Michael Jackson Trial Discussion

Started by Mainstream62 pages

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Mainstream's an idiot.

-AC

why you gotta be so cold dude? Ouch AC ..you..you..hurt..my feelings...do you have a bandaid for my soul?
I am beyond insults...I am more power than even I dare dream!!!
confused66

Originally posted by ickeris2003
I wanted him to be guilty because this is a very serious crime and thinking about it makes me wanna throw up. I mean hes ver weirdknow a days and isnt his usual self. Oh well I know where he is going when he dies 😈 ..... I'll meet you at the darkside my little prince of pop.

A crime that you cant prove he did.
Its correct that we dont know if he DIDNT do it. We MAY NEVER. But all of its farfetched...

Originally posted by Morbid4Daniel
A crime that you cant prove he did.
Its correct that we dont know if he DIDNT do it. We MAY NEVER. But all of its farfetched...

But how do you feel about jurists now claiming that based on the evidence from previous trials, that they believe he is indeed a child molester? They just couldn't prove it in this particular case.

Originally posted by ickeris2003
I wanted him to be guilty because this is a very serious crime

Read what you just said.

'I wanted him to be guilty'- I wanted there to have been an/many incident[s] of child molestation.

What a strange thing to say.

Well the Jurors stepped up on interviews and gave their opinion. I didnt catch all of them but the ones that I saw said they thought he was completely innocent and the things that the boy and his mother were trying to put down on them were far-fetched.

Is this seriously still going on?..fact is he was shown to be 'not guilty' ...no amount of debating is going to chane it....personally I find tha amount of people who camped outside the courtroom more worrying.. 😖..do these people have no lives? ..it's bizzare..

Originally posted by Morbid4Daniel
Well the Jurors stepped up on interviews and gave their opinion. I didnt catch all of them but the ones that I saw said they thought he was completely innocent and the things that the boy and his mother were trying to put down on them were far-fetched.

Yes, but they have also said that after reviewing evidence from previous trials they believe he has molested other children.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Yes, but they have also said that after reviewing evidence from previous trials they believe he has molested other children.

So you deign to exonerate him in this case?

I can go on all year about this stuff, Fio. I LOVE giving and reading everyone's opinions.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
So you deign to exonerate him in this case?

They have to if they feel there is reasonable doubt. The evidence from previous cases was provided to show a pattern. They could only use that evidence to decide whether an apparent pattern existed. They could not use the evidence that he may have molested other boys have any bearing as to whether he molested this boy. That's how it works I guess.

first of all, only 1 juror said that. and second of all, if there were children who were accusing jackson of molesting him 12 years ago, hell they should have come forward, coming 12 years later on this case and saying that jackson fondled with me back then is very poor i am sorry to say. it doesnt bring any credibility to the witness. The prosecution couldnt bring the cases back then and that was probably because there was no real evidence, the bottom line is, every 1 is entitled to their opinion. THE OFFICIAL GOD DAMN WORD LIES WITH THE COURT, and what the court decides is what every 1 should accept and just move on with their lives. The kid in this case lied it can be clearly seen, MICHAEL JACKSON DID NOT MOLEST THE CHILD, CASE OVER, period. move on people.
this is as close as you can get to the truth, this is the system of justice, and you have to absorb it 1 way or the other. I swear if michael jackson had been convicted on those counts, i can swear to God that i would have written in this very thread that i was wrong believing in his innocence.
so please can we move on from this ow, since none of what you all are gonna say is relevent

Originally posted by alic88
first of all, only 1 juror said that.

Actually, now three have.

Originally posted by alic88
and second of all, if there were children who were accusing jackson of molesting him 12 years ago, hell they should have come forward, coming 12 years later on this case and saying that jackson fondled with me back then is very poor i am sorry to say. it doesnt bring any credibility to the witness. The prosecution couldnt bring the cases back then and that was probably because there was no real evidence[/B]

Or you could say that there was alot of evidence (enough to warrant attention and comment from current jurors) and that would be the reasons behind the multi million dollar payoffs. Just a thought. Plausible no?

Well whatever the court said it doesnt matter, I still go along with it.

I already knew all that alic. I read the interviews myself. Believe me I've been watching all of these and studying from 4.40 PM, to 12.30 last night.

the multi million dollar payment has been discussed before and franky i am tired and dont wanna go to that road again. hekk i dont need to defend the guy anymore, the courtroom has already vindicated him. accept it buddy, get over it. If you think mj is a pedophile on the lose, well too bad because its gonna take more than that to convict a person of child abuse. its how the system works, i just hope we can get along with each other and leave this behind.

😐

Oh well so he's free....whatever

And that's good

Originally posted by Morbid4Daniel
And that's good

Actually it's kind of unimportant.....why do you think its good though?

Why un-important? Its the main part of this thread, really.

It's good because its all over, its good because they proved him unguilty (Whether you think he did it or not. I dont think he did.), and I dont know why else. lol.

Originally posted by Morbid4Daniel
It's good because its all over, its good because they proved him unguilty

Not guilty, not unguilty. I don't even think "unguilty" is a word.