He is INNOCENT!!!
-
WOohoo!! Sorry, just excited that Michael Jackson's been acquitted of all charges! HE IS INNOCENT!!!
YEAH! UH HUH UH HUH UH HUH! TAKE THAT YOU SLIMY CON ARTISTS!
NO MONEY FOR YOU! MUAH hAHAhAhA!
-
I am somewhat perturbed that a guy like you would be so excited over this.
But hey, that's just me.
-
i think he's guilty as sin.. remember OJ?
-
Guilty or innocent, one thing's for sure:
He'll never be the King of Pop again... ever. -
what are you blabbering...he's still the KING of POP!
Maybe you could change the title to "Aquitted-of-child-molestation KING of POP"! -
happy for him i just believe that he has been accused so many times because pple want too make use of his fame and past precedents against him
-
well that too.Originally posted by hisoka:happy for him i just believe that he has been accused so many times because pple want too make use of his fame and past precedents against him
I guess with the American judicial system, no one will ever know right?
Heard the prosecution plans to appeal the verdict. -
you think a 40+ year old dude, who had plastic surgery to look like a mishmash of Diana Ross and Elizabeth Taylor, who showed porn to children, who has little boys in bed with him, who paid off his very first accuser... is truly innocent?
OJ was innocent too huh? -
neither can we be sure to condamm him just because he looks like a freak, and had some porn in his house, and like all rich folks thinks that "reputation" is upmost important and that money could solve anything.Originally posted by the Bear:you think a 40+ year old dude, who had plastic surgery to look like a mishmash of Diana Ross and Elizabeth Taylor, who showed porn to children, who has little boys in bed with him, who paid off his very first accuser... is truly innocent?
OJ was innocent too huh? -
bye Mospeeda
-
Billie jean is not my lover
-
Don't worry PeRsEuS, whoever doubts Michael Jackson knows nothing about the case.
-There were never any child porn
-The kids hid their own porn in their bags and were caught watching adult channels on their own(prosecutors said they were innocent little angels who knew nothing about sex)
-Alcohol was never offered to them, they stole alcohol
-The prosecutors changed their charges because of so many inconsistensies that in the end, the final charges alleged that Michal Jackson abducted the family to cover up even before molestation!!!!
-The charges also alleged that Michael Jackson only started molesting the boy (after knowing the boy for years) at a time where the police and welfare organisations were investigating him
-The prosecutors said Michael Jackson molested 5 boys previously
=one ran away to another country(the one which received a lot of $$$), didn't wanna have anythin to do with this case
=3 came to court and denied anything happened
=1 of them said he was molested but changed his story a million times
-Many more factors that resulted in acquittal
Whoever's interested to know more please post your questions here. -
he was probably able to satisfy the juries' children
-
The prosecution were unable to find any proof of his guilt, so it is their problem, not Jacko's.
I feel that the onus should never be on the defendant to prove his innocence, since it skews the legal system in favour of the goddamned state. -
Who are you to say OJ is guilty when you weren't there when the evidence were presented?Originally posted by the Bear:i think he's guilty as sin.. remember OJ?
And even if he IS guilty, does it mean anybody else who gets an innocent verdict in America is guilty? What about Martha Stewart? What about Scott Peterson?
Your logic confounds me. -
hmm.. the artist formerly known as a paedophile
-
but MJ lost on public opinion, he was already condammed before the charges were up. too bad for him, dun really care though.Originally posted by stoty:Don't worry PeRsEuS, whoever doubts Michael Jackson knows nothing about the case.
-There were never any child porn
-The kids hid their own porn in their bags and were caught watching adult channels on their own(prosecutors said they were innocent little angels who knew nothing about sex)
-Alcohol was never offered to them, they stole alcohol
-The prosecutors changed their charges because of so many inconsistensies that in the end, the final charges alleged that Michal Jackson abducted the family to cover up even before molestation!!!!
-The charges also alleged that Michael Jackson only started molesting the boy (after knowing the boy for years) at a time where the police and welfare organisations were investigating him
-The prosecutors said Michael Jackson molested 5 boys previously
=one ran away to another country(the one which received a lot of $$$), didn't wanna have anythin to do with this case
=3 came to court and denied anything happened
=1 of them said he was molested but changed his story a million times
-Many more factors that resulted in acquittal
Whoever's interested to know more please post your questions here. -
I heard from News FM93.8 this morning, one of the juries said that they do not believe that any mother would give a go ahead to any one to sleep wth their boys. And that they (juries) do not believe those mothers were telling the truth.
But any way, this whole thing has ruined his entire career. It is like rubbing salt to injuries...has made his already down turn career even worst. More over, he's got tons of debts to settle from today onwards. And he is near to bankupt.
Heard that his monthly expense is USD $1 million. Wonder where he spent those money. -
On extreme makeovers.Originally posted by moonstone:Heard that his monthly expense is USD $1 million. Wonder where he spent those money. -
Hmn, i think Michael Jackson really did do these:
1) Hid wine in cans and call it Jesus juice
2) Watch Pornography with Kids
3) Have weird statues of kiddo stuffs in his ranch
4) Touch (not surmount to fondle) kids near more sensitive regions..
but there just wasnt enough evidence to support these claims, maybe,, just maybe.. nonetheless i like wacko jacko -
dun noe if he is really innocent...
but i'm sure as hell tat the mother was trying to extort money from wacko jacko... -
I just don't think that celebrities can truly get a free trial because they've already lost anonymity, no matter what the verdict is.
How would one feel if you had to judge on Tom Cruise pedophilia case tomorrow?
What if it wasn't Tom Cruise, but Brad Pitt? Can you judge with total neutrality?
What if it was a husband murder case for Catherine Zeta Jones? What if it was Julia Roberts?
I think sometimes it's unfair to really judge or think one knows a celebrity well because it's all second hand stories. And given a chance, I'd allow myself weird behavior if I became a celebrity too
When you're a rising star, the media is your biggest fan, full of adoration, when you're down in the dumps, the same qualities that made you special to the media can also be portrayed as the worst character flaws anyone has ever seen. Similar examples can be seen when it comes to our own relationships. During the honeymoon stages, that 'cute' habit of your girlfriend/boyfriend was really endearing, as time went on, that 'cute' habit became an irritant that could even trigger off major arguments.
But I'm getting carried away -
OJ?
seems like DNA evidence is inadmissible evidence
oh well...
anyhoooo... wacko jacko paid off his first "victim".. strange thing is that the rest of his victims' parents seem to throw their children at him...
who knows what the hell is going on?
any other 40-year man who shares his bed with children, irregardless of whether he's done anything with or to them, or even touched them, he would have his ass slung in jail so fast, wacko jacko won't even have time for a crotch-grab... so what makes a celebrity any different?
so... what do you think? so many times, it can't be co-incidental?
or is something amiss?
either way, the dude lives in a world of his own delusions, he may not even know what he's done if he's actually done it... -
I think he might really be deluded, but...sometimes I am deluded myself haha..Originally posted by the Bear:OJ?
seems like DNA evidence is inadmissible evidence
oh well...
anyhoooo... wacko jacko paid off his first "victim".. strange thing is that the rest of his victims' parents seem to throw their children at him...
who knows what the hell is going on?
any other 40-year man who shares his bed with children, irregardless of whether he's done anything with or to them, or even touched them, he would have his ass slung in jail so fast, wacko jacko won't even have time for a crotch-grab... so what makes a celebrity any different?
so... what do you think? so many times, it can't be co-incidental?
or is something amiss?
either way, the dude lives in a world of his own delusions, he may not even know what he's done if he's actually done it...
Can someone explain the OJ case to me? I'm not very sure about what happened regarding that case..
You do have a point though..any other 40 year old man who shares his bed with other kids would have multiple lawsuits thrown at him...Really, why did the other kids' parents throw their kids at him.. hmm -
i get a feeeling its because of the first w"victim" got paid off therefore they rest of the parents want to get some quick buckOriginally posted by the Bear:OJ?
seems like DNA evidence is inadmissible evidence
oh well...
anyhoooo... wacko jacko paid off his first "victim".. strange thing is that the rest of his victims' parents seem to throw their children at him...
who knows what the hell is going on?
any other 40-year man who shares his bed with children, irregardless of whether he's done anything with or to them, or even touched them, he would have his ass slung in jail so fast, wacko jacko won't even have time for a crotch-grab... so what makes a celebrity any different?
so... what do you think? so many times, it can't be co-incidental?
or is something amiss?
either way, the dude lives in a world of his own delusions, he may not even know what he's done if he's actually done it...