# Not guilty



## Stephen (Jun 13, 2005)

Michael Jackson found not guilty. Reactions here.

-Stephen


----------



## BeanoNYC (Jun 13, 2005)

I'm still at a loss for words.  I have lost all faith in the justice system....more to follow when I gain my composure.


----------



## awf170 (Jun 13, 2005)

BeanoNYC said:
			
		

> I'm still at a loss for words.  I have lost all faith in the justice system....more to follow when I gain my composure.



alright its final im am now going to move to canada... jk, but i cant believe he got off on everything...  wow you guys see all those weirdos waiting for him to come out and cheering for him, some one needs to get a life :roll:


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 13, 2005)

c'mon guys.  we know MJ is a wacko, but remember the  burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt."  add to that burden or proof the need to get a group of "peers" (if such a thing exists in such superstar cases) to all agree to that verbage on any one count and it's pretty difficult to convict.  just like the juice, everyone knew he was guilty of "something" - but that isn't enough to convict in the court of law.  honestly, i didn't even follow this case...  superstar legal battles are f'd up television spectaculars that are more about selling ad space and movie rights than justice.  but that's the way the system works, though it hardly works right in these types of celebrity cases.

how about opinion from our resident legal expert, thetrailboss?


----------



## Stephen (Jun 13, 2005)

BeanoNYC said:
			
		

> I'm still at a loss for words.  I have lost all faith in the justice system....more to follow when I gain my composure.



Yup. Let's elect more liberal judges.



			
				awf170 said:
			
		

> jk, but i cant believe he got off on everything...



Not going there.

I believe the jury came up with the best response they could to the evidence given them. There IS reasonable doubt, just (apparently, but not sure _I_ see it) with OJ.

Again, this was a match bewteen broken prosecution and slick defense. The defense won.

-Stephen


----------



## smitty77 (Jun 14, 2005)

I can't believe he got off on the misdemeanor for providing alcohol to minors.  I figured they would at least get him for that.  IMHO it all adds up to him being a first class pedophile, but throw in whitnesses that have credibility issues and the freak walks.  It's too bad because he will do it again.  Perverts like this have a disease, and they don't stop until we put them away.

Of course the parents of this poor kid are to blame as well.  Juror #3 had it right when she said something to the effect of "How can any parent let their child sleep in a stange man's bed?", or something like that.  From now on, any parent that brings their kids to Neverland Ranch should be slapped with their own child endangerment charge.

Fortunately we live in a country that does the best it can at keeping innocent citizens out of prison.  The problem is some of the guilty ones are also allowed to roam free.


----------



## dmc (Jun 14, 2005)

I didnt trust the accusers from the start..
And niether did the jury..

And thats how justice works...  

I don't neccessarily believe that he did it..  I think he's a freaky Peter Pan dude that still thinks he's a little kid...  And since he's so child like people want to take him to the cleaners...

Bitch all you want - accuse all you want..  He's free..  The people have spoken...


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 14, 2005)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> c'mon guys.  we know MJ is a wacko, but remember the  burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt."  add to that burden or proof the need to get a group of "peers" (if such a thing exists in such superstar cases) to all agree to that verbage on any one count and it's pretty difficult to convict.  just like the juice, everyone knew he was guilty of "something" - but that isn't enough to convict in the court of law.  honestly, i didn't even follow this case...  superstar legal battles are f'd up television spectaculars that are more about selling ad space and movie rights than justice.  but that's the way the system works, though it hardly works right in these types of celebrity cases.
> 
> how about opinion from our resident legal expert, thetrailboss?



I concur with you, riverc0il.  The prosecution did not really build a solid case..they should not have relied so much upon a questionable witness.  

I have avoided this case like the plague.  The mass hysteria complete with doves was just too much  :roll: 

In legal terms, the only folks who saw all of the evidence and all of the facts were the jury...and as you said, riverc0il, they still found a reasonable doubt.  That's all a defense has to do...create some doubt, and they did.  Did Jacko do something?  Quite possibly.  At this time though the jury did not find the witnesses credible enough.  

And by the way Stephen, that "liberal judge" did not render this verdict...as any good American who passed civics would know, a jury "consisting of ones peers" made the decision  :wink:   Again, simply chastising the judicial branch will not improve anything.    :roll:


----------



## dmc (Jun 14, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> And by the way Stephen, that "liberal judge" did not render this verdict...as any good American would know, the jury made the decision  :wink:   Again, simply chastising the judicial branch will not improve anything.   :wink:



Thank you..  

I suppose somehow it's Clintons fault now...


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 14, 2005)

One of the jurors aid they thought he had probably done something, but they didn't see evidence proving he'd done exactly what he was charged with. 

That being said, I paid even less attention to this one than I did to OJ, which is tough, because I was in Ecuador for most of the OJ saga.


----------



## dmc (Jun 14, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> One of the jurors aid they thought he had probably done something, but they didn't see evidence proving he'd done exactly what he was charged with.
> 
> That being said, I paid even less attention to this one than I did to OJ, which is tough, because I was in Ecuador for most of the OJ saga.



He's guilty of being a childlike freak - attempting to live out a childhood he never had.....


----------



## JimG. (Jun 14, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> I didnt trust the accusers from the start..
> And niether did the jury..
> 
> And thats how justice works...
> ...



Totally agree...if he had grabbed the kid off the street I'd say he should have been put away, but these parents not only allowed the kids to stay with him, they stayed there too! 

He's a middle aged superstar who never had any childhood of his own, and his little sleepovers are his way of trying to have one. Doesn't prove he molested anyone.


----------



## Greg (Jun 14, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> He's guilty of being a childlike freak - attempting to live out a childhood he never had.....


Bold statement of "fact" considering you (1) don't know him personally (2) were not in that courtroom for the trial. Similarly I don't know all of the details and evidence surrounding this particular case, but my feeling is MJ should be considered _not guilty_ rather than _innocent_.


----------



## dmc (Jun 14, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just my opinion based upon the barrage of stuff about him in the media..  
I have no idea what happens inside that freak show he calls Neverland...

I'd rather believe he doesnt molest kids..  I pray he didn't molest kids...


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 14, 2005)

All I know is i'm not letting any one of those jurors babysit my kids... apparently they all think its ok for an ADULT male to sleep in the same bed as a teen/pre-teen BOY. I don't care if its your own kid, thats wrong. 

Oh yeah...and why bother with an alcohol age limit, just give all the kids "jesus juice".

M


----------



## dmc (Jun 14, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> All I know is i'm not letting any one of those jurors babysit my kids... apparently they all think its ok for an ADULT male to sleep in the same bed as a teen/pre-teen BOY. I don't care if its your own kid, thats wrong.
> 
> Oh yeah...and why bother with an alcohol age limit, just give all the kids "jesus juice".
> 
> M



Actually during the interview..  a juror said she and a few others on the jury - would NEVER let their kids sleep with an adult...
They DON't think it's OK... But it isn't against the law...
What matters to them as jurors is what the law says..


----------



## JimG. (Jun 14, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> All I know is i'm not letting any one of those jurors babysit my kids... apparently they all think its ok for an ADULT male to sleep in the same bed as a teen/pre-teen BOY. I don't care if its your own kid, thats wrong.



So, when my 9 year old son comes into my room crying because he had a nightmare and I let him come into bed with me and my wife, that's wrong?

I don't think you really meant that.


----------



## dmc (Jun 14, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> dmc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry - there I go again giving my opinion in this opressive world of GWB squelching differing opinions...

I never said that.. I said - they didn't think he broke the law...  An adult sleeping with a kid is now against the law.. 
Quite twisting my words or I'll back out of this debate...  Nothing makes me madder...

PS: I do support tradtional marriage!  And also non-traditinal...
I actually may agree with vouchers too...
Also own guns... 
I guess maybe I'm not te flaming Liberal you ASSUMED I was... MAybe I'm just someone who doesnt aggree with the current admin..???  Thats OK isnt it?


----------



## Stephen (Jun 14, 2005)

ANd maybe I agree with the administration.

I deleted my message when I re-read your message and realized I mis-interpreteed it. My apologies.

-Stephen


----------



## dmc (Jun 14, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> ANd maybe I agree with the administration.
> 
> I deleted my message when I re-read your message and realized I mis-interpreteed it. My apologies.
> 
> -Stephen



Not a problem


----------



## SkiDog (Jun 14, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> SkiDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Naaaa I didnt mean it in that "extreme", obviously there are times when this would be necessary.. i.e. late night nightmares...

M


----------



## JimG. (Jun 14, 2005)

SkiDog said:
			
		

> Naaaa I didnt mean it in that "extreme", obviously there are times when this would be necessary.. i.e. late night nightmares...
> 
> M



Didn't think so. Cases like this one make people crazy though, and you never know how someone might interpret those kinds of actions in the post Jackson trial era. 

Adult men sleeping with boys is not normal, but not illegal either. Michael Jackson is clearly not normal, and based on his history it doesn't surprise me he does abnormal things. The parents of this kid KNEW all that, and ALLOWED him to sleep with MJ anyway.

Alot of strange things came out in this trial about the parents of this kid, and frankly this trial was nothing more than a taxpayer funded freak show. The prosecution should be ashamed.


----------



## dmc (Jun 14, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> The prosecution should be ashamed.



If the DA said the word "conscientious" one more time during his press conference I would've barfed...  He must've said it 50 times...


----------



## Greg (Jun 14, 2005)

Let's just hope that if anything comes out of this whole thing, it's that no other parents or guardians let their children hang out at Neverland. Somehow I doubt that will happen.

What made me want to barf was all the "fans" outside the courthouse hugging and crying when the verdict was known. Give me a break. I wish I had that kind of free time...  :roll:


----------



## JimG. (Jun 14, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> I wish I had that kind of free time...  :roll:



No you don't! Then you would be an empty person who has nothing to do but live vicariously through some freaky pop star.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 14, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> What made me want to barf was all the "fans" outside the courthouse hugging and crying when the verdict was known. Give me a break. I wish I had that kind of free time...  :roll:



Yeah, them and all of the gay/abortion protesters...where do they get all of the time and money to just go and protest?   :blink:


----------



## dmc (Jun 14, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> Yeah, them and all of the gay/abortion protesters...where do they get all of the time and money to just go and protest?   :blink:



I took a couple days off during the Presidential campaign to work for "Head Count" - trying to get kids to sign up to vote...


----------



## awf170 (Jun 14, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> Greg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



they dont waste it all on skiing :lol:


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 14, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> thetrailboss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, that's one thing....but folks flying from Kansas to Vermont to protest civil unions in 2000 for a WHOLE WEEK is another.  Where do they stay?  Do they have jobs?


----------



## dmc (Jun 14, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> Yes, that's one thing....but folks flying from Kansas to Vermont to protest civil unions in 2000 for a WHOLE WEEK is another.  Where do they stay?  Do they have jobs?



They stay a churches...  Take time off work...


----------



## cbcbd (Jun 14, 2005)

I don't really have all the info necessary to make a fair judgement, but something still doesn't feel right. He needs to be forced to get some mental help of some sort. 

Triumph was pretty hilarious on the subject, though:
http://download.ifilm.com/qt/portal/2672935_300.mov


----------



## Paul (Jun 14, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> thetrailboss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Apples and oranges, dude. What you were doing was pro-active, and encouraging. It could ONLY help. 

Protests are different. Regardless of agenda, protests are confrontational, and do nothing to help resolve the conflict they create. 

Getting kids to vote is a noble cause. Protesting Gay unions and supporting Jacko, aren't. They do nothing to help society or future generations.


----------



## dmc (Jun 14, 2005)

Paul said:
			
		

> Getting kids to vote is a noble cause. Protesting Gay unions and supporting Jacko, aren't. They do nothing to help society or future generations.



Thanks... It was fun..  Signed up a ton of stoned kids...

Protesting gay marriage is noble if you really believe it's wrong and aren't just a sheeple being led by conservative dogma.....

Going to MJs house for two weeks to hang out...  Not so noble


----------



## Paul (Jun 14, 2005)

dmc said:
			
		

> Paul said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah...matter of opinion I 'spose. I just think there have to be more constructive ways to further your agenda than to protest.

totally agree on the MJ deal, though.... :beer:


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 14, 2005)

So none of you are going to go out and buy Jacko's latest hit album?  Maybe he will have a song about being in court so many times...:wink:  :lol:


----------



## dmc (Jun 14, 2005)

thetrailboss said:
			
		

> So none of you are going to go out and buy Jacko's latest hit album?  Maybe he will have a song about being in court so many times...:wink:



If it's good.. I'll buy it..  

I still love Thriller...  My band actually plays "Billy Jean" from time to time..


----------



## Paul (Jun 14, 2005)

I like "Off the Wall"

I'm thinking the next one will be "Behind the Wall"


----------



## Greg (Jun 14, 2005)

Winner:






 :roll:


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 14, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> Winner:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow.   :blink:   That is sad.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 14, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> Winner:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh boy, this shot is screaming out for a thread about what this guy is saying.

OK, I'll start: "Yay! We're all going to Neverland!"


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 14, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Greg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Amen!  They have seen the light!!!"  

or

"BEAT IT, beat it..."


----------



## Stephen (Jun 14, 2005)

I'm releasing! I'm FULLY releasing!!


----------



## Stephen (Jun 14, 2005)

For those of you who are Triumph fans:

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2672935


----------



## Greg (Jun 14, 2005)

More winners:








 :lol:


----------



## JimG. (Jun 14, 2005)

Greg said:
			
		

> More winners:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Whoa! These folks are completely over the top. Just makes me thankful that I have a life.


----------



## Greg (Jun 14, 2005)

JimG. said:
			
		

> Whoa! These folks are completely over the top. Just makes me thankful that I have a life.


You have to admit. The dove is a nice touch...  :wink:  :blink:  :lol:


----------



## Paul (Jun 14, 2005)

Didn't this guy's 15 minutes end 15 years ago?  :blink:


----------



## ctenidae (Jun 14, 2005)

I hope the dove crapped on someone.


----------



## Paul (Jun 14, 2005)

ctenidae said:
			
		

> I hope the dove crapped on someone.



with a fake nose...and bleached skin...and....


----------



## riverc0il (Jun 14, 2005)

> Protests are different. Regardless of agenda, protests are confrontational, and do nothing to help resolve the conflict they create.


ouch, i would argue MLK's version of peaceful protest and non-violence helped his cause.  modern protestors generally make @$$es outta respectable causes though.  look at the grossly misunderstood so-called "anti-globalization" protests.  the media makes modern protestors look like a buncha young obnoxious uneducated trouble makers when post average protestors are anything but.

though the media spectacles surrounding modern court cases are simply ludicrous.  i suspect this one isn't like OJ simpson though.  i still remember being in high school when the verdict was announced, what a spectacle even in a suburban massachusetts educational institution! :blink:


----------



## Paul (Jun 15, 2005)

riverc0il said:
			
		

> > Protests are different. Regardless of agenda, protests are confrontational, and do nothing to help resolve the conflict they create.
> 
> 
> ouch, i would argue MLK's version of peaceful protest and non-violence helped his cause.  modern protestors generally make @$$es outta respectable causes though.  look at the grossly misunderstood so-called "anti-globalization" protests.  the media makes modern protestors look like a buncha young obnoxious uneducated trouble makers when post average protestors are anything but.
> ...



Totally agree, I didn't make my point clear enough. What MLK, X, Ghandi and others were protesting were things that, at the time, were Status Quo. In other words, they were bringing about a paradigm shift. They were not protesting a court decision (ala MJ or Terry Schiavo) unless it was a decision (much like ones involved with school segregation / integration) that was a part of an entire movement. Their protests were nowhere near as "knee-jerk" as most of the ones we see today. MLK and others wern't also merely protesting, weren't just contradicting things, they had a clear message, and were doing what they were doing to improve society as a whole. What they did affected FAR more individuals than MJ supporters, anti-abortionists, and anti- gay-marriage nuts. 
Who knows, with the benefit of hindsight maybe in 20 years Mr. "Full-Relaese" may be seen as a hero of his cause....

Somehow, I doubt that.


----------

