He is INNOCENT!!!
-
oj is guilty! he got off on technicality. either his lawyers were good or the jurors too dump. blood was found that matched oj's dna, but his smart ass lawyers threw doubt on it by saying there were 3 other person in the whole of los angeles that the blood can belong too, namely his children and a relative who have the same dna strain. any idiot would know the other 3 have almost no chance of committing the crime but hey, american legal magic insists you must definitively proof that the blood is his and his alone.Originally posted by stoty:Who are you to say OJ is guilty when you weren't there when the evidence were presented?
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.
stewart guilty? perhaps.....peterson...hell yes guilty!! -
My point is famous people get thrown in jail too. Michael Jackson wasn't found innocent just because of his celebrity.
-
I think Russel Crowe may get jailed for his latest outburst.Originally posted by stoty:My point is famous people get thrown in jail too. Michael Jackson wasn't found innocent just because of his celebrity. -
1) Yup, he drinks wine from cans because he doesn't want to be a bad influence on kids around him. Yup, he nicknames wine Jesus Juice because Jesus once turned water into wine. Nothing sinister about it.Originally posted by Beep: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
2) He's never done anything like that.
3) He has mannequins of characters that he like ( e.g.The Jolly Green Giant ) to keep him company because he's a very lonely person. ( People say he's weird, I say he's just different. A genius will always appear weird to the average person. )
4) If he's ever touched kids anywhere near sensitive regions, its probably just accidental with no sexual intentions.
People wonder how he can spend so many nights with children without molesting them.
These are the people with filthy minds, these are the people who can't seperate the image of a sleeping child from sex.
If you adore your dog so much that you allow it to share your bed, are you going to start molesting it? After months of sleeping together will it suddenly start to arouse you?
It won't because you don't associate dogs with sex, the way Michael Jackson doesn't associate children with sex. -
stoty, just a question.. are you a fan?
watched the news.. there are fans out there who do not believe he did anything even if there were pics of him playing "hide the salami" with little boys..
sort of like there were fans who refused to believe OJ killed his wife..
besides, Robert Blake got off too
heck.. the press said that wacko jacko got off because of the incompetence of the prosecution, more than his actual innocence.. and he was actually shocked that he was acquitted... those in the law biz said that the charges filed were severely flawed and that was one of the things that got him off..
in fact, i think one of the jurors said the prosecution's case was severely damaged by the actions of the victim's mother..
i guess it was not whether he did the deed or not.. it was more he was found innocent of the charges filed, and that the jurors could not find him guilty of those charges and were swayed by a few key witnesses...
these were straight from a news site i was reading a while ago:
Jurors remained guarded about details of their 30 hours of deliberations over seven days but offered some insight during a news conference, saying they were irritated by the testimony of the accuser's mother, who at one point snapped her fingers at them.
"I disliked it intensely when she snapped her fingers at us," said one juror, a woman. She said she thought to herself, "Don't snap your fingers at me, lady." The jurors were not identified.
Another juror later told The Associated Press that testimony about Jackson sleeping with boys made him believe Jackson probably was a molester, but it wasn't proven in this case.
oh well.. he may have walked, but the whole fiasco spoke volumes about the american judicial system... -
Nonsense.Originally posted by the Bear: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? -
is it?
think about it...
he's had a past.. where he did not get off totally innocent..
anyone else would have been branded a childmolester..Originally posted by lwflee:Nonsense. -
Well, the prosecution was crap because the prosecutor himself was an asshole. It is just that in Singapore, the state is an all-powerful entity and can afford not to pay for its mistakes. I am sure we have our share of crap prosecutors as in the USA.Originally posted by the Bear:heck.. the press said that wacko jacko got off because of the incompetence of the prosecution, more than his actual innocence.. and he was actually shocked that he was acquitted... those in the law biz said that the charges filed were severely flawed and that was one of the things that got him off..
in fact, i think one of the jurors said the prosecution's case was severely damaged by the actions of the victim's mother..
i guess it was not whether he did the deed or not.. it was more he was found innocent of the charges filed, and that the jurors could not find him guilty of those charges and were swayed by a few key witnesses...
these were straight from a news site i was reading a while ago:
Jurors remained guarded about details of their 30 hours of deliberations over seven days but offered some insight during a news conference, saying they were irritated by the testimony of the accuser's mother, who at one point snapped her fingers at them.
"I disliked it intensely when she snapped her fingers at us," said one juror, a woman. She said she thought to herself, "Don't snap your fingers at me, lady." The jurors were not identified.
Another juror later told The Associated Press that testimony about Jackson sleeping with boys made him believe Jackson probably was a molester, but it wasn't proven in this case.
oh well.. he may have walked, but the whole fiasco spoke volumes about the american judicial system...
Anyone remembers Vidya Shanker? Could he have been set up? There were worse cases than his that happened in UK and the alleged perpetrators got off because details were leaked to the media that they were set up. -
Yup, I've been a fan for a long time and I would totally understand if you take whatever I say with a pinch of salt.
However I assure you I've formed my opinions based on actual court transcripts and evidence presented. Unlike the media which wants you to believe that Michael Jackson got away with everything. They've never been fair to Michael Jackson and they're not going to start being fair now.
About the juror that believes Michael Jackson is a molester, even though he never molested the boy in this case:
The prosecutors knew thay had a phony and weak case so they tried to strengthen it by saying Michael Jackson had molested 5 boys before including Macaulay Culkin and Wade Robson.
They then brought in a group of ex-emploees to say they witnessed the molestations. That's where you have headlines like "Ex-workers expose Jacko's secrets" etc.
Problem is, this group of workers had all stolen from Michael Jackson before, had all sold stories to tabloids before and admitted they lied about the stories before. Furthermore they all owe Michael Jackson USD 1.6 mill when a judge threw their case out when they tried to sue him for wrongful termination.
Point is none of the jurors believed them.
Now of the 5 alleged past victims, one ran away from this trial, 3 denied anything happened ( Brett Barnes, Culkin, and Wade Robson ). And only 1, Jason, testified that he was molested.
The juror's have already stated that they didn't believe Jason's testimony coz he changed his story a million times from tickling to fondling to hands outside pants to hands inside pants to hands inside underwear. He received USD2mill at that time to shut him up. He then claimed in court that he had no idea where the money came from and how he suddenly became rich. His mother was also an ex-cleaner who had been proven to steal from Michael Jackson and had sold stories that her son was molested to tabloids, she had also previously admitted that she lied about the molestations.
After all that, 1 juror still thinks Michael Jackson is a molester because he spent 365 nights with Barnes, whom had already testified that nothing happened. Well, guess what, Barnes quit his job to fly all the way from Aussie to testify for Michael Jackson. In fact, his whole family flew over to testify that they were there and knew Michael Jackson never did anything inappropriate.
And the reason why they spent 365 nights together? Barnes was keeping Michael Jackson company on his world tour, as a good friend would, and they simply shared hotel rooms.
Whoever thinks it is impossible to spend 365 nights with a boy without molesting him, you share the opinion of Juror #1(which he is officially known as). Keep in mind that he is only 1 out of 12 jurors who had such a view.
I have read so many reports that only focus on this quote from Juror #1.
Is that fair? I don't think so. -
Judging by the comments made by many, it would appear he have already been branded as such.Originally posted by the Bear:is it?
think about it...
he's had a past.. where he did not get off totally innocent..
anyone else would have been branded a childmolester..
My point is, anyone is innocent until proven guilty. You do not become a child molester simply by sleeping with kids 365 days/yr.
Yes, i agree that he did not come off past law suits smelling like roses. But that is more a problem with the US justice system than anything else. He has just been acquitted in a court of law, before a jury of his peers. What more can he do to clear his name?
I do not dispute that he is odd. But as shown in court, he is not a paedophile.
Watch for it, i suspect the gold diggers will try a civil suit soon. I suspect that they would have done so even if MJ had been convicted.
God bless America.