innocent, people will still think they know he is guilty, due soley to what they have read in the newspapers. very sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: michaelr
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 08:03 PM

Come off it -- Genius?? He's a deranged has-been purveyor of crappy disco pop.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 08:04 PM

Dont know if Jacksons really innocent, perhaps he *is* just trying to find his own childhood , but its a strange world where people are expected to behave like paedophiles.

The jurors comments to the effect that Jackson "probably" abused children although being found innocent says more about our society than it does about Micheal Jackson....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 08:31 PM

'Not Proven' is only an acceptable verdict in Scottish law, Kendall.... In the rest of the UK (or Britain) it's still innocent or guilty.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 08:58 PM

I loved the Jay Leno line.................

If you're Martha Stewart, you have to be really pissed. OJ goes free, Robert Blake walks, Michael Jackson get the walk. Martha makes one phone call and.....JAIL!!!

Seriously this one is just another piece of California justice. I think they need to bring in Nancy Grace as a Special Prosecutor..LOL

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: kendall
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 09:43 PM

You are right, Liz. My point is the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: wysiwyg
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 10:12 PM

"Not Guilty" = "Not Proved Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt," but does NOT equal "Innocent."

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: wysiwyg
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 10:31 PM

PS, in the USA.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: heric
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 10:47 PM

From what I saw of it, which isn't much, the case against MJ was crap, and shouldn't have gone forward that way by a competent prosecution team. How quickly we all forget the California justice of the late eighties and early nineties when several day care providers were prosecuted on the basis of child testimony that was later shown to be pure planted hogwash. Many people's lives were ruined.

In this case, MJ wasn't even alleged to have abused the kid until AFTER the February 6 US airing of the famous documentary, and after damage control procedures had gone into full force and effect. How weird is that?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST,marks
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 10:53 PM

OJ called him up last night and offered to help him find the real abuser.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 11:03 PM

I'm not a Michael Jackson fan but I do think he's a genius and seriously wierd, to boot. Being wierd is not a crime last time I checked.

As far as guilty or innocent, the jury is far more able to decide than I am from this great distance. Seems to me they were in a position to determine if the mother of the boy (and indeed the boy himself) were credible witnesses. I think there was ample reason to doubt their integrity.

It makes you wonder why the prosecutor even tried.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Chip2447
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 01:08 AM

Weird, yes.
Genius, no.
Guilty of recent charges, I like the not proven thing rather than the not guitly one.
Pedophile, probably.
Career over, I can only hope.
The end of the story, not hardly.
Likelihood of his children being adversely affected. Enough that I think DFS should remove them from his care.

Chip2447

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Tam the man
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 01:06 PM

You mean in Scotland 'not proven' they don't have that in other courties in the UK just Scotland.

Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 01:58 PM

And still the ordinary man appoints himself judge and jury....stuff the law...stuff the belief in the possibility that he was innocent all the way through.....as I said in a previous thread on Michael Jackson...We will probably never know if he was innocent or guilty but some of you obviously know!!!!!!!!! Have you had first hand experience or what?
Hope none of you gets an accusation made against you because you will be guilty in the eyes of some even if you are totally innocent....Food for thought eh??
Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Rasener
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 02:08 PM

See you tommorrow Mike?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: podman
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 02:11 PM

given the 'quality' of MJ's accusers, I do not think this should have gone to trial. They sounded like the sort of folk who would be sycophants until it stopped paying, whereupon they would become parasites.

I would think that the English persuasion of the Mudcat contingent would have a soft spot for the truly eccentric, although it is probable that MJ is a headcase as well.

Not a good era for justice, fairness, nor judicial nor journalistic prudence.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 02:21 PM

I read that in the US - justice not only has to be done - it has to be seen to be believed.............

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 02:52 PM

I think it has been established that Michael is a very starnge person. It also seems that the children and their parents who flocked to Michael, are equally strange. Whether he molested anyone, turned out to be mostly a matter of opinion.

Whatever that case, one would think that if they had any sense at all, Michael would stay away from children from now on, and parents would keep their children away from Michael.

Michael, after all, is the world's best-known suspected child molester. Any parent who lets his kid near Michael certainly can't say now that they didn't know that.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 02:54 PM

Dianavan told us:

As far as guilty or innocent, the jury is far more able to decide than I am from this great distance.

No, Dianavan, no jury in the United States finds any defendant innocent. If that were their charge, you'd find a whole lot more hung juries and thus mistrials than we do.

When a criminal defendant enters a plea, the plea is "Guilty", "Not Guilty", or "Nolo Contendere". The defendant may think he's "innocent", but for the law's purposes it's one of those three.

"Nolo Contendere" means (allowing for my possibly defective Latin) "I will not contend it." Only in unusual cases does a court allow a defendant to enter a "Nolo Contendere" plea, which does not establish that the defendant actually pleaded guilty, but still allows the court to go ahead and find him guilty. This is occasionally allowed when there are factually related (usually civil)cases which would be prejudiced by allowing the other side to point the finger and say, "SEE? He himself said he was guilty, so I should be able to take that as an admission against interest in this case!"

The job of a US jury is to find "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". In effect, "Not Guilty" means that "The State has not been able to prove legal guilt."

Put another way, "Not Guilty" is a term of art in the legal field, whereas "innocent" is a rather vague and undefined (undefinable?) word in the field of morals, religion, or ethics. Frankly, very few of us are indeed "innocent", though we might be "Not Guilty".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: LilyFestre
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 03:05 PM

I agree with Joe Offer's post.
Let's hope that he stays away from kids and parents have enough brains to keep their children away from him.

As for his own children, since he was found NOT GUILTY, there is no reason that his children should be removed. I've seen situations where foster children have accused foster parents of sexual abuse, gone to court and the foster parents have been found to be not guilty. That means it's over...not that I can go in, as a Social Worker, and remove the remaining children. It doesn't work that way.

Jackson is eccentric but that's not a crime.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson NOT GUILTY
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 03:14 PM

He is seriously sick, and I do not for a moment belive his pathetic and unlikely stories, but that is only my opinion. Which last time I checked I was entitled to one. Legally he's been found not guilty, which is rather different.
Perhaps one factor for the case failing is the loathsome mother. Anyway, these cases have been around for 15 years or so, but generaly made to dissapear.
Best thing Jackson could do is check into a facility where they might help him.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: s6k
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 03:25 PM

someone said his kids should be taken away from him

IDIOT

his own ex wife has said what a great father he is to them

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 04:18 PM

The current, well-publicized thinking is that pedophiles CAN'T stop, yet we think MJ should and, therefore, can. Kinda weird.

I think the whole Neverland experience is a cult, actually. The reality there isn't reality, and it all centers around pleasing this very charismatic person. I think there is a high degree of mind control going on in that atmosphere.

Regarding the argument that MJ's lack of a childhood makes this all OK-- the frequently-repeated "justification" that MJ did not act
as an adult predator, but as a boy whose emotional maturation was stunted by fame-- EVEN IF THAT IS TRUE, he needs to play his sleepover games with other, similarly-stunted 40-ish males-- not pre-teens!

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Sorcha
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 04:31 PM

At least we won't be subjected to a sentencing phase....

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 06:46 PM

If a clam digger pulled the same stunt MJ did by holding his baby over that balcony rail, you bet your ass the state would step in!

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Chip2447
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 01:00 AM

Sk6 said...
"someone said his kids should be taken away from him

IDIOT

his own ex wife has said what a great father he is to them"

Since I'm the only one that mentioned that I thought DFS should get involved I must be the idiot that you are referring to.

Click here

This incident was enough for me to want DFS involved. Not to mention prior allegations, payments to accusers and now the recent news. Any or all would warrant a investigation of any normal person.

Where there is smoke there is usually fire as well.

I imagine the IDIOT will be revealed in due course when Jackson gets caught again.

Only an IDIOT or a complete MORON would endanger ANY child by wanting them to stay in Jackson's care without a thorough investigation and proof that it was all a misunderstanding.

Sk6 you are entitled to your opinion. You don't know me, or anything about me. You might wish to refrain from showing your ignorance concerning things or people that you know nothing about.

Chip2447

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 01:06 AM

"Where there is smoke there is usually fire as well."

There is the potential for fire.

But what has that to do with MJ?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 01:21 AM

"If a clam digger pulled the same stunt MJ did by holding his baby over that balcony rail"

IMO, that's when the law should have stepped in. Where the hell was the law? Where?
Kendall is right about that. If it had been someone poor, that person would have faced some serious charges. However, that's the way it is when there's one law for rich people and another for poor people.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 01:38 AM

Sorry, but any father who dangles a baby over a fifth floor balcony, makes his children wear veils in public, keeps them from their mother (report here ), keeps them from school or nursery (and thus other social contact with children their own ages) and his own ex wife admits lying about his fatherhood (and fathering) abilities and filed for custody/access, (and again, here ) - is not a responsible parent.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: John O'L
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 01:59 AM

Whether MJ is guilty, not guilty, not proven, or innocent is really of no consequence here, since none of us will ever really know for sure. All we can do is take an educated guess, which is all the jury did.
The relevent thing is he's back on the street. (Or back on the lawn, I suppose.)

BTW, he's no genius. He can dance, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 01:59 AM

DFS....there was a sofa involved?

I think the chaise longue did it. the two years free interest was too much of temptation.

Blame it on the boogie...!

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 03:50 AM

He was NOT found INNOCENT
He was found not guilty beyond doubt.
A BIG difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 03:50 AM

O.K., O.K. Michael Jackson not guilty.

As to whether he is a genius, thats also a matter of opinion.

You may not consider him a musical genius but I think he is a very talented individual. And yes.........he certainly can dance! So, if you can dance and sing and make money too, I think it requires a bit of ingenuity. He is a performer with a world following - the king of pop! Who else has achieved this? Not many.

I guess only time will really be able to judge.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 03:51 AM

that should read he was not found Guilty beyond doubt

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: fat B****rd
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 03:59 AM

I've never understood how somebody who's made some outstanding (IN THE POP GENRE) music could be so fucked up in other respects.
I totally agree with Allen's last comment. MJ should get serious and dedicated help from people who won't milk him and/or sell their stories.
Just a thought. What would opinions on these pages be if some leading folk/blues/ethnic music personality were accused of such crimes ??
Then again there aren't (m)any musicians in those genres making MJ's kind of money, are there ?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 05:22 AM

He is like he is because he's spent his whole life surrounded by money grabbing sycophants telling him he can do no wrong.

Innocent ? genius ? get real, no sane adult man takes little boys into his bed without knowing sooner or later someone is going to call him a paedophile, some fucking genius.

I wouldn't let my kids within a million miles of him, the parents who did clearly hade their sights on the pot of gold and ergo are just as guilty as that sick weirdo.

I am not in favour of euthanasia but in his case it would be a kindness


eric

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 05:28 AM

I never believed for a second that he was guilty.He's just odd.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: John O'L
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 06:06 AM

dianavan - "Who else has achieved this?"

Coca Cola & McDonalds. Saturation advertising does the trick every time. The quality of the product doesn't come into it.

Or am I being overly cynical?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Stu
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 06:06 AM

Is it true Saddam has asked to be tried in California?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 06:13 AM

Take Britney Spears for example (minds out of the gutter please). She's a global phenomenon, raking in millions, but can she sing?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 06:56 AM

Well said Ted!

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 08:01 AM

In the words of Private Fraser, Och I never doubted you for a minute....

Still no light cast on the DFS connection, and the part played by the leather sofas and footstools in matching colours. Could it be i am looking in the wrong department....?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 08:32 AM

Al,So you want to know the DFS connection...well...... Don't you have to wait a year for the first intallment?
Best wishes, Mike.