BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: DavidHannam
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 02:51 PM

Michael Jackson i think is a seriously disturbed individual. Aside from the allegations, he is a danger to children natural development and also himself by the sounds of things.

As for genius, once again, we are at the argument what constitutes genius. There is probably worth a thread in that debate alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: gnu
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 04:24 PM

Oh for Jaysus sake. He never queered anyone. Give me a break. $$$'s to do whatever he wanted. Ever queer someone, if he wanted to. It's all just publicity to sell some more tunes.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: s6k
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 06:07 PM

Liz The Squeak - the mother of the children herself stepped forward and said that she WANTS the children to be with michael, not her.

but the best comment was:

"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."

LOL !!!! this is very amusing, because the EXACT same thing could be said about you and Michael Jackson!!!!!!! or have you met the guy ???? LOL !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 06:31 PM

Perhaps a woman who thinks it is ok for her kids to be draped in veils and dangled from balconies, isn't the best person to decide what is best for her children? You wouldn't find any self respecting professional working with kids endorse that behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Chip2447
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 06:45 PM

SK6, why don't you go back and read my original post, here I'll make it easy.

Weird, yes. (Seems I'm not the only one that thinks this)

Genius, no. (Ditto)

Guilty of recent charges, I like the not proven thing rather than the not guitly one. (Not proven, doesn't mean not guilty)

Pedophile, probably. (My personal opinion)

Career over, I can only hope. (Obviously I'm not a fan, never have been)

The end of the story, not hardly. (Do you think that the story ends here?)

Likelihood of his children being adversely affected. Enough that I think DFS should remove them from his care. (Again, personal opinion, and again, I'm not the only one that thinks this.)

Yes, it is very amusing, for I can guarentee that you and I don't know each other, but you can't say the same about me knowing Jackson.

Your post is just a weak attempt to cover up what amounts to just simple name calling, and further demonstrates your ignorance concerning situations that you know nothing about.

Chip2447

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 06:46 PM

Or is that why she now wants to have more access to them?

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 08:27 PM

Okay...just suppose.

If I were a pre-teen, even if I harbored no reservations about sharing a bed in the hopes I might get some money out of it later...even if I didn't care if I was molested, or maybe I was confused about my sexual identity and invited some advances in an experimental sort of way, just to see; even if I were gay and wanted to be with a man .... .... ...

Michael Jackson would be the last man on my list because the cosmetic surgery has made him one creepy, scary-looking individual. It would frighten the living bejeezus out of me to open my eyes in the morning and see him staring at me.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 08:34 PM

"Innocent until proved guilty" means that until you have been found guilty you have to be regarded as innocent; when you have been found not guilty that status is confirmed. No one is ever "found innocent".

Of course at the same time "not guilty" means that the jury decided that there was a reasonable doubt, and that there are not enough grounds to justify a guilty verdict - there's nothing inconsistent about deciding that there isn't a strong enough case to convict someone, and believing that they probably did commit the offence with which they were charged. But "probably" just doesn't cut it in matters where life and liberty are involved.

The alternative would be for juries to find people guilty beacause they have to just think they probably did it, even if there isn't enough evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt. Which is what happens only too often - and there are a lot of innocent people who have experienced that, and spend years in jail as a result.

That jury heard the evidence, every bit of it, and none of us did. They decided that there was a reasonable doubt, in face of all the assumptions about Jackson's guilt put across by the media throughout.

If being weird means you belong in jail, there's an awful lot of people ought to be in jail, and not just in California.
...........................

I noticed where the prosecutor, asked about the length of the trial had taken commented that it would have been a lot quicker "in the South", with an implication, it seemed to me, that down there they know better how to deal with...

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Cobble
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 08:43 PM

The man is a true GENIUS.

Awww come on a Genius invents finds cures for mankind, you dont know the meaning of the word. HE'S A PERVE, A WEIRDO, and SAD.
How many payoff's did he make, is this the work of an innocent man.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 08:44 PM

when I were a lad we did have it very tough, and we dreamed of being covered in veils and dangled out of windows.

Philosophically speaking we are all end of line items in a massive clearance sale - possible in the kitchen department. Some of us are worktops, some are sink units and even the lavatory chains and stainless steel breadbins of this world have a place in the scheme of things.

my advice to Mj would be - don't enter into a credit agreement, even if there is nothing to pay until next april.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 02:56 AM

Of course at the same time "not guilty" means that the jury decided that there was a reasonable doubt, and that there are not enough grounds to justify a guilty verdict - there's nothing inconsistent about deciding that there isn't a strong enough case to convict someone, and believing that they probably did commit the offence with which they were charged. But "probably" just doesn't cut it in matters where life and liberty are involved.

That is OK as far as it goes and in truth - it does not go very far to protect children from abuse. For there will always be reasonable doubt in these sort of cases where the main witness is a young victim and the older perpertrator has most of the legal and other advantages.

For when (as here) the jury members are allowed to explain their thinking afterwards - this probably causes us yet more concerns. This jury seemed relctant to judge the defendent (on the evidence provided) but very willing to judge certain key witnesses (when there was equally reasonable doubt).

Janet Arvizo was not on trial but this jury seemed to have judged and convicted her - mainy it would appear for the crime of 'clicking her fingers at and directly addressing the jury. In a contest which seemed to be one of who was the weirder between her and MJ - at least she was put on the stand and cross-examined. It perhaps would have been more fair and the outcome less unsatisfactory - if MJ had been subject to the same examination?

Perhaps when it is a case of one person's view against another - if the defence are permitted to only try to destroy the credibility of prosecution witnesses - the understanding should be that defendant should also have to take the stand and be cross-examined?

It seems to have escaped this jury's notice that Janet Avizo was not the victim of child abuse and was not even present when this (alegedly) took place. Her young children and MJ however were present.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 05:18 AM

Why are there so many apologists for Michael Jackson out there ?

Are they so impressed with his wealth and celebrity stautus and the glut of rich and famous people rushing to defend him that they can't see, he is and will continue to be a danger to children.

The fact is paedophiles can't be cured.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 06:04 AM

So Eric..you have obvious hold of some factual evidence that MJ is guilty...why were you not a witness at his trial....or are you just another who has his own opinion!
Calling someone a paedophile when they have not been convicted of being one is surely slander to say the least.
How do you measure danger to a child? Have we seen any evidence of a child actually being damaged here or are we all so insensed by what we believe has happened due to press flaming? that we believe a child or children have been damaged.
Michael Jackson has been niaive!
In point of fact he may be totally innocent of all the charges and the centre of attack because of his fame..not necessarily getting better treatment because of it.
We will never know the whole truth...but we can play games with it in our own and others minds because we have freedom of speech!
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 07:52 AM

How can you say such things about Michael. we haven't forgiven you yet for a lifetime of rape, plunder and pillage - and discovering America...

bloody vikings!

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: s6k
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 08:20 AM

couldnt have said it better myself, Georgiansilver

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 08:22 AM

Georgiansilver, why are you rushing to defend him ?

In my part of Yorkshire we have a name for adult men who take little boys into bed it's PAEDOPHILE, and it's INCURABLE OK.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 08:32 AM

He'll never have another sell out concert in the UK. He will get paid alot of money for a creepy 'in-depth' interview where he justifies his behaviour and lies again about his surgery. It will do him more damage than good, as the producers waiting for his agreement already know. He will donate the proceeds to a children's charity and life will go on.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: s6k
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 10:44 AM

actually eric, thats not a paedophile, a paedophile is someone who has sexual feelings towards children. im sure theres plenty of fathers / grandfathers etc who may have slept in the same bed as their young child ya know

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 10:51 AM

Eric. I am not defending Michael Jackson here. I am defending anyone who has not been proved to be a paedophile...and it has not been proved that he is. Your word for it is not good enough....you have no right to condemn anyone who has not been found guilty.
I would defend you if someone accused you of something and there was no real evidence to prove you were guilty. None of us knows the truth so we have no right to judge...your opinion is only as valuable as someone wishes to make it....If Michael Jackson reads your contributions to this thread he could sue you for slander.
I don't know if MJ is right or wrong but I do know that slander is against civil law.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 01:30 PM

s6k - You are absolutely right! I am female and slept with grandpa off and on until I was about 12. My choice! I didn't want to sleep alone on the couch. I visited every summer. It was innocent.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: C-flat
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 01:44 PM

Michael Jackson is considering getting back together to reform and relaunch his career. I wonder if he knows where all the bits are?

Seriously weird but everything else is still just conjecture.

That said, he won't ever be baby-sitting round my house!!

C-flat.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 01:53 PM

How many payoff's did he make, is this the work of an innocent man?

A totally innocent person facing charges that could mean spending a lifetime in jail should a jury decided to convict, might very well decide to pay up to avoid the risk. That wouldn't in itself imply anything about actual guilt. After all, there have been numerous cases of people being convicted of things they hadn't done.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Biskit
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 06:35 PM

I really liked Michael Jackson when he was a cute little black kid, Man! that young man used to sing his ass off! Once he turned into the ugly derranged white woman,he lost me from his fan base. what's up with all the crotch grabbin' on Thriller anyway?!?
Peace!(Through Understanding)
Biskit

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 03:15 AM

Georgiansilver and s6k I actually agree with you both. I do talk like a pillock sometimes.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 03:27 AM

Was there really any reasonable doubt about the charge of MJ supplying alcohol to these children? This jury thought there was but it is very difficult from the evidence provided to them - to see how they came to this conclusion.

For the other children present at these 'drinking games' were not even produced as defence witnesses to testify that these games did not take place.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Tam the man
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 06:46 AM

If that had happened to anyone else, they would be in Prison now, Michael Jackson is not in prison because he had the best lawyers, Any person that allows their child to go to bed with a stranger is daft, I mean would you allow your child to go to bed with a stranger.

I agree with Joe offer and S6K as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 08:07 AM

Don't we all Eric?...All the best mate. Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Tam the man
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 11:46 AM

a joke

the lady that let the birds fly away remember they were white, well at the start of his triail they were black.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 03:12 PM

I like the expression found innocent for it clearly points (like 'found guilty') to the involvement in that procedure of a human judgement process ('judgement' and 'process' in a general sense) which can be in error.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 03:18 PM

I like the expression found innocent for it clearly points (like 'found guilty') to the involvement in that procedure of a human judgement process ('judgement' and 'process' in a general sense) which can be in error.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 03:29 PM

Dont know about him, but i reckon the parents should be jailed either way. They're either lying, or they're pimping out their own children...

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 06:23 PM

I have only 2 comments:

1. I am also innocent.

2. Who is Michael Jackson?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 06:34 PM

Give him a slap?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 03:03 AM

If you were the DA and had the chance to cross-examine Michael Jackson at this trial - what questions would you like him to have answered - on oath?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 03:17 AM

Watching him lie through his teeth to Bashir, would there be any point? Would the oath make a difference to someone who is seriously deluded?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 04:13 AM

Probably not - but at least the jury would have been able to judge his performance as they did Janet Arvizo's............

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 04:28 AM

You're right, but I think that's the problem, in MJ's case he is a professional performer. The court room was just another stage.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: RobbieWilson
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 05:59 AM

Performer he may be, but the jury were not swayed by his performance; he didn't take the stand, something to do with the American Constitution or something like that. Anyone who thinks that his appearance or demeanor in court did him any favours is seriously misguided.

Luckily he was judged by a group of people who had to sit through all the evidence and not by either newspapers out to sell scandal or by the great mob of righteous people who love any opportuniy to vent their hatred towards anyone they see as different.

The state put enormous efforts into trying to find dirt and make a case and could not do so. Innocent unless proven guilty, end of story.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: s6k
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 07:36 AM

bravo robbie wilson

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 07:40 AM

Even the jury said they could not find him guilty as the prosecution did a crap job.
Perhaps they were bought out!!!! After all it is the USA. Where money talks and you buy a president.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 11:56 AM

Luckily he was judged by a group of people who had to sit through all the evidence and not by either newspapers out to sell scandal or by the great mob of righteous people who love any opportuniy to vent their hatred towards anyone they see as different.

Lucky for him but perhaps not lucky for everyone else or justice. These people did not have any reservations about judging Janet Arvizo as being 'different'. She did speak to testify and enable the jury to judge on her performance - even though she was not the one on trial.

MJ was the one on trial - not for being 'different' but to establish if he had broken the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 12:38 PM

I disagree. He was on trial in the court of public opinion precisely because he IS different. People consider him to be a freak, and most people are not a bit kind to freaks. Whether he was innocent or guilty (in the legal sense), and to what extent, I cannot say, but I know what he was really on trial for (in most people's minds). Being weird, that's what. Oh, and being rich too.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 02:09 PM

He can go on being weird and freakish in his mansion for all I care, but diddling kids is just wrong. This story (with different kids) has been going on for at least 15 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 02:38 PM

The court said he was innocent. FIne. that doesn't mean he didn't do it it just meant the jury wasn't sure. We will hear of this again. Ws he on trial in people's minds for being weird and rich as Little Hawk suggests? possibly but let em leave a couple of thoughts here. If he is so innocent Why did he return to having children sleep in his bed after settling out of court the first time? Were I , or any sane person in that situation and innocent as Michael Jackson claims, they would ensure that there were no further incidents to destroy their credibility. I believe the man is a pedophile and will not change his ways even though he says he will
Also had a normal(read non-celebrity or rich) person shown up an hour late for court they would have been in lock up so quickly that the judge would have broke the sound barrier getting them there.
Michael Jackson should than God that he lives in a country where rules of law and evidence apply. he dodged the bullet this time. How long will it be until the sequal to this ugly story raises it's head again? Neil

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 02:59 PM

I agree that diddling kids is wrong. I just don't think that that is why the media and the public were so interested in the trial. ;-) If it had been any one of the thousands of poor and unknown people who diddle kids, who would be interested?

Michael Jackson is a sad case, living out a life that has become a personal and very public tragedy.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 03:22 PM

He's a celebrity, there'd be a high-profile case no matter which.
But I do think the main interest was recluse with wonderland estate invites kids in.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 03:25 PM

The paintings he had commisioned of him as 'jesus' just about sum it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 04:19 PM

Little Hawk;
You're absolutely right in your assesment of why the media and the average American followed the case so intently. He might be a sad case but he is a sad case that brought most of his troubles on himself.
I just hope no more children suffer because of his peccadilloes. Neil

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 05:35 PM

So Jackson is lucky to live in a country where "the rules of law and evidence apply"; but if he hadn't been rich, he'd have been locked up without any hanging around, because those same laws don't apply when you aren't rich?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 05:58 PM

That depends on a number of variable factors. Martha Stewart is rich too. There are advantages and disadvantages.