...well, it's been REACHED, but we don't know it yet. Will be updated soon.
EDIT: Not Guilty on all counts.
Given the timespan involved, I refuse to believe it's been as clear-cut as those verdicts suggest...
How many jurors just didn't want their private lives to be public property for the rest of their span, and to have those baying apes outside the courtroom sending them death threats?
Complete bulls--t. The defense's case consisted almost entirely of celebrities spewing the same "GOD LOVES MJ!!!11!11!!!11" crap as the morons outside. There was more than enough evidence to indicate guilt.
Aw come on. It's like O.J. We all know he did it.
its done and over, lets move on, now then whos next on the list? R. Kelly?
First O.J, then Kobe Bryant and R.Kelly, now M.J.
I'm so glad Saddam is not being tried in California.
Quote:
There was more than enough evidence to indicate guilt.
This would have been completely true had the accuser and his idiot mother not completely fudged the entire case by repeatedly changing their stories and denying they said thing that were on record as having been said.
Plus, you know, the whole "Accuser admitting to a newspaper that he lied" thing was a big step backwards.
As innocent as a rabid badger, I say.
I will laugh if, in five years, he gets charged again for molesting ANOTHER kid. How many times can Jackson get away with claiming it's ALL about the money?
He's guilty. You could see it on his face when he came out of the courtroom. And I hope next time, he's not so lucky.
Anyway, Mike will probably get what he deserves. This case has practically bankrupted him. I heard that he had to sell Neverland. If he doesn't stop his flamboyant spending, he will be bankrupt.
This Not Guilty verdict could be very beneficial for him, if he handles it right. A nice autobiography, a few comeback songs, and he could be back. But if he handles it badly, he's going to end his career with a nice drug addiction problem to go with his alcohol problem, like no small number of celebs.
What worries me is that if he is guilty of these crimes, he'll now think, "Hey, the evidence against me is heavy, but these guys still thought I was innocent. That means it's okay to keep doing it!"
I don't think Michael thinks he's hurting children. I think he genuinely thinks what he's doing is absolutely fine. But they run wild in his house, and we don't know what goes on there. That can't be good for them.
A quote from his sister, Janet Jackson: "I don't think he's guilty, but I hope it doesn't happen again."
Which gives her opinion on it as "I hope he's found innocent because he's my brother."
Another person said, "If he's not doing anything wrong, why does he keep doing it with 10 - 13 year old boys?"
Personally I think he's guilty. But come on, you have to accept the decision of the courts. He has been found innocent by a fair and impartial jury. My fat rear.
Think about it. The members of the jury are celebrities themselves. Celebrities are gods, and suppose one of them is suddenly found guilty of such a terrible crime.
Oh no! Celebs aren't as innocent as we thought! Do they really want us thinking that?
We have to accept the jury's verdict.
Quote:
We have to accept the jury's verdict.
NO. no we don't.
the more we think of him as a child molester the more he will be discouraged to do it AGAIN.
Blame the prosecution's witnesses...but now he'll have to be more careful than before...but considering what world his head is on, I wouldn't be surprised if he does it again...
Quote:
the more we think of him as a child molester the more he will be discouraged to do it AGAIN.
It's all part of being human! Saying "F*** THAT!" And go with your own idea.
What I meant was that if someone is charged of paedopile activities and cleared, you can't go round to their house and start spraying "PAEDOPHILE" on the walls.
Did you see all those mothers in the crowds holding up children for Mike to kiss and stuff? If this was a paedophile case for a normal person, those mothers would be hurling eggs and tomatoes, and screaming obsceneties to get him out of the country or something.
Quote:
you can't go round to their house and start spraying "PAEDOPHILE" on the walls.
Why should you be spraying anything on the walls, anyway? Oo;;
Because that wallpaper is just nasty. It won't do at all.
Anyway, ima go with the majority here, mainly because I haven't been keeping up with the events and everything I have heard regarding the case has been against Jackson. So not very justified reasons. Hm. >_>
Don't you find it annoying that if a normal person was to go to court for this, it would have been a life sentence straight away, but just coz it's the "King Of Pop" now, he gets away scott free?
The only thing that comes to mind is favouritizim(sp?)
Am I the only one who is happy that he isn't guilty then? If you ask me - guilty or not guilty, the damage has been done, and he's become a mere shadow of his former self. Don't get me wrong, i'm not the biggest fan of Jackson, but I do feel that he is only trying to get the childhood he never had.
And when he says he sleeps with boys, people automatically assume that there is sex involved. Is that always the case? If a child was scared (say 'cos it's thunder and lightning or whatever) and slept with his parents in their bed, are the parents performing sexual acts? Of course - the difference is that Jackson is not the child's parent, but he'd have to be pretty damn stupid to perform such lewd acts.
Flawed though my argument may be, that's my two cents.
Why does everyone in this trhead still think he's guilty?
He made Thriller, man.
Thriller.
And he starred in a movie/game where he stopped villains from taking children - note that, CHILDREN - by the power of dancing.
Regardless of the above, what's your point? You could have Osama bin Laden be the one who sang "Thriller", but does that make him any less guilty for slamming two planes into the World Trade Center?
The members of the jury are celebrities themselves.
Uh, no they weren't. Can you name any of the jurors? I only remember the first name of one of them - Harold something. Not a celebrity.
Quote:
but I do feel that he is only trying to get the childhood he never had.
How does grabbing a kid's "privates" make him get his childhood that he never had back?
Well, really we don't have proof of anything. Yes, he has admitted to sharing a bed with children and some of the stuff is so deranged, he should have at least been sentanced to some councilling ;p but that doesn't mean he was touching them.
I'm not making a decision either way, because I can't. But it seems about 90% of people don't even consider that it's anything but sinister. *Shrug* I dunno. I'd just like to hear someone say more than "HE IS GUILTY" in a convincing tone, before I'd start to be certain that this was injustice.
But, as rightfully said earlier, if this were anyone else, the amount of doubt he's being benefitted just wouldn't exist. Someone shouts paedophile loud enough, the world listens, and tends to ignore anything from the accused's mouth.
Sexual abuse is slowly becoming another Salem, except the horrifying thing is, there really ARE witches, this time around.
Innocent until proven guilty even if he does look incredibly guilty. I said the same thing about O.J (I also didn't care about the case and I really could care less about this one)
(I also didn't care about the case and I really could care less about this one)
Well I couldn't care less. You know? As in I care so damn little it's impossible for me to care less.
Whereas I could care less about Sonic, I do have that capacity, but that doesn't stop me from being an obsessive fan.
*Pet peeve, vented. Goes into system cooldown*
Quote:
I really could care less
Those wacky Americans.
Quote:
Am I the only one who is happy that he isn't guilty then?
If you mean "isn't guilty" in the sense that the verdict was "not guilty," you aren't alone.
I didn't follow the case, but I do not believe I heard even one report from any news source (my local ones, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News) say that the prosecution proved that Michael Jackson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution doesn't do that, then the verdict by the jury is supposed to be "not guilty." Everyone I ever heard on the news said it was one of the weakest cases they had ever heard and the only thing that could possibly have helped it were the prior allegations, which were hurt since three of the prior allegations were shot down by the defense.
Some of the biggest fallacies I find is that 1) if the system wasn't followed properly in one case that it's bad that it worked correctly in another and 2) you're supposed to prove your innocence in the U.S.
As someone who has spent the past month playing "prosecutor" for my dad, who is currently bringing up charges on things concerning a recent vote in my home town, the burden of proof is on US. As my mom and I (in particular) kept telling our dad, it doesn't matter that something seems a certain way and that most may think something. When stuff comes to a jury or a judge, you have to prove their guilt. If you don't prove the guilt, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks or knows.
Being honest...
I think if MJ DIDN'T have his plastic surgery, people would stop taking the piss out of him (since the surgery makes him seem like a creepy and worrying person anyway).
I think it really comes down to this;
He should've stayed black
This way more people would have respected him and less people would have been against him.
Couldn't help it. The woman part was his own doing, but the white part was caused by a skin condition.
Yeah, people seem to forget that one, Cyke. That or they just assume and don't bother to look for the truth.
I'll believe the jury in this case. Frankly I don't care for either party. On one side Jackson's just creepy acting (And creepy looking thanks to all the plastic surgery), and on the other paw it looks like greedy parents just seem to throw caution (and their concern for their kid's safety) to the wind when they think they can get money outta a celebrity.
~Rico (Was sick of this thing from the start)
I say that since we didn't see the trial itself, or any of the evidence or anything, we can't really judge MJ guilty or innocent.
Thats why I said I'll believe the jury. 
~Rico
Well, Sky One and Sky News were showing dramatic re-enactments of the trial as it progressed, so we got a look into what sort of things were happening (or at least I did). But that's nothing like actually being at the court of course.
For what it's worth, I hope he is truly innocent, for the obvious reasons. So I'm fine to go along with the decision.
Here's my input.
I felt that the fact that child and the mother who accused Micheal Jackson continually changed their story was the deciding factor in this case. At least its over now.
Quote:
Those wacky Americans.
Who me?
We got to see them on E! Entertainment.
Jimmy Kimmel as Jay Leno....hum.
To be honest, though, I doubt the skin condition. Yes, I know. He may have it. But....it only affects patches of skin, not the entire body. It doesn't help that he got himself so much plastic surgery...and then lied about it routinely.
That's my other two bits.
A dedicated page or something in particular?
I bet everyone felt sorry for him.
Like Anne Robinson said, in the fundamental, Right wing, practically theocracian America, how can he not be found guilty?
Quote:
If a child was scared (say 'cos it's thunder and lightning or whatever) and slept with his parents in their bed, are the parents performing sexual acts? Of course - the difference is that Jackson is not the child's parent, but he'd have to be pretty damn stupid to perform such lewd acts.
I know what you mean, but the fact is, he's NOT their parents, therefore, he hasn't really got any rights to be sleeping with anyone's children without parental consent. Sexual acts or not, it's not right.
Quote:
Anyway, ima go with the majority here, mainly because I haven't been keeping up with the events and everything I have heard regarding the case has been against Jackson.
Don't do that, you're liable to end up falling into the wrong crowd o_o
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't work. If it's like that, then where's the motivation in proving someone guilty?
A dedicated page or something in particular?
Apparently so, Red. This was the story it was running when I found it.
Quote:
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't work. If it's like that, then where's the motivation in proving someone guilty?
The "motivation" is that it's to keep only serious cases within the system.
As for the point of it, remember the system when working properly (meaning everyone tells the truth--so don't bother thinking about all the cases where witnesses lie on the stand or the old blatant biases of cases concerning race, religion, etc.) is to make sure innocent people are not ever sent to jail. The only way that's possible is if you start with the assumption of innocence.
Seriously, the U.S. justice system has always been "you're innocent until proven guilty" and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. It's not perfect (but nothing with humans will ever run perfectly), but it does work better now during my lifetime than it has in the past.
It's also supposed to stop the media from screaming, "Guilty! They're guilty!". Not that it does.
Why can't it be 'neutral until proven innocent'?
Because a bias is an unfair thing to bring into a court room. How can people who only know what the media tells them, about Jacko be fair to judge him using those narrow bias based on ignorance.
It'd be like me assuming you were guilty of murder because I've seen you on the forum and "know" you have a murderous personality from your behaviour here.
Get what I mean? You don't know Michael Jackson and I don't know the real life Harley. We only know a narrow and inaccurate perception, which is not true to reality.
Actually, you do kinda know the real-life Harley. You just think I'm putting on an act, and on average, I don't.
And anyway, if Michael didn't want people to think he was weird, he shouldn't have a funfair and a zoo in his back garden and enough plastic surgery to transform him into a white woman.
Once again, Michael Jackson did not become white of his own accord.
Yeah, I was watching that interveiw with MJ where he admitted to having a skin condition. Yes, he has had a lot still, it makes me wonder why he didn't choose a BLACK looking powder, or whatever he had to use.
It didn't stop him from having the extra plastic surgery.
I think everyone felt sorry for him.
The jury did its job. Every report is that the prosecution case sucked.
There's something you don't understand about innocent until proven guilty. Convicting him would accomplish practically nothing. So you're talking about destroying his life and a huge tax burden for the questionable benefits of isolation and deterrence. You'd better be darn sure he did it, and even then it's probably more of a negative than a positive. People are expecting courts to be an entertainment system for their bloodlust. The legal system should be more about civil judgments and protection.
Oh yeah, and why criticize him for wanting to look white or prissy? Being related to vitilago doesn't matter. Quite a few other people are white and they don't get criticized for it. There are billion dollar industries built around tweaking your appearance but we can't have somebody making race appear irrelevant.
OH NOES TEH RACE MUST BE ADVERTISED.
By having light makeup he is threatening the idea that race is identity. Ethnicity is to be valued, or so the people say. He must hate his heritage. It can't just be the same thing as hair coloring, this is something you're supposed to categorize and predict people by on a deeper level than other aspects of appearance.
Quote:
Regardless of the above, what's your point?
SH, you need to practice your sarcasm detection. 
Quote:
Like Anne Robinson said, in the fundamental, Right wing, practically theocracian America, how can he not be found guilty?
He wasn't tried in the theocratic parts of America.
Yeah, I heard through the grapevine that MJ hated his father so much, he didn't want to look like him no more, so he made himself that way.
Quite a few other people are white and they don't get criticized for it. There are billion dollar industries built around tweaking your appearance but we can't have somebody making race appear irrelevant.
That's because they were born white. People criticize him because they think he should be proud of his ethnic background.
I am black, and no matter how much I didn't like my family I would never change my skin colour.
But that's just my opinion. I guess he obviously thinks differently, I'll respect that.
Quote:
I guess he obviously thinks differently, I'll respect that.
You can't respect EVERY opinion in the world.
Osama Bin Liner (yes, you heard me, Bin Liner) thought he was doing the world good by blowing up the World Trade Centers, it's his opinion, but will you respect that? I hope not. o.o
I say that he shouldn't have done it.
