BS: Jacko is innocent?

Subject: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 May 05 - 11:32 AM

yeah right!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Alba
Date: 20 May 05 - 11:40 AM

...well at least until he is proven guilty? right?
wanting to believe in someone's guilt of a crime of this nature is a tad disturbing to me.
I would much rather find out...whoever it was on trial...that they hadn't harmed any children rather than finding out that they had...so I'll just wait and see what the Jury says..after all they are having the evidence presented to them...I am not..I am getting TV snippets...
Until then...I don't know if he is or isn't and it ain't a funny subject either..to me anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Once Famous
Date: 20 May 05 - 11:45 AM

I hope they find this guy guilty because I believe he is and is one completely wacked out goon.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST,Sidewinder.
Date: 20 May 05 - 12:20 PM

He is one of the most talented and influencial artists of the twentieth century and for the sake of his fans and his family I hope he is just one of lifes oddball innocents that is being brought to book for his naivety and not the alledged acts of indecency that have been levied against him. Just like a previous posting I will go along with innocent until proven guilty.However, if he is guilty I would throw away the key!

Regards.

Sidewinder.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Once Famous
Date: 20 May 05 - 12:26 PM

you mean you wouldn't say the trial was fixed and people were just out to get him?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 May 05 - 12:29 PM

Ya... he's 'innocent'... just like OJ... right... pull the other one...

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 May 05 - 12:30 PM

If we assume for a moment that he has done the things he is accused of in the evidence presented in this trial - is it really possible for someone with this amount of money (or at least earning capacity) - to ever be found guilty?

What are the jury supposed to make of a situation where nearly all of the witnesses are either being sued by Michael Jackson (or liable to be sued) or Michael Jackson is being sued by them?

And regardless of whether he is guilty oe not - given his personal problems - is this really someone who is capable of being the sole parent of his own children?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 20 May 05 - 01:14 PM

Amazing how everyone seems to make themselves the judge..I guess we'll never know whether he is really guilty or not. What may I ask would happen if someone wrongly accused you?...as in many of these cases..people are so irate about the crime that they "believe" the person is guilty anyway, whoever it is and it seems that such people have to disprove their guilt somehow rather than being innocent until proven guilty.. If Michael Jackson is innocent then I am sad that he has been put through this because of his niaivety. If he is guilty, then I hope he is found so and justice is truly served. I don't know if he's guilty or not and nor do you!
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 20 May 05 - 01:28 PM

With you, Mike. And like Alba, I find it disturbing when people so clearly want to find guilt proven in cases like this - there is something voyeuristic about the attitude. Interestingly, not even those who would normally scream "unfair" when others appear to judge them publically, are immune to this.

It's not that I want MJ to be innocent, I don't care for him any more than I would for anyone on the street. It is rather that I don't want such horrible actions to be proven to have taken place.

But if they are proven to HAVE taken place, then indeed throw away the key.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 May 05 - 01:32 PM

How many grown men on this forum think it is ok to invite unaccompanied young boys to their homes, then let them sleep in their beds, while they sleep next to them on the floor? He has admitted this himself.

His judgement is severely impaired, as are the parents who send their kids to his home. And no, he shouldn't be the sole parent of his own kids. If he was a road sweeper he would be jailed by now.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck (and Jacko does both) then it's a bloody duck!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 20 May 05 - 01:40 PM

I agree GUEST that Jacko's behaviour is weird at best.
What I don't know with any certainty yet, is whether it is also criminal. That's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Peace
Date: 20 May 05 - 01:42 PM

All the above notwithstanding, I think I will wait for the courts to rule and both the prosecution and the defence to say what they gotta say.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 20 May 05 - 01:44 PM

If MJ is indeed innocent, all that means is that he habitually sleeps and cuddles with highly vulnerable young boys ~ admitted regular activities ~ without actually performing overtly sexual acts.

Is this really that much less disturbing?

This is a person who endured the most bizarre childhood imaginable, and a person with huge financial resources. His power and influence over the boys and their families make it just about impossible for their relations to be entirely "innocent." The very real possibility that the families might well be motivated by the possibility of a gigantic reward or settlement persuant to a lawsuit is also a complicating factor, of course.

I am willing to concede that MJ may well be truly "not guilty by reason of mental defect." But could he conceivably be absolutely, completely innocent? Gimme a break!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 May 05 - 01:44 PM

Did you see the Bashir interview where he categorically denied having cosmetic surgery? Is this man believable?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 May 05 - 01:48 PM

el greko vegetables shaped like genitalia are wierd. His admitted behaviour is dangerous. Maybe you don't have kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Peace
Date: 20 May 05 - 02:01 PM

I think the sonuvabitch should have been tossed in jail when he held the infant over the railing while on a fourth floor veranda/gallery/porch thingy. Why he got away with THAT is beyond me.

Curious as to whether the parents who sent their kids there are facing any charges. Anyone know?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: gnu
Date: 20 May 05 - 02:08 PM

Yeah. Child endangerment not a crime in Germany or what? As for him queering little boys, strange as he may be, I don't believe a word of it. Of course, regarding "sharing his bed" with children, someone has to help him get a grip on reality, if it's not too late.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Jeri
Date: 20 May 05 - 03:17 PM

GUEST, thanks - it's well done and funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: mg
Date: 20 May 05 - 03:40 PM

regardless of guilt or innocence, he should have been told long ago by CPS when allegations first came out that he was not to have young boys over and sharing his bedroom, much less his bed. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 May 05 - 03:40 PM

Jackson doesn't seem to have had "normal" access with regular folks. I feel sorry for the guy. I don't believe the charges--it sounds like there is a zealot prosecutor and an opportunistic family who know that they have nothing to lose in pressing these charges and Jackson has everything to lose. They're playing the odds.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: *Laura*
Date: 20 May 05 - 05:16 PM

Dunno if he's innocent or not - but I do think he's messed up. I think it's quite likely that if he is guilty - then he didn't understand clearly the effects of what he was doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Jeri
Date: 20 May 05 - 05:30 PM

I still think it was well done and funny. It obviously isn't something people expect, but it was well done and funny.

I also think it was pretty funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Boab
Date: 20 May 05 - 11:14 PM

Is he as guilty as those who are charging him? It's not the impression that I'm getting-----

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Once Famous
Date: 20 May 05 - 11:15 PM

Do perverts stick up for other perverts?

I'm beginning to think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST,Jacinto in San Antonio
Date: 20 May 05 - 11:54 PM

There is the thing of CONTEXT. Superficially, Jacko the Wacko is no wierder than you or me. How "normal" would YOU act with fanatical stage-parents, 1 trillion bucks in the bank, fear of the adoring mob trying to rip your skin off, gangstas always trying to shake you down, and ownership of the Beatles songs? Someone with no job and a lot of time to kill can sleep when ever. where ever he/she/it wants to. I sense a puritanical, anti touchy-feely sentiment from my male anglo friends when I smother-kiss my darling little six year old girl or my 26 year old son (formerly of a band called "Soda Pop Fuck You"- the best ska-punk band from Santa Cruz) My mexican bretheran (is that how it's spelled?) tend to shy away from their maturing daughters at a time when they most need love and acceptance. My chinese friends make you cold, stuffy brits look like passionate italians! I hear these "obvious" reasons why Mike is guilty from anti-touch sickos who want to burn Mike-o the phycho at the more-moral-than-thou stake. Doesn't anyone see that the "victim" parents are playing to the lowest common denominator so they can get a million bucks and be "REAL AMERICANS" who don't work for a living and find ways to live off some one else?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 21 May 05 - 12:00 AM

Martin Gibson touchy-feely?
You heard it hear first!
The thread unravels, the real personality shines through...

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Peace
Date: 21 May 05 - 12:32 AM

Fact is, Jacko IS innocent until the courts declare otherwise. That's the nature of American jurisprudence. At least it is on paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 May 05 - 02:48 AM

The trial would lead you to think that the (real) children involved are guilty. But of course they do not have the money - only that which Michael Jackson gave them.

Dunno if he's innocent or not - but I do think he's messed up. I think it's quite likely that if he is guilty - then he didn't understand clearly the effects of what he was doing.

The victim of this trial (whatever its outcome) is not Michael Jackson. The victims are still those young boys (9 or 10 years +) who have to all the rest of their lives (in the public eye) - with what has happened to them or what people will now assume happened to them.

Hopefully there will never be any more young victims to our society's double standards to be "messed-up" by the many adults who claim not to understand the affects of their actions. Young victims who grow-up to simply repeat the same callous and irresponsible acts upon other young victims and excuse them in turn.

That is possible too much to expect but perhaps Michael Jackson anyway will not be creating (or allowed to create by his wealth) any more young victims.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST,Sidewinder.
Date: 21 May 05 - 03:16 AM

When you hear a 40 something man sing "have you seen my childhood?" you know there is a problem, a very deep rooted problem that stems from the fact the guy has been a performing flea in a flea circus from being 5 years old and all the times he wanted to simply play; "they" made him work. Society is to blame so burn the almighty dollar and tell Randy,Tito,Jermaine and the other one that dreams really don't come true. Joe should have carried on procreating and followed basketball then none of this would have happened and Justin Timberlake would have disappeared into anonimity after The Mickey Mouse Club -isn't conjecture and speculation so self gratifying and edifying? Next Episode -Adolf Hitler stayed in Austria and gilded the lily.

Regards.

Sidewinder.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Diva
Date: 21 May 05 - 04:08 AM

We won't really know until the trial is done, unfortunately the cult of celebrty will win and I think he'll get off.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: *Laura*
Date: 21 May 05 - 08:23 AM

I think he's ill. If he was a 'normal' person (i.e. not Michael Jackson) he would have been given medical help by now.
And Diva - I think you're right. Whether he's guilty or not - it's unlikely a jury will convict him.

xLx

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Jeri
Date: 21 May 05 - 09:23 AM

Did anybody else watch the friggin' video?

The whole "he's guilty - he's innocent" thing has been done repeatedly here and everywhere else. I'm sorry, but there are only so many variations on the way the dicussion plays out without any new information.   Michael Jackson is weird: does anybody want to argue about that? The video wasn't really information, but it WAS new.

...and it was funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: heric
Date: 21 May 05 - 10:33 AM

For what it's worth, Jermaine gives his kids a normal life in a modest middle class home in the SF Valley, is well liked by all his neighhbors and is a great little league coach. Gives a bit of perspective, I think. As bizarre as it all appears, Michael is only one degree away from pure normalcy.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Tam the man
Date: 21 May 05 - 11:21 AM

THERE'S NO SMOKE WITHOUT FIRE

I beleive he's guilty, I mean he is a grown man that sleeps with young boys, I mean is that not a pedophile or what, its ok if he was their dad or something, but they are strangers, I mean if anyone else did that, they be slung in Jail, but because he's 'famous' there are people that will alow a strange man sleep with their child.

these people are off their heads, but that's up to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 May 05 - 03:06 PM

Did anybody else watch the friggin' video?

Yes Jeri and they probably noticed from your first post that you found it funny and well done....No need to repeat yourself..(or do Catspaw impressions) *Smiles*

I am beginning to think that compared to some of our posters - who seem to think they are qualified to judge what everyone elses posts - Michael Jackson is not weird at all.

There is plenty of new evidence and information coming daily from the trial - those poster who do not find this interesting can perhaps not post simply to judge those who do find it interesting but just leave the discussion to those who do? Or is the next step for our volunteers to delete or close this thread too?

It could turn-out that despite using all the same classic 'grooming' patterns of pedophiles - that Michael Jackson has not in fact sexually abused any young boys. That outcome would be of just as interesting. Anything that brings this issue into the open and prevents child abuse - will be welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 05 - 03:26 PM

Scary how some people can 'feel sorry' for a guy who dangled a baby from a 4th floor window.

And others who excuse his behaviour because of his career and wealth.

However did Jodie Foster manage to live her life without sleeping with minors?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Peace
Date: 21 May 05 - 03:48 PM

I don't think anyone's feeling sorry for MJ. But maybe it's a tad early to be buying the rope if ya know what I mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: dianavan
Date: 21 May 05 - 04:05 PM

Maybe they should have one set of laws for hollywood and another for the rest of the U.S.

I have a sinking feeling that what Michael Jackson did was probably not considered wierd by his peers. Knowing that he is perpetually immature, lonely and insecure; sleeping in the same room with those boys probably seemed like a harmless, sleep-over. Maybe it was.

I am not defending Michael Jackson. I, too, think he is a strange one but the last time I looked, it wasn't against the law to be strange. Like I've said before: If you are poor you are called crazy, if you are rich you are called eccentric.

Lets face it - extortion and witch hunts are nothing new.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 05 - 05:00 PM

Brucie see the post of 20/05/05 3.40pm re 'feeling sorry' for the guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Peace
Date: 21 May 05 - 05:13 PM

OK, gotcha.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: The Shambles
Date: 21 May 05 - 07:11 PM

I have a sinking feeling that what Michael Jackson did was probably not considered wierd by his peers. Knowing that he is perpetually immature, lonely and insecure; sleeping in the same room with those boys probably seemed like a harmless, sleep-over. Maybe it was.

If Liz Taylor (as an adult) wished to share Michael Jackson's bed in harmless sleep-overs - that would be a matter for the two adults involved. Did she?

But who would it be harmless for? The lawyer who was employed after the first video - set about protecting Michael Jackson by investigating with a view to discrediting the child involved and their parents. When he was asked if he was at all concerned about the child involved - he answered that the child was not his client.

If Michael Jackson gains some sympathy from the idea that he was abused as a child - perhaps some sympathy should also be shown towards all the children he chose to involve in his now adult confusion?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST,John O'Lennaine
Date: 22 May 05 - 09:08 AM

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it could be a plover.

When smoke machines are used there's no fire. It's not even real smoke.

Everything is not always as it seems in the tabloids. In fact it's very rarely as it seems in the tabloids. The more the crowd bays for his blood the more I'm inclined to think he's not guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Once Famous
Date: 22 May 05 - 11:08 AM

El Grecko Touchy-feely?

I hope they find this fag guilty, put him in jail and let him take it in the rear daily from a 300 pound black in-mate.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: dianavan
Date: 22 May 05 - 01:45 PM

homophobic racism

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 May 05 - 01:57 PM

martin if all gay men also like to mess with little boys, it follows you like to mess with little girls. Is that where your problems stem from?

Homosexuality is not paedophilia.

I have just called myself a douche bag to save you the effort.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 22 May 05 - 03:07 PM

Why aren't the parents of these kids also in the dock for deliberately putting their children in harm's way? Would any of you be happy to send your kids to stay over, unsupervised, with a guy you don't know personally, who's already been the subject of one court-case concerning alleged sexual abuse of a minor, and who's believed to have psychiatric problems stemming from his own abused childhood?
If MJ's guilty (and none of us know yet whether he is or not), then so are they.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 May 05 - 04:13 PM

strolling read the above posts. You will see plenty from people justifying his actions. In some cases these are parents and some might be in the future. I guess they fall into the same camp as the idiots who sent their kids to jacko for a sleepover.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: dianavan
Date: 22 May 05 - 04:32 PM

Strollin Johnny - I agree with you entirely. Maybe it should be called parental neglect or perhaps reckless endangerment. In any case, if he is guilty, the parents share the blame.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 22 May 05 - 04:58 PM

they should chop his balls off.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Peace
Date: 22 May 05 - 06:20 PM

If indeed he 'sexually interfered' with a child, then by all means chop his balls off. Maybe, however, we could see what the courts determine before we slice and dice.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 22 May 05 - 06:21 PM

chop em off anyway, just to make sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Peace
Date: 22 May 05 - 07:01 PM

You aren't with the curry wagon anymore then, are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Once Famous
Date: 22 May 05 - 10:19 PM

John from Hull! We agree on something!

Ta DA!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Peace
Date: 22 May 05 - 10:33 PM

Is he gonna get a trial first?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: freda underhill
Date: 22 May 05 - 10:36 PM

chopping sopmeone's balls off is not going to stop pedophilia - it's still all happening in their mind, and pedophiles will use some replacement object to penetrate, or can inflict abuse in other ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 May 05 - 03:49 AM

Was anyone really surprised at the news that the defence were not going to place Michael Jackson on the stand?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 May 05 - 04:51 AM

Martin you would agree with jOhn on a great many things. he is a great man. Maybe the english sense of humour throws you a bit.

One thing our two societies do seem to have in common - you definitely get a more sympathetic hearing if you are rich. they would not be agonising over the motives of anybody who had taken young children to his bed if they were in a normal income bracket.

If michael had any sense he would piss off now in his private jet. Perhaps they would have him in Iceland with Bobby fischer.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: mindblaster
Date: 23 May 05 - 04:51 AM

Are the parents going to be prosecuted for pimping? Don't tell me they were unaware that the pervert was shagging their kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 May 05 - 07:36 AM

It has to be first established if this was the case. The trial may establish this - if the verdict is guilty.

However, even if the verdict is not guilty - lessons will have to be learned and steps will have to be taken to ensure that all the children involved - are not being placed at risk by their parents.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 May 05 - 07:45 AM

Anyone in US know what sentence he coud expect to get if found guilty? Is it likely to be custodial in that state?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Once Famous
Date: 23 May 05 - 07:46 AM

weelittledrummer, English sense of humor? Isn't that found on a different planet?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 23 May 05 - 09:09 AM

Thanks d (and others) - glad I'm not the only one who sees it that way. I really do question those people's motives in placing their kids in the 'care' of a stranger (and that's what it amounted to). Maybe because of his fame they felt they 'knew him well', maybe it's something more to do with wishing to share in his wealth, maybe it's something more sinister? Whatever, it certainly wasn't the act of a sane person.
S:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Big Phil
Date: 23 May 05 - 10:30 AM

Why did Jacko allegedly give the other young lad 20 million dollars to keep quiet. A tad sinister methinks

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 May 05 - 12:09 PM

Planet Hull possibly.....difficult to explain if you've never visited thst quarter, but a place of extremes.

We English value it highly.... it has produced The Watersons Folk Group, The Hull Truck Theatre Company, most of the poetry of Philip Larkin and a lot of fish.

But I can understand how it might throw a complete outsider...stick with it, theres a certain brutality in the sense of humour - often directed at oneself - that I think you would understand

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Peace
Date: 23 May 05 - 12:19 PM

"If michael had any sense he would piss off now in his private jet. Perhaps they would have him in Iceland with Bobby fischer."

But that would mean he's near Skarpi.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 May 05 - 09:21 PM

yeh lets see him try any of that stuff on with the vikings!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: kendall
Date: 24 May 05 - 01:27 PM

In response to the act of MJ holding "his" infant over that railing, I would quote the late great Red Skelton:

"If I wasn't making a living, they would put me away."

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 May 05 - 05:23 PM

We wish to make it known that the 'infant' in question was wishing to take advantage of Michael Jackson and in fact had a long history of previous attempts to do this with other rich and famous personalities.

So our client was entirely innocent of risking the 'infant's' life by dangling it over the balcony in question as the 'infant' was part of a plot to discredit Mr Jackson and the 'infant' had it coming.....

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: robomatic
Date: 24 May 05 - 11:42 PM

I think it's possible and even probable that MJ is innocent of everything except being weird.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Kaleea
Date: 24 May 05 - 11:47 PM

jacko who?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 May 05 - 02:12 AM

I think it's possible and even probable that MJ is innocent of everything except being weird.

Other people (less rich) who are equally weird - tend not to have their weirdness used (and accepted) as excuse - when their weirdness places their children and others at risk.

Following incidents such as the 'balcony scene' - the ability of other weird people (as parents) to protect children from this weirdness would be rightly brought into question by the authorities set-up to protect children. It does not appear to have been the case with MJ.

Whether we consider Michael Jackson to be weird or not - is not really the issue - it is whether the law of the land applies equally to the effects that one's weirdness has on others (especially children).

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 May 05 - 03:23 AM

He has the audacity to show up for court 20 minutes late, dressed like Captain Crunch... He needs to go to jail for contempt of court for starters...

That might get his black-ass into Banana Republic to get himself a halfway appropriate suit...

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: robomatic
Date: 25 May 05 - 06:48 AM

Guest cowperson (25 May 05 - 02:12 AM):
I don't believe Mr. Jackson is on trial for anything you have mentioned in your post. Weirdness is not a crime, although you might wish to make it so.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 May 05 - 01:20 PM

Lack of power and money i.e. real childhood innocence - is not a crime either. The events surrounding this trial may lead some to think otherwise.

As far and I am concerned - you can be as weird as you like - as long as you follow the law and your weirdness affects only you. You can be as weird and as rich as you wish as long as this affects only you. Howard Hughes managed this - in his later years.

Going on TV and telling millions of viewers that the teenage boy you are holding hands with is sharing your bed - is perhaps allowing your weirdness to overlook the effect your weirdness may have on this teenage boy. We will all have our personal judgements on this - but we will have to wait and see if from the evidence provided - this jury consider this weirdness has resulted in a crime....

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 May 05 - 01:40 PM

Jacko is innocent!

It is everyone else who appears to be guilty - of something.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 May 05 - 10:57 AM

Is it MJ's right to be weird that is defended - or his right to be mega-rich and powerful as a result?

I was a bit concerned to see that LA has a special social work dept that deals with claims of abuse against people with a 'high-profile'. Which is a polite way of saying - those with lots of money and clout.

This lady called to court from this department - asked Gavin Avizo (in front of his mother) if MJ had abused him and when he said no - she concluded that this was the truth..........

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 05 - 02:59 PM

Everybody is innocent.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: gnu
Date: 26 May 05 - 03:05 PM

Shane too?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: heric
Date: 26 May 05 - 03:43 PM

and those guys who burned down Josey Wale's house and killed his family?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 05 - 04:57 PM

Yep. Not that I'm saying they were innocent of burning down Josey's house and killing his family...no. I'm just saying that in a much deeper sense than that, everyone is innocent. It's a spiritual statement, not a legal opinion. (smile)

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 26 May 05 - 05:06 PM

Hooray for Clint...but he was justified was he not?   Or was he?
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: gnu
Date: 26 May 05 - 06:34 PM

But, Shane stole beer, not spirits.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 26 May 05 - 06:47 PM

I AM INNOcent, man! Totally flipping innocente! I am, like, soooo majorly and totally innocent that it's a cryin' shame cos I w2as just tryin' to, like, prepare for a WORLD FLIPPIN' BEER SHOERTAGE, EH?   And blood in the streets, man! You think I'm jokin'? I'm not, eh? You take away the beer and you are gonna see total flipping mayhem in North Ontario. The law of the flippin' jungle, man!

I am a public bennyfacter and should be seen as a flippin' her0.

Anyways, I think I will have GOOD news in just a few days.

The suspense is incredible, eh? what will it be?

- Marriage to Shania Twain?

- Marriage to the luvly Officer Dana of the OPP?

- Me elected mayor of Blind River?

- A patented way to make 1000 galleons of beer out of a pint?

- Or????????????????????

You'll just have to flippin' WAIT AND SEE! HA! HA! HA!

- BDiBR

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 02:27 PM

Well the jury is out.

The defence summing-up was running a very thin line I thought.

In essence it was that this eleven - year-old child's innocence was an act designed only to entrap the real innocence of a mega-rich forty-five year-old man. A poor generous and trusting soul - whose only wish was to provide other young children with the childhood that he never had - along with gifts of money and expensive watches. Along with alchohol, pornography and the need to share sleeping arrangements.

Perhaps I am being cynical? Perhaps the jury will be also - perhaps they will not.

I can't help but think back to the TV documentary that started all this - where the child involved was invited by BY MJ to Neverland to re-inforce Michael Jackson's delusion and imply that he was able to heal children.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 03:42 PM

Jackson Jury May Be Deciding Who's Weirder
June 04, 2005

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - The jury deliberating the fate of Michael Jackson may have to decide who's weirder: Jackson or the mother of his accuser. Much of Jackson's defense came down to trying to prove the mother was the winner of the strange contest - even though Jackson's eccentricities long ago earned him the tabloid tag "Wacko Jacko." His 2003 admission that he shared his bed with children - non-sexually, he explained - didn't do much to mitigate that notion.

His lawyers tried to make their client look sympathetic by portraying the mother of his accuser as more out of touch with social norms than he is.

Was his hobby of spending weeks with children creepier than her habit of sucking up to celebrities? Was his insistence that there was nothing wrong with letting children in his bed odder than her habit of saying near-strangers were like family?

Trial analyst Ann Bremner, a former prosecutor, was at a loss when asked if Jackson or the mother came off looking stranger to jurors.

"Boy," she said. "That's a contest."

The 46-year-old singer is charged with molesting a 13-year-old boy in February or March 2003. . .

link to rest of the story.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 06:27 PM

Who really gives a shit? He deserves to go to jail for murdering music anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Dave'sWife
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 09:33 PM

Trial analyst Ann Bremner, a former prosecutor, was at a loss when asked if Jackson or the mother came off looking stranger to jurors.

"Boy," she said. "That's a contest."


and she should talk....

what is UP with that lady's hair????   Ann Bremner wears the wackiest ponytail-type hair I have ever seen. She takes one of those old 70s style catch-clip barretes and wears it VERITICALLY, draping the ponytail over her shoulder. In addition to that, she has these shoulder length pieces of hair she wear loosely in that 'just-rolled-out-bed' type toussle so popular today.

I'm inclined to think that her verticial pony-tail thingie is actually a hairpiece she hasn't quite mastered, but I could be wrong. I have a clip-on pony-tail and if I wore side-ways it would approximate her crazy hairdo.

Next time she's on the screen, check out that hair! Fereeekeee!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 09:42 PM

hhmmmmmmmm........so he's had plastic surgery to make his genitalia shaped like vegetables?

wot's so weird about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 01:25 AM

I haven't watched any of the trail or news about it, just have read the newspapers and heard occasional radio stories. Haven't seen the ponytail affectation you mention. I must say that these days Michael Jackson looks like something the cat dragged in.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST,Liz the Squeak
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 04:40 AM

Or threw up.....

I bet he gets off the heavier charge, but gets done for giving alcohol to a minor.... He should then quietly disappear for a while.

A long while....

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 04:55 AM

Another trial analyst, defense attorney Ivan Golde, said he was surprised prosecutors would bring a case against Jackson based on testimony from such flawed witnesses.
"The D.A. wanted to get Michael Jackson, so he went along with this witness who's got all this baggage," Golde said.

This opinion is interesting. But in just about every case of child abuse (or indeed rape) the victims - usually in a situation where it is one person's word against another - the main prosecution witnesses are always flawed. And the only defence used - is usually to attempt to discredit these witnesses - based on these flaws.

The defence also had the main witness for the defence - Michael Jackson - who was equally flawed - but they did not dare placing him on the stand and risk the type of cross-examination that they subjected the child in this case to.

Not so sure about anyone 'getting MJ but the DA surely has a responsibilty to at least try to protect the children of their district? Even when those (like the parents) fail in this. Whatever the outcome - the fact that a court and a jury can hear the evidence and decide - must be better than (possibly) placing yet more children at risk. Especially as the 'buying-off' of MJ's last (long time sleep-in) accuser - resulted in the law being changed.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 04:56 AM

Come on Liz, having a face like Jacko's is nothing to sneeze at.
Literally.
He had a great voice - probably still has.
He has been a great performer.
He made a bundle.
He should have left it at that, open a boutique or something and not go all "Howard Hughes".
If he went on stage today, he would fill a stadium - but that would be similar to the blue rinses going to Vegas to see Elvis at the end of his career. Not for what he is, but for what he was (or from sick fascination).
He should be treated like an ordinary mortal, I think we all agree on that. But we also agree that the chances are that he will not. This is an unfair world after all, and the US legal system has shown in the past that it is not immune to celebrity adoration.

I wish (against any reality, probably) that such acts as he is being accused of had not taken place. Not because I want Jacko to be proved innocent (I no longer give a monkey's for the weirdo), but only because I would like a better world than the one the prosecution depicts.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST,Liz the Squeak
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 04:59 AM

I can't help remembering a comment from Joan Rivers.... (although I may be putting two comments together, it was a long time ago)

"He was so much nicer when he was a black boy... now he looks like a white woman and bitchier than me!"

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 05:13 AM

I bet he gets off the heavier charge, but gets done for giving alcohol to a minor....

It may depend on the order the jury take in dealing with the charges. If they decide first that he did involve the children in 'drinking games' etc. It could be that the jury will view the 'heavier' charges in this light?

For there seems little doubt about this for it is interesting that the defence did not produce the other children - said to be present during these 'drinking games' - to testfy that these did not take place.

Do you think that there being more female than male jury members is helpful to MJ - or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 05:14 AM

Innocent until proved guilty.....then he may just melt away

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 10:41 AM

I think he got what the English call eccentric, and what the Yanks call weird. Doubt that he did anything criminal. Looked like easy pickings to some parasites. Now that they've been through the legal mills they probably have convinced themselves their stories are true.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Once Famous
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 12:29 PM

And what proof do you have that they are not? Looks like he is getting a fair as trial as possilbe.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 02:09 PM

I think the make up of the jury may not be that important.

Given a jury of 12 closet paedophiles, would they:
A) find him guilty, to protect their own images, and because they recognise the signs.
B) free him thinking "there but for the grace of God go I" ?

Given a jury of 12 Bible Belt elders, would they:
A) find him guilty of a heinous crime, and call upon the courts to hand down the heaviest sentence possible
B) free him thinking it is God's territory, "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay", says the Lord." (Romans 12: 19-21)?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 08:04 PM

Its in the lap of the Gods -(and the jury)

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 08:04 PM

But this is another 100th !!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Once Famous
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 08:18 PM

Leadfingers, I have served in jurys. The lawyers who select jurys and have the right to reject people on a jury are generally experts in character evaluation. They are trained to be so.

The likelihood of a jury consisting of 12 closet pedophiles or 12 bible belters is virtually nil. On might sneak through, but that's about it.

Jurys are generally made of of very everyday people.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 02:04 AM

The jury have to find 'beyond any reasonable doubt' that Jacko is guilty of these charges. It is more than possible that they will not be able to do this.

Whether such an outcome will mean that he is innocent - will still be questionable by many - given the evidence.

And if the jury do find him guilty of all these charges (which I doubt) - there will still be many who will consider him to be innocent - whatever the evidence.

Well Bubbles and Liz Taylor - anyway...............

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 03:12 AM

Scotland has the right idea... three verdicts: Guilty, Not Guilty, Not Proven. Leaves the door open for further investigation.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Hrothgar
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 06:29 AM

I find it hard to see him as completely innocent - but if he is convicted, it will be on the basis of some very tainted evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Crystal
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 06:56 AM

I'm not convinced of his innocence and I definatly think he should have some serious phsyciatric help, but in this particular case the evidence is probably too shaky to convict him.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 07:23 AM

I find it hard to see him as completely innocent - but if he is convicted, it will be on the basis of some very tainted evidence.

Perhaps you could explain why this evidence is thought to be 'tainted' and what exactly it is 'tainted' by?
Under these circumstances - could you expect it be any other way?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 11:44 AM

So he just plead to be let free so he "look for the real criminals!