Michael Jackson NOT GUILTY

from JoeUser Forums
Not Guilty?! I'm sorry....I think he's as guilty as sin....
2,031 views 15 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
This pervert did not fit and they had to acquit. Now I am free to sleep with boys as all middle aged should!!
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
and you think you are funny....
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with you, Alison.

The Bashir documentary left me without a doubt that he was molesting little boys. The way he was holding the boy's hand...*shiver* It saddens me that a) it will make harder for victims to come forward, 2) Jackson is free to molest a boy a day in Neverland if he chooses, and 3) the Cult of the Wounded Starchild (his crazyass fans) have vindication, 4) celebrity trumps every crime in California.

What is with California? Has the heat finally gone their brains? Do they have a permenant condition where they are starstruck, no matter how much it's clear a celebrity has a committed a crime. *shakes head*
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Society says I am a criminal for sleeping with young boys but now I can hump then till the cows come home and nobody can do anything about it!
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think he is guilty as well. I think he shoul get some professional help, maybe he genuinely thinks he didnt do anything wrong and that's a serious problem.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dusk:
I personally hope that LA sinks into the pacific!

Mano:
Third time's a charm...haha

MJ:
Enjoy?!

IG:
I think he needs a good shrink, myself...He has major issues.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't know. First they try to make out like he's an evil genius that carefully manipulates events to hide his perverted deeds. At the same time he isn't smart enough not to publicise having sleep overs with children. It doesn't make sense, you're either an evil genius or you're naive. You could say that maybe that is how he wants us to think but that isn't exactly the simplest explanation.

I think Michael Jackson's sexual pervertion is that he is completely asexual, though he won't admit it to himself (hence the porn, I've known gay guys that used to look a hetero porn because they were in denial). God I mean he obviously isn't the biological father of his children. He couldn't even bang one off to provide the genetic material for his own children.

Don't get me started on Martin Bashir, calling him a journalist is a pervertion of the english language. British tabloid journalists make writers for US tabloids look moral. I think reality TV has shown us you can portray anyone like anything with the right editing.

At the very least you have to admit the boy's mother was pretty dodgy. Even if he does molest kids I don't think he did this one. I could be wrong, I mean I wasn't at the trial but I think he is innocent. EIther way I don't think anyone should be judged by what you see in the media. I don't think you can really know anyone until you've met them yourself, let alone judge them.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well the truth is, regardless of whether we think he's guilty, the prosecution failed to prove it. I personally think he's guilty too, but fortunately in this country the court of public opinion won't get anyone a prison sentence.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't think any of us have any real idea of whether he is guilty. For me, the Bashir docco convinced me it was fairly likely that he is innocent. Just because it is not a social norm to share a bed with a child who is not your own biological child, does not make Jackson a paedophile. Many societies have believed in much more communal approaches to parenting than Western society's current norm. Why shouldn't Jackson adopt such an approach and give the children what they need: affection. It is a tragedy when members of society assume that any sign of affection towards a child by a man is a sure sign of their sexual desires.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

What we think only matters in the arena of public opinion.  12 people saw the evidence up close and personal and decided there was not enough there to convict him.  And that is the law of the land.

And I am glad it is, for I would hate being arrested and judged guilty based upon an arrest.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Come join me at PaedoLand, I'll sell my Beatles collection and we'll shoot our loads over kids.

If you're lucky you might get some of MJ's ice cream!!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with Toblerone, good insights into the case I think. MJ's habits are weird, he didn't have a childhood so I guess that's what caused it. But lets face it, the media already persecuted him from the get go. He may have done something years ago, and I don't know that for sure. Because he was wrong in paying that family off the first time. But starting with that Basir person, who in my word is not a journalist, the media slam dunked MJ.

The jury seemed to be fair and analysed the case very clearly from the interviews I've seen them give and what they had to say. They did the job they were asked to do. Unfortunately there are still some people, especially the media, questioning this and it seems that not even a jury of your peers is enough to prove you innocent or not anymore.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with Toblerone, good insights into the case I think. MJ's habits are weird, he didn't have a childhood so I guess that's what caused it. But lets face it, the media already persecuted him from the get go. He may have done something years ago, and I don't know that for sure. Because he was wrong in paying that family off the first time. But starting with that Basir person, who in my word is not a journalist, the media slam dunked MJ.

The jury seemed to be fair and analysed the case very clearly from the interviews I've seen them give and what they had to say. They did the job they were asked to do. Unfortunately there are still some people, especially the media, questioning this and it seems that not even a jury of your peers is enough to prove you innocent or not anymore.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think what people don't get about this case was that people having a feeling he is guilty or that he MUST have done it because of his strange behavior is actually not evidence that he actually did do it.

I thought he would be found guilty myself with at least one of the charges (Jesus Juice being one), but from what I heard from the jury and the quality of witnesses against Michael (it would seem that everyone of them had an extreme motive and most already sued him even BEFORE trying him in criminal court)

So many (especially on Fox News) wonder why they blame he mother and it is because while there ISN'T enough evidence to say he actually did for sure molest children (it doesn't matter if I actually think he did... heck even jury members thought he did, but there was no evidence), but the reason why they do is because WHY IN HELL would you allow your child to continue to see this man? We all know what happened REGUARDLESS of the evidence, yet she seemed fine with it all.

Then she sues Michael... forget criminal court... just sues him, teaches her children to lie and she gets money for it.




These were the types of witnesses against Michael? SHEESH!! No wonder he isn't in jail now.

Witnesses that were shady as Hell is hot (or cold depending...), lack of evidence pertaining to what was allowed in the courtroom, and just plain reasonable doubt.
This is criminal court, not civil.