MICHEAL JACKSON NOT GUILTY!!!!! YES!!!!!

[Izzy]

as usual, you miss the point.

Oh! Care to give examples - oh wait, u can't!

If u can make baseless statements i'll take this opportunity to do so too

'Sandman writes from inside a psychiatric ward''

Are u alledging the jury, after weeks of info and hours of deliberation got it wrong - but u, having a fraction of the info at ur disposal are right?! Damn u must be good, some kind of Aryan super being perhaps?

 

my point is that all systems of justice have flaws.

And Michael Jackson should feel our fury as a result?

Has it occured to u that an innocent man has been spared jail?

Maybe our system is flawed because of such ingrained bias as u display?

U see, i'm a massive fan - but i was fully prepared to accept the jurors verdict either way, because they've seen the info.

and that although we as citiizens must accept the decisions of the courts, IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE CORRECT!!

And because they can be wrong it means they are wrong in this situation?

evidence to this fact is that people are sometimes tried twice for the same crime (when a mistrial declared) and the second time around, a different verdict is reached.

Indeed.

But that different verdict is backed by new evidence - hence the calling of a new trail - oh yes! Go play with that one

[Eazy E]

How more innocent can you get than "NOT GUILTY - ON ALL COUNTS"?

That actually makes no sense. ?Innocence cannot be proven, that is why the verdict is either "guilty" or "not guilty". ?The jury has to look at the evidence provided and decide, if Michael Jackson were innocent, ?how likely is it that certain evidence would be presented? ?Beyond a certain point it becomes clear "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Michael Jackson is guilty. ?This case did not have enough evidence so he was considered "not guilty". ?This does not prove that he is innocent.

Anyways, I'm off to dangle some children over my balcony for me fans.

[Eazy E]

Juror:  Jackson probably molested boys.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/06/14/newjackson-verdict050614.html

[Izzy]

Juror:? Jackson probably molested boys.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/06/14/newjackson-verdict050614.html

3 of 12 had doubts - sounds convincing to me!

Factoring in that some jurors would have come to the trial believeing the 1993 allegations, i'd say, 3 of 12 was not surprising, i'd expected it to be closer

[*Izzy*]

Sorry to hear that story Tied Up, ? ?I've never actually come in contact with anyone who was abused.

Are u alledging the jury, after weeks of info and hours of deliberation got it wrong - but u, having a fraction of the info at ur disposal are right?! Damn u must be good, some kind of Aryan super being perhaps?

This says everything I want to say, the jury studied the case much longer than we did therefor there opinions on MJ are more valid us, unless someone here was part of that jury

  Izzy ?

[Tied-Up]

so you've been in a terrible situation and are speaking under the emotion and feelings.
therefore your opinion is a little biased...

  ?If you read my post completely, you will see that I originally (ten years ago) believed the man to be innocent. ?I don't think that everyone who is accused of molestation is guilty of molestation, just because of my own experience.

I'm not speaking from emotion and my own personal trauma, I told my story only because someone had previously given the argument "why haven't other children come forward with accusations" if MJ is so guilty. ?The reason is simple... many children WON'T come forward, because they are ashamed. ?They believe they are guilty of something, they believe they will get in trouble for something that is completely not their fault. ?They are children, and they are easily manipulated in to believing that the treatment they've received, the touching... is normal and to be expected, rather than touching is wrong. ?They can be told a thousand times by authority figures that touching is wrong, but it doesn't ring true because they are being told by someone close and trusted that it's alright.

Michael Jackson preys upon children, convincing them that what he does to them is normal. ?These children trust him, and he takes advantage of that.

[sandman]

as usual, you miss the point.

Oh! Care to give examples - oh wait, u can't!

If u can make baseless statements i'll take this opportunity to do so too

'Sandman writes from inside a psychiatric ward''

Are u alledging the jury, after weeks of info and hours of deliberation got it wrong - but u, having a fraction of the info at ur disposal are right?! Damn u must be good, some kind of Aryan super being perhaps?

 

my point is that all systems of justice have flaws.

And Michael Jackson should feel our fury as a result?

Has it occured to u that an innocent man has been spared jail?

Maybe our system is flawed because of such ingrained bias as u display?

U see, i'm a massive fan - but i was fully prepared to accept the jurors verdict either way, because they've seen the info.

and that although we as citiizens must accept the decisions of the courts, IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE CORRECT!!

And because they can be wrong it means they are wrong in this situation?

evidence to this fact is that people are sometimes tried twice for the same crime (when a mistrial declared) and the second time around, a different verdict is reached.

Indeed.

But that different verdict is backed by new evidence - hence the calling of a new trail - oh yes! Go play with that one

it's a shame. you just don't get it. and you obviously do not understand our justice system. (and for the record, i never said i am convinced he did it.)

and you obviously have never been on a jury, or you would have first hand knowledge that because the burden of proof is on the prosecution, sometimes you have to vote not guilty when you actually believe the person is guilty.

what you're essentially saying is that every trial in the history of the US has gotten the correct verdict.   

[D]

Izzy dude, u are dead on in my eyes

thanks for the great posts and for saying what I havent been able to put into words

Listen it isnt so much is Micheal innocent or guilty that pisses me off, its the fact that even before anyone heard any evidence they already had him guilty


and it doesnt stop just with Micheal Jackson

no matter who gets accused, most people in this country come to the conclusion that they are guilty regardless of the evidence or anything else.

How many people had Kobe Bryant in the noose before they ever heard anything?

It just isnt fair.

Like I said I was accused of somebullshit a few years ago and Had it made the papers I wouldve been automatically ruined.

If u see all the evidence and truly believe someone is guilty, great,all power to u.

Just do not assume guilt before u even hear the case no matter what is flashed on the news or in the newspaper.

That isnt right and isnt cool

manypeople's lives have been ruined just from being accused, no matter how much bullshit the charges are.

[sandman]

Izzy dude, u are dead on in my eyes

thanks for the great posts and for saying what I havent been able to put into words

Listen it isnt so much is Micheal innocent or guilty that pisses me off, its the fact that even before anyone heard any evidence they already had him guilty


and it doesnt stop just with Micheal Jackson

no matter who gets accused, most people in this country come to the conclusion that they are guilty regardless of the evidence or anything else.

How many people had Kobe Bryant in the noose before they ever heard anything?

It just isnt fair.

Like I said I was accused of somebullshit a few years ago and Had it made the papers I wouldve been automatically ruined.

If u see all the evidence and truly believe someone is guilty, great,all power to u.

Just do not assume guilt before u even hear the case no matter what is flashed on the news or in the newspaper.

That isnt right and isnt cool

manypeople's lives have been ruined just from being accused, no matter how much bullshit the charges are.

D - i agree with what you're saying.

and it is ridiculous that many people just assume guilt (or innocence). and it's unfortunate when allegations ruin someone's rep.

but the fact of the matter is that none of us truly know whether he is innocent or guilty of these charges.

so just as you are saying "don't assume his guilt based on the accusations alone".....many of us are saying "DON'T ASSUME HIS INNOCENCE BASED ON A 'NOT GUILTY' VERDICT".

guilty people get off every day in this country.

none of us were there and our opinions are just that (not factual), but we all have a right to them.

[tinyrobot]

This is my evidence of Michael Jackson being a boylover. This is from the site: http://www.mhamic.org
(MALE HOMOSEXUAL ATTRACTION TO MINORS INFORMATION CENTER). Very reliable site if you have any doubts about me.

Proof #1
According to research, some men preferentially attracted to boys refrain from sexual activity, and many interact with them in non-sexual ways, sometimes developing close relationships with them.

[Jackson says he likes sleeping in bed with boys in a non-sexual way. He developed close relationships with all of his accusers.]

Proof #2
Studies have found that even those who do engage in sexual activity with boys often do so with the boy?s apparent willingness or initiative. According to some researchers, the interaction may resemble a "love affair" in that the man desires a "consenting" sexual relationship, has affectionate feelings for the boy, and will stop if the boy resists.

[In the previous case of Jordy Chandler, the kid said Jackson kissed him on the lips and masterbated him but when the kid said he didnt like that, Jackson started crying.]

Proof #3
Both non-criminological and criminological studies of pedophiles and ephebophiles who have engaged in sexual activity with children have found that the most frequent activities are cuddling, caressing, fondling, and masturbation. Violence, force, and aggression are rare.

[Hah... all those activities were exactly what all the witnesses described. Jesus Salas, the most credible witness, talked about tickling and "spooning". Gavin, the accuser, talked about masterbation. It all fits in this description of a boylover... what more evidence do u need? ]

Proof #4
A handful of researchers have examined the thoughts and feelings of men attracted to boys:

They report that these men find both personality and physical traits of underage boys attractive, such as curiosity, spontaneity, gentleness, warmth, enthusiasm, honesty, affection, smooth skin, attractive eyes, and slim stature.

They have found that many of these men desired to give love, and affection to the boys, and indicated that a sense of emotional contact was as important as, or more important than, sexual activity.

[Jackson has repeatedly talked about what he likes in children. It all matches those traits.]

Disturbing: he's not the only one
Based on a theory that attraction to minor males has a hormonal basis, Jay Feierman of the University of New Mexico predicts that 7% to 10% of men are preferentially attracted to underage boys, but believes that many of them can suppress their feelings in favor of those toward adults. If correct, this would mean that there are about 7 to 10 million such men in the U.S.

 

[tinyrobot]

How can a child describe this perv so accurately? Unless this kid when to College and got a degree in psychology at age 13, there's no other way he could know all these things that are typical of boylover behavior.

[nesquick]

at 13 years old you are not stupid. I remember at 14, I had already the level required in Economy for the Baccalaureat.
You know at 6, my Israeli cousin already spoke 3 languages: hebrew, French and English. a 13 years old person can speak as correctly as that.
It's not a proove of MJ innocence for me. I repeat it, I think he is free because he is called "mickael jackson" and because he is a celebrity.

[tinyrobot]

at 13 years old you are not stupid. I remember at 14, I had already the level required in Economy for the Baccalaureat.
You know at 6, my Israeli cousin already spoke 3 languages: hebrew, French and English. a 13 years old person can speak as correctly as that.
It's not a proove of MJ innocence for me. I repeat it, I think he is free because he is called "mickael jackson" and because he is a celebrity.

I was proving the kid right, actually, that's why I said if none of that happened, there's no way a 13 year old could make all that stuff up. Those sexual things are not usually known by 13 year-olds... unless they go through it. 

[D]

I think the lamest thing is when they say "He drew Micheal's testicles"

Ive lived with my testicles for 26 years and I couldnt draw them to save my life.

[Timothy]

Prosecutor: You know, he's been accused of this before.
Dave: So? Some people like their cucumbers pickled.
Prosecutor: What?
Dave: Huh?
Prosecutor: What?
Dave: Huh?

Prosecutor: What if I told you that the accusers correctly described Michael's penis to investigators?
Dave Chappelle: Sir, I have never seen Michael's alleged penis, but I bet you that I can describe it all right? Let me guess... there's a head, a shaft, some balls, hair - maybe pressed, permed hair, with glitter sprinkled on it.
Prosecutor: That's correct.
Dave Chappelle: Whoa... how'd I know? Come on dude, I couldn't pick my own penis out of a line up, all right? And me and penis is like this, son.

[N.I.B]

I think the lamest thing is when they say "He drew Micheal's testicles"

Ive lived with my testicles for 26 years and I couldnt draw them to save my life.

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Let's face it, they want him thrown in jail because hes Michael Jackson. If it was some white redneck they wouldnt give a damn. They tried to put him away because hes an odd, multi-million superstar.

[Lisa]

 ::)regardless what we all think and/or want...he was proven innocent by a jury of his 'peers' ...end of story

[Izzy]

what you're essentially saying is that every trial in the history of the US has gotten the correct verdict.? ?

Now who's missing the point!

U keep telling urself that - or better yet, find where i alledgedly said that, go on - i dare u

and you obviously have never been on a jury, or you would have first hand knowledge that because the burden of proof is on the prosecution, sometimes you have to vote not guilty when you actually believe the person is guilty.

That's called a safeguard, to protect people from circumstantial evidence. The system isn't quite as flawed as u'd like to think

I'd imagine if i got a family of wacko's to accuse u of child abuse u'd be grateful of such protection

U still haven't told me how u know he's guilty without seeing all the info? Oh wait - ur gut feeling!

Oh - u also didn't find any evidence to back up ur past claims - couldn't find any? U weren't on the prosecution where u

Michael Jackson may be guilty, i haven't claimed otherwise, but he's run the guantlet and despite a determined effort to nail him for ANYTHING, (hell they spread their net pretty wide) nothing was proved

U seem to be of the dispostion that if u haven't found something its because u haven't looked hard enough - the flip side, as i'm sure u r aware, is there was nothing to find

U would want people to be on ur side if u were cleared by a jury - so why do u deny the same to MJ? How would u feel if u were cleared and people carried on thinking ill of u?

If he was guilty don't u think some convincing evidence would have been found? Rather strange that none was - isn't it? Strange the family was a bunch of wacko's out for money?

[sandman]

i have no idea why this is so hard for people to understand.

he was NOT found innocent.

based on the high levels of proof our courts require, the prosecution could not prove his guilt.

do all you people stating that MJ has been proven innocent believe OJ is innocent as well? AND if so, how do you explain the result of OJ's civil trial (he lost)?

and i don't give a damn about MJ's reputation.....i know he has "shared a bed" with little boys and in my book, that makes him the scum of the earth.

[SLCPUNK]

I think the lamest thing is when they say "He drew Micheal's testicles"

Ive lived with my testicles for 26 years and I couldnt draw them to save my life.

The boy probably had quite a different view of them............


*********


I can't believe I agree with Sandman, I'm going to go drink some more coffee.