Michael Jackson,Will he make a comeback? (Edited)

PTrackerLA · #381 Postby **PTrackerLA** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:26 pm

rainstorm wrote:another thing to remember. MJ now has FREE TICKET to molest at will. no prosecutor will ever waste the time prosecuting him again. never

Thunder44 · #382 Postby **Thunder44** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:26 pm

Folks whatever you think of MJ, this case would full of holes. The accuser and the mother were con-artists. Hard to believe anything from those people. I'm just glad that this jury unlike the OJ jury didn't come back in a few hours on case that last 9 months and had more solid case. They took their time before they concluded he was not guilty. So I respect it. The prosecution simply didn't prove the case.

GalvestonDuck · #383 Postby **GalvestonDuck** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:27 pm

loon wrote:and the money wins again.....I mean come on, not guilty even on the liquor...hehe...god bless america...

That goes without saying. That charge was "administering an intoxicating agent to further the commission of a felony." If he wasn't found guilty of the felony itself, he couldn't be convicted of this either.

Well, I guess he "beat it."

Website · #384 Postby **Brent** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:27 pm

Maybe he can go find the real molester then(like O.J. and the murderer). :roll:

rainstorm · #385 Postby **rainstorm** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:27 pm

mf_dolphin wrote:Money buys good lawyers but not acquital. What the jury seems to have said is that the prosecution didn't reach it's burden of proof. No matter what we all think that's how our justice system works.

cant agree. if it were you, and you admitted you liked sleeping with boys, you would be guilty. just a fact
oj
robert blake
mj
ramseys
being rich means you can kill and molest at will

SouthernWx · #386 Postby **SouthernWx** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:28 pm

CaptinCrunch wrote:another O.J case, where money buy's your freedom and justice is raped!!

I agree....if you are famous enough and wealthy enough, you are now literally "above the law", regardless of your actions. Just as the 1995 October day when O.J. walked...today is a truly sad day in America

GalvestonDuck · #387 Postby **GalvestonDuck** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:29 pm

rainstorm wrote:
mf_dolphin wrote:Money buys good lawyers but not acquital. What the jury seems to have said is that the prosecution didn't reach it's burden of proof. No matter what we all think that's how our justice system works.

cant agree. if it were you, and you admitted you liked sleeping with boys, you would be guilty. just a fact
oj
robert blake
mj
ramseys
being rich means you can kill and molest at will

Weren't you just defending Mindy McCready a couple of weeks ago?

mf_dolphin · #388 Postby **mf_dolphin** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:30 pm

rainstorm wrote:
mf_dolphin wrote:Money buys good lawyers but not acquital. What the jury seems to have said is that the prosecution didn't reach it's burden of proof. No matter what we all think that's how our justice system works.

cant agree. if it were you, and you admitted you liked sleeping with boys, you would be guilty. just a fact
oj
robert blake
mj
ramseys
being rich means you can kill and molest at will

Not a fact and you can't prove it is either. Being irrational about this does no one any good. While I thought he was guilty, and still do, the prosecution presented a weak case with tarnished witnesses. Whether you like it or not that's the truth.

OtherHD · #389 Postby **OtherHD** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:30 pm

Once again I ask..do you guys know something that the jurors didn't know?

#390 Postby **loon** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:32 pm

Rainband wrote:
loon wrote:and the money wins again.....I mean come on, not guilty even on the liquor...hehe...god bless america...
Justice was served. He is a target because of his fame and money. That mother is scumbag and thank God Justice prevailed.

I would have zero issues with this verdict had he been found guilty on the alcohol charges. Molestation and all the other stuff would be hard to prove without reasonable doubt. However, enough documentation had leaked into the wild about the "jesus juice" at neverland to easily convict. Mind you, it would have been a slap on the wrist and probably a ticket or two. BUT, that would have instilled my faith in the justice system. The fact he was NOT GUILT Y on all charges leads me to believe money talks, as well as these people were tired, didn't want to be harrassed as the folks that "sent THE GUY THAT MADE THRILLER" to jail, so they let him walk. If he would have went to jail, those jurors would either be dead or hurt badly by the pyschos jackson calls fans.....

cheers
loon

sunny · #391 Postby **sunny** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:34 pm

OtherHD wrote:Once again I ask..do you guys know something that the jurors didn't know?

Do you really think he was innocent? I'm sorry, I don't. I think he is guilty as home-made sin. And he walked.

GalvestonDuck · #392 Postby **GalvestonDuck** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:34 pm

loon wrote:
Rainband wrote:
loon wrote:and the money wins again.....I mean come on, not guilty even on the liquor...hehe...god bless america...
Justice was served. He is a target because of his fame and money. That mother is scumbag and thank God Justice prevailed.

I would have zero issues with this verdict had he been found guilty on the alcohol charges. Molestation and all the other stuff would be hard to prove without reasonable doubt. However, enough documentation had leaked into the wild about the "jesus juice" at neverland to easily convict. Mind you, it would have been a slap on the wrist and probably a ticket or two. BUT, that would have instilled my faith in the justice system. The fact he was NOT GUILT Y on all charges leads me to believe money talks, as well as these people were tired, didn't want to be harrassed as the folks that "sent THE GUY THAT MADE THRILLER" to jail, so they let him walk. If he would have went to jail, those jurors would either be dead or hurt badly by the pyschos jackson calls fans.....

cheers
loon

Read my post above -- the charge was about administering alcohol to a minor DURING the commission of a felony. The felony wasn't proven, therefore, this couldn't have been either.

rainstorm · #393 Postby **rainstorm** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:35 pm

OtherHD wrote:Once again I ask..do you guys know something that the jurors didn't know?

i know he set up his whole life to be near young boys
i know he admitted he enjoys sleeping with young boys
i know he paid off 2 other familes to keep quiet
this i know. yes, a stupid jury acquitted a celbrity once again
i also know more young boys will now be molested, because mj's whole life is set up to lure them into his bed. he admitted it
i also know molesters cant stop

#394 Postby **loon** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:36 pm

GalvestonDuck wrote:
loon wrote:
Rainband wrote:
loon wrote:and the money wins again.....I mean come on, not guilty even on the liquor...hehe...god bless america...
Justice was served. He is a target because of his fame and money. That mother is scumbag and thank God Justice prevailed.

I would have zero issues with this verdict had he been found guilty on the alcohol charges. Molestation and all the other stuff would be hard to prove without reasonable doubt. However, enough documentation had leaked into the wild about the "jesus juice" at neverland to easily convict. Mind you, it would have been a slap on the wrist and probably a ticket or two. BUT, that would have instilled my faith in the justice system. The fact he was NOT GUILT Y on all charges leads me to believe money talks, as well as these people were tired, didn't want to be harrassed as the folks that "sent THE GUY THAT MADE THRILLER" to jail, so they let him walk. If he would have went to jail, those jurors would either be dead or hurt badly by the pyschos jackson calls fans.....

cheers
loon

Read my post about -- the charge was about administering alcohol to a minor DURING the commission of a felony. The felony wasn't proven, therefore, this couldn't have been either.

Yeah, just read......thanks for clearing it up....

Regardless, had it the local cops showing up at my house with a bunch of drunk 12 yr old boys, you bet your ass tickets and jail time would be instant....

I guess until the Revolution, this is the web we weave....

cheers
loon

Rainband · #395 Postby **Rainband** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:36 pm

Helen is it possible the BOY and HIS MOTHER were lying. DUH. Marshall I agree. This case was full of holes and just because he is weird doesn't make him a molestor, helen your extremes are annoying.

GalvestonDuck · #396 Postby **GalvestonDuck** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:38 pm

rainstorm wrote:
OtherHD wrote:Once again I ask..do you guys know something that the jurors didn't know?

i know he set up his whole life to be near young boys
i know he admitted he enjoys sleeping with young boys
i know he paid off 2 other familes to keep quiet
this i know. yes, a stupid jury acquitted a celbrity once again
i also know more young boys will now be molested, because mj's whole life is set up to lure them into his bed. he admitted it
i also know molesters cant stop

That's the problem -- "sleeping with" does not equate to "molestation." Most of what I heard reported during the testimony was that he slept in the same room, but not in the bed WITH them. Now, do I believe that? No. But it was a fair jury trial and the prosecution did a crappy case of proving guilt, therefore, he was acquited.

OtherHD · #397 Postby **OtherHD** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:38 pm

sunny wrote:
OtherHD wrote:Once again I ask..do you guys know something that the jurors didn't know?

Do you really think he was innocent? I'm sorry, I don't. I think he is guilty as home-made sin. And he walked.

Based on what?

sunny · #398 Postby **sunny** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:39 pm

OtherHD wrote:
sunny wrote:
OtherHD wrote:Once again I ask..do you guys know something that the jurors didn't know?

Do you really think he was innocent? I'm sorry, I don't. I think he is guilty as home-made sin. And he walked.

Based on what?

On the evidence that I saw and read, that's what.

Aquawind · #399 Postby **Aquawind** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:40 pm

Whatch the state get sued for defamation of character..Afterall.. He is guilty of absolutely nothing..seems like a case for false charges(probably not though)..This is twice he has been charged and nuttin.. I am shaking my head.. I guess we are that misinformed and the information presented through the media is bias or simply not true..Sounds like a Hollywood script to me.. :roll:

I am never going to the state...something is wrong there.. :roll:

Paul

rainstorm · #400 Postby **rainstorm** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:40 pm

Rainband wrote:Helen is it possible the BOY and HIS MOTHER were lying. DUH. Marshall I agree. This case was full of holes and just because he is weird doesn't make him a molestor, helen your extremes are annoying.

what extremes? sorry, but when a middle aged man admits he loves sleeping with boys, i see red flags. anyone else who admitted they loved sleeping with young boys, coupled with the evidence presented would have been found guilty

Michael Jackson,Will he make a comeback? (Edited)

Who is online