Michael Jackson Trial Discussion

ok first of all, i am a 17 year old guy

second fo all, i dont think you should just call me an idiot just like that. one can get offended, i was just trying to state that the proceedings of thet trial should be discussed. and that the history of michael jackson was not used yet as evidence by prosecution. however that has changed, now the prosecution can bring past allegations.
i do find 1 thing funny, the prosecution has 5 witnesses, who say they were molested by michael jackson( allegedly), but i fail to understand that one of the people the prosecution's witnesses is child star maculay culkin. who has been always a friend of michael jackson, and has repeatedly said nothing happened between him and jackson, and he recently said he doesnt want any part of the trial. i fail to understand what the prosecution is trying to do, it looks to me like they are gonna try to brag their witnesses to tell stories, but i am not 1 to judge. however it was a key win for the prosecution who can now especially bring the 1993 allegation in which michael jackson paid the accuser off. i only question the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses

Alic I didn't specifically call you an idiot but you are quite clearly biased. Although you do say things of substance and reason, so I overlook it.

Originally posted by PVS
but you are only aware of it when you see it on the con side.
yet at the same time you mix strawman tactics into this arguement, dropping baseless lables, like the way you accuse people of just hating him because he's a freak.

Am I? Really? Am I really only aware of it on the con side? Is that the general conclusion? Or do I have a decision in what I do and don't see? I do? Thanks.

In that case, I do see it on both sides. I'm not debating for anyone, just myself. I stand by the theory, if you've got nothing of meaning to say, say nothing. Whether you're speaking for or against Jackson. If you don't know what you're talking about, keep quiet. It's wrong of you to assume I think otherwise just because I don't come out and say so.

Let's re-tread old soil for the last time:

You are denying the fact that people do hate him because they believe him to be a freak? Because that's not true, there ARE people like that.

If someone who hates him for an irrelevent reason, manages to formulate a good and reasonable argument as to why they believe Jackson is guilty, then that's cool. Just as long as your opinion of him OUTSIDE of case relevance, doesn't get in the way of your judgement, which should remain unbiased.

Now if there's any other things you'd like to falsely pick out, don't bother.

-AC

Micheal Jackson touched my peepee.

what I don't understand about this whole thing is that if Michael Jackson came so close to being imprisoned for the same thing ten years ago, surely he would have enough sense not to do it again! or at least not be so careless

yes he has gotten himself into trouble for this somewhat. he should take part of the blame for what he is facing right now. but i dont find anything sexual about what he does, like alpha said, its odd at most, but it cant b labelled as a pedophile.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=623045&page=1

this article is interesting, this emphasizes my point

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Alic I didn't specifically call you an idiot but you are quite clearly biased. Although you do say things of substance and reason, so I overlook it.

Am I? Really? Am I really only aware of it on the con side? Is that the general conclusion? Or do I have a decision in what I do and don't see? I do? Thanks.

In that case, I do see it on both sides. I'm not debating for anyone, just myself. I stand by the theory, if you've got nothing of meaning to say, say nothing. Whether you're speaking for or against Jackson. If you don't know what you're talking about, keep quiet. It's wrong of you to assume I think otherwise just because I don't come out and say so.

Let's re-tread old soil for the last time:

You are denying the fact that people do hate him because they believe him to be a freak? Because that's not true, there ARE people like that.

If someone who hates him for an irrelevent reason, manages to formulate a good and reasonable argument as to why they believe Jackson is guilty, then that's cool. Just as long as your opinion of him OUTSIDE of case relevance, doesn't get in the way of your judgement, which should remain unbiased.

Now if there's any other things you'd like to falsely pick out, don't bother.

-AC

i'm positive at this point that you are purposely dodging my point.
so whatever.

Your point being that I ignore the fact that there are people on the pro-Jackson side who defend him purely based on being a fan? Which is false and I agree with you that it's just as bad as some going against him for appearance only.

Or maybe you completely dodged my last paragraph.

-AC

I heard he drinks wine out of a coke can...that's pretty weird.

not really that wierd... just doesn't want people to know he's drinkin wine.

THIS IS WHAT I MEANT when i said that i have doubt about prosecution's witnesses even. this is not good for the prosecution, its funny they called this stewardess as their own witness

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151900,00.html

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
not really that wierd... just doesn't want people to know he's drinkin wine.

Sure, that would work if we were 16 and trying to snaek into amovie thater. But, this was at the age of 30something and in his own house.

FREAK!

i liked micael jackson...now not so much

Originally posted by alic88
THIS IS WHAT I MEANT when i said that i have doubt about prosecution's witnesses even. this is not good for the prosecution, its funny they called this stewardess as their own witness

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151900,00.html

Actually don't be so confident about that alic.

The stewardess testified that she did not see MJ give the kid alcohol. However she later testified that the child began to act irrationally and without reason, then she testified that she saw MJ's arm around the kid and that MJ gave the child a $75,000.00 watch.

When people get drunk they often act irrationally and without reason. Her testimony regarding the contact and the watch fall right into the context of the prosecution's case.

How the jury will see it no one knows, but before you declare victory, think about it, and perhaps read news sources other than FOX.

MJ you're bad you're bad you're really really bad

I don't care! Haven't been watching it and could care less.

me neither, how far in the trial or show are they now

Originally posted by finti
MJ you're bad you're bad you're really really bad

Picturing Finti dancing on top of a car with a glitter glove on one hand and wearing a fedora.
hysterical

Picturing Finti dancing on top of a car with a glitter glove on one hand and wearing a fedora.

I haven't really been following the case, though I would be interested in knowing whether they are planning on putting Jackson on the stand.