Micheal Jackson - innocent?

F

fobs

Registered User
Messages
619
Ìs anyone else facinated by the jurors decision to reach an innocent verdict in the MJ trial. Watching the jurors speak last night I felt that a lot of them thought he was guilty of something but that the prosecution just hadn't proven the case and a lot of it boiled down to the mother's testimony.
I wonder will there still be parents willing to let their children stay the night with Jackson? I think this practice in itself should not be allowed but I suppose it would be hard to legislate against. All in all a very sad case....
 
A sad case? Have you considered that maybe he is innocent?
 
I also agree that he is innocent. Jackson has become a sad individual and was easy prey for predators be it martin bashir, or the boy's mothers seeing an easy target. I think this trial showed up the personalities of alot of Jackson's so called celebrity friends who would not back him up because they only want to be associated with winners rather than people like Jackson who have fallen from grace.
 
I think it a sad case as if MJ is innocent then the kids are being messed up by their mother getting them to lie etc... and if in fact he "got away with it" then likewise it is sad. either way I don't think there are any winners in this case. I feel very sorry for the child who brought the case whatever the truth as he will always have this hanging over him. That is what I meant by "a sad case". THat is just my opinion.
 
fobs said:
I think it a sad case as if MJ is innocent then the kids are being messed up by their mother getting them to lie etc... and if in fact he "got away with it" then likewise it is sad.
Click to expand...

In this case MJ is innocent of the charges presented having been acquitted by a jury of his peers who came to this conclusion having assessed all of the available evidence presented to them.

That is what I meant by "a sad case".
Click to expand...

Fair enough - but surely every case is a sad case for somebody given that normally either the prosecution or the defence "win" the case and the other loses? I don't see why this case is any more significant than the many others that take place every day?
 
That is what I meant by "a sad case". THat is just my opinion.

That's a fair point!
(I mistakenly assumed that you thought he was guilty)
 
It's difficult to say a man is "guilty" of something unless you can prove it.

However, that being said, personally, if you were to ask me would I let a child sleep in his bed - I would not.

He's obviously a very disturbed man and there were other witnesses (staff members) who said they saw inappropriate behaviour.

I don't believe Michael Jackson is even aware of his own behaviour half the time.

I didn't see the jurors last night but I heard that they all believed he was guilty of something but based on the evidence presented to them couldn't convict...



The man needs help, whatever the outcome of this case.

Also, those freaky fans who let doves out of boxes outside the court - they probably need more help than him. Anyone who believes it's in anyway normal or right for a 46 year old man to have young teenage boys in his bed at night needs their head tested.
 
Go easy Clubman; fobs didn't say he thought it was any sadder than any other case. He said it was a sad case in and of itself. I agree with him. MJ needed help 35 years ago it is too late now. I don't think that he behaved in a predatory way or that he sexually abused any children. I do think that his behaviour is totally inappropriate and it may have psychologically damaged some of the children that he shared his bed with (although that was not his intension).
I also have a problem with jurors being interviewed about why and how they reached their verdict as it undermines the innocent or guilty finding. When we hear of their uncertainties it casts a shadow over the accused party so they don't really walk out of a court with their good name intact. For the same reason I don't like the idea of TV cameras in a courtroom.
 
I don't know how the Jackson case ever got as far as the courtroom. It was obvious that the family making the accusations against him had an extremely chequered history (to put it mildly) and as such could hardly be counted as reliable witnesses. As is the case in rape trials, the occasional try-on makes it infinitely harder for genuine victims to obtain justice.
 
Going into the case I really did think he was possibily guilty, but through the case I was more and more shocked by the behaviour of the mother. She seems to be totally guilty of manipulating people and using her children. I thought Leno's testimony was the most fascinating, he said that he'd received calls from the family and that the child "sounded very adult", "overly effusive for a 12-year-old" and that Gavin "seemed a little scripted in his speech". He said that it was strange as he was a 50 yr old comedian and "not Batman".
I would like to see an investigation into the mother.
 
I don't see why this case is any more significant than the many others that take place every day?
Click to expand...

With respect we were not discussing the many other cases that take place each day and if we were then I may/may not have an opinion on them. This case is different than many others that take place because of the media circus surrounding it and because of who the accused was. It is a fact of life that people are more interested in high profile cases as they are reported on more widely.
 
It's a sad day for our justice system. 12 "normal" people (sure they were from lala land) said they did not have enough evidence to convict him and because of that they had to say "not guilty" even if they thought there was something wrong there.

All I wonder is what the Jury will feel when abuses the next child! And he will.

The jury might have said not guilty but I don't think he is innocent. At least it is not behaviour an adult should display.

Now we should do two things

a.) change the constitution to get ride of Jury trials, they have proven useless (O.J. where 2 jurys got different results and now M.J.)
b.) sell California back to Mexico
 
Ok OK OK!!!!!

There seems to be a lot said between new posters and old posters here.. The facts of this case are very simple and personalities should not come into it..be they clubman etc....

Michael Jackson is a very strange man indeed, but that may not be entirely HIS fault, from the age of 5 he was thrown into the public eye, every move was watched and judgments cast in an era of phenomenal media presence ( i also believe that he has contributed to the whole paperatsi culture), his rubbish was search, letters opened in the hope of finding that BIG story to make money from this story of which everyone would want to read..

He is by far the most famous person in the globe and because of that he has been a target of many people trying to gain from his name... one being a miss Billy Jean "jackson" how claimed that he fathered her child, Jackson’s response " to write a song about it" and this song probably the most famous of all his tunes... this then spawned the thriller album which to date is STILL the largest selling album of all time 57 million copies.. So to sum that part up he is known everywhere and is very good at what he does, just listen to the music of today and you will hear the Billy jean baseline in there...

On the subject of him, yes he is strange but, ask yourself this, if you couldn't go to the shop,pub,cinema,friends without many people coming up to you but instead were so afraid of the public be it whether they meant good or bad, what would you do??? Would you create your own place where you can feel SAFE??? maybe not but if you could afford it then it may be a different story... the media is what made Michael Jackson, but he has also played the media with stories of oxygen chambers and elephant man bones, all to create Hype, and he is the best i have seen at it.. For many years you couldn't open ANY newspaper including the broadsheets without seeing some reference to him... so maybe he is the victim of his own hype...

Above all else, he says that the children are our future, I believe that he believes that and is in fact a child himself in some ways and relies on his people around him to support and direct him, this has not been the case for the last 15 years as he has had very little to do with his family, maybe that will change and the man will see some sense..

One thing that concerns me is this...
He has been proven by a jury of his peers as not guilty but i have yet to see ANYWHERE in ANY press the following word.....

INNOCENT....
 
ThomasJ said:
On the subject of him, yes he is strange but, ask yourself this, if you couldn't go to the shop,pub,cinema,friends without many people coming up to you but instead were so afraid of the public be it whether they meant good or bad, what would you do??? Would you create your own place where you can feel SAFE??? maybe not but if you could afford it then it may be a different story...
Click to expand...

You've just described every millionaire actor in Hollywood. I don't see anyone else creating Neverland mind you.

ThomasJ said:
Above all else, he says that the children are our future, I believe that he believes that and is in fact a child himself in some ways and relies on his people around him to support and direct him, this has not been the case for the last 15 years as he has had very little to do with his family, maybe that will change and the man will see some sense..
Click to expand...

I doubt it very much. Jackson has never struck me as a very intelligent man in any sense of the word. He was talented (for a time). He's proven that that talent did not stretch beyond re-inventing his music (his face maybe, but his music stayed the same and people got bored with it).
He's self evidently a poor judge of people's characters, a complete freak of a man in every normal sense of the word and very bad with money.

ThomasJ said:
One thing that concerns me is this...
He has been proven by a jury of his peers as not guilty but i have yet to see ANYWHERE in ANY press the following word.....

INNOCENT....
Click to expand...

That's easily explainable...very few people believe he was...
 
ThomasJ said:
One thing that concerns me is this...
He has been proven by a jury of his peers as not guilty but i have yet to see ANYWHERE in ANY press the following word.....

INNOCENT....
Click to expand...

Well "not guilty" is a legal result (verdict) but innocent is a term that describes the lack of guilt of an individual.

But I agree with Thomas, nowhere (not even on the US networks) I see Innocent, I only see "Not Guilty" and I think they have choosen this because nobody things he is innocent (not even the Jury, they believe they had not enough evidence to convict).

Let's see this: I go to a off-license and buy a beer for my 20 year old brother in Texas and will to jail for it. MJ gets a child drunk with wine so that he can share the bed with him (asuming his not guilty on sex charge) and he walks.

I mean at least at that point there was enough evidence for guilty. I don't get the Jury.

All I say is, when he sleeps with the next boy what than?

The good thing is that he promissed to migrate out of the USA when the trial is over and I hope where ever he goes to the people have better laws.
 
According to his lawyer today he's going to change his lifestyle somewhat and not share his bed with children anymore...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top