The Michael Jachson verdict will be announced in the next couple of minutes.

I can't wait!!

Not Guilty on all counts....what do you think of this?

Another successful prediction by Nostra-Dop-us!

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - A jury acquitted Michael Jackson on Monday of molesting a 13-year-old cancer survivor at his Neverland ranch, vindicating the pop star who insisted he was the victim of mother-and-son con artists and a prosecutor with a vendetta.

Just goes to show you that if you are wealthy you can buy yourself out of anything.

MJ follows in OJ's footsteps.

OD, you where right. This was not a fair trial just as you predicted.

ew

something really strange? We having been having drought here for over 3 weeks, our grass is all brown and crispy, and right in the middle of the reading, a huge dark boomer rolled in, and it started lightning and pouring and now it is still storming.

I didn't even know the verdict was today, I just happened to turn on the radio to hear the weather.................


MJ........BLECH!

I guess that puts the kibash on the upcoming "singing pedophile" tour.

Hey, we get to see nancy grace puke on TV. EWWWWWWWW!

I predicted correcT!

I could hope now that at LEAST parents won't allow their children to sleep over MJ's house.

Dammit.

I am disappointed beyond belief. Even knowing Nancy Grace bet her career upon it doesn't make it even semi palatable. I did not expect this at all.

Not even ONE count...damn...

Originally posted by Echo2
SANTA MARIA, Calif. - A jury acquitted Michael Jackson on Monday of molesting a 13-year-old cancer survivor at his Neverland ranch, vindicating the pop star who insisted he was the victim of mother-and-son con artists and a prosecutor with a vendetta.

Just goes to show you that if you are wealthy you can buy yourself out of anything.

MJ follows in OJ's footsteps. oj didnt get off because of wealth per say. he got off because he was the only black man in history to have a predominantly black jury ! bad timing too, because he wasnt the right black man !

Originally posted by korg
bad timing too, because he wasnt the right black man !

yeah, ain't that the truth...

Originally posted by Echo2
OD, you where right. This was not a fair trial just as you predicted. so, not one of you thought that mother was a money grubbing grifter huh ? thats weird. think about it, no dna, no nothing ! that could happen to ANY man here ! all someone has to do is say you did it ! all they have to do is say you touched them somewhere, and you are in court. and even if you are found not guilty without a doubt, that will follow you for the REST OF YOUR LIFE ! that woman had her own daighter say that her own father molested her ! you just cant buy everything someone says ! this was the mothers doing, and you guys bought it !

Originally posted by korg
so, not one of you thought that mother was a money grubbing grifter huh ?

She might be. If nothing else she's stupid as hell for letting her kid hang out with Michael. But there was a lot of evidence before the trial that the prosecutor had it in for Michael. Given the quality of the evidence, which was mainly a lot of implied evil-doings, he shouldn't have bothered.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
She might be. If nothing else she's stupid as hell for letting her kid hang out with Michael. But there was a lot of evidence before the trial that the prosecutor had it in for Michael. Given the quality of the evidence, which was mainly a lot of implied evil-doings, he shouldn't have bothered.

I knoooooooooooooooow, but dammit all, I still think he is guilty of doing things to kids... I know, I know... prove it, but still the whole thing stinks...

I knoooooooooooooooow, but dammit all, I still think he is guilty of doing things to kids... I know, I know... prove it, but still the whole thing stinks...

I agree, it stinks. What kind of creepy weirdo has special crushes on boys, And what kind of parents, use their sick kids to get closer to celebrities. Celebrities that are creepy, creepy weirdos.

The whole scenario is suspect, and to repeatedly put yourself in speculative positions with children, using your wealth and
position as hush power, is a moral crime.

There should be laws against leaving your
children alone with creepy nasty weirdos.

There should be laws against leaving your children alone with creepy nasty weirdos.
How exactly would you be capable of determining who exactly is the real creep, and who's looks you're just prejudice against?

Remember - creepy nasty weirdo's as a category is reserved solely for those of average income and below. Once you move into the wealth category the correct terminology is eccentric.

Hard to say on the MJ trial - where there is smoke there is usually fire, especially as he has already put out one fire 10 years ago.

But, unlike the OJ trial where OJ became a black symbol of the payback for slavery, this trial was different. The jury was was fairly balanced in all respects. They listened to 3 months of evidence and said it was insufficient. OJ had blood on his clothes, his car and all over his porch after slashing open 2 white throats. The MJ prosecution had little more than weak testimony and a few finger prints on porn mags and a wine glass. It shocked due to the nature of allegations but never even approached the black guy touches a white girl and the black guy gets off instead of gets hung undercurrent of the OJ trial. MJ is white afterall.

I admit I was looking forward to the jail bird photos 5, 10, and 20 years down the line and the megans law mailings once he got out. Years of future entertainment guaranteed, but if the nose doesn't fit you must aquit.

He is apparently going to set up some kids outreach in Africa. The authorities are much more tolerant there than in Santa Barbara.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
I could hope now that at LEAST parents won't allow their children to sleep over MJ's house.

Dammit.

Darth, the sad thing is that there are allready those parents that have come out and said they see no harm in MJ :( They have said all along that they would alow their kids to be with him.

This is just another case of bull sh** justice in the US. If MJ was a poor person he would have been thrown away along time ago. As Drew pointed out if your poor your a weirdo if your famous and rich your eccentric. As our justice system as proven time and time again, how we label a person is what law we go by.

JUSTICE MY A** it is time for the states to wake up and pull their heads out of their a**es!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Would not suprise me if he relocates to a country where the pickings are easier.

I'm sure he will attack again but now he knows he needs to be even more careful then the last times.

I guess if one is rich and a minority they can get away with anything. murder, child molestation.....

He WILL attack again. He is a pedophile and is obsessed with children.

The mother is a lieing, disgusting weasle and was totally unbelievable. And there was little to no forensic evidence. But that does not meen that the boy wasn't molested.

Originally posted by mad dog
This is just another case of bull sh** justice in the US. If MJ was a poor person he would have been thrown away along time ago.

Maybe the real problem is that poor people get tossed into jail when the evidence is iffy, not that the rich escape jail time.

Saw some jury outtakes today and heard them speak. I actually think the crux of the case sat with Jacksons' lawyer who was brilliant. He put doubt there and that gave Jackson the escape hatch. He did his job well.

As for the prosecution, the guy has a definite agenda in his vendetta against Jackson and perhaps that is where it began to go down hill..

Juror number one was impressive. He basically said: Jackson is a pedophile, but this case was not strong. Motives were questionable.

Juries are becoming more sophisticated. Prosecutors need to understand that.

Maybe the real problem is that poor people get tossed into jail when the evidence is iffy, not that the rich escape jail time.
Thank you lionel. It's quite sad that you all are so absolutely certain he was guilty, because that's what the news made it seem. The facts show that the evidence was crap, and without evidence proving guilt, one isn't guilty.

Apparently the legal expert conclusion has been that the evidence was so weak that in any normal situation this would have never gone to trial. It was only because it was MJ that they took this to trial.

This is interesting 34 years of MJ - year by year. Watch the nose

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/chi-010907michaeljackson-flip,0,1511174.photogallery?coll=ny-homepage-bigpix2005

Originally posted by DrewM
Apparently the legal expert conclusion has been that the evidence was so weak that in any normal situation this would have never gone to trial. It was only because it was MJ that they took this to trial.

This is interesting 34 years of MJ - year by year. Watch the nose

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/chi-010907michaeljackson-flip,0,1511174.photogallery?coll=ny-homepage-bigpix2005

Yeah that's what happens when people have a vendetta, they lose all perspective.

As for the pictures; he was a good looking kid, and a really nice looking guy till about '94. By '99 he looks like a freak. The guy has a self hate that is frightening.

There's something U don't see every day.
Jacko getting off with no little boys around.

;)

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Maybe the real problem is that poor people get tossed into jail when the evidence is iffy, not that the rich escape jail time.

I don't know if this is the real problem but yes you are correct it is part of the problem.

Maybe when the rich can afford a lawyer that can twist things/find loop holes they get off even though they are quilty. What pisses me off is how we attack the victims and try to make the accused look like some sort of a saint. Instead of attacking either persons living habbits we should focus more on the case at hand. Bringing the mother up front was a stupid move, and I highly doubt the lawyers didn't realize this. The bottom line to this case is that most people {including the jurors} believe MJ is a nasty piece of sh** but once again or justice system shines through and DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. OH wait they did do what they're good at, put another piece of crap back on the streets. Lets make sure we got room in the jails for those bad people that smoke pot. :eek: :mad: :mad:

Originally posted by Blibblob

Thank you lionel. It's quite sad that you all are so absolutely certain he was guilty, because that's what the news made it seem. The facts show that the evidence was crap, and without evidence proving guilt, one isn't guilty.

Blibblob, with all respect to you {because I believe you have a good head on your shoulders}, you were less then 7yrs old the 1st time this piece of sh** attacked. He got away with it then because of fame and money. Looks like some things don't change............. You are correct the victim should have came up with a better lawyer, but the bottom line is that MJ is a child abuser and needs to be seen as such. Just because our screwed up system didn't find him quilty does not mean he isn't. It just proves he had the more snake like lawyer.

The jurors said he was not guilty according to the evidence given. That does not mean he is innocent of pedophilia.

The bottom line to this case is that most people {including the jurors} believe MJ is a nasty piece of sh** but once again or justice system shines through and DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
The evidence didn't say he was. You know in France they have a system where you have to prove your innocent. There it's "guilty until proven innocent".
Here's a nice quote on that:
"They say that in England you are innocent until proven guilty; in France you are guilty until proven innocent; and in America you are innocent until the next edition of the newspaper flies off the presses or the evening news comes on."
-Mark Hertzberg (http://www.digitalstoryteller.com/YITL/Mark%20Hertzberg/july25.html)

Blibblob, with all respect to you {because I believe you have a good head on your shoulders}, you were less then 7yrs old the 1st time this piece of sh** attacked. He got away with it then because of fame and money.
He got away with it because he was sued. They didn't make a criminal trial out of it, they just wanted his money. That leads me to doubt that it actually occured, if it did there certainly should have been a criminal case, pedophilia is a crime, not a social issue to be sued over.

Originally posted by mad dog
Just because our screwed up system didn't find him quilty does not mean he isn't. It just proves he had the more snake like lawyer.

With all due respect to you mad dog, just because you think he's guilty doesn't mean that it's true. I know he's weird, but how is it that you know he's guilty of pedophilia?

SalThe jurors said he was not guilty according to the evidence given. That does not mean he is innocent of pedophilia.

I guess I'd have to ask you the same question...if there's no evidence to clearly implicate him in these alleged crimes, from where do you draw the conclusion that he's guilty?

Blib, would you pay someone millions for a crime you did not commit, especially something as serious as child abuse? If it was me I would rather put the money towards showing proof that I am not some sick twisted freak. At the very least I would go public and refuse to pay. Send them the message of prove my quilt because I am innocent. MJ did not do this he choose to pay them off so that they would fade into the wood work which is what happened. Child Abusers know they have the upper hand right from the get go, because what American boy is going to go around and say that another male touched them?

You are correct about the media And I do not get involved with the medias opinion/drama. I take what evidence is shown then I draw my own conclusion. Of course I don't have all the evidence in his case but there is more then enough for any one to see this guy is screwed up and likes little boys......ALOT.

Blib, would you pay someone millions for a crime you did not commit, especially something as serious as child abuse? If it was me I would rather put the money towards showing proof that I am not some sick twisted freak. At the very least I would go public and refuse to pay.
Do you think he cared about his public opinion by then? It takes months of time and millions of dollars to go through a trial like that. I personally wouldn't of wasted my time. I would have thought it wouldn't of mattered, I mean it was a civil suit, why would somebody actually think that means that he was guilty of something criminal? Because the media told them so.

Of course I don't have all the evidence in his case but there is more then enough for any one to see this guy is screwed up and likes little boys......ALOT.
If there was more than enough evidence to draw that conclusion then he should have been convicted of something. You don't actually have to touch a child to be convicted of pedophilia, it's mostly a thoughtcrime, you just have to say something that alleges it.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
With all due respect to you mad dog, just because you think he's guilty doesn't mean that it's true. I know he's weird, but how is it that you know he's guilty of pedophilia?

Well how about the evidence of his character, how about all the tapes, secret room, and the fact he has been caught lying with little boys. He payed off a family the 1st time he was caught instead of standing his ground and saying "I did not do it". I am not going to recall all of the evidence that was shown but there is more then enough too at the very least chase after this child abuser. The system let these kids down and whom ever his next victims are going to be just because of bull sh**. He was not proven innocent or quilty this case like others just turned into another circus like so many of us expected. MJ's people were very smart in how they made the media turn against the mother. The thing that everyone forgot about was the fact that a child had been abused but because of the circus that was caused people forgot. Oh and Vile lets not forget even the jurors believe MJ is an abuser, and they did see all the evidence. They said there just wasn't the right type of evidence in this case.

Originally posted by mad dog
Oh and Vile lets not forget even the jurors believe MJ is an abuser, and they did see all the evidence. They said there just wasn't the right type of evidence in this case.

Apparently they didn't see enough evidence to convict him even though they saw all the evidence. That should mean something. As I said, I know he's an oddball, but if there's no smoke, maybe the reports of fire are not to be believed.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Do you think he cared about his public opinion by then?

of course he did that is why he is constantly throwing himself into the media.

It takes months of time and millions of dollars to go through a trial like that. I personally wouldn't of wasted my time.

So you would rather be labeled a child abuser then prove your innocent hmmmm. I don't think this would be a good choice.

I would have thought it wouldn't of mattered, I mean it was a civil suit, why would somebody actually think that means that he was guilty of something criminal? Because the media told them so.

Crasping at straws I find this funny, of course being called/labeled a child abuser is no big deal...yeh right. :rolleyes:

If there was more than enough evidence to draw that conclusion then he should have been convicted of something.

Did you catch what the jurors said they said there was not the right type of evidence for "this" case and of course lets not forget how mom screwed things up even more. They also went on to say they strongly believe MJ is an abuser because of evidence, it just didn't fit "this" case. Like I said they may have done the right thing according to the system {for this case}but as far as justice being served the system is bull sh**.

You don't actually have to touch a child to be convicted of pedophilia, it's mostly a thoughtcrime, you just have to say something that alleges it.

So now we have to be mind readers to convict???? I'm cofused at what you are saying. The last I new actions are loader then words.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Apparently they didn't see enough evidence to convict him even though they saw all the evidence. That should mean something. As I said, I know he's an oddball, but if there's no smoke, maybe the reports of fire are not to be believed.

I think your missing my point I will try to explain. Lets say Blib, You, Travh, bob, Joe, Drew and myself all live in town next to each other. Now we all know Drew likes to get drunk and beat the crap out of us every sat. night{sorry Drew} There is evidence of this all over the place, witnesses, baseball bats, hospital reports, etc.... One night Drew follows me into a dark ally and beats the snot out of me. I get sick of it and finally take it to court, remember we all know he is a big bad a**{he has beat all of us}. The problem with me getting a conviction on Drew "this time/case" is that there is NO solid proof of his beating me{key word} this time/case}. There is tons of evidence that Drew is Billybob Bada** but in this 1 case there is not enough evidence to find him quilty. So Drew is let go with NO convictions even though he is Mister Bully Man Beater

Oh and my above example is not just made up it did happen in a town were I once lived. I just changed names of course, atleast everyones but Drews :D :D :hitout:

Sure, it sucks that Drew gets away with being such a badass, but the alternative is a system in which people are getting put away on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Which would probably be correct 90% of the time, but if you're in that 10% category, well then it sucks to be you.

The criminal system is basically set up on the premise that it's better to let a few guilty people go free than to put a few innocent people in jail. Which I tend to agree with.

One of the real problems with child molestation cases is that they are nearly always based on the testimony of a child who is accusing someone. There are very seldom any other witnesses to the event. There is seldom any forensic evidence. It basically comes down to who you believe. What is seen in the trial is a battle over the story, in which the defense attorney is pitted against a child, trying to trip them up and getting them to show inconsistencies. This in the presence of the person who has abused them, and who they are often very scared of. The defendant is under no obligation to testify, or to be cross examined. The only things that the children have going for them is that the jury may react negatively to an attorney who is seen as bullying a child.

Maybe they pulled the plug on Terri Schaivo too soon.
Hell, she was overqualified to serve on a California jury.
There is no such thing as equal justice. The courthouse is not immune to the forces of capitalism and the market. The rich & famous will always have access to the best counsel money can buy. Their lawyers can manipulate the system like a birthday clown and his balloons. The system works unless you happen to make peanuts. The system doesn't work for peanuts.
That's not fair. That's life. Ideally, it shouldn't work that way. But don't BS me about how the system works and fairness and equality. It's a fairy tale.
This is why the war on drugs can never be won. The people rotting in jail on drug charges are the small-timers who make min. wage & live with their moms. The ones higher up on the gang food chain can pay for the best lawyers & escape back to the tony suburbs. It's just like any other corporation. It's capitalism. Supply and demand. You can't...beat it.

Korg:so, not one of you thought that mother was a money grubbing grifter huh ? thats weird.

Yeah she was...this kid has been victimized so many ways if he doesn't turn out to be a sociopath it will not be because any adult advocated for him.

Vile:I guess I'd have to ask you the same question...if there's no evidence to clearly implicate him in these alleged crimes, from where do you draw the conclusion that he's guilty?

I draw the conclusion that he is guilty from the interviews where he freely admits that he had children in his bed. From the other case in which several young boys could describe his penis. And from the reaction of the jurors. Basically they said, there was not enough evidence in this case to convict beyond the shadow of a doubt. I do believe the jury did their job.

He is now free to molest again and he will. It may take years, but it will happen because a pedophile can not be rehabilitated. They will try hard to keep him away from children and may God help the woman who allows her child near him.

As Imagineer said... they went up against a money grubbing woman and a young child who has recovered from cancer. This kid is fried and no one has been there for him. He got lost in all of this.

We cannot blame the courts. Blame the prosecution, blame the lack of solid evidence.

We cannot expect convictions based on opinion.

Originally posted by ~Sal~
I draw the conclusion that he is guilty from the interviews where he freely admits that he had children in his bed. From the other case in which several young boys could describe his penis. And from the reaction of the jurors. Basically they said, there was not enough evidence in this case to convict beyond the shadow of a doubt. I do believe the jury did their job.

I understand where you're coming from, and I suspect you're probably right, but I just don't feel comfortable making judgements about a person's guilt or innocence based on what the media reports. I've had some minor experience with the media that leads me to believe they're not as interested in the truth as they are in what might make an interesting story.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I understand where you're coming from, and I suspect you're probably right, but I just don't feel comfortable making judgements about a person's guilt or innocence based on what the media reports. I've had some minor experience with the media that leads me to believe they're not as interested in the truth as they are in what might make an interesting story.

Oh man... you and my partner... I keep pressing him to call guilty, and he won't. He will only say: "I don't know"... you logical people are a pain in the butt... let's have some emotion, speculation, jump to a few conclusions... but only in the direction that I want .... :D

Yes the media is money driven and certainly not impartial...

Now we have the holy trinity... OJ, Robert Blake, and Michael Jackson...They may be free to walk the earth, but in some ways they are marked forever and will never be free from the doubt and speculation which will surround them till their grave.

Read this on MJ site

http://mjjsource.com/main/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=186&sectionid=5&Itemid=35

It's the bio of his lawyer. It's an incredible read - after you read it it leaves the impression that if you have killed somebody or committed a sex crime then this guy can get you off the hook. Like how incredible is that? A guy who is full of himself on the basis of his ability to get killers back on the streets and rapists home in time for dinner.

MJ is one strange kind of idiot to have that on his website.

Originally posted by DrewM
Read this on MJ site

http://mjjsource.com/main/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=186&sectionid=5&Itemid=35

It's the bio of his lawyer. It's an incredible read - after you read it it leaves the impression that if you have killed somebody or committed a sex crime then this guy can get you off the hook. Like how incredible is that? A guy who is full of himself on the basis of his ability to get killers back on the streets and rapists home in time for dinner.

MJ is one strange kind of idiot to have that on his website.

I had heard his lawyer was brilliant... I like how they call him "Tom"...yeah my pal Tom... I didn't know he had been Blake's lawyer too... interesting...

They said each time he cross examined a person he would begin by saying;"My name is Thomas Mesereau and I speak for Michael Jackson"... The credibility would certainly begin to rub off.

A brilliant and gifted man... he keeps using the word innocent. The strategy continues.

It's not brilliant if your claim to fame is getting guilty murderers & molesters back on the streets. & then slapping yourself on the back to say how great you are. That seems to be his claim to fame. He's definately from that relatively small group of lawyers one could class as total fucking scumbags.

Who cares if he is smart - if he was that smart he should go invent a cure for cancer instead of making money like this from rich criminals.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Sure, it sucks that Drew gets away with being such a badass, but the alternative is a system in which people are getting put away on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Which would probably be correct 90% of the time, but if you're in that 10% category, well then it sucks to be you.

The criminal system is basically set up on the premise that it's better to let a few guilty people go free than to put a few innocent people in jail. Which I tend to agree with.

I agree with you 80% LionelHutz, the 20% that I disagree with is when we let a killer or in this case a child abuser go because of a loop hole. This is the problem with the system we are setting killers rapist, etc... free {on a loop hole} so they can commit a crime again. I'm sure that you would disagree if your child was the next one attacked by some pile of crap if he could have been stopped in the 1st place???

I do understand what you are saying I would not want to be in the 1% that gets sent to jail for something I did not do. But stronger then that I would not want to see a loved one killed by someone that could have been stopped the 1st time.

Vile & Blib if you don't mind me asking what is your gut feeling towards MJ? Is it possible he is an abuser or is he just nice with kids? I highly doubt he will be tortured if you give a negative answer on the forum, Im just curious. Another question if you had children would you trust him to be alone with them{be honest}?

Originally posted by DrewM
He's definately from that relatively small group of lawyers one could class as total fucking scumbags.

Somebody's got to defend criminals. Are you suggesting that if he thinks his client is guilty he should tell the jury to convict him?

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Somebody's got to defend criminals. Are you suggesting that if he thinks his client is guilty he should tell the jury to convict him?
-------------------------

I have heard defense lawyers state that it did not matter if their client is innocent or guilty. That they are there to make sure that the defendants rights are upheld and that points of established laws are held to the letter.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell

I have heard defense lawyers state that it did not matter if their client is innocent or guilty. That they are there to make sure that the defendants rights are upheld and that points of established laws are held to the letter.

I'd tend to agree with that view. As it was explained to me, their job is to make sure that the Prosecution does their job.

Vile & Blib if you don't mind me asking what is your gut feeling towards MJ? Is it possible he is an abuser or is he just nice with kids? I highly doubt he will be tortured if you give a negative answer on the forum, Im just curious. Another question if you had children would you trust him to be alone with them{be honest}?
It's possible, but if they weren't capable of getting enough evidence to prove it, I doubt it.

Originally posted by DrewM
It's not brilliant if your claim to fame is getting guilty murderers & molesters back on the streets. & then slapping yourself on the back to say how great you are. That seems to be his claim to fame. He's definately from that relatively small group of lawyers one could class as total fucking scumbags.

Who cares if he is smart - if he was that smart he should go invent a cure for cancer instead of making money like this from rich criminals.

Yes it is still brilliant if his ability allows him to manipulate the system in order to allow someone who is guilty to go free. I do not think the article indicated that he was slapping himself on the back or claiming to be great.

Because his mind and charisma allow him to do something others can't does not make him a scumbag. You are incorrectly assuming that all of those he has defended are guilty. There is no basis to assume so. 90% of those he defends may in fact be innocent.

What he does is allow our system to function. If there is a problem it is systemic and should not be put on his shoulders. They did the same to civil rights lawyers who had black defendants. When we start to prosecute the defense lawyers for getting scum off we begin to allow our own system to erode.

We should look to the system not the small actors within it.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Somebody's got to defend criminals. Are you suggesting that if he thinks his client is guilty he should tell the jury to convict him?

No - I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm just saying lets not worship a guy who is clearly a scumbag.

Of course there are needs for scumbags in some roles, but lets not forget that they are still scumbags.

when it came out that the preist were molesting, hundreds of people came out of the woodwork. they say that MJ has been molesting since the late 80's early 90's. how come no 23 or 26 year old men have come out and said something to protect the others ? because he never did it ! pedophilia is a sickness that cant be stopped. if he was the molester that everyone is saying, where's the long line of victims ? and dont say he paid them all off. there were only 2 paid, and thats because his lawyers told him that it wasnt worth the trouble. ! men know, that there is nothing worst that you can call an adult, than a molester. to say that you know for a FACT that he did it, does terrible injustice to "innocent til proven guilty " ! what is that, just another one of america's lies ? the man was given a trial. and like i said before, and i'll use a different person: if that was will smith, and not michael jackson, people would have been talking about how dirty and seedy that mother seems. and her whole family, including that so called victim !

the only incriminating thing about this is his naive way of looking at the world. what you have here is a guy who is trying to recapture a childhood that he didnt have. wrong way to go about it ? i dont know. to him its innocent. to him, he knows that he didnt do anything. here's a scenerio : you have a neighbor. he has a cute daughter who happens to be 12. she also happens to be more advanced of the ways of the world than most kids. you go next door to visit the father. she says he isnt home, but you can come in anyway. you say no, like a responsible adult. the next thing you know, the cops are at your door. the first question they ask yyou is " were you , at any time , at your neighbors house today " . you say yes. out comes the handcuffs. you're under arrest. why? you ask. the young girl says that you fondled her........no dna, no sign of anything. your word against hers......even if you win, your life is over, and do you know why, because the world needs someone to hate. they dont even care that you were found innocent. you are a marked man....for life, because people are more judgemental than the system you just went through. there are marks of a pedophile, and he doesnt fit them. he just looks weird, which if that were the case, no preist would be in jail, but all funny looking people would be. just a modern day witch hunt. people forget, he didnt say that he sleeps in the same bed with the boys, he said that he shares his bed with them. there is a difference. he said tha the only boy he actually climbed in the bed with, was this kid, and only because the kid asked him to. people take a statement and run with it. i dont care about michael jackson, but i hate the fact that people like that family find ways to sue VICTIMS that are vulnerable.....like mike !

HE knows that he didnt do anything, he's just looking at that family saying "all people cant be like this". if anything THATS the lesson he's learning. he is a good person. he pays cancer bills. put on shows for these kids....etc. and, AGAIN, WHY ARENT THERE 23 TO 26 YEAR OLD GUYS COMING OUT OF THE WOODWORK SAYING THAT HE TOUCHED THEM, if he's been doing this since the 90's ? a pedophile take year long breaks ? no, they keep on molesting......ask a preist !! there would be A line of men saying that he did something. you guys arent thinking. 3 boys in 15 years. all with seedy ass parents. the first boys father asked michael for 5 million to fund a movie project. mike said no to the guy.......here comes a molestation case.....but nothing seems funny about that ! mike settled because thats what he was told to do !

once again, to him, share your bed means that you let them sleep in it !!!!! he only climbed in the bed with one child, this boy, and he said that it was because the boy asked him to. and he was clothed. now if you are going to believe what he said in that interview, believe it all !!

THIS BOYS MOTHER, HAD HER DAUGHTER LIE ABOUT HER OWN FATHER MOLESTING HER. JUST BECAUSE THE MOTHER WAS MAD !!!!! PIT HER DAUGHTER AGAINST HER OWN FATHER !!! noooooo this isnt fishy !

Originally posted by korg
the only incriminating thing about this is his naive way of looking at the world. what you have here is a guy who is trying to recapture a childhood that he didnt have. wrong way to go about it ? i dont know. to him its innocent. to him, he knows that he didnt do anything. here's a scenerio : you have a neighbor. he has a cute daughter who happens to be 12. she also happens to be more advanced of the ways of the world than most kids. you go next door to visit the father. she says he isnt home, but you can come in anyway. you say no, like a responsible adult. the next thing you know, the cops are at your door. the first question they ask yyou is " were you , at any time , at your neighbors house today " . you say yes. out comes the handcuffs. you're under arrest. why? you ask. the young girl says that you fondled her........no dna, no sign of anything. your word against hers......even if you win, your life is over, and do you know why, because the world needs someone to hate. they dont even care that you were found innocent. you are a marked man....for life, because people are more judgemental than the system you just went through. there are marks of a pedophile, and he doesnt fit them. he just looks weird, which if that were the case, no preist would be in jail, but all funny looking people would be. just a modern day witch hunt. people forget, he didnt say that he sleeps in the same bed with the boys, he said that he shares his bed with them. there is a difference. he said tha the only boy he actually climbed in the bed with, was this kid, and only because the kid asked him to. people take a statement and run with it. i dont care about michael jackson, but i hate the fact that people like that family find ways to sue VICTIMS that are vulnerable.....like mike !

So Korg - how did you deal with that situation - you know the girl next door?

Originally posted by korg
once again, to him, share your bed means that you let them sleep in it !!!!! he only climbed in the bed with one child, this boy, and he said that it was because the boy asked him to. and he was clothed. now if you are going to believe what he said in that interview, believe it all !!

You need to start using quotations or something. Five straight responses, but I don't know what you're responding to.

Korg, why don't you go stay the night with MJ you seem to have a thing for IT/him. :D Of course there may be a problem with this you might be to old...................:D

For you guys b***hing about the scum lawyer. Look at it this way if this lawyer is good enough to get a criminal off then who would you rather have working for you. Mister nice guy that plays nice or the scum lawyer that will hit with everything he can pull out of his bag of tricks??????

Originally posted by LionelHutz
You need to start using quotations or something. Five straight responses, but I don't know what you're responding to. these are my responses on another thread. i didnt feel like typing it all over, so i copied and pasted.

Originally posted by DrewM
So Korg - how did you deal with that situation - you know the girl next door? you dont have to be in situations to understand how easily they can happen. but the movie " the crush " will sum it up. problem with people, they think things like that happen to people that deserve it. they also happen to people that dont......could be you. and then you can watch the world talk about how you fit the profile of a pedophile because you seem to water your lawn too much !

Originally posted by mad dog
Korg, why don't you go stay the night with MJ you seem to have a thing for IT/him. :D Of course there may be a problem with this you might be to old...................:D

" IT " seems appropriate. but weirdness never constituted being a pedophile. no pedophile looks like one, until you find out he is one. then, everything he does, has a mark of pedophilia....." oooohh, did you see that guy buy the box of frosted flakes , you know thats the cereal choice of pedophiles ".......stupid shit like that......no one has any CONVICTABLE proof of anything MJ has done. nothing. just one persons word, and a bunch of people jumping on the bandwagon. you peole act as if this could not be a lie....no matter what. innocent til PROVEN GUILTY ! seems everyone has forgotten that !!!

Originally posted by korg
you dont have to be in situations to understand how easily they can happen. but the movie " the crush " will sum it up. problem with people, they think things like that happen to people that deserve it. they also happen to people that dont......could be you. and then you can watch the world talk about how you fit the profile of a pedophile because you seem to water your lawn too much !

Yeah - but the story you told about you & the girl next door - how did that turn out in the end?

Korg there was lots of evidence given that shows MJ to be a pedophile. Once again even the jurors say they have no doubt MJ is sick/pedophile The problem was that in this "case" there was not enough proof to charge him. Why do you feel he is not sick, show us the proof that shows he is innocent. Don't use the old "innocent until proven quilty" we{allforums} are not a court of law. I quess if a person goes around with their eyes closed the world seems full of blue skies and happy clowns blowing up pretty little ballons. The reality is that there is another pedophile on the lose again because the system as its flaws.

Originally posted by mad dog
Korg there was lots of evidence given that shows MJ to be a pedophile. Once again even the jurors say they have no doubt MJ is sick/pedophile The problem was that in this "case" there was not enough proof to charge him. Why do you feel he is not sick, show us the proof that shows he is innocent. Don't use the old "innocent until proven quilty" we{allforums} are not a court of law. I quess if a person goes around with their eyes closed the world seems full of blue skies and happy clowns blowing up pretty little ballons. The reality is that there is another pedophile on the lose again because the system as its flaws. you are levying the charge. what makes you absolutely sure, without a doubt, that he is guilty ? that is a harsh thing to call a MAN, without absolute proof. what evidence was given, besides one persons word against another ? what sweeping evidence ?

Originally posted by DrewM
Yeah - but the story you told about you & the girl next door - how did that turn out in the end? that story wasnt about me !i know you're being impudent, but i'll humor you . it was an analogy. i happen to like older women. im an old-ophile

Originally posted by korg
what evidence was given, besides one persons word against another ? what sweeping evidence ?

I quess you should have followed the case better. There was more then enough evidence given to make a real investigation on him. Yes, I said real, not a media circus freak show useing idiots as players.

Originally posted by mad dog
I quess you should have followed the case better. There was more then enough evidence given to make a real investigation on him. Yes, I said real, not a media circus freak show useing idiots as players. you know mad dog, they took a lot of his videos. nothing on them. they had a lot of his workers testify, all had an agenda because he won a million dollar countersuit against them, and they lost their suit....credibility problems. you had the mother, REAL credibility problem. the accuser, couldnt get his lie straight. his brother, couldnt keep up with his own lies. the daughter, the same daughter that falsely accused her father of the same charge ! who or what else did they have that was CONCRETE !??? nothing, just a bunch of his word against theirs ! you are the one thats wrong. you keep on saying how much evidence there was , but just like defending george bush, you never gave an answer as to what it was. what you did, was, tell me i wasnt watching the case. tell me i must be MJ's lover, tell me that there was mountains of credible evidence.....but produced not ONE THING in this conversation ! you think he's guilty because he's weird. like i said, when they brought the charges against the preists, they had numerous people come in, all different ages, from old to young, which proved that there was a pattern. what you have against MJ was a couple of people whos parents used them to get a rich settlement ! once again, i ask you this question >!!! if MJ has this pattern of molestation, where are the 20 - 27 year old guys that he molested through the years as a pedophile ? pedophiles constantly molest. how come not one guy came in and said, he molested me when i was 12, and he wants this to stop ? no, it was the one kid who was questionable himself. still, no concrete evidence. yet you are able to sit here and say that he ABSOLUTELY DID IT ! how in the hell do you know >???

Originally posted by mad dog
I quess you should have followed the case better. There was more then enough evidence given to make a real investigation on him. Yes, I said real, not a media circus freak show useing idiots as players. all some kid has to say is that you molested him, and they would investigate you also !!! whether you did it or not, people will be convinced, just because they heard it !!! that is how simple guilt is !!!

Originally posted by korg
you know mad dog, they took a lot of his videos. nothing on them. they had a lot of his workers testify, all had an agenda because he won a million dollar countersuit against them, and they lost their suit....credibility problems. you had the mother, REAL credibility problem. the accuser, couldnt get his lie straight. his brother, couldnt keep up with his own lies. the daughter, the same daughter that falsely accused her father of the same charge ! who or what else did they have that was CONCRETE !??? nothing, just a bunch of his word against theirs !

OK your right anyone{kid} that tells on another is just out for the buck. Those Catholic priest were all saints nothing ever happened adults are great and kids are bad............:rolleyes:

you are the one thats wrong.

you may be right but let me ask could you be wrong and would you be willing to use your child to find out?

you keep on saying how much evidence there was , but just like defending george bush, you never gave an answer as to what it was.

:confused: I am confused here,1st what does Goerge have to do with MJ? 2nd can you please refresh me as to when I was defending George, what thread????????????

what you did, was, tell me i wasnt watching the case. tell me i must be MJ's lover, tell me that there was mountains of credible evidence.....but produced not ONE THING in this conversation !

1st when I made the post about being his lover I did put a face with itIT WAS A JOKE!!!. 2nd I can't remeber saying mountains of eveidence what I said is that there is enough to atleast have a serious investigation, not a hollywood circus.

you think he's guilty because he's weird.

I will agree he is alittle on the freaky side but that has nothing to do with him being a child abuser. I know plenty of folks that act look and do odd things but they are not out hurting little boys. I have no problem with people being themselfs, what I do have a problem with is people involving others with twisted perverted acts.

like i said, when they brought the charges against the preists, they had numerous people come in, all different ages, from old to young, which proved that there was a pattern.

ooooooopppsssss, if I'm reading this right it is OK to convict a priest on hear say but not the famous freak MJ, hmmmmmmm interesting.

what you have against MJ was a couple of people whos parents used them to get a rich settlement ! once again, i ask you this question >!!! if MJ has this pattern of molestation, where are the 20 - 27 year old guys that he molested through the years as a pedophile ?

Most people live through a bad experience and get over it. They do get on with their lives and don't want their dirty laundry all over HollyWood. In the church cases how many of those boys did you see in a media circus?

pedophiles constantly molest. how come not one guy came in and said, he molested me when i was 12, and he wants this to stop ?

Would you?, would you be willing to have your face on every news stand and TV channel? Headlines KORG, THE 27 YEAR OLD MAN MOLESTED BY MJ. Most folks want to make their mark in life is this what you would want your 15 min. of fame to be???

no, it was the one kid who was questionable himself. still, no concrete evidence. yet you are able to sit here and say that he ABSOLUTELY DID IT ! how in the hell do you know >???

You are correct I have a gut feeling he absolutely did things. Does this mean we should hang him on my opinion NO. What I do strongly believe is that there is enough evidence to do A REAL investigation on him. Lets not even bring the media into it investigate, keep the circus out of it and then in the end release the verdict. Don't forget Korg I am not the only one who believe he is quilty. You have jurors that sat through the whole deal that came right out and said he is a child abuser.

Originally posted by korg
all some kid has to say is that you molested him, and they would investigate you also !!! whether you did it or not, people will be convinced, just because they heard it !!! that is how simple guilt is !!!

That is frighteningly true...once the accusation was made some people would judge him guilty even if he were not.

However, the majority would really begin to question it if he kept taking kids into his house alone and spending the night with them. AND, if he had already been accused once before and paid the kid off then I would be really leary about his judgement as a human being. To continue such behavior after paying out millions of dollars to the first accuser, after being warned by staff and friends that he must adjust his behavior, how much common sense does a human being need to know this would be the outcome?

HE HAS NO JUDGEMENT...that alone makes him dangerous. But to have no judgement around children... I don't even know what to label that other than pedophile. If it looks like and duck, and it acts like a duck, then just maybe ????

Originally posted by mad dog
OK your right anyone{kid} that tells on another is just out for the buck. Those Catholic priest were all saints nothing ever happened adults are great and kids are bad............:rolleyes:

ooooooopppsssss, if I'm reading this right it is OK to convict a priest on hear say but not the famous freak MJ, hmmmmmmm interesting.

I think you missed his point, Mad dog. He didn't condone holding anyone on "hear say"; however, when the Catholic priests were accused - many older children came forward to confirm the alleged molestations, and with Michael Jackson, only a few did, and you have to admit - the circumstances, and their motives, were highly suspect. Personally, I don't think they should have convicted him on the evidence they had. It simply wasn't enough...

OJ Simpson, on the other hand...well hell, they should have fried his ass in 1994.

Prae, I understand what he was trying to say but these are 2 very different cases.

1st the kids abused by the church where not the same batch of folks out in never land.

2nd how many "good caring parents" let their kids stay with MJ. Just a quess here but most of those people allready had problems.

3rd when we discuss the church deal there were thousands of folks invovled compared to MJs case, another quess under 100

4th the lawyers had to work against the church and the church tried very hard to keep the circus away and they did. The church trial was taken seriously and was done in a professional way. MJ's trial was a joke and a media public circus.

5th MJ worked very hard to make this a circus and discredit anyone that stayed with him. Once again he prayed on the kids and familys that allready had many problems. One of the biggest ones is/was there honesty and out look on the world.

6th The church had to try and save face so in the end they admited to what had happened.

7th MJ used the circus he greated{and his feel sorry whinning} and he did not need to save face he didn't care.

8th I think Sal, said it best in the above post HE HAD/HAS NO JUDGEMENT, which does instantly bring up questions.

this is important and I think we all agree lets not convict him on opinion!!!! With that said at the same time I honestly believe he should{once again} have a real investigation. There may not have been enough evidence to convict him of this charge but I believe there is enough evidence to take a serious look at the guy.

Another question/thought there a many famous and rich folks out there that spend many hrs with children how come MJ's face hits the media constantly with some type of child abuse. I'm not saying that other folks couldn't be child abusers. BUT if people are only after money fame or what ever it seems to me that we would hear about more then just MJ. Maybe the whole world has a conspiracy against moon walking, that has to be it :)

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I think you missed his point, Mad dog. He didn't condone holding anyone on "hear say"; however, when the Catholic priests were accused - many older children came forward to confirm the alleged molestations, and with Michael Jackson, only a few did, and you have to admit - the circumstances, and their motives, were highly suspect. Personally, I don't think they should have convicted him on the evidence they had. It simply wasn't enough...

OJ Simpson, on the other hand...well hell, they should have fried his ass in 1994. dammit prae....i am floored ! and you are right about OJ.

Originally posted by mad dog
Another question/thought there a many famous and rich folks out there that spend many hrs with children how come MJ's face hits the media constantly with some type of child abuse. I'm not saying that other folks couldn't be child abusers. BUT if people are only after money fame or what ever it seems to me that we would hear about more then just MJ. Maybe the whole world has a conspiracy against moon walking, that has to be it :) HEY MAD DOG, DO YOU REMEMBER THE CASE OF THAT DAY CARE CENTER ( SORRY FOR THE CAPS) when it was "proven" that those workers molested the children ? everyone in america thought that those people were guilty. come to find out that even the psycologist were helping to create a molestation case. its just not hard to do. hell, mr rogers loved kids, and i bet if one child falsly accused him, the world would be saying that he has too close a bond with kids. and that alone would make him suspicious. now i will say this, hell no, i cant say that without a doubt that he was innocent. and i dont even let my family keep my daughters over night. because as history would show, those are the ones that usually molest the victim. but MJ's claim is that he just loves kids so much. and considering how many kids this guy deals with on a daily bases, it just would seem that there would be so many more, if he had that problem. he loves kids. and it seems that onlyt seedy ass families come after him. i would be convinced if one of those family members would have said " if i see him, i will kill him ". because thats what i would do if someone did that to my child. or, if one of those family members was like the woman who talked that killer into surrendering. just someone without a motive. i think it stinks that you are so hell bent on him being guilty, instead of wondering if something may be up with that con-artist of a mother. you are just taking one side without even considering that fact .

Originally posted by mad dog

this is important and I think we all agree lets not convict him on opinion!!!! With that said at the same time I honestly believe he should{once again} have a real investigation. There may not have been enough evidence to convict him of this charge but I believe there is enough evidence to take a serious look at the guy. you mean to tell me, that you dont think sneddon wanted MJ ? he wanted him so badly, i bet he gave up sex to work on this trial. he did everything he could in terms of investigation.........he just didnt find shit ! just one persons word against another. hell, that woman, withouit going to the police, which is the first place any reasonable parent would have gone, went straight to the other boys lawyer . no doubt, with money on her mind. and you buy that without question ? the first boys father asked MJ for 5 million dollars for a movie ( they had the conversation on tape ) MJ said no, out comes a molestation case. a REAL father wouldnt want to do business with his sons molestor......but NONE of this even seems a lil fishy.....huh ? then, you had your mind made up before the trial.

Korg, I quess we will stay at a stand still on this one for now. You bring up good points, but at the same time turn a blind eye. The next time he strikes I hope we are still here at all forums so that we can debate again. Of course maybe the next time he strikes justice will be served and a caring parent will put a bullet in his plastic head. Whether he is a proven molester or not will not be proven until we can pull him out of his little circus world and make him address the court like an adult not some freakin sniffling little b***h.

I just heard that Ken and Barbie are pissed at MJ. They can't have babys made because MJ took all the plastic. :D :D :D

Originally posted by mad dog
Korg, I quess we will stay at a stand still on this one for now. You bring up good points, but at the same time turn a blind eye. The next time he strikes I hope we are still here at all forums so that we can debate again. Of course maybe the next time he strikes justice will be served and a caring parent will put a bullet in his plastic head. Whether he is a proven molester or not will not be proven until we can pull him out of his little circus world and make him address the court like an adult not some freakin sniffling little b***h. if it happens again, i will give in.

Originally posted by mad dog
I just heard that Ken and Barbie are pissed at MJ. They can't have babys made because MJ took all the plastic. :D :D :D lmao

Originally posted by korg
if it happens again, i will give in.

fair enough :)