Michael Jackson Trial

[simonesays]

He did it
The family just wants money
All of the above

 

[Wildman]

He did it,why else would he pay those other families for their silence.
One weird joker.

 

[simonesays]

Oh come on, I agree he probably did it but this family approached Jay Leno on the phone and asked him for money and Leno had to call the cops because he felt he was being set up as a mark and he could hear the mother in the background scripting what the kids were saying to him. Not to mention the boy in question stealing from a JC Penny store then the mother sueing that store for being sexually assaulted by the security guy when he was chasing them, she admitted she lied about it but somehow got 152 thousand dollars out of them?

 

[Wildman]

Did you see that doco on him and the kids?
The guy is warped,but I agree about some of the parents.Why would you let a kid go there after all the accusations over the years,sicko's all round if you ask me.

 

[NICK THE PIE MAN]

He did it.
But he won't be found guilty. Jacko's lawyers will put up so much crap that at least one or two of the jurors will be swayed. And that's game over. Hung jury. Acquited - a'la OJ.

Good ol' "reasonable doubt."

 

[silky-smooth]

He did it - but also I think the family is just getting in on a bit of the money as well.

And as Nick said, unlikely he'll be found guilty. "This is America. Celebrities don't go to jail" - quote from The Simpsons and works quite well in this situation.

IMO he did it. Somehow his lawyers will find crap to find him not guilty.

 

[F-U]

I reckon he probably didnt do it, and will almost 100% definetly get off. The standard of lawyers cannot be compared, because Michael Jacksons lawyer is making the prosecution look like a bunch of tools so far in the beginning stages. I dont really see the concrete evidence they have, all they seem to have is heresay evidence from the family and a few pictures of his house. Unless the prosecution release some groundbreaking evidence they are merely wasting the courts and Michael Jacksons time.

 

[simonesays]

He did it.
But he won't be found guilty. Jacko's lawyers will put up so much crap that at least one or two of the jurors will be swayed. And that's game over. Hung jury. Acquited - a'la OJ.

Good ol' "reasonable doubt."

Well then they will have plenty of doubt to work with, the defence can prove Jackson wasn't even in the same state on some of the days the family claim molestation occured
The sister is 18 years old now and claimed he gave them wine but because that is the one and only time she has had alcohol in her life she has no point of reference??? yeah right
And all of the charges are for dates after the Bashir documentary aired, so the family are saying that up until then Jackson didn't touch him but after the disastrous doco aired and suspicion was thrown onto Jackson that is when he made his move on the kid??? I know he is wacko but you dont get that rich being plain stupid, something aint right
The mother is a piece of sh1t, sure he probably did it but I reckon that was exactly what she was betting on

 

[bunsen burner]

I know he is wacko but you dont get that rich being plain stupid, something aint right

Hmmm, let's see what's not right:

1. MJ spends an awful amount of time around kids
2. MJ never has real girlfriends
3. MJ has a ranch that's decked out to attract kids
4. MJ has a wall full of photos of little kids
5. MJ admits to sleeping in the same bed as kids
6. MJ admits that he has pornography and that kids accessed it themselves rather than he used it to lure them. What is alleged is not only a common pedophile ploy, but if he had pornography for himself, why isn't he interested in women? Surely if he was batting off over women via pornography he'd be interested too in the real thing? But he's not. So why does he have pornography?
7. Why would any decent parent let their kids sleep in the same bed with a man? Especially a man who has child molestation accusations alleged against him? As a parent, whether you think he's innocent or guilty, you wouldn't take the risk. Unless of course you felt the money was worth the risk.


At the end of the day, regardless whether or not the parents are irresponsible gold diggers or whatever, if he's sexually molested anyone he should pay the price. I don't believe for a second that he isn't a pedophile. Proving it may be difficult.

 

[silky-smooth]

As BB said, proving it will be difficult. We can all put 1 and 1 together - well we can do that about 20 times, but there just isn't any proper proof - his word against the family's. And without proof, benifit of the doubt will most likely go in his favour.

Sad really.

 

[- PC -]

Hmmm, let's see what's not right:

1. MJ spends an awful amount of time around kids
2. MJ never has real girlfriends
3. MJ has a ranch that's decked out to attract kids
4. MJ has a wall full of photos of little kids
5. MJ admits to sleeping in the same bed as kids
6. MJ admits that he has pornography and that kids accessed it themselves rather than he used it to lure them. What is alleged is not only a common pedophile ploy, but if he had pornography for himself, why isn't he interested in women? Surely if he was batting off over women via pornography he'd be interested too in the real thing? But he's not. So why does he have pornography?
7. Why would any decent parent let their kids sleep in the same bed with a man? Especially a man who has child molestation accusations alleged against him? As a parent, whether you think he's innocent or guilty, you wouldn't take the risk. Unless of course you felt the money was worth the risk.


At the end of the day, regardless whether or not the parents are irresponsible gold diggers or whatever, if he's sexually molested anyone he should pay the price. I don't believe for a second that he isn't a pedophile. Proving it may be difficult.

Absolutely spot on.

Its not that he isnt a pedophile its trying to prove it against a barrage of claims this family has made.I think he has done something to these kids in this particualr case. Proving it will be a different thing, and the smokescreen of cash for conviction will make it even harder.

 

[simonesays]

Absolutely spot on.

Its not that he isnt a pedophile its trying to prove it against a barrage of claims this family has made.I think he has done something to these kids in this particualr case. Proving it will be a different thing, and the smokescreen of cash for conviction will make it even harder.

It's not a smokescreen, they are old hands at it as previously recorded by Jay Leno and JC Penny, I personally think he is a pedophile but probably not in this case, at least not when they said he did it, he was not in the state on some of the days they claim and it is extremely hard to believe that he waited until after the Bashir doco fiasco to molest the kid in question when that kid was on the front page of every newspaper in the world, the mother should go to prison for putting her kids at risk for money anyway

 

[- PC -]

It's not a smokescreen, they are old hands at it as previously recorded by Jay Leno and JC Penny, I personally think he is a pedophile but probably not in this case, at least not when they said he did it, he was not in the state on some of the days they claim and it is extremely hard to believe that he waited until after the Bashir doco fiasco to molest the kid in question when that kid was on the front page of every newspaper in the world, the mother should go to prison for putting her kids at risk for money anyway

My apologies I was referring to the tactic of the defence lawyers who will say its al about cash rather than justice. And unfortunately they could be right.

 

[starz]

It's good to see fame hasn't changed him and that he's still so down to earth......NOT!

 

[simonesays]

It's good to see fame hasn't changed him and that he's still so down to earth......NOT!

I thought it was the plastic surgeon

 

[Sheeds]

Looking at the matter as fairly as possible it is hard to say.

Some of the circumstances seem a little to dodgy to me on the part of the kid and parents making the claim. Anyone who has seen the investigations will probably agree. The fact thet they filed or alleged the molestation occured one day after the Jackson documentary went to air seems a little suspicious to me. It is almost like nothing happened, then they suddenly start making the claims after this documentary goes to air. Also they are using the same lawyer that was used in the other out of settlement case. This fact sort of makes me feel that perhaps the parents have done some research and this would be the way to go to get $$$$. The fact it is reported the parents went out of their way to get this particular lawyer, im not sure how much we can read into that.

But I'll echo the sentiments of people here on the other side of the coin. Michael Jackson is one strange individual, and whether he is guilty or not, I think his lifestyle has definately had people suspicious to say the least.

 

[Bombers 2003]

But I'll echo the sentiments of people here on the other side of the coin. Michael Jackson is one strange individual, and whether he is guilty or not, I think his lifestyle has definately had people suspicious to say the least.

I think i'll have to agree with this.