Moderator Note: This thread replaces any other containing news and updates etc. on the Michael Jackson court case. Several similar threads have been closed recently due to the inability of certain forum users to behave in line with the forum rules.

The following rules apply to this thread at all times:

No other threads are to be started for updates about Michael Jackson's court case.
Whist we expect a debate between users, we will not tolerate abuse or name-calling between users.
It is not acceptable to submit large quotes copied from other sites or news articles; however, relevant links may be posted with a summary.
Users breaching any of these rules in an attempt to close this thread will have their posts removed, and will be banned from site.
If you wish to discuss the moderation of this thread, please use the 'Contact Us' facility. This thread is not the place to discuss such matters.
Failure to adhere to any of these rules may result in you being banned from the forum without warning.

Edit: Following an e-mail complaint from the user, we just want to make it clear, that while there are 1,000s of web sites discussing MJ, Lestat feels passionately that we acknowledge him as the original person to start one at SF. No idea why, but we aim to please - so here is the acknowledgement

Unfortunately there’s not a lot happening at the moment, just Janet Arviso and Thomas Mesereau at it for four days solid, going over the same ground, again and again, is MJs team trying to wear the jury out?

Jackson witness grilling resumes

…But even Judge Rodney Melville is beginning to show signs of impatience with the defence strategy and the heated exchanges, warning Mr Jackson's legal team to stay focused and not keep repeating themselves…

Source BBC, link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4457509.stm


As an aside, thanks to the mod team for bringing the thread back, and of course, thanks to Lestat for starting it in the first place.

Michael swore on the Popes life he did'nt do it.

I haven't really followed the case much, save to laugh at the herd screaming outside the courtroom. Does anyone have any idea how long this is likely to go on for? It seems like it's gone on for years already...

You're not wrong Agent Gypo... think of all the free publicity though. Money can't buy that kinda exposure! I wonder if it does drag on for 6 months or whatever - will the screamers be there everyday, or work in shifts or what?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4450000/newsid_4459500/4459539.stm

Joking aside, this has probably the best account of the case so far.

Originally posted by Agent Gypo
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4450000/newsid_4459500/4459539.stm

Joking aside, this has probably the best account of the case so far.
Wow, good link AG, this bit made me think,
'We all carry a sense of guilt'
By Peter Bowes
BBC News Correspondent
…No one was laughing the day Gavin Arvizo talked about the abuse he believes he suffered at the hands of Michael Jackson.
Some of the jurors dabbed their eyes as the teenager recounted the story of his miraculous recovery from cancer.
The most heart-wrenching moment came when another alleged victim, Jason Francia, almost broke down on the witness stand.
He appeared to be genuinely haunted by the memory of something awful happening. It is, of course, for the jury to decide whether he was just acting…
Last Updated: Tuesday, 19 April, 2005, 09:05 GMT 10:05 UK

Source BBC, link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4450000/newsid_4459500/4459539.stm

http://aboutmichaeljackson.com/ -> this website should provide current updates!

Originally posted by Lily04
http://aboutmichaeljackson.com/ -> this website should provide current updates!
Interesting link Lily, but not the most objective reports I've seen on the subject.

:)

Thought you would have seen it already, as it is also on the link you provided.

Originally posted by missrabbit
Thought you would have seen it already, as it is also on the link you provided.
I'm assuming that was to me (since it is otherwise unattributed and appears beneath my last post), sorry if I got that wrong.

To answer then, no I hadn't read it before, the BBC have quite a few different links that can be accessed, including MJ fanclub sites, I don't read those either. ;)

As I have explained before, I tend to base my understanding of the proceedings on objective reports from reliable sources (principally the BBC, Times, and Independent) which also tend to be UK based. I find their reporting the most reliable, but, we've had this conversation before, so I'll not go on.

I found Lilys link interesting because it gave a different slant on the case, I enjoyed reading it, but I won't be making my decisions based on it's reporting of the subject.

Thanks for asking though.

:)

Originally posted by foo_fighter

Thanks for asking though.



Don't worry about it chicken, i didn't ask anything.

Here was an interesting story i found on BBC NEWS. This is why i feel that people would lie just to cash in on this case. It is a joke.

"To the people who say I'm cashing in on this trial, the answer is - you're damn right, I am."

And here is the link.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4314149.stm

Oh how this woman makes me laugh! She has always lied and lied and lied and now she wants everyone to believe her 'new' story about someone else. This family are so unbelievably unlucky! They get 'assulted' by JC Penny staff after being caught nicking, then Gavin Arviso has Cancer and noone famous will give them any money for his treatment (even though it is already covered) and his 'best friend' Michael Jackson isn't there for him when he had cancer, but once he is ok again he gets sexually abused by him and forced to drink alcohol, then the family are 'held against thier will'. And thats not even half of the things they have had to either go through, or take time out of thier hectic lives to make up different lies in an attempt to make some cash.

Jackson prosecution case near end

"The woman's family received a settlement of more than $150,000 as a result of the 1998 incident. Although unrelated to the Mr Jackson case, the defence has used the suit to argue that the family has a history of making false claims for cash. On Tuesday, Mrs Arvizo told the prosecution she had not tried to obtain cash for Gavin's cancer treatment and knew nothing about fund-raising events to help him.

The BBC's Daniela Relph, reporting from the trial, said Mrs Arvizo had earlier seemed argumentative and lacking discipline in the face of the defence's questioning. She reports that the judge had to warn Mrs Arvizo a number of times to just answer the question and not try to advance her story. Although Mrs Arvizo had backed up some of the prosecution's allegations, she adds, she had also appeared paranoid and rambling in her testimony."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4461771.stm

She just gets more and more honest in my eyes.......:loopy:

"She earlier told the court that she largely denied responsibility for various schemes and events arranged to raise money for her cancer-stricken son Gavin. However, she admitted she had received various cheques and set up a bank account to which people were able to donate money to help the family pay for medical treatment.

She acknowledged that this was despite the fact that the medical bills were covered by the health insurance of her former husband."


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=630865

Originally posted by missrabbit
"To the people who say I'm cashing in on this trial, the answer is - you're damn right, I am."



Yes, but they aren't actually involved in the trial - just promoting their businesses in the town!

If you owned a business in Santa Maria, you'd turn anyone away who was only there because of the trial? Hmmm, I think not. I'd be selling office space/vantage points/coffee, til the cash-cows came home. Regardless of where you stand on MJ's innocence or guilt, you'd have to be a pretty crap businessman to not take advantage of a burgeoning market.

Originally posted by missrabbit
Here was an interesting story i found on BBC NEWS. This is why i feel that people would lie just to cash in on this case. It is a joke.

"To the people who say I'm cashing in on this trial, the answer is - you're damn right, I am."

And here is the link.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4314149.stm
Erm, that chap had nothing to do with the case though did he.

He's running bus tours outside the courtrooms for MJ fans and the press, and as far as I can tell, he's not lying about anything, he's just honestly doing a days work, and taking advantage of the interest in the case.


Edit to add
Oh, and what Feargal said. ;)

I didn't say i thought the bus bloke was lying. I am just saying that people are making money from this kids supposed misery and i dont think the people in santa maria are the only ones. (and yes, feargal, i dont blame them if they are running a business) I think people are making up false accusations to try and make some money.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/jackson

look under: Also In Jackson Trial! Mainly about the mother!

here's another source- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/!

My question is why would a mother go so far as to lie just for money!?

Originally posted by Lily04
My question is why would a mother go so far as to lie just for money!?
From what I've read so far I have to agree with Lily, it's unlikely every single witness is lying "for the money".

Some of them must be telling the truth.

MJ may or may not be guilty of this particular offence, that's up to the jury to decide, but it defies credibility that he's innocent of all the allegations which have been levelled against him.

Does that then mean that all or most of the people who disagree with the allegations are lying? Such as Mr Calkin Senior and his son that both say that Mj never did a thing to him and that he was one of the most gentle and caring people ever met, the maid from Neverland that said they would break into rooms and steal stuff, the air stewardess that said that it was the Arviso children that were demanding alcohol and suggesting putting it in cans, just to name a few. Are these all lying?

It is amazing how far people will go and how much they will lie for money.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by foo_fighter
[B]From what I've read so far I have to agree with Lily, it's unlikely every single witness is lying "for the money".

Foo, I think you interpreted my question the wrong way. I was leaning toward the notion that the mother did lie for money previously. I was just simply asking, why would she do that!?

Originally posted by missrabbit
Such as Mr Calkin Senior and his son that both say that Mj never did a thing to him

Perhaps Mj just never fancied him? ;)

Although, honestly, the defence seems to have mainly tried to base their case on the fact that the kid and his family are lying... They are now having to drastically rethink their plan of attack, because they cannot realistically argue that every witness is lying, as there are soo many of them now...

Why would such a good friend not want to help refute these charges?

Independent Online Edition

Jackson defence pins hopes on star backing

By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
24 April 2005

…Some of the witnesses are also less than willing defenders of Jackson's honour. Macaulay Culkin, for example, is certainly relevant to the case - two prosecution witnesses testified that they saw Jackson put his hands down his trousers when he was 10 years old…

…He has also made clear, however, that he wants nothing to do with this trial, and will only come to the courtroom if he is dragged there on pain of contempt of court charges…
Source, Independent, link:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=632441

It looks like the prosicution have got Jacksons ex wife to testify. That could be interesting

And here is that story....

"Jackson's ex-wife 'can testify'

Mr Jackson and Ms Rowe were married from 1996 to 1999
Debbie Rowe, ex-wife of Michael Jackson and mother of two of his children, can give evidence in his sex abuse trial, Judge Rodney Melville has ruled. "

The link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4484083.stm

…According to Mr Zonen, Ms Rowe was told that if she made the message, which prosecutors describe as "highly scripted", she would be allowed to see her children...
Source BBC, link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4484083.stm
Seems like MJs people were doing quite a bit of "persuasion" all round.

Does anyone else think it's not a good idea to use children as a negotiating tool in this way?

Not exactly fair on the kids to be denied access to their mum either.

His children shouldn't be used as negotiating tools, but that didn't prove that what she said was the truth.

If that happened to me, i would go to the police and tell them that he wouldn't let me see my kids...but then again it is just another story that has only just come up.....strange that! Do these people not have any common sense?

Originally posted by missrabbit
His children shouldn't be used as negotiating tools, but that didn't prove that what she said was the truth.

If that happened to me, i would go to the police and tell them that he wouldn't let me see my kids...but then again it is just another story that has only just come up.....strange that! Do these people not have any common sense?
From the same report:
...In an agreement signed in 2001 Ms Rowe waived all access rights to the children, Prince Michael and Paris, but she went to court in 2004 to have that decision reversed and is now fighting for custody of the pair...
Source BBC, link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4484083.stm

So, at the time she couldn't "go to the police", and MJ was already not allowing free access, the story "rings true".

I wonder what "persuasion" was used to get her to sign away her access rights in the first place?

I thought Jackson had 3 kids, where did the other one come from

Foo_, as far as I can remember from a couple of reports, Rowe wasn't in the least maternal and didn't particularly want kids. She was a massive MJ fan. Maybe she felt that she could cope with handing the kids over in return for the millions of dollars pay-off and limited access, but when it came to the crunch, she had a change of heart? The attorneys are going to rip her to shreds on her handing over of the kids I think.

She gave MJ custody in 2001 only if he paid off her home and paid her 1/2 a milloin each year. Thats what she signed in court. She asked for that, it wasn't offered. In return she let MJ have custody and she agreed not to speak of his personal life. When she broke that in 2004 by speaking to a magazine MJ stopped paying her. She then wanted custody of her children again and said she would distroy him. That is why it doesn't 'ring true'.

Originally posted by carcrash
I thought Jackson had 3 kids, where did the other one come from

The youngest Prince Michael II was born in 2002, whose mother has never been publicly identified and never wanted custody or to be known as his mother.

Seems like the mothers of the children are only after money! Who was it that asked how far people would go for a bit of cash?

Originally posted by missrabbit
...In return she let MJ have custody and she agreed not to speak of his personal life. When she broke that in 2004 by speaking to a magazine MJ stopped paying her. She then wanted custody of her children again and said she would distroy him. That is why it doesn't 'ring true'.
From the same article,
...Prosecutors claim that Mr Jackson panicked after the programme, Living with Michael Jackson, was broadcast in February 2003.
According to Mr Zonen, Ms Rowe was told that if she made the message, which prosecutors describe as "highly scripted", she would be allowed to see her children...
Source BBC, link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4484083.stm
I could be wrong, but didn't this happened in 2003 (see the article quote above), predating the 2004 incident that you refer to.

Originally posted by carcrash
I thought Jackson had 3 kids, where did the other one come from
Ah, well, that one hasn't got a mummy at all, but I'm sure one of the MJ fanclub will answer that fully. ;)

As to Rowe being maternal or not, that's conjecture, the question to me is "what sort of father expects a mother not to see their kids?", and before answering that, consider that according to MJs people, 2 mothers didn't want access to their children, what a coincidence, how does he pick 'em. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by foo_fighter

I could be wrong, but didn't this happened in 2003 (see the article quote above), predating the 2004 incident that you refer to.

What im saying is that a mother who has pretty much said 'i want loads of money and am not bothered about custody' is a joke and shouldn't be taken seriously. I wouldn't let her near
my kids! She would probably leave them in the road while picking up a fiver!

Originally posted by foo_fighter

Ah, well, that one hasn't got a mummy at all, but I'm sure one of the MJ fanclub will answer that fully. See previous post.

Originally posted by foo_fighter

...the question to me is "what sort of father expects a mother not to see their kids?", and before answering that, consider that according to MJs people, 2 mothers didn't want access to their children, what a coincidence, how does he pick 'em. :rolleyes:

This is the biggest load of waddle i have ever read! If the mother had custody would you ask "what sort of mother expects a father not to see his kids?" I doubt it! Ive heard of women that have children to different men and the men are nowhere to be seen. Why is it different in this case? Because it doesn't make MJ out to be the monster you want him to be?

Originally posted by missrabbit
Originally posted by
...the question to me is "what sort of father expects a mother not to see their kids?", and before answering that, consider that according to MJs people, 2 mothers didn't want access to their children, what a coincidence, how does he pick 'em. :rolleyes:
This is the biggest load of waddle i have ever read! If the mother had custody would you ask "what sort of mother expects a father not to see his kids?" I doubt it! Ive heard of women that have children to different men and the men are nowhere to be seen. Why is it different in this case? Because it doesn't make MJ out to be the monster you want him to be?
Erm, I never said custody, I said access, that was the contentious issue in 2003 that was being discussed, that she "would be allowed to see her children".

She is now allowed access after battling in court to get it.

Mother #2 has no access.

Are we seriously supposed to believe that neither of these mothers wanted access to their kids, until it occurred to (one of) them that maybe they should go to court and fight for that access with a very powerful and wealthy individual.

Why did Miss Rowe have to fight for access in the first place?

:confused:

Where does it state that she had to fight for access to see her children? Or are you refering to the twaddle she has come up with in court?

Originally posted by missrabbit
Where does it state that she had to fight for access to see her children? Or are you refering to the twaddle she has come up with in court?
Go back 9 posts, you even replied to it:
Originally posted by foo_fighter
From the same report:
...In an agreement signed in 2001 Ms Rowe waived all access rights to the children, Prince Michael and Paris, but she went to court in 2004 to have that decision reversed and is now fighting for custody of the pair...
Source BBC, link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4484083.stm
So, at the time she couldn't "go to the police", and MJ was already not allowing free access, the story "rings true".

I wonder what "persuasion" was used to get her to sign away her access rights in the first place?
Notice the phrase "all access rights".

C'mon keep up, you posted the article in the first place, I'd have thought the least you would've done is to at least read it, and the points that you're arguing against as put forward by others.

What im saying is she didn't have to 'fight for access in the first place', she didn't want it! She wanted the money and that was how she could get it. I ment where did it say that she was fighting for access to begin with. Now that she hasn't got her regular cheque for doing sod all, see has decided that she wants to see her kids. I bet if she was offered another cheque, she wouldn't be missing them as much!

Originally posted by missrabbit
What im saying is she didn't have to 'fight for access in the first place', she didn't want it!...
...and what I'm saying is that, when she did want to see her children, she didn't get to do so, until she went through a court to get those access rights.

Mother #2 still hasn't got access.

I think this says a lot about MJ as a father, and as a person.

What does it say about him? She didn't want access! The second mother has access to her child, she just chooses to remain anonomus and because it is unknown as to whether she does see her child. MJ wasn't preventing Ms Rowe from seeing her child, she didn't want to!

Originally posted by missrabbit
...MJ wasn't preventing Ms Rowe from seeing her child, she didn't want to!
OK, it's a few more posts back now,
Originally posted by foo_fighter
From the same report:
...In an agreement signed in 2001 Ms Rowe waived all access rights to the children, Prince Michael and Paris, but she went to court in 2004 to have that decision reversed and is now fighting for custody of the pair...
Source BBC, link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4484083.stm
So, at the time she couldn't "go to the police", and MJ was already not allowing free access, the story "rings true".

I wonder what "persuasion" was used to get her to sign away her access rights in the first place?
So, she didn't want to see her children, but she went to court to gain access anyway. OK, I see that now. :rolleyes:

Are you trying to turn this into some sort of mind game? I dont understand how someone can get so muddled up in a discussion. Maybe its cos everything is quoted over and over again until it makes no sense.

She didn't want access to her kids....MJ got full custody....she got alot of money instead....she stopped getting money from MJ.....she now wants to see her kids.......she joins the money grabbing band wagon of people involved in the case......could i make it any simpler for you?

Originally posted by missrabbit
...could i make it any simpler for you?
...and to join the simple case bandwagon (with no quotes, just to avoid confusion).

In my opinion a good father would not force the mother of his children to go to court just to get to see those children (access).

A person who does this is not a good person, or father, in my view.

I fully appreciate lots of people get into arguments about custody, just as MJ and Miss Rowe now are, this is quite normal.

Was that clear/simple enough?

Originally posted by foo_fighter
In my opinion a good father would not force the mother of his children to go to court just to get to see those children (access).

A person who does this is not a good person, or father, in my view.



What if you felt that that person, in this case Mrs Rowe, was an unfit mother. She proved that she didn't love them kids by wanting the money instead of access. If MJ would have let her have access, she could have had them photographed for the paper, when MJ (and any fit parent) wouldn't want them to go through that. Do you really think that MJ is in the wrong or are you just trying to make a point that MJ is evil and can never do anything right?!

Originally posted by missrabbit
If MJ would have let her have access, she could have had them photographed for the paper, when MJ (and any fit parent) wouldn't want them to go through that.

But of course it's OK for MJ to have them feature in documentaries about him, because he's a pop star.

Originally posted by missrabbit
What if you felt that that person, in this case Mrs Rowe, was an unfit mother. She proved that she didn't love them kids by wanting the money instead of access. If MJ would have let her have access, she could have had them photographed for the paper, when MJ (and any fit parent) wouldn't want them to go through that. Do you really think that MJ is in the wrong or are you just trying to make a point that MJ is evil and can never do anything right?!
All I can say to that, is that the courts agreed that Miss Rowe should have the rights to see her children (access).

Will they agree she should have custody, we'll have to wait and see.

Do I think MJ is "in the wrong"?
Yes, as I've already said a father shouldn't deny access by the any* mother to a child, it's not good for anyone concerned (except maybe the selfish father).

*Just to cover my own back here, I realise there will be some really extreme cases where it may not be safe to allow access, but let's leave those to the courts also, I don't think this is one of those cases (and neither did the courts).

Do I think MJ is "evil and can never do anything right?!"
Well, can I counterpoint that, do you missrabbit believe that he is oh so good, and can never do any wrong?!

Originally posted by feargal
But of course it's OK for MJ to have them feature in documentaries about him, because he's a pop star.

Why is it OK for MJ cos he is a pop star?

You never saw them properly in the documentary as they were wearing masks and they were in it for a split second. The documentary was about living with Michael Jackson...and they live with him.

Originally posted by missrabbit
...You never saw them properly in the documentary as they were wearing masks and they were in it for a split second. The documentary was about living with Michael Jackson...and they live with him.
What about if those responsible parents who wish to keep their children out of the limelight dangerously dangle those infants from high balconies?

Is that also OK as long as the infant has a mask on?

Bear in mind this one is not a hypothetical.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
What about if those responsible parents who wish to keep their children out of the limelight dangerously dangle those infants from high balconies?

Bear in mind this one is not a hypothetical.

I think it is your turn to know exactly what your talking about before having an input. On the MB documentary it showed how MJ didn't dangle his baby over a balcony. He held it up whilst stood on the balcony about 3 foot behind the railings. They showed you the camera footage from inside the balcony on 2 different angles. That wasnt dangerous! The only reason people think that is because of the angle that one camera filmed it, who happened to be a member of the american press, and we all know how much you dont trust them Foo.

Originally posted by missrabbit
Why is it OK for MJ cos he is a pop star?

You never saw them properly in the documentary as they were wearing masks and they were in it for a split second. The documentary was about living with Michael Jackson...and they live with him.

You saw the children clearly enough I think... not just in the documentary, but in other media too. I appreciate that he has tried to hide their faces, but it remains that he could have avoided having them filmed altogether if he chose to.

It's not just MJ I take issue with on this, it's lots of other celebs too. Using the kids for publicity one minute (whether it's baby dangling, OK shoots, whatever), then crying about paparazzi the next.

Originally posted by missrabbit
I think it is your turn to know exactly what your talking about before having an input. On the MB documentary it showed how MJ didn't dangle his baby over a balcony. He held it up whilst stood on the balcony about 3 foot behind the railings. They showed you the camera footage from inside the balcony on 2 different angles. That wasnt dangerous! The only reason people think that is because of the angle that one camera filmed it, who happened to be a member of the american press, and we all know how much you dont trust them Foo.

:hihi::hihi: PMSL :hihi::hihi:

So this bit of the Martin Bashir program you believe, just not the rest. :suspect:

OK, I guess I'll give in now. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Do I think MJ is "in the wrong"?
Yes, as I've already said a father shouldn't deny access by the any* mother to a child, it's not good for anyone concerned (except maybe the selfish father).

*Just to cover my own back here, I realise there will be some really extreme cases where it may not be safe to allow access, but let's leave those to the courts also, I don't think this is one of those cases (and neither did the courts).

Does that then mean that a mother is 'selfish' if she doesn't allow the father access? For a court to have let this happen she must have been an unfit mother!

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Do I think MJ is "evil and can never do anything right?!"
Well, can I counterpoint that, do you missrabbit believe that he is oh so good, and can never do any wrong?!

Typically never answering a question! I think that MJ has done wrong in allowing this family to get close to him and putting himself in such a position. I think that he hasn't done any of the things he is being accussed of and i think that there is no other possible way that you could word that question again, but im sure you will find a way!

Originally posted by foo_fighter
:So this bit of the Martin Bashir program you believe, just not the rest. :suspect:

OK, I guess I'll give in now. :rolleyes:

When did i say i didn't believe the things on Martin Bashir's documentary?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Originally posted by feargal
You saw the children clearly enough I think... not just in the documentary, but in other media too. I appreciate that he has tried to hide their faces, but it remains that he could have avoided having them filmed altogether if he chose to.

It's not just MJ I take issue with on this, it's lots of other celebs too. Using the kids for publicity one minute (whether it's baby dangling, OK shoots, whatever), then crying about paparazzi the next.

Yes it is wrong when parents use there children for photoshoots or any kind of publicity. What is the point you are trying to make?

Originally posted by missrabbit
Does that then mean that a mother is 'selfish' if she doesn't allow the father access? For a court to have let this happen she must have been an unfit mother!

Typically never answering a question!...
Wow, those quotes were from a while back, nevermind,

1) Yes, with the same caveats, a mother who denied access to a father would be being selfish, and stupid too.

2) If you look in the same post as this one, you will see that I answered the question above (one paragraph higher), where does your "never" come from?

Here it is, for reference,
Originally posted by foo_fighter
Do I think MJ is "in the wrong"?
Yes, as I've already said a father shouldn't deny access by the any* mother to a child, it's not good for anyone concerned (except maybe the selfish father).

*Just to cover my own back here, I realise there will be some really extreme cases where it may not be safe to allow access, but let's leave those to the courts also, I don't think this is one of those cases (and neither did the courts).

Your just doing it to make me laugh now aren't you.

Cheers, it is brightening my day up. :)

Originally posted by missrabbit
When did i say i didn't believe the things on Martin Bashir's documentary?

:confused: :confused: :confused:
Well, it was used as part of the prosecution case...

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Do I think MJ is "evil and can never do anything right?!"
Well, can I counterpoint that......

This is the question that i ment, smart alec!

Im not quoting from old posts, your posting lots at once, so by the time i click submit you've added new posts.

Yes Martin Bashir's documentary was part of the proecution case, but what was there to 'believe'? MB didn't answer any questions and there was nothing on the program to prove that MJ was a child abuser.

Im glad we can make eachother laugh!

Originally posted by missrabbit
I think it is your turn to know exactly what your talking about before having an input. On the MB documentary it showed how MJ didn't dangle his baby over a balcony. He held it up whilst stood on the balcony about 3 foot behind the railings. They showed you the camera footage from inside the balcony on 2 different angles. That wasnt dangerous! The only reason people think that is because of the angle that one camera filmed it, who happened to be a member of the american press, and we all know how much you dont trust them Foo.

Regardless of what you saw on the documentary footage, the whole world saw MJ hold the child over the railings as you can see here (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/37094p-34895c.html) and in many other similar pictures.

BBC here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/showbiz/2494249.stm) .

Originally posted by missrabbit
Originally posted by foo_fighter
Do I think MJ is "evil and can never do anything right?!"
Well, can I counterpoint that......
This is the question that i ment, smart alec!
No, that was me paraphrasing your question and turning it back on you, attemting to point out the absurdity of asking that type of question in the first place.

Your actual question was,
Originally posted by missrabbit
...Do you really think that MJ is in the wrong or are you just trying to make a point that MJ is evil and can never do anything right?!
I took note of the "or", answered that question, in the affirmative, and therefore did not need to answer both options. If you wanted an answer to both you should have used "and" not "or".

I'm glad you are enjoying this little exchange too, it is just waffle with no bearing on the actual case after all, but it is interesting to discuss each side of the arguments we witness so remotely on TV, radio and the internet.

I'm sure we'll "speak" again soon. :)


PS: Regarding the balcony incident, I still think it was highly irresponsible, as did the crowd outside by the "Ooh"s, "Aah"s and "Oh my God"s, do you think they all witnessed it from the same "single" perspective as the US journalist, and/or have they got a financial interests in MJ just like the prosecution witnesses? ;)

Originally posted by missrabbit
...MJ didn't dangle his baby over a balcony. He held it up whilst stood on the balcony about 3 foot behind the railings. They showed you the camera footage from inside the balcony on 2 different angles. That wasnt dangerous! The only reason people think that is because of the angle that one camera filmed it, who happened to be a member of the american press...

Originally posted by cgksheff
Regardless of what you saw on the documentary footage, the whole world saw MJ hold the child over the railings as you can see here http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/37094p-34895c.html and in many other similar pictures.

BBC here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/showbiz/2494249.stm

Wow, cgksheff, that "one camera angle" is a real misleading image, it really looks like the infant is over the railing...

...nah can't be, I suppose the railing must be 3 foot inside the hotel room, yeh, that must be it.

:heyhey:

Sorry posted the same thing twice!

''Jackson ex admits lying in film

Michael Jackson and Debbie Rowe were married from 1996 to 1999
Michael Jackson's former wife lied when she said the star was a model parent in a video he made to defend himself, she has admitted at his child abuse trial.
But Debbie Rowe denied being forced to praise him or read a script in the 2003 video, which Mr Jackson produced in response to claims in a TV documentary.''


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4490259.stm

If this woman thought that MJ was a bad parent then why did she sign away here parental rights? Why did she say that she was forced into reading a script that MJ was a good parent if she wasn't? All lies! :o

''Before that, the pair had not spoken since 1999 and she signed away her parental rights in 2001.''

Here is the latest on the case......

''Jackson 'manipulated by vultures'

Ms Rowe met the star when she worked as a dermatologist's nurse
Michael Jackson's former wife, Debbie Rowe, has defended the singer, while attacking his aides as "vultures" who were trying to exploit him.
On her second day as witness at the star's child abuse trial, Ms Rowe said she still considered him a friend.''

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4494449.stm

Originally posted by missrabbit
Here is the latest on the case...
Yeh, read that earlier, she's changed her tune hasn't she, very strange.

Reading that report, and the one in the Times she comes across as a little "confused", but these points struck me,
April 29, 2005
Jackson weeps as ex-wife disparages 'vulture' aides
FROM JAMES BONE IN NEW YORK

…Debbie Rowe, 46, a former nurse who met Mr Jackson during his frequent visits to a dermatologist’s office, said that she had not seen him since 1999 but was hopeful in her heart that he would let her see their two children again — Prince Michael I, aged 8, and Paris, 7.
She said: “When I was first promised to see the kids, when Michael called me for me to show up, they were at that age, three and four, four and five. I could have been introduced as a friend of daddy’s. You do not confuse a child by saying, ‘This is your mother’.
“I can’t do that now, they are too old to do something like that, that would be too traumatic. I would not walk in and say, ‘I am your Mum, would you like to go out?’ It is so much more complicated than that.”…

…Ms Rowe told the court in Santa Maria, California, that the couple “never shared a home; we never shared an apartment”. She drew gasps when she testified that she was allowed to see her children for only eight hours every 45 days…
Source Times Online, link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19389-1590323,00.html

Why those points, well, she obviously still loves the guy, and yet he still hasn't allowed her to see her kids, and it looks like he never really gave her much access even when they were still together, "she was allowed to see her children for only eight hours every 45 days", weird.
:confused:


PS. Did you look at those links cgksheff posted?

"The singer's close friend, psychic Uri Geller, condemned Jackson's actions but did not believe he was capable of harming a child.

"I think it was a silly thing to do. He probably did it because he was overwhelmed emotionally by the fans."

But he had suspected the baby was a fake, saying he was "too protective" of his children to do something like this. "

Yeah i saw his link of the photo. I can see how it looks from that photo (which i hadn't seen before), but from the documentary i remember sitting and saying 'Was that it? People made out he had dangled his baby off and put it in danger' Did you watch the documentary?

So then.... what's been happening recently?

Originally posted by BoroughGal
So then.... what's been happening recently?

Well, I was at work today, and then I went home for some soup, then watched some tv and decided to look on the forum.

We are in a time when celebrity is more important than talent. Michael Jackson was superbly talented as a kid, even Simon Cowell would have been impressed. Now the man is a travesty of what he was, and very weird. I blame the entertainment media in part for going on ad nauseum with the goings on of celebrities.

Originally posted by BoroughGal
So then.... what's been happening recently?

Well, the defence team have now started their case,

...Mr Jackson's lawyers began their defence last Thursday by calling Wade Robson, 22, and Brett Barnes, 23, as witnesses.
Both rejected claims by the prosecution that they had been sexually molested by Mr Jackson...

Source BBC, link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4529991.stm


Apparently they are thinking about re-opening the "Yorkshire Ripper" trial, loads of young women have come forward to say that they weren't murdered by Peter Sutcliffe...

...the bloke must have been innocent then!

:suspect:

Originally posted by foo_fighter

Apparently they are thinking about re-opening the "Yorkshire Ripper" trial, loads of young women have come forward to say that they weren't murdered by Peter Sutcliffe...

...the bloke must have been innocent then!


LMAO! This comment will keep me laughing all day! :hihi:

the rise and fall of a legend, what would we do without the media?

Do you think Michael Jackson is guilty or not guilty?

Originally posted by Tommy21
Do you think Michael Jackson is guilty or not guilty?
Do a search, there's already a thread on this (and it's the only one allowed).

:)

Do i think michael Jackson is guilty or not guilty, yes or no??????

Doesnt make any sense whatsoever bud.

Use your brains mate, Yes = guilty and No = not guilty

How hard is that???

Originally posted by Tommy21
Use your brains mate, Yes = guilty and No = not guilty

How hard is that???

1) I have only got one brain, so how can I use my BRAINS

2) Its not as simple as yes or no when the question clearly says "Do you think Michael Jackson is guilty or not guilty"

Im sure anyone on this forum with any sense will back me up on this one son.
:D

Mod Note.

Please use the other MJ thread - just use the Search facility to locate it.

Cheers

Joe

Firstly, my apologies, I haven't had time to read this whole thread (and I don't think I could!)

But here's just my quick two penneth before I have to sadly depart to do this dreaded play.

I think the whole Jackson case is a load of tosh. But, I can see where it stems from.
I think most of the people now claiming he 'abused' them are jumping on the band wagon.

Mothers knew when they sent their children to stay that he had a reputation, so why do it?

Jackson had a terrible childhood, his father took it away from him, he never lived his childhood, he grew up too fast. Now, he is stuck in a child's frame of mind. And if he now thinks he's a teenager, he probably doesn't think there's anything wrong with sleeping in the same bed as another teenager so that's why children might think he's abusing them. plus, as for the whole drinking alcohol and reading porn mags, that's what teenage lads do, I honestly think he meant no harm when he did that. Yes, I wouldn't be happy if my child was reading porn mags, but I think it is simply because of him believing that he's at that stage of life!

I wanted to post a poll on the thread started by someone else, but it's been closed. So here's my view:

NOT GUILTY!!!

and, it makes me sick that people think it's a joke, I'll be at college and people will make quips like 'I'm Michael Jackson and I like little boys' They don't know the half of it, so should keep their mouths shut!

NOT guilty, michael is petay pan, put yourself in his position, i still think its crazy hes even on trial, there all money grabbers!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4610913.stm


Juror 1 - White male, 62
He is a civil engineer with a graduate degree. He has been married for the last 13 years and has four grown children. He owns a home in Santa Maria.

Juror 2 - Latino male, 63
A retired school counsellor. He enjoys bronze casting, has a passion for Western art and is an avid horseman.

Juror 3 - White female, 53
She has been a horse trainer for 33 years and said she was a subject of inaccurate media coverage when she was an Olympic hopeful.

Juror 4 - White female, 52
Former computer programmer and systems analyst who also used to be a high school maths teacher. She now says she is a homemaker with two teenage children, married to university researcher.

Juror 5 - White female, 79
The oldest juror is a grandmother who has lived in Santa Maria all her life. A widow with some college education, she is also a movie buff and a fan of the TV show Jeopardy. She has a close relative who is a registered sex offender.

Juror 6 - White female, 22
A physical therapy aide who works in a nursing home. She is a mother with two daughters and lives with her boyfriend.

Juror 7 - White male, 21
A student with a high school degree who lives in Santa Maria. He is a wheelchair user. His father has served in the US Air Force. A keen motorsports fan, he dreams of becoming a sports journalist.

Juror 8 - White female, 42
This juror is a special needs educational aide. Her four children are aged four to 20 years old.

Juror 9 - Asian female, 39
An office specialist for the county government whose first language is Indonesian. She has been married to a local TV reporter for eight-and-a-half years but has no children.

Juror 10 - White female, 45
A supermarket worker who previously sold radio advertising. She has three children aged 14 to 26.

Juror 11 - Latino male, 20
Single with no children, and has a disabled mother. Says he is a Simpsons fan and doesn't really watch television news. Lists his job as an assistant head cashier.

Juror 12 - Latino female, 44
Social services supervisor for the last 12 years whose ex-husband is a Santa Maria police officer. Says she also has a friend who is a police detective. Her half-brother served in Vietnam.

So, these are the jurors. A curious mix. I can't help thinking that number 12 could be Jacksons nemesis.

ok so we've heard more or less everyone's acount of what happened!!

if you was one of those juror's could you (whether you thought he was guilty or not) turn around and send MICHEAL JACKSON to prison for a very long time????

i believe there will be a lot of doubt in the jurors mind about finding him guilty because of who he his not because of what they have heard or believe to be true!

Originally posted by Gingerbarf
...if you was one of those juror's could you (whether you thought he was guilty or not) turn around and send MICHEAL JACKSON to prison for a very long time...
If I were a juror in this case, and if I believed MJ guilty then I would have no problem saying so...

...conversely, if I were a juror in this case, and if I believed MJ innocent then, equally I would have no problem saying so...

...having said that, I do know what you mean, but that's why there are 12 people on a jury, hopefully the group decision will not be overly effected by prejudice, or preconceptions in either direction.

It's easy for us to state opinions on a forum such as this, but only the jury have spent so much time listening to all the facts presented (not just a cut down report of the facts), and only they have the responsibility of living with that decision for the rest of their lives.

From now on in, it's just "wait and see time", I’m sure it won’t be too long now anyway.

:)

Originally posted by foo_fighter
If I were a juror in this case, and if I believed MJ guilty then I would have no problem saying so...

...conversely, if I were a juror in this case, and if I believed MJ innocent then, equally I would have no problem saying so...

...having said that, I do know what you mean, but that's why there are 12 people on a jury, hopefully the group decision will not be overly effected by prejudice, or preconceptions in either direction.

It's easy for us to state opinions on a forum such as this, but only the jury have spent so much time listening to all the facts presented (not just a cut down report of the facts), and only they have the responsibility of living with that decision for the rest of their lives.

From now on in, it's just "wait and see time", I’m sure it won’t be too long now anyway.

:)

never before have i seen some-one speak such sense on this forum
great points FF

I hope the jury decide soon - I've bitten all my fingers off here!! :?

Here's hoping to MJ being fully aquitted!:thumbsup:

Here's hoping to justice being done and that the truth prevails... what ever the result, eh?

Verdict being read out in court 9.30pm our time(13/06/05)

guilty or not guilty,i say guilty

Originally posted by roughy101
guilty or not guilty,i say guilty

Ill go with guilty, but we shall soon find out

I wouldn't know as i wasn't in the courtroom to hear all the evidence !

Originally posted by poppins
I wouldn't know as i wasn't in the courtroom to hear all the evidence !

Good point poppins! :thumbsup:
[EDIT] They've just said it could be another 40 mins! :o

I think he'll be not guilty

CNN Jury has reached a verdict, didn't say what it was yet!

its dragging a bit isn't it due in 30-40 minutes

OOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo
:D

Any time now.....

Due to be read out at 21:30 but likely to be delayed a bit.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-06-13T204928Z_01_N1392835_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-CRIME-JACKSON-DC.XML

Originally posted by IanMitchell
I think he'll be not guilty I wouldn't like to have been on that jury. If he is found guilty, I think it will be thrown out on appeal. the judge allowed previous unproven allegations against Jackson to be used as evidence and whether judge knows it or not I don't think thats legal, is it?

Originally posted by tulip
I wouldn't like to have been on that jury. If he is found guilty, I think it will be thrown out on appeal. the judge allowed previous unproven allegations against Jackson to be used as evidence and whether judge knows it or not I don't think thats legal, is it?

Yes if they are similar enough to the charges being tried - 'similar fact' evidence.

Turn SKY news on now. They are just about to reach a verdict. What do you think? I personally think he's guilty as sin!

Irrelevant now innit, found not guilty.

Jackson
NOT GUILTY

on all counts. Wow.

Looks like he has been completely let off!

Originally posted by alchresearch
on all counts. Wow.

On all counts so far on 10.....

unbeliveable


there are no words

how can people say he is not guilty,he slept in a bed with young chilldren,gave them alchohol, pornographic magazines,and paid millions of pounds to the abused kids family,to supposedly shut them up

god completely innocent
:clap:

Originally posted by poppins
On all counts so far on 10.....

I got news a bit earlier than most!

Originally posted by poppins
Jackson
NOT GUILTY i take it you are pleased with the verdict then

Originally posted by amiee_sheff
unbeliveable


there are no words

No words for what?

I said I'd be gracious and I will. Not guilty is not guilty. Well done.

Originally posted by spyro2000
No words for what? as far as i am concerned,he is a SCROAT,

it wouldnt let me put jsut unbeliveable.

amiee xx

Despite the verdict, will Jackson's career take a hit similar to that of Gary Glitter? There are many people who subscribe to the "no smoke without fire" theory.

Originally posted by roughy101
as far as i am concerned,he is a SCROAT,

I sort of figured that out already :hihi:

Originally posted by BoroughGal
I said I'd be gracious and I will. Not guilty is not guilty. Well done. HOW MANY CHILDREN HAVE YOU GOT THEN

I hope this trial will teach Jackson to stop sleeping with kids... not holding my breath though. I reckon the verdict will make him think he is untouchable now... by the law that is. He can get on with whatever he wants now! :mad:

Well IMO, I thought he was guilty, but he was found not guilty, and I sincerely hope that he isnt really guilty...

...But no matter what the verdict says, I still belive that he is wrong, and shouldnt be sleeping with young kids full stop. He needs sorting out.

Originally posted by roughy101
i take it you are pleased with the verdict then

You know what roughy, I could care less one way or the other, dosen't change my life stlye !

He's a weird man, he's his own worst enemy, he has to live with it .

Originally posted by chillicat
Despite the verdict, will Jackson's career take a hit similar to that of Gary Glitter? There are many people who subscribe to the "no smoke without fire" theory. dead right, and gary glitter has been allowed to carry on abusing children in different parts of the world.

Originally posted by roughy101
HOW MANY CHILDREN HAVE YOU GOT THEN

You obviously don't know the background on my views. Look at some old threads - they will show you. I am merely being gracious. He's been found not guilty, therefore, if you have any faith in the justice system, you have to accept it.

Shamo, Heee Heeeee, Owwwww !!!!!!!!!!

Unbelievable:o
How can he even be not guilty of the lesser charge of giving alchohol to a minor? thought it was well known that he had?

Originally posted by pb1977
Shamo, Heee Heeeee, Owwwww !!!!!!!!!!

PMSL! :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

Originally posted by roughy101
dead right, and gary glitter has been allowed to carry on abusing children in different parts of the world.

Yes but Glitter has had to move around to carry on. Jackson can do what ever he wants now in his own NeverLand. I think it is very unlikely that he will change and stop sleeping with children now he has been told it is ok to do what he has been doing.

Originally posted by poppins
You know what roughy, I could care less one way or the other, dosen't change my life stlye !

He's a weird man, he's his own worst enemy, he has to live with it . say that to sarah paynes mom, and let roy whiting out of prison, and your life style will be the same,hope you have a good weekend

jackson cleared of all charges, what happens now to those who accused him? does he sue them for dragging him into court ? or does he walk away? what would you do ?

walk away:


1: they have no money


2: is it really worth it.


I still have my own feelings about his general guilt which differs from the verdict but on the evidence the prosecution had it should never have gone to court

Originally posted by roughy101
say that to sarah paynes mom, and let roy whiting out of prison, and your life style will be the same,hope you have a good weekend
true true, but actions are bigger than words... what can we do about it

nothing... unfortunatly

He is a very wierd strange man,in his head he did no wrong,honestly thought a fair jury would see through all that and put a stop to it:confused:

Originally posted by roughy101
say that to sarah paynes mom, and let roy whiting out of prison, and your life style will be the same,hope you have a good weekend

roughy, i mean in THIS certain case, dosen't change things for me, in other words, i didn't loose any sleep waiting for the verdict like i think you did.

do you think a british jury would have reached the same verdict?..........I don't

Originally posted by deano
do you think a british jury would have reached the same verdict?..........I don't

no and they would have made sure the jury was kept away from tvs, mobiles etc and not allowed to go home... in a big case like this that shouldn't have happened

No Guilty on all charges

Originally posted by poppins
roughy, i mean in THIS certain case, dosen't change things for me, in other words, i didn't loose any sleep waiting for the verdict like i think you did. i havnt lost sleep waiting for a verdict,i thought justice would prevail,i will probably lose sleep now though knowing i have got four grandchildren who could be targeted(if we were not careful)by a wealthy person who could buy himselfe out of any accusations,my mom always told me never take sweeties of a stranger, jackson wasnt a stranger, HE WAS FAMOUS, he had nethherland,you know PETER PAN.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159337,00.html

read here

We won't ever know what went off with the jury,but there must have been really strong evidence against jackson in the first place for the american prosecution service to bring such a high profile person to court.
Still can't believe he was found not guilty on all charges

Saw it on the telly, mate. ;)

I have not said a word on this subject, but this makes me so mad.

How can he be found not guilty, an adult takes children in his bed, he reads pornography books to children and those said books are around around children.

Those of you that say justice has bee served should put yourself in the children`s positions that made the alligations, some children feel they can never accuse, but remain victims forever.

I hope he never sleeps again, I believe he was guilty. All those that screamed with joy, can they honestly say he was not guilty of any of those charges, because if they they think he is innocient then I hope there children never suffer the humaliation of being abused.

Very good... he can do what he wants now when he "shares his bed" with children. :mad:

thank goodness for that
never believed the allegations
good luck michael xxx

Sky News:

Woman throwing doves after each charge was read out and announced as not guilty.

Man with sign saying 'Michael, on behalf of the human race, we're sorry'.

Funniest TV in months.

Originally posted by rosie
I have not said a word on this subject, but this makes me so mad.

How can he be found not guilty, an adult takes children in his bed, he reads pornography books to children and those said books are around around children.

Those of you that say justice has bee served should put yourself in the children`s positions that made the alligations, some children feel they can never accuse, but remain victims forever.

I hope he never sleeps again, I believe he was guilty. All those that screamed with joy, can they honestly say he was not guilty of any of those charges, because if they they think he is innocient then I hope there children never suffer the humaliation of being abused.
Well said rosie

Not having a go at anyone and i'm not particularly a MJ fan but i'm astounded by how many people KNOW MJ is guilty :?
There must have been a pretty bad case of someone letting details slip from the court case because loads of people seem prive' to all the facts.

I must have missed the news too many times or something :suspect:

PS....Yes i do have a child

well if he was guilty its all messed up now cus they'll never let another trial get to court, so technically he can fiddle with as many kids as he wants now :? quite worrying... personally I'm not sure whether its true or not, the guy is extremly weird... he's the sort of person you really couldn't tell if he would or wouldn't do that sort of thing because he really is so damn strange!

i'm sorry but if some 40 year old man slept with my kids (if i had some) he'd probably end up with an axe in his head :?

So Michael Jackson has been cleared on all 10 counts against him. I'm absolutely chuffed about this. At least the money-grabbing Arvisos, and Janet Arviso managed to get $32,000 out of aleading US store and managed to forget to declare it to social security, and the motley collection of vengeful ex-employees who colluded to bring these chargeds aren't gonna get their pieces of eight.

Originally posted by HottyMcBuff
Sky News:

Woman throwing doves after each charge was read out and announced as not guilty.


Funniest TV in months.
lol saw this as well have to admit, had me in stitches
she was kissing them as well, but kept loosing count of them :hihi:

well done michael!!

Originally posted by rosie
I have not said a word on this subject, but this makes me so mad.

How can he be found not guilty, an adult takes children in his bed, he reads pornography books to children and those said books are around around children.

Those of you that say justice has bee served should put yourself in the children`s positions that made the alligations, some children feel they can never accuse, but remain victims forever.

I hope he never sleeps again, I believe he was guilty. All those that screamed with joy, can they honestly say he was not guilty of any of those charges, because if they they think he is innocient then I hope there children never suffer the humaliation of being abused. well said rosie,

Originally posted by vidster
Not having a go at anyone and i'm not particularly a MJ fan but i'm astounded by how many people KNOW MJ is guilty :?


Sharing his bed with all those children is enough to make people think he was guilty of something. Don't you think it at all worrying that he will now feel free to share his bed with as many children as he likes and do whatever he wants with them?

Do you know how not funny it was for some of us.

How many children will not come forward after being abused because if he can get off with it then whoever they accuse will also get away with it.

If a man sleeps naked with a child, (does not matter if its there own child or not) and there are those of you that think thats ok, because he has just got off with doing just that.

I have 4 children, no one got near to them, family or not.

Originally posted by Patchy
Sharing his bed with all those children is enough to make people think he was guilty of something. Don't you think it at all worrying that he will now feel free to share his bed with as many children as he likes and do whatever he wants with them?

Yes it's worrying and i'm not sticking up for MJ. I'm just suprised how dead-set people are that he abused and molested all these kids.

Originally posted by natalie3011
well done michael!!

Why? Do you really think it is good for him to sleep with children? :loopy:

Originally posted by vidster
Yes it's worrying and i'm not sticking up for MJ. I'm just suprised how dead-set people are that he abused and molested all these kids.

I don't know how far he went with these kids, but I do believe he went further than he should have done by getting them to sleep with him. And I do believe that he will now feel he can go even further as he has been cleared of doing anything wrong. I feel sorry for the children who are going to share his bed in the future.

Originally posted by Patchy
I don't know how far he went with these kids, but I do believe he went further than he should have done by getting them to sleep with him. And I do believe that he will now feel he can go even further as he has been cleared of doing anything wrong. I feel sorry for the children who are going to share his bed in the future.

Maybe it's time for the childrens parents to stop them going to Neverland in the first place?

Originally posted by vidster
Yes it's worrying and i'm not sticking up for MJ. I'm just suprised how dead-set people are that he abused and molested all these kids.
He openly admitted to sleeping with other people kids,yes we don't know what "went off" but is it right for a 40+ year old man to share his bed with a child? i think not!

Originally posted by deano
He openly admitted to sleeping with other people kids,yes we don't know what "went off" but is it right for a 40+ year old man to share his bed with a child? i think not!

Out of the 10 charges i didn't see any that referred to MJ sleeping with a child. I don't know the law in America but i'm sure that if sleeping with a child was one of the charges, he would have been found guilty.
[EDIT] I would just like to point out that i'm not here to argue with anyone.

Originally posted by vidster
Out of the 10 charges i didn't see any that referred to MJ sleeping with a child. I don't know the law in America but i'm sure that if sleeping with a child was one of the charges, he would have been found guilty.
Did you ever see Martin Bashir's interview? i suggest you watch it.

Originally posted by deano
Did you ever see Martin Bashir's interview? i suggest you watch it.
Yes i saw it and found it disturbing. It looked totally alien to me for MJ to be acting the way he did.
What has that got to do with the court case?

Have you never wondered why he never gave evidence.

As for the jury that I am watching on tv, they all went in with their own beliefs but listened to the evidence. What is all that about.
I have sat on a jury last year and you cant have personal feelings in a case you have to go in open minded and not let your personal feelings come into the case.

MICHAEL JACKSON IS AQUITTED ON ALL 10 ACCOUNTS!

JORDAN CHANDLER IS A LIAR - GAVIN ARVIZO IS A DISGUSTING LIAR !!

MICHAEL JACKSON IS INNOCENT - CLEARED ON ALL ACCOUNTS AND WE THE FANS BELIEVED IN HIM ALL THE WAY! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Well look on the brightside, LESTATS going to be a happy camper now !

He's already changing his avatar now, wonder what it's going to be ? MJ maybe ?

Originally posted by vidster
Yes i saw it and found it disturbing. It looked totally alien to me for MJ to be acting the way he did.
What has that got to do with the court case?
The bashir interview was part of the reason for the case being brought to court,it was when he admitted to sleeping with children,and if i remember correctly the child who filed the complaint.

Originally posted by poppins
Well look on the brightside, LESTATS going to be a happy camper now !

HAPPY IS NOT THE WORD POPPINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IM ECSTATIC!! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

MICHAEL JACKSON HAS BEEN WRONGLY ACCUSED - AND HE'S GONE THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM THIS TIME AND IT'S BEEN PROVED IN 10/10 ACCOUNTS THAT HE IS INNOCENT OF ALL CHARGES!!

WE KEPT THE FAITH MJ - WE BELIEVED!! - WE HAVE SEEN THE TRUTH!! :clap: :clap: :P :clap: :P :clap:

why are you typing in caps Lestat dearest?

Originally posted by msbehavin
why are you typing in caps Lestat dearest?

Perhaps Im a tad happy?? :confused: :loopy:

Originally posted by Lestat
MICHAEL JACKSON IS AQUITTED ON ALL 10 ACCOUNTS!

JORDAN CHANDLER IS A LIAR - GAVIN ARVIZO IS A DISGUSTING LIAR !!

MICHAEL JACKSON IS INNOCENT - CLEARED ON ALL ACCOUNTS AND WE THE FANS BELIEVED IN HIM ALL THE WAY! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Found not guilty of all the charges. But the fact still remains that he has been sleeping with kids and he will probably feel that he is immune from prosecution whatever he does with other people's children now.

Lestat, would you let your children share a bed with MJ if you had any?

Originally posted by msbehavin
why are you typing in caps Lestat dearest?

He's shouting!!

Really chuffed he has been cleared, always had a gut feeling he was innocent.

Can listen to my old Michael Jackson albums now without feeling ashamed!:clap: :clap:

Originally posted by deano
The bashir interview was part of the reason for the case being brought to court,it was when he admitted to sleeping with children,and if i remember correctly the child who filed the complaint.

I thought the Bashir interview spurned the police investigation?
I agree though that without the interview this may have never come to light.
Is everyone forgetting that the child's mother has a history of making false claims?
Is everyone forgetting that one of the main prosecution witness had previously tried gaining monies from MJ but failed?

So far we MJ sleeping with children

If i am wrong i apologise.

Originally posted by skyfitsboy
Really chuffed he has been cleared, always had a gut feeling he was innocent.

Can listen to my old Michael Jackson albums now without feeling ashamed!:clap: :clap:

You could still listen to your MJ albums even if he had been found guilty. Doesn't it disturb you at all that he sleeps with kids, even though there isn't any evidence of abuse?

Originally posted by Patchy
Found not guilty of all the charges. But the fact still remains that he has been sleeping with kids and he will probably feel that he is immune from prosecution whatever he does with other people's children now.

Lestat, would you let your children share a bed with MJ if you had any?

OH JEEZ!!!! let it rest now!? :loopy: it's took months in a huge court trial - many days of deliberations from the jury, these lies almost cost MJ 20 years in prison - why do people like you go on, and on, and on, and on!!!!!

He's innocent - it's been proven - the arvizo's are liars!!

MJ is aquitted - now let the fans celebrate after months of enduring this sleaze and mud thrown at him!

Originally posted by Lestat
OH JEEZ!!!! let it rest now!? :loopy: it's took months in a huge court trial - many days of deliberations from the jury, these lies almost cost MJ 20 years in prison - why do people like you go on, and on, and on, and on!!!!!

He's innocent - it's been proven - the arvizo's are liars!!

MJ is aquitted - now let the fans celebrate after months of enduring this sleaze and mud thrown at him!

Sorry, it hasn't been proven that he is innocent. The prosecution couldn't prove that he was guilty.

MJ has admitted that he likes to sleep with children, and that in itself is worrying enough.

If you ever have children, would you let them sleep with MJ?

His lifestyle and appearance have become more and more bizarre over the years and all the glaring publicity that this has recieved in the last few years is going to mean that a lot of people whateveer the court decision are still going to be saying there's no smoke without fire.
I would imagine that he is now going to fade into relative obscurity and step down off the pedestal that so many people had at one time put him on.

Originally posted by Patchy
Sorry, it hasn't been proven that he is innocent. The prosecution couldn't prove that he was guilty.

MJ has admitted that he likes to sleep with children, and that in itself is worrying enough.

If you ever have children, would you let them sleep with MJ?

Are you Tom Sneddons father or what!? . . . :loopy: :loopy: :loopy:

Where's Boroughgal & Foo-Fighter when you need them!? would love to hear what they have to say on the verdict:rolleyes:

Originally posted by WallBuilder
I would imagine that he is now going to fade into relative obscurity and step down off the pedestal that so many people had at one time put him on.

I think most pop stars would do that, but unfortunately he has such a big ego that I think he will just get worse now.

Originally posted by WallBuilder
all the glaring publicity that this has recieved in the last few years is going to mean that a lot of people whateveer the court decision are still going to be saying there's no smoke without fire.
I would imagine that he is now going to fade into relative obscurity and step down off the pedestal that so many people had at one time put him on.

I read a few weeks ago that (i think it is) Donald Trump has offered him a 10 year deal to appear in vegas. He also stated that MJ could earn upwards of $300 million over that time :o

I doubt MJ will take this option up though. Singing 2 or 3 times a day for 10 years :suspect:

Originally posted by Lestat
Are you Tom Sneddons father or what!? . . . :loopy: :loopy: :loopy:

Do you disagree with what I said?

Interesting to see that you haven't answered whether or not you would let your children sleep with him if you ever have any. lol

Originally posted by Patchy
I think most pop stars would do that, but unfortunately he has such a big ego that I think he will just get worse now.

He'll get better! he'll be NO.1 again. Whatever he decides to do musically next it'll be a major success - his fans will show support for whatever he does - just like before.

MJ is the worlds greatest ever entertainer - heres hoping he will continue for many years yet!:thumbsup:

Originally posted by Patchy
Do you disagree with what I said?

Interesting to see that you haven't answered whether or not you would let your children sleep with him if you ever have any. lol

I dont have any children . . . is that the best you can do?? repeat yourself over & over & over like a broken tape recorder. Patchy - your as miserable as Tom Sneddon in his press conference - he didn't know what to say either and was looking for excuses to back himself up.

And I'm pleased that the court case is over, and a sense of normality can finally return to the Forum.

I do not know whether Jackson was guilty or innocent, so I'm not taking sides.

I agree that his behaviour is strange at times; all the more reason for those parents who accused him to take greater care of their own children.

Lestat, you defend MJ because you like his music.

I like a lot of his music too, but it doesn't mean he can't do anything wrong.

I happen to think it very disturbing that he likes to sleep with children, even if the prosecution couldn't find any evidence of sexual abuse. Although I think some of the blame should lie with the parents who allow their kids to sleep with a freak.

You seem to think that because he makes good music it is good that he sleeps with other people's children... so we shall have to agree to disagree. :D

Originally posted by Lestat
Where's Boroughgal & Foo-Fighter when you need them!? would love to hear what they have to say on the verdict:rolleyes:

You need to scroll back a few pages. I've responded. And was as gracious as I promised I'd be...

Originally posted by Patchy

You seem to think that because he makes good music it is good that he sleeps with other people's children... so we shall have to agree to disagree. :D

Can you please SHOW ME WHERE!! I have made such a statement - please refrain from making accusations of this nature in future.

That is a horrible thing to say and you should know better!:rant: :rant: :rant:

Easy to see who the lieing freaks are out there.

Originally posted by Patchy
You could still listen to your MJ albums even if he had been found guilty.

I agree. I'm still a Glitter fan even though he's a filthy perv.

- Did I just admit to liking Gary Glitter? Is there a delete post option?

Oh dear...

All I can say is, if he came from a council estate I think the verdict might have been different. He is supposed to be short of money but his short of money means nothing to most people. Look at all the assets he has! Things just work differently in this country.

I'm sure no one in their right mind would say he was not guilty just because they liked his music - thats plain ridiculous:o

Well, it's over. Whether you believe he's guilty or not make no difference, unfortunately:|

Thought you might want to see Britains best read paper's front page tommorrow - now.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/lestatt209/7.jpg


:clap: :clap:

Originally posted by vidster
I thought the Bashir interview spurned the police investigation?
I agree though that without the interview this may have never come to light.
Is everyone forgetting that the child's mother has a history of making false claims?
Is everyone forgetting that one of the main prosecution witness had previously tried gaining monies from MJ but failed?

So far we MJ sleeping with children

If i am wrong i apologise. Not quite. He had been accused of offences that were not made public before the trial.

I couldn't understand why he was allowed to bring out a video protesting his innocence and the video was televised, I've never heard of anything like that happening before.

Originally posted by Lestat
Thought you might want to see Britains best read paper's front page tommorrow - now.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/lestatt209/7.jpg


:clap: :clap:

thats a great world exclusive les , next you will be sayin you popping round to wackos for tea and cakes:gag: :gag: :gag:

Oh . . . sorry - here's another just for patchy & panda. . . LOL!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/lestatt209/1.jpg

:thumbsup:

If Michael Jackson has any sense at all he will not allow kids ever to come to Neverland again so he can never be accused of this sort of thing.

I'm really pleased justice has been done.

But thats the problem, he should have made the decision to stay away from strangers kids the first time this happened but he publicly stated 'why should I? I've not done anything to be ashamed of' I'm not saying he IS guilty but that is exactly the kind of thing paedophiles say all the time. They are so arrogant that they see their behaviour as innocuous and if society doesn't like it then that's societies problem.

Originally posted by BoroughGal
I said I'd be gracious and I will. Not guilty is not guilty. Well done.

Good for you BoroughGal, that takes class. :thumbsup:

Under California law, being acquitted does not mean that MJ is innocent. It simply means that the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unfortunately, in America, people CAN and DO buy their way out of trouble. Rich celebrity defendants can afford the best defense attorneys money can buy. The "people" of the state of California are represented by lawyers who couldn't get decent jobs with legitimate law firms. If they could, they would. Instead, they work for government drone wages and punch a time clock down at the county courthouse.

A few years ago, a young boy positively identified marks on MJ's penis, but his family forgot all about it when MJ's lawyers offered to settle out of court for $20 million dollars. As a mother, I would never settle with any pedophile. I don't care if it was for a billion dollars. But parents do it all the time, just look at the Catholic Church. The worst part is that because of the greed, stupidity, and opportunism of the boy's family, they undermined a chance to put away a known child molester.

I didn't think he'd get the maximum, but I did believe (and hope) that he would get at least some jail time. I was wrong. And MJ is a free man tonight. I hope he's learned his lesson, but I doubt it.

And look out Europe. 'Cause he's a headin' your way!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157478,00.html

:) Sierra

i;m glad he got off,the blokes a defanate weirdo but i doubt he's a kiddie fiddler,glad the sponging scum didn't get any money out of it coz we all know that is what it was all about.

Originally posted by Sierra
Good for you BoroughGal, that takes class. :thumbsup:

Under California law, being acquitted does not mean that MJ is innocent. It simply means that the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Unfortunately, in America, people CAN and DO buy their way out of trouble. Rich celebrity defendants can afford the best defense attorneys money can buy. The "people" of the state of California are represented by lawyers who couldn't get decent jobs with legitimate law firms. If they could, they would. Instead, they work for government drone wages and punch a time clock down at the county courthouse.

A few years ago, a young boy positively identified marks on MJ's penis, but his family forgot all about it when MJ's lawyers offered to settle out of court for $20 million dollars. As a mother, I would never settle with any pedophile. I don't care if it was for a billion dollars. But parents do it all the time, just look at the Catholic Church. The worst part is that because of the greed, stupidity, and opportunism of the boy's family, they undermined a chance to put away a known child molester.

I didn't think he'd get the maximum, but I did believe (and hope) that he would get at least some jail time. I was wrong. And MJ is a free man tonight. I hope he's learned his lesson, but I doubt it.

And look out Europe. 'Cause he's a headin' your way!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157478,00.html

:) Sierra I can understand as a mother you would accept no amount of cash if your child was abused. M.J had a whole staff working for him, private detectives digging up dirt on families off the allegedly abused children before they reported him to the police. Can you imagine having the tables turned on you by clever lawyers? You and your child being
dragged through the courts accused of trying to blackmail M.J? They made the parents look like the guilty party. He would have got off no matter what. I saw the jury being interviewed on tv tonight (never seen that happen either:suspect: ) They all agrreed he was innocent of every charge within hours, it was dragged out for as long as possible. One of the Jurors said "I could see he was a normal human being during the trial" You can say he's not guilty but a normal human being? He has his face mutilated, hangs babies over balconies and sleeps with teenage boys that he barely knows - that IS NOT NORMAL!

Are they going to put the childs parents on trial now? If MJ is innocent then the parents are guilty of perjury and extortion. The boys must have been coached by a paedophile to know so much about child abuse and that would be almost as bad as being molested.

I heard on the news the mother is to go on trial for benefit fraud:confused:

I think the whole thing was a sham.

Originally posted by tulip


I think the whole thing was a sham.

The land of the free.

ie: if you can afford it, you are free to do what you like.

Originally posted by venger
The land of the free.

ie: if you can afford it, you are free to do what you like. Yep, you hit the nail right on the head. MJ and OJ riding off into the sunset together and they both lived happily ever after. I believe in fate, there is only so much money can do for you, one day the poops going to hit the fan!

This is how jacko swung the jury. JACKO'S COURTROOM ATTIRE (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v689/viking99/forums/jako.jpg)

I'm not going to plough through all the comments here, but my 2p worth... I don't see how the jury could possibly have found him guilty, this verdict was a foregone conclusion. That's not to say he wasn't guilty (I really have no idea aboout that), but given the amount of contradictory evidence, the jury had no choice.

Michael Jackson is clearly one very disturbed and strange individual, and given his life history that's not exactly surprising. I don't think any of us could imagine what the world looks like from his point of view, and I have no problem believing that he likes to share his bed with small children, that he considers himself a big kid even. Whether he would abuse them sexually... I dunno, it's certainly possible although I'm inclined to believe not.

Good news Jacko. Should never have been brought to court.

Martin Basheer: How do you sleep?

Originally posted by Patchy
Doesn't it disturb you at all that he sleeps with kids, even though there isn't any evidence of abuse?

To be fair to Lestat, he has answered this question on many occasions in the past, and is probably bored of answering it now.

i cannot beleive it that sick twisted pervert jacksons got off :loopy: so he can do it again to some other kid :loopy: :loopy: :loopy:

Originally posted by craigmason
i cannot beleive it that sick twisted pervert jacksons got off :loopy: so he can do it again to some other kid :loopy: :loopy: :loopy:
What's it got to do with you, craigmason? I thought you didn't give a toss what happened in other countries anyway.

The jury is still out for me on whether Jacko was guilty or not..
I just hope he learns from this because I dont want to see this ridiculous charade the same time next year as well.

He's been let off charges twice now.. I cant see him getting off for a third time if this all kicks off again.

Originally posted by craigmason
so he can do it again to some other kid :loopy: :loopy: :loopy:
There's no proof that he did 'it' in the first place.

The phrase 'sick, twisted pervert' when applied to Jackson on a public internet forum is now potentially libellous...

I'm not sure 100% either way, some of the evidence was a bit flaky to say the least, but that is "reasonable doubt" and unless you are absolutely 100% sure you have to return a "not guilty" verdict, that is a right we all have and stops us being prosecuted because "they probably did it".

i am a parent for the records


ok here goes.
yes Michael apparently took these kids into his bedroom and slept beside them. but i would like to point out that their parents allowed this and they knew the previous allegations so they are also in the wrong, that last kid jodie or whatever he was called got a huge payout, now if michael had done stuff to my child no amount of money would make me drop the case. the parents are as much to blame for letting the children near jacko. i have been torn between guilty and not guilty with this one but i do think he was probably not guilty of the more serious charges.

finally michael jackson is not gulity and this stupid show is over!!

It's not over until the thin monkey sings.

Why was the jury only looking at what the mother of the child involved said. She was not there they should have listened to the child.

Have we forgotten the child involved, you dont make up what happened to you not in that detail.
It has so annoyed me, that if MJ was a normal person not a celebrity this would never have been allowed to get this far. He would have been stopped sleeping with children.

The fact he did sleep with boys and the fact he had poronographic books ion the house should have been enough to set alarm bells ringing in a non-celebrity house, why then did his fame allow him to get off.

He never took to the stand to defend himself, honest people would, why did he decided not to. So what does that say.

The child ionvolved has to now live with the fact he will never be believed in the future, no one will ever trust what he says. But you are willing to trust a man that hangs his child over a balcony, dresses them oddly and lives in a big childs world.
Then look at yourselves and tell me which part of his mad world do you want.

hang on, hang on, hang on... your all forgetting michael jackson is a jehova witness, and that has a lot to do with this.. the fact is the kid is a liar, michael jackson lawyer said to the jusry who do u believe, the family or mr jackson, the truth will set you free!!!

What part of 'NOT GUILTY' do you lot not understand!!!:rant:

It's over - he's been tried!! a court case taking months had ended and all the evidence that could possibly be gathered WAS! from his house - from witnesses, from security guards, from maids etc . . etc . . . statements from the lieing family!!

MICHAEL JACKSON NOT GUILTY ON ALL 10 ACCOUNTS.

GAVIN ARVIZO IS A DIRTY, SPONGING LIAR!:rant: :loopy:

Originally posted by BoroughGal
To be fair to Lestat, he has answered this question on many occasions in the past, and is probably bored of answering it now.

Thank you BG, it does get tiresome when people don't read previous posts and continue with the same old questions over and over. Patchy does this all the time. :(

Do you know why I dont believe the not guilty, after all the evidence he never sat in the chair facing his accused and the jury and told us he was not guilty under oath.

Thats why I dont believe he is not guilty. No one ever got to ask him not even the person who accused him of the offense.

That jury went in there with not guilty in their heads, and dont tell me they didnt because they said they went in their own beliefs, they ask you not to do that when you sit on a jury. You cant come to an unbiased decision if you take you feelings on the subject into court with you.

Originally posted by Lestat
What part of 'NOT GUILTY' do you lot not understand!!!:rant:

It's over - he's been tried!! a court case taking months had ended and all the evidence that could possibly be gathered WAS! from his house - from witnesses, from security guards, from maids etc . . etc . . . statements from the lieing family!!

MICHAEL JACKSON NOT GUILTY ON ALL 10 ACCOUNTS.

GAVIN ARVIZO IS A DIRTY, SPONGING LIAR!:rant: :loopy:

if there was a hug button, i would use it!! :D

Originally posted by rosie
That jury went in there with not guilty in their heads, and dont tell me they didnt because they said they went in their own beliefs, they ask you not to do that when you sit on a jury. You cant come to an unbiased decision if you take you feelings on the subject into court with you.

Oh, er . . . . OK!! :loopy: So you know better than some of America's top legal teams that the jury was now involved in a cover up!!??

And just because MJ didn't sit in the chair - this makes him guilty - I THINK NOT. It was all about a bunch of scrubbers trying to get money out of an innocent because he showed them that he cared about children.

Originally posted by rosie
Do you know why I dont believe the not guilty, after all the evidence he never sat in the chair facing his accused and the jury and told us he was not guilty under oath.

Thats why I dont believe he is not guilty. No one ever got to ask him not even the person who accused him of the offense.



The prosecution could have called him to the witness stand at any time, but they didn't.

People seem to forget that lawyers are just hired, they don't have to believe the person they are representing, perhaps the prosecution didn't believe the boy and his family and knew that having Jacko on the witness stand would not help their case.

Did you listen to the jury answering questions last night then.

I did and what they said.

I hope you never have to sit in a court room with someone you love and have to go through that humaliation and not being able to ask those accused questions.

Would you care for children in that way then.

Originally posted by rosie
I hope you never have to sit in a court room with someone you love and have to go through that humaliation and not being able to ask those accused questions.
I hope so too, although I don't see what that has to do with this case.

I may be getting the wrong end of the stick here, but I thought that the prosecution were acting on behalf of the family. If Nick2 is right, and the prosecution didn't call the accused to speak, then surely the family should be having a go at the lawyers they hired, not at Michael Jackson?

OK people, just chill out now please.

The same US legal process that gave us the OJ Simpson result has spoken.

Joe

Originally posted by rosie
Do you know why I dont believe the not guilty, after all the evidence he never sat in the chair facing his accused and the jury and told us he was not guilty under oath.

Thats why I dont believe he is not guilty. No one ever got to ask him not even the person who accused him of the offense.

That jury went in there with not guilty in their heads, and dont tell me they didnt because they said they went in their own beliefs, they ask you not to do that when you sit on a jury. You cant come to an unbiased decision if you take you feelings on the subject into court with you.

hang on, im pretty sure some a them jurors went in thinking hes guilty, so?

Originally posted by JoePritchard
OK people, just chill out now please.

The same US legal process that gave us the OJ Simpson result has spoken.

Joe



Joe, why tell people to chill out and then throw more wood onto the fire?

The finest justice money can buy.

The people who are still argueing about MJ being found not guilty are most probably the ones who wanted him found guilty - no matter what!

I don't know why? . . probably don't like the way he looks, don't like his music, don't like his money or lifestyle . . . etc. . .

sad, sad people.:(

Originally posted by Lestat
Joe, why tell people to chill out and then throw more wood onto the fire?
I was wondering the same thing. There may be an element of buying justice going on here, but from what little I've heard of the court case, it sounded rather more complex than that.

The thing I dont get is why all the so called fans have been protesting his innocence... How do they know if hes innocent or not...The only ones who TRULY know of his innocence is Michael and the kids. Just because you idolise someone and think they are a good musician, doesnt mean they can do no wrong.

Originally posted by spyro2000
The thing I dont get is why all the so called fans have been protesting his innocence... How do they know if hes innocent or not...The only ones who TRULY know of his innocence is Michael and the kids. Just because you idolise someone and think they are a good musician, doesnt mean they can do no wrong.

Did you ever think they might be protesting about the Arvizo's being liars or maybe just there to support MJ ?

Originally posted by Lestat
Did you ever think they might be protesting about the Arvizo's being liars or maybe just there to support MJ ?

Maybe a mixture of both. But how do they know wether they are liars or not, all they see is whats broadcast on the TV.

I personally have always thought Michael was a brilliant artist, but I wouldnt let that cloud my judgement. he may have done it, and he may not have done it, being a good artist doesnt change that.

Originally posted by spyro2000
Maybe a mixture of both. But how do they know wether they are liars or not, all they see is whats broadcast on the TV.

I personally have always thought Michael was a brilliant artist, but I wouldnt let that cloud my judgement. he may have done it, and he may not have done it, being a good artist doesnt change that.

It doesn't change that but the not guilty verdict should now put your mind at rest surely.

The fans knew that the Arvizo's were liars because of their past track record of conning and plundering money from celebs, companies, businesses etc . .

Apologies.

I'll lose the Moderator bit here then - I got carried away a little.

So, as a user of this Forum....

There was a lot of surprise in the verdict form many places, and a lot of pleasure from others. The legal system HAS spoken. It IS the same system that produced the OJ verdict. Those statements are fact.

If making factual statements after the event is stoking up flames, oh well.

Joe

Originally posted by ANGELUS
The jury is still out for me on whether Jacko was guilty or not..
I just hope he learns from this because I dont want to see this ridiculous charade the same time next year as well.

He's been let off charges twice now.. I cant see him getting off for a third time if this all kicks off again.

When you have lots of money, are very strange and open yourself to speculation as to your actions, you will most likely have gold diggers standing in line. Micheal Jackson spent a few million $ to avoid trial on 2 previous cases. This was cheap compared to what he spent defending himself in this trail.

Originally posted by ANGELUS
The jury is still out for me on whether Jacko was guilty or not..
I just hope he learns from this because I dont want to see this ridiculous charade the same time next year as well.

He's been let off charges twice now.. I cant see him getting off for a third time if this all kicks off again. He has been let off more than twice. The other allegations against him, at least 10, were not brought to trial. He has been accused of the same ting over and over again. It's like he is above the law.

Originally posted by Lestat
The people who are still argueing about MJ being found not guilty are most probably the ones who wanted him found guilty - no matter what!

I don't know why? . . probably don't like the way he looks, don't like his music, don't like his money or lifestyle . . . etc. . .

sad, sad people.:( That is just as bad as saying 'you wanted him found not guilty because you like his music'. Most people form their opinions based on what they have seen and heard about this trial. Please respect other peoples points of view.

Tulip - he's been found not guilty . . . . . I know it may seem a little hard to digest because you absolutely hate the man and wanted to see him go to prison for a hundred and one years . . . . . but the case is over - the evidence was collected and shown, the statements were read, the man has been scrutinized to an inch of his life, the jury has deliberated and the verdict was given.

Now try to take the next sentence in slowly . . . take a deep breath and :

Michael Jackson has been aquitted on all 10 counts, he has been found 'NOT GUILTY' on any of the accusations against him.

There - see! not that hard is it. ;)

Originally posted by tulip
That is just as bad as saying 'you wanted him found not guilty because you like his music'. Most people form their opinions based on what they have seen and heard about this trial.
Including, presumably, the jury.

Originally posted by Lestat
Tulip - he's been found not guilty . . . . . I know it may seem a little hard to digest because you absolutely hate the man and wanted to see him go to prison for a hundred and one years . . . . . but the case is over - the evidence was collected and shown, the statements were read, the man has been scrutinized to an inch of his life, the jury has deliberated and the verdict was given.

Now try to take the next sentence in slowly . . . take a deep breath and :

Michael Jackson has been aquitted on all 10 counts, he has been found 'NOT GUILTY' on any of the accusations against him.

There - see! not that hard is it. ;) Calm, down! When did I say I wanted him found guilty? I reckon since the trial is over and he's been found not guilty people will have to accept that whether they like it or not. Did you read my other posts?

Lestat, I think you are taking this too personally. People are obviously going to be upset about this. Child abuse is a very emotive subject and it is too common, think, a lot of people who get fired up about this might be victims too or have children that they would go to any lengths to protect.

Originally posted by DanSumption
Including, presumably, the jury.

EXACTLY!!:thumbsup: Tulip seems to have forgotton that the whole thing has been through a lengthy court case with every bit of evidence examined to the fullest!!

[i]

Michael Jackson has been aquitted on all 10 counts, he has been found 'NOT GUILTY' on any of the accusations against him.

There - see! not that hard is it. ;) [/B]

Been found not guilty and been innocent of a crime are 2 very different things.



Shamo, Heee Heeeee, Owwwwwwwww

Originally posted by Lestat
EXACTLY!!:thumbsup: Tulip seems to have forgotton that the whole thing has been through a lengthy court case with every bit of evidence examined to the fullest!! I think you have a problem, my post must be written in invisible ink! Dan, are you going to join in Lestats crusade against me too after admitting that you aren't reading the other posts:rolleyes:

Watch BBC News and you will hear a jury member reported as believing that MJ molested children but that the prosecution evidence failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

Originally posted by tulip
I think you have a problem, my post must be written in invisible ink! Dan, are you going to join in Lestats crusade against me too after admitting that you aren't reading the other posts:rolleyes:

PMSL!!!:P :P I love to see these people who wanted MJ put away - still trying to put their arguements across!!

It's actually laughable!

MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY.

COMPREHEND ???

Originally posted by cgksheff
Watch BBC News and you will hear a jury member reported as believing that MJ molested children but that the prosecution evidence failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Yes, the reasonable doubt thing is very obscure, it's like the insanity, plea how do you prove that? If the only people in a trial who know what really happened are the accused and the plaintiff, how can there be no reasonable doubt?

Originally posted by cgksheff
Watch BBC News and you will hear a jury member reported as believing that MJ molested children but that the prosecution evidence failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.


I think if this was a civil case he would have been found guilty as the burden of proof is ' on the balance of probabilities ' and a criminal case is ' beyond reasonable doubt '

Did he do it chances are he did, but can you be 100% sure based on the evidence given in court which is what you have to go on. If there was the smallest amount of doubt then a not guilty verdict had to be given.

Like ive said before not guilty doesnt mean your innocent.

Originally posted by Lestat
PMSL!!!:P :P I love to see these people who wanted MJ put away - still trying to put their arguements across!!

It's actually laughable!

MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY, MICHAEL JACKSON - NOT GUILTY.

COMPREHEND ??? Do you need to lay down?! STOP GETTING SO PERSONALLY INVOLVED. You will make your self ill at this rate:|

Originally posted by tulip
Dan, are you going to join in Lestats crusade against me too after admitting that you aren't reading the other posts:rolleyes:
No, if you go back to my first post on this thread you'll see that I don't have strong views either way, although I'm certain that the jury did the right thing, i.e. there is no way they could claim guilt beyond reasonable doubt given the chaotic nature of some of the evidence. It does appear to me, tulip, that you have decided he is guilty and are arguing that corner, but I admit that it might be just your little spat with Lestat that's got me confused.

Anyway, like I said I don't really have strong views either way, and I'm certainly not a big fan of Michael Jackson, so not really sure what I'm doing here :)

Originally posted by pb1977
I think if this was a civil case he would have been found guilty as the burden of proof is ' on the balance of probabilities ' and a criminal case is ' beyond reasonable doubt '

Did he do it chances are he did, but can you be 100% sure based on the evidence given in court which is what you have to go on. If there was the smallest amount of doubt then a not guilty verdict had to be given.

Like ive said before not guilty doesnt mean your innocent. I think maybe it's time to give up on this. I'm worried about lestat - I think he's going to lose it!

Originally posted by tulip
Yes, the reasonable doubt thing is very obscure, it's like the insanity, plea how do you prove that? If the only people in a trial who know what really happened are the accused and the plaintiff, how can there be no reasonable doubt?
You're spot on there tulip. In fact, for an empiricist like me there is no such thing as "beyond doubt" and even "beyond reasonable doubt" is fairly shaky. Which is why scientists and philosophers, or at least those with some familiarity with David Hume, make very poor witnesses in court. Or, rather, they make very good witnesses but they are lambs to the slaughter for lawyers who will pick on honest scientific doubt and use it to cast aspersions.

Oops, I seem to be wondering off topic again!

Originally posted by DanSumption
No, if you go back to my first post on this thread you'll see that I don't have strong views either way, although I'm certain that the jury did the right thing, i.e. there is no way they could claim guilt beyond reasonable doubt given the chaotic nature of some of the evidence. It does appear to me, tulip, that you have decided he is guilty and are arguing that corner, but I admit that it might be just your little spat with Lestat that's got me confused.

Anyway, like I said I don't really have strong views either way, and I'm certainly not a big fan of Michael Jackson, so not really sure what I'm doing here :) No, I'm generalizing about the justice system. I don't like how it's so money orientated. You can be found guity or not depending on your finances, it seems you get a much better deal even if you ARE found guilty if you are wealthy, there has been a trial going on and on here, I won't bore you with the details but the woman on trial was found guilty (she is VERY wealthy) She was placed under house arrest until they decided how long her sentence should be. While she was under house arrest she was allowed to go to all night parties and do pretty much anything she wanted because of her status:confused: Then to top it all off she got to decide when she was going to serve her (few month) prison sentence! I think its :loopy: x