
» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society
Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
Custom Search
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 04/21/05 at 1:27 pm
http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/happy/yelrotflmao.gif
I'm sure the "Blind" followers won't be amused ;)
I'm sure they won't, but I don't think they could deny that it's funny.
Here is another one.
http://www.flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/9750
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 04/21/05 at 1:47 pm
I'm sure they won't, but I don't think they could deny that it's funny.
Here is another one.
http://www.flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/9750
;DThanks again! I don't think they'll find it funny at all, in fact it will probably be viewed as some sort of "Conspiracy" dreamed up by the MANY people who don't like him ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 04/21/05 at 1:56 pm
;DThanks again! I don't think they'll find it funny at all, in fact it will probably be viewed as some sort of "Conspiracy" dreamed up by the MANY people who don't like him ::)
probably not. I have a few more of them that I can post, I find they tell the truth better then some of the posters on here.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Dagwood on 04/21/05 at 2:56 pm
I thought Robin Hood/Men in Tights was a Mel Brooks flick. Why would he need to get financing from MJ? Mel Brooks has enough clout to get backing for a movie.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Dagwood on 04/21/05 at 7:41 pm
It is, but the story was co-written by the first accuser's father. Guess he went to Mel when MJ refused ::)
I didn't know that. Thanks. :)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Dagwood on 04/21/05 at 9:40 pm
Darn that Sony. ;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 04/21/05 at 9:43 pm
No problem. Although, I STILL don't understand how he went to MJ since the movie came out in 93, which means it was probably filmed in late91-early 92 and according to the allmichaeljackson website, he didn't even MEET him until mid-92 and Mel Brooks is also credited as a screenplay writer ??? I couldn't find ANYTHING on google that said he ever asked MJ for $$, but I'd be willing to bet Sony put him up to it ;)
Hey c'mon! It's ALways somebody else that lied..Sony set the poor little White? Black?....flit-boy up :D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/22/05 at 1:35 am
;D
A couple of months ago you people could use what the media say to back up your opinion that Michael Jackson is not innocent. I recall someone saying, "If CNN says MJ is in deep sheesh, then I believe he's in deep sheesh."
Now what are the media saying?
Flicking through the channels, all I hear are members of the media, legal experts etc. saying how crap the prosecution is, and how easy it will be for Michael Jackson to win this case. No-one is saying MJ is guilty, everyone is saying that if they had to go either way, it'd be to say MJ is innocent on all charges.
I know someone who works in media, a great guy. He's been at court every day so far. He said everyone, even Diane Dimond and Nancy Grace are now saying, there is no way Michael Jackson is guilty. Alot of media people want to sue Judge Melville! They want to see Tom Sneddon behind bars. This, I am not kidding. The people who actually know what happens in that court room, think the only humane thing to do is put Tom Sneddon and Janet Jackson behind bars. Let Michael get back to his life, his career. The media are dying for Michael to get back on stage. Professional music publishers, who've been in the game for years, all think the best thing for the music industry at the moment is for Michael Jackson to come back.
Right here, right now, with the support of the media and the music industry, I say, leave Michael Jackson alone and let him do his thang!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/22/05 at 1:52 am
Above, I mentioned a guy I know, who's in media. I made a post about what he said on an MJ fan forum, and this is it...
William Wagner is a guy who hosts a TV show called 'On Second Thought'. He lives in Santa Mariaand has been attending every court hearing so far. I met him at a fan event held in the Radisson hotel on Sunday April the 3rd and then numerous times that week after the courts proceedings.
Anyway, after court yesterday, I met him again and he told me some very interesting stuff about what other people in the media have been saying...
He started off by telling me about a court proceeding that happened in the first couple of weeks of the trial, and how him and other members of the media reacted when the prosecution announced they where going to show some of the evidence that was found at Neverland.
Wagner was in the courts overflow room, this is a place where the media can go and view the trial, where they are allowed to chat to each other and discuss the case. He said all the reporters in the overflow room remained hushed and where waiting for some horrendous piece of evidence, as they had heard ‘magazines’ where about to be produced. The prosecution then displayed nudist magazines from the 1930’s and a magazine with two naked men on the front cover (not fully exposed) cutting a huge piece of wood from a tree. That was it. That was the big ‘crunch’. It was also the time when all of the reporters in the overflow room looked at each other and almost rolled about laughing in hysterics (wagners words)! He said right before the prosecution showed these magazines, some reporters thought ‘Uh Oh’, this is it, this is what’s gonna nail Jackson’, thinking the magazines may have been related to child pornography etc. Wagener went on to tell me that it was obvious that the prosecution where merely using the magazines in a way to ‘shock’ the jury, however they remained unfazed by it all. One of the magazines even had the words ‘sunshine and health’ written across the cover…
Mesereau argued that the magazines where 'collector's items, can be found in the homes of people interested in Art and are legal to buy online and various outlets! He said that out of all of the hundreds of magazines and books found, this is all they (the prosecution) had to prove that MJ was interested sexually in children?? "Why did this ever go to trial", was a CNN reporter's comment to Wagner in the overflow room. My thought's exactly.
He went on to tell me about what he witnessed happening to Janet Arvizzo after the proceedings on Friday and on Monday. He said that on the Friday after the court he seen police putting Janet into the back of a ‘heavily secured armored vehicle’, very similar to the ones banks use to transport money and the windows where so heavily blacked out, that he thought it was against the law! On the side on the vehicle it had ‘Santa Maria Bomb Squad’ written across it, which he found very strange. On the Monday after the proceedings he witnessed Janet Arvizzo being escorted into a White heavily secured vehicle, again with very darkened windows. He said that she has more security surrounding her than Michael Jackson does!
Another few interesting points he made was that certain members of the media have filed lawsuits against Judge Rodney Melville because of his strict behavior with them in the courtroom! The motions that have been filed state the Melville ‘intimidates’ members of the media, who are only trying to do their job. At one point Vicki, the lady who does the courts sketching, was asked to leave the court because her mobile went off. Wagner stressed that this was completely unfair to her, as she is a free lance and does not get paid directly for her work. Wagner himself was also reprimanded by Melville for being seen talking to Randy at one point a few weeks ago.
He also stated that Melville is definitely on the prosecutions side and members of the media have already picked up on this. Wagner also said that he is doing his best to go out of his way to help the prosecution with as much as he can, in order for it to go in their favour.
Something else that was very interesting was this…
He asked me what was the media coverage like in Australia, and I said it had became very ‘minimal’ over the last week or so and he said that he wasn’t surprised, because after the first day of the Janet’s testimony, members of the media had already decided that ‘enough was enough’ and had made their mind up that Michael Jackson was indeed Innocent of these crimes. He even said that some members of the media were actually ‘frustrated’ at hearing Janet’s testimony, as they knew in the end the defense would have this case ‘in the bag’ and for some of them it seemed pointless being there if MJ was going to walk away from all of this… He told me to watch out for the news reporting of the trial going into the midweek of week two of the Defenses case. The public will see that the media will start reporting news that indicate that Michael Jackson is innocent of these crimes, to be exact he said that “they will report what I’ve been saying all alongâ€Â.
He spoke of members of the media 'already packing up and going' and that even in the courthouse now, there are a lot of empty seats where the media representatives usually take their positions and will continue to do so until Michael Jackson’s defense start to call the celebrity friends of Jackson’s to the stand.
Wagner also stated that the Prosecution have taken advantage of Janut Jackson by putting her on the stand, knowing Michael Jackson is innocent and making her lie, as she is obviously a person who needs psychiatric help and this will do her longtime damage. I asked him was she as ‘erratic’ and ‘animated’ as the media have made her out to be on the stand and he responded with “have you seen the reenactments on Sky, well she is even more over-the-top than the actress who is portraying her, it’s really that badâ€Â…
I told him that I was coming back out to Santa Maria for the start of July and Wagner said that “the case will be over by thenâ€Â. I asked him why did he think that and he said “because basically there is no need for Mesereau to put all these witness’s on the stand and waste everyone’s time, the Prosecution doesn’t even have a case for Mez to counter attack!†He said all Mez will need is two or three weeks of witness’s and this case is over!
He said that he wants to see Sneddon behind bars for this and that MJ can take him to court for wrongful prosecution (I think that’s the words he used), but that this would be very difficult and that it’s very hard to win a case like that.
He ended by saying that there is no way that Michael Jackson will be found ‘Guilty’ on any of these 10 accounts. This is his opinion of course and coming from a man who has been in that courtroom every single day since this trial has taken place and has been following the proceedings very closely, I tend to agree with him.
Personally, I am hoping to see Michael sue all these people...
Tom Sneddon for wrongful prosecution.
Diane Dimond for being at Neverland on the day of the raid. (I know there are laws against this).
Song for conspiracy.
Janet Jackson for perjury. (I'd also like someone, probably T Mez to atleast bring to the police's attention Janet may be abbusing her own children. This suspicion comes from what she said in her testimony).
Gavin Arviso and Star Arviso for stealing liquor from Neverland, for damaging the "bat mobil" (one of Michael's go-karts).
There's probably a whole bunch of people Michael could sue, but I'd loved to see all the above behind bars!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/22/05 at 11:24 pm
Whatever ::)
As I've said MULTIPLE times (geesh, do people NOT read my posts ???) I don't care what the media says on whether he's guilty or not. I'm a big girl and can form my own opinion thankyouverymuch.
That's cool. But I can form my own opinion too. Sure. The media, legal experts the world over, the jury all have the same opinion as me, but what can I do?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 04/22/05 at 11:38 pm
Whatever ::)
As I've said MULTIPLE times (geesh, do people NOT read my posts ???) I don't care what the media says on whether he's guilty or not. I'm a big girl and can form my own opinion thankyouverymuch.
At least our opinions are more of the "Realistic" world and not the Flit Boy fantasy...."Conspiracy" theory ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 04/22/05 at 11:46 pm
That's cool. But I can form my own opinion too. Sure. The media, legal experts the world over, the jury all have the same opinion as me, but what can I do?
How do you know what the Jury thinks?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/23/05 at 5:15 am
How do you know what the Jury thinks?
Seriously. If you were there everyday, you'd feel the same way too!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 04/23/05 at 8:46 am
Seriously. If you were there everyday, you'd feel the same way too!
That doesn't answer my Question, How do you know what the Jury is thinking?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/23/05 at 8:01 pm
That doesn't answer my Question, How do you know what the Jury is thinking?
They clearly aren't interested in the prosecution's case anymore. They are falling asleep, laughing at witnesses, cheering Michael Jackson, cheering T Mez, tey know what's up, and as long as their on the jury, they are going to make a mockery out of it. That's all this case deserves. Mockery.m No-one in their right mind, at this point in the trial, can say Michael Jackson is guilty.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 04/23/05 at 8:21 pm
They clearly aren't interested in the prosecution's case anymore. They are falling asleep, laughing at witnesses, cheering Michael Jackson, cheering T Mez, tey know what's up, and as long as their on the jury, they are going to make a mockery out of it. That's all this case deserves. Mockery.m No-one in their right mind, at this point in the trial, can say Michael Jackson is guilty.
I think it's all a "conspiracy" by Flit boy...he's paying the jury off...AND he also had some prosecuters killed :D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/23/05 at 10:44 pm
I think it's all a "conspiracy" by Flit boy...he's paying the jury off...AND he also had some prosecuters killed :D
You are the dumbet of them all. This is a trial. First, find out what a trial is, and what happens in a trial. Geez. From what happens in court each day, at the moment, it is clear to everyone (Media, jury etc.) that Michael is innocent. For cryin out loud. I wish you knew more about the case, I really do. You have no right to voice your opinion about anything. What sort of an opinion is it, if its based on no knowledge waht so ever?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 04/23/05 at 10:52 pm
You are the dumbet of them all. This is a trial. First, find out what a trial is, and what happens in a trial. Geez. From what happens in court each day, at the moment, it is clear to everyone (Media, jury etc.) that Michael is innocent. For cryin out loud. I wish you knew more about the case, I really do. You have no right to voice your opinion about anything. What sort of an opinion is it, if its based on no knowledge waht so ever?
YOU are the one who brought up the "Sony Conspiracy" theory..they had Johnnie killed?? I was mocking YOUR lack of knowlegde and fact ;) Remember how the jury found OJ innocent and yet anyone with half a brain knows he's a murderer :o
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/24/05 at 4:33 am
YOU are the one who brought up the "Sony Conspiracy" theory..they had Johnnie killed?? I was mocking YOUR lack of knowlegde and fact ;) Remember how the jury found OJ innocent and yet anyone with half a brain knows he's a murderer :o
Yes, but it Michael Jackson's trial, there has been no evidence (except for an adult pron mag with both Michael's and Gavin's figerprints on it), there has been no damaging witnesses. They all either have a motive, admitted to lying, ending up helpinf the defense more than the pro, or their crediblity was completely destroyed by the Mezinator!
People are saying, he must be guilty if he's own employees are coming forward. The prosecution had 3 or 4 employees come forward, the defense have 20+ employees! They will all testify that they never saw any molestation happen, some actually saw Gavin and his brother, steal liquor from MJ's liquor cabinet, and go through his porn collection. Some, can say that these other employees who testified against Michael, told them everything. These employees that testified against Michael, were pressured into it by the prosecution, and they told this to other Neverland employees. I remember back before this trial began, that there were stories that Tom Sneddon was bullying witnesses. Now, the defense have witnesses that can confirm that!
All up, the defense has over 100 witnesses!! I am not kidding!! Over 100!
Michael Jackson is not OJ Simpson. Michael Jackson is a victim of malicious prosecution. If by this point, you cannot see that Michael Jackson is innocent, you are kidding yourself. The whole world has sided with Michael. Media, music publishers, attorneys. I'd be a rich man if I got a dollar for everytime I heard, "The prosecution has a very weak case, and if it wasn't clear before, it definatley is clear now, Michael Jackson is an innocent man."
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Dagwood on 04/24/05 at 8:09 am
I guess I am not part of the "whole world" then because I think he is guilty as hell.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 04/24/05 at 8:48 am
I guess I am not part of the "whole world" then because I think he is guilty as hell.
same here
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 04/24/05 at 9:11 am
I guess I am not part of the "whole world" then because I think he is guilty as hell.
Hey Dagny, I'll stay with you in "Our" world...we can name it...."Reality" ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: sputnikcorp on 04/24/05 at 11:00 am
The whole world has sided with Michael.
i love you, Robbo, never change.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Todd Pettingzoo on 04/24/05 at 12:59 pm
They do have a weak case, there's just too ways around everything, but I still think he's guilty as all hell. If this was just some regular guy down the street, 99% of Michael's defenders would think he's guilty.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 04/24/05 at 6:02 pm
They do have a weak case, there's just too ways around everything, but I still think he's guilty as all hell. If this was just some regular guy down the street, 99% of Michael's defenders would think he's guilty.
More than likely he will get away with it, I hope parents will think twice about letting their kids go over there.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/24/05 at 6:06 pm
Then why didn't they stop them? If they were so out of control, why were they allowed to keep coming back and raising hell?
You could raise the sam question about the other employees who say they saw Michael molest kids. Why didn't they stop it or contact authorities? But unline these other employees, the employees for the defense actually did try and stop it, believe it or not. That's why the defense has Michael record's of Neverland in as evidence, because in the records it reports atleast 3 damages to Neverland property. One for crashing the bat mobil (a go-kart), one for tampering with personal items and one for breaking glass.
If Sneddon is indeed "tampering with witnesses" then why is there no investigation? Why aren't the feds or state courts involved? Or are they part of the conspiracy too? ::)
Well, Tom Sneddon is the district attorney, so he can't really investigate himself, and if the witnesses went to higher ground, no-one would be able to prove it. One of the hardest things to be is to prove a district attorney, or anyone with power, has been tampering with witnesses and tempering with evidence. But, you've also got to keep in mind that everything doesn't have to be rush, rush. T Mez will probably follow up in the DA after this trial's finished. Don't worry, Sneddon will got what coming for him.
So? How many of these are character witnesses? How many of these were present when the kids were there? How many of them stopped them from doing these "illegal" things like stealing liquor or looking at porn? How many of them are on MJ's payroll?
These 100 witnesses are made up of.
*Neverland employees who never saw Michael molest children
*Neverland employees who heard other employees talk about the DA "bullying" them
*Neverland employees who say the accuser and his brother steal liquor, look at porn etc.
*Friends of Michael who can talk about his generous nature, and his innocent love for helping sick and poor children
*Adult, women, who have dated or slept with Michael
*People that were apparently molested by Michael (according to DA and witnesses), but who will say MJ never molested them.
*Former recording artists for Sony Music Entertainment, who will tell of what Sony tried to pull on them
*Other people who witnessed the extremes Sony went to, to get the Beatles catalogue
*Former employees of Sony who quit because of the things Sony were doing in the dark
So the defense plan to tackle, the molestation, conspiracy, and intoxication charges, and then dive into the Sony conspiracy. It should be great!!
Well, although my screenname is "crazy"mom, I can assure that I'm by no means actually crazy....I live in a world I like to call "reality". And, I'm faaarrr from stupid. If I had a dollar for everytime I heard "Michael Jackson's one sick SOB", I'd be a rich woman....oh that's right, I am living pretty comfortably ::)
Wacko Jacko, Freak, Weirdo, since when does any of this equate to child molester. I've never heard any member of the media ever say, Michael Jackson is guilty, Michael Jackson's a child molester, Michael Jackson's one sick SOB. Unless it was a late night talk show host telling a joke, like Jay leno or someone.
The reality used to be that everyone in the media would go out of their way to out MJ down. Now, that the trial is half way done, times have changed. Media, expecially the media who go into the courtroom are convinced Michael Jackson is innocent, and he'll be aqquited. It's reality.
There is a trial going on, and people are allowed to attend court if they like. The people that do, are the people I'm most likely to believe, because they saw first hand what nonsense goes on in there. I'm going to believe a media member, who say's "Michael Jackson will be aquitted", over a late night talk show host ho says "MJ is one sick SOB"
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 04/24/05 at 7:10 pm
Hey Robbo, How do you know it's bedtime at Neverland?
:-\\
:-\\
:-\\
:-\\
:-\\
:-\\
:-\\
:-\\
When the big hand reaches for the little hand. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Dagwood on 04/24/05 at 7:12 pm
;D Hilarious ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/24/05 at 7:28 pm
;D Hilarious ;)
Oh yeah, child molestation is sooooo funny ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 04/24/05 at 7:35 pm
Oh yeah, child molestation is sooooo funny ::)
no, It's not, but the above joke is probably very close to the truth
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/24/05 at 7:43 pm
no, It's not, but the above joke is probably very close to the truth
Believe what you want. It just mean the shock will come bigger to you, when the truth is told, Michael is aqquited and he returns to his rightful place as the King of Pop!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 04/24/05 at 7:47 pm
Believe what you want. It just mean the shock will come bigger to you, when the truth is told, Michael is aqquited and he returns to his rightful place as the King of Pop!
there are alot of people aquitted that are guilty, it's called "it's not who you know, it's who you bl0w" or in this case Pay off
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 04/24/05 at 8:14 pm
Oh yeah, child molestation is sooooo funny ::)
Believe what you want. It just mean the shock will come bigger to you, when the truth is told, Michael is aqquited and he returns to his rightful place as the King of Pop!
No, you mean "King Of Molestation"...or perhaps..."King Of Greed" Guilty or not...God will take care of him ;) I have no interest in this washed up, greedy, mean liar :P
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/24/05 at 9:33 pm
No, you mean "King Of Molestation"...or perhaps..."King Of Greed" Guilty or not...God will take care of him ;) I have no interest in this washed up, greedy, mean liar :P
There's peadophiles who molest hundred's of kids each year, yet Michael, who has only been chaged twice in his whole like, is the King of Molestation? Man, you gots some problems! :D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 04/24/05 at 9:43 pm
There's peadophiles who molest hundred's of kids each year, yet Michael, who has only been chaged twice in his whole like, is the King of Molestation? Man, you gots some problems! :D
Only been charged TWICE?? And he paid one off? And people still worship flit boy...no dude...they gots the problems :D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/24/05 at 9:49 pm
Only been charged TWICE?? And he paid one off? And people still worship flit boy...no dude...they gots the problems :D
i want your proof that Michael Jackson is a child molester. Otherwise, shut the heel up about my man!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 04/24/05 at 9:50 pm
Only been charged TWICE?? And he paid one off? And people still worship flit boy...no dude...they gots the problems :D
actually he paid both of them off
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 04/24/05 at 9:57 pm
i want your proof that Michael Jackson is a child molester. Otherwise, shut the heel up about my man!
Proof? It's in the payoff..which Kim already brought up. If I was accused of such a horrid crime I sure as HEEL ::) wouldn't pay the person off....I'd fight for my honor. Flit boy has NO honor because he paid the guy off. Calm down, your boy will "Get Off" one way or another ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/24/05 at 10:48 pm
Proof? It's in the payoff..which Kim already brought up. If I was accused of such a horrid crime I sure as HEEL ::) wouldn't pay the person off....I'd fight for my honor. Flit boy has NO honor because he paid the guy off. Calm down, your boy will "Get Off" one way or another ;)
First, I say heel, coz I don't like to use the word.
Second, all I hear is this pay-off crap. They could've still pursude a criminal case, after MJ "paid them off", but they choose not to. Michael got the pay-off against his name, and that's all. Think about everything that supports the fact that MJ's innocent, the list goes on. But the only thing that hitns to his guilt, is the pay-off. Michael's got the evidence, the witnesses and the truth on his side. Tom Sneddon has two lousy pay-offs.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 04/24/05 at 11:00 pm
First, I say heel, coz I don't like to use the word.
Second, all I hear is this pay-off crap. They could've still pursude a criminal case, after MJ "paid them off", but they choose not to. Michael got the pay-off against his name, and that's all. Think about everything that supports the fact that MJ's innocent, the list goes on. But the only thing that hitns to his guilt, is the pay-off. Michael's got the evidence, the witnesses and the truth on his side. Tom Sneddon has two lousy pay-offs.
I would never pay off anyone if I'm innocent! Looks like flit boys a "Lover" and not a fighter :P
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 04/25/05 at 6:17 pm
Wow!
Debbie Rowe will testify for the Prosecution. The defense objected but the judge allowed it. The defense claimed that because of a stipulation in thier divorce, she is never allowed to talk about thier marraige. This however does NOT apply in a criminal trial. Also, Flit boy told her that she could ONLY have visitation with her kids IF she praised him on video >:(
Of course this latest news is ALL brought on through a conspiracy against Whack-Jacko :D ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/26/05 at 12:46 am
Wow!
Debbie Rowe will testify for the Prosecution. The defense objected but the judge allowed it. The defense claimed that because of a stipulation in thier divorce, she is never allowed to talk about thier marraige. This however does NOT apply in a criminal trial. Also, Flit boy told her that she could ONLY have visitation with her kids IF she praised him on video >:(
Of course this latest news is ALL brought on through a conspiracy against Whack-Jacko :D ::)
Wow ::)
Macualey Kulkin, Wade Wobson and Brett Barnes, three boys who ex-e loyees calim they saw molested by Michael, agreed to testify for the defense. Despite what you think, in a court of law, if these boy's say nothing happened (which they are lined up to do), the tesitmony by the witnesses who say they saw Michael molest these kids, will be thrown out.
Also, Crazy Mom, your wrong. Go read the settlement documents from 1994. The Chandler's were allowed to pursue a criminal case, there was nothing holding them back.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mona on 04/26/05 at 6:05 am
He still looks like that face in The Grudge. :D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/26/05 at 6:09 am
He still looks like that face in The Grudge.  :D
Say what you want, but just because he's different, doesn't make him guilty.
I just can't wait for this thing to be over, so Michael can go back to doing what he should be doing, performing. God I miss Michael. :\'(
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/26/05 at 5:16 pm
No, it won't be "thrown out", it will be up to the jury to decide who's telling the truth. But, I'm sure Sneddon or Sony has paid off the jury as well....HEY! They could remake "Runaway Jury" based on all of this :D
If someone says they saw a man molest a boy, and both the man and the boy say nothing happened, the the witness's testimony has no use.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 04/26/05 at 5:31 pm
If someone says they saw a man molest a boy, and both the man and the boy say nothing happened, the the witness's testimony has no use.
The witness's testinony does have use,
1. the witness is an adult
2. no-one is gonna admit to molestation
3. the victim was a child and some children bury the crime so much that they really can't remember it until years later.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/27/05 at 12:44 am
1. the witness is an adult
No. The witness is an ex-employee of Neverland who was fired from Neverland for stealing. He tried to sure Michael, lost and now he owes Michael over $1 Million. Two years ago he filed bankruptcy.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 04/27/05 at 7:40 am
No. The witness is an ex-employee of Neverland who was fired from Neverland for stealing. He tried to sure Michael, lost and now he owes Michael over $1 Million. Two years ago he filed bankruptcy.
Not an adult :o you mean he employs children :o ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/27/05 at 5:25 pm
You are taking this conspiracy out of hand. It's got to do with Sony Music Entertainment, no one else. It's a conspiracy that has been known about for years. It's just strange now that Sony are connected to the case.
Sony->NBC->Diane Dimond->Tom Sneddon.
It's not only Michael neither. Lots of people have taken Sony to court for aleged conspiracy.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mark In The Dark on 04/27/05 at 5:55 pm
What a crock! ANYone who tries to force his ex wife to make a videotape, praising him is an idiot :P
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/27/05 at 7:58 pm
WOW! Debbie Rowe's testimony was great. I just got off the phone with someone who was in the courtroom. I then read the transcripts. It was brilliant. Her testimony totally backfired on Sneddon. All this time, the prosecution have been making out that Michael is some sort of a-sexual being, but Debbie's testimony proved him to be a normal guy. As this trial goes on, the truth is slowly unraviling and Michael is looking more and more like a normal guy.
When Debbie got on the stand, she looked over at Michael and starting crying and she was saying stuff like, "I just wish I could be back in his (Michael's) life again." Debbie Rowe truly loved Michael, and still does. I don't know about Michael though. I think the true love of his life has always been Lisa Maria. Although, Michael does seem to be getting along allright with that new chick he's been seeing. Well not seeing, but, she's a police officer and she is at court everday doing the metal detector. Michael always flirts with her, he's such a flirt. I was at court about a week ago, and I saw that chick and I said, "All the MJ fans reckon he's got a cruch on you." Then a male officer turned around and said, "No. I think it's the other way around." Then the chick was just like, "Behave." ;D
She's a very beautiful girl too. She lurves MJ! It's just a question of who MJ lurves. Lisa Marie, Debbie Rowe, or this police chick. I say ditch the ex's and start anew!! This police chick is twice as good-looking, and funny, and nice as Lisa Marie or Debbie Rowe.
Michael's a lover, not a fighter. Just face the fact that Michael's a normal guy who's into chicks, like s a drink every now and then, but also holds a place in his heart for the sick and dying people. I have always loved Michael, but since this trial, I've grown to love him more and more and more and more.
Michael is IT.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mark In The Dark on 04/27/05 at 8:08 pm
. I have always loved Michael, but since this trial, I've grown to love him more and more and more and more.
Michael is IT.
To the point of being :D Maybe he'll buy the vaseline this time ;) Oh and remember you can't be "It" without being a "Flit boy"
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 04/27/05 at 8:11 pm
Zonen asked her what she expected after she gave the video interview. A teary-eyed Rowe said, “To be reunited with the children and be reacquainted with their dad.â€Â
taken from an msn report of the trial
this is the real reason for praising him on video and testifing for the defense. so she can get her kids back. He made her give up all rights to them.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mark In The Dark on 04/27/05 at 8:24 pm
taken from an msn report of the trial
this is the real reason for praising him on video and testifing for the defense. so she can get her kids back. He made her give up all rights to them.
Yep, flit-boy is using his power/money to keep her from her children...he's a really kind "Guy"....I'm just happy that he won't have any power/money when he goes before God. ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/27/05 at 10:10 pm
I think the kids coud benefit from being back with their mother. In the best interests of the children, Michael, Debbie and the kids should all live at Neverland.
Debbie said in her testimony that there was no script. She said her video was not scripted and she said Michael never forced her to do it. She said she loves Michael and wants to be back in his life.
Remember, Debbie Rowe was testifying for Michael, not for the prosecution.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 04/27/05 at 10:25 pm
I think the kids coud benefit from being back with their mother. In the best interests of the children, Michael, Debbie and the kids should all live at Neverland.
Debbie said in her testimony that there was no script. She said her video was not scripted and she said Michael never forced her to do it. She said she loves Michael and wants to be back in his life.
Remember, Debbie Rowe was testifying for Michael, not for the prosecution.
she said all those things with the motive to get her kids away from MJ(Molesting Jerk)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Climber on 04/27/05 at 10:59 pm
I think the kids coud benefit from being back with their mother. In the best interests of the children, Michael, Debbie and the kids should all live at Neverland.
I'm not so sure they should be with her, either. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he pay her so he could have the kids? Any mother who would do that doesn't deserve them, in my opinion. From what I have heard, it's not like she did it so they could have a better life. She did it for the money.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/27/05 at 11:08 pm
Well, she wanted Michael to have them. they might have been money involved, but in the end, she was finding it too difficult with paprazzi and what not, so she said Michael should look after them. I don't know the whole story but the bottom line is, Michael and Debbie made a mistake, and now Debbie wants to fix it by getting back with Michael. I don't know how the whole thing will work out, but I doubt Michael want's to be back with Debbie as much as Debbie wants to be back with Michael.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/27/05 at 11:10 pm
she said all those things with the motive to get her kids away from the King of Pop
She said, "I love you Michael, I wish I was back in your life, I miss you, I want you back." Because she wanted her kids away from him?? Debbie wants her kids, but she also wants Michael to have the kids. She wants to get back with Michael. But I don't think Michael wants to get back with her.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mark In The Dark on 04/27/05 at 11:19 pm
I don't think Michael wants to get back with her.
Sure enough....he only goes for the boys under 14 ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/27/05 at 11:23 pm
Sure enough....he only goes for the boys under 14 ;)
No. He just got other love interests. Like that police chick at the court room. The two were made for each other. Michael's in love :-*
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mark In The Dark on 04/27/05 at 11:29 pm
No. He just got other love interests. Like that police chick at the court room. The two were made for each other. Michael's in love :-*
Yes, Okay...he's a chick magnet....and Elvis is still alive ;) Hey, whatever YOU wnat to belive is fine...but by the same token, I have beliefs as well. So we don't happen to agree? That's alright.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/27/05 at 11:35 pm
Here's some pics of Michael and the police chick...
http://missmariahcarey.free.fr/MJ/52430220.jpg
The first time we saw her crack a smile. Michael know how to make a gal smile. She the way he's walking. That sexual facial expression. He wants her bad!
http://80.91.34.200/previews/w_sn/sp748469.jpg
See the way he stares at her.
http://missmariahcarey.free.fr/MJ/52478320.jpg
LOL! Mike's lovin it  ;)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v230/mjjforum/court/30March/52495301.jpg
Yeah. Somethings definately going on between these two.
That aint no, "Hey how ya doing?" stare. That's a "Oooh gurl let me give your one (from "Lady In My Life")
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mark In The Dark on 04/27/05 at 11:39 pm
She wants his money and HE wants her to cover his vaseline buying spree ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/27/05 at 11:46 pm
She wants his body!
I can't believe you are going on about that vaseline thing. What buying spree. A security guard said on one occasion Michael requested him tobring up one jar of vaseline. According to him, Jordy just happened to be in the room. Then to make his story sound more sinister, he said Michael had his shirt off and he had a massive boner.
But seriously, a bottle of vaseline. Mike probably just had a rash under hsi armpits or something. What the hell's the big deal about a bottle of vaseline. If that's all the prosecution have against Michael, then good luck! ;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mark In The Dark on 04/27/05 at 11:57 pm
She wants his body!
I can't believe you are going on about that vaseline thing. What buying spree. A security guard said on one occasion Michael requested him tobring up one jar of vaseline. According to him, Jordy just happened to be in the room. Then to make his story sound more sinister, he said Michael had his shirt off and he had a massive boner.
But seriously, a bottle of vaseline. Mike probably just had a rash under hsi armpits or something. What the hell's the big deal about a bottle of vaseline. If that's all the prosecution have against Michael, then good luck! ;D
We've reached am impasse....you put him up on a throne and I put him down. I will make may last comment on flit-boy.....Karma will take care of him whether he's found guilty or not. Look at OJ....he was found not guilty but he has no life to speak of. Jackson hasn't been able to repeat his 80's success...in which he did put out some really great stuff....but since then all he's done is dangle his kid over a railing (Great dad), pay off an accuser...I would NEVER do that if I was accused yet innocent....and lied about never having plastic surgery. The guy will have to answer to God someday and won't be able to buy his way out of it.....Karma ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/28/05 at 12:08 am
We've reached am impasse....you put him up on a throne and I put him down. I will make may last comment on flit-boy.....Karma will take care of him whether he's found guilty or not. Look at OJ....he was found not guilty but he has no life to speak of. Jackson hasn't been able to repeat his 80's success...in which he did put out some really great stuff....but since then all he's done is dangle his kid over a railing (Great dad), pay off an accuser...I would NEVER do that if I was accused yet innocent....and lied about never having plastic surgery. The guy will have to answer to God someday and won't be able to buy his way out of it.....Karma ;)
Ya know... whatever. You speak of Karma, but what for. What has Michael done that means karma's gonna get him. If Karma's gonna get anyone, it's Tom Sneddon.
God is a God of love. He doesn't care if Michael showed his baby to a mob of fans from a hotel balcony. God doesn't care is Michael never had the same success as he did in the 80's. The bottom line is, God loves everyone.
Btw, you say Michael lied about never having plastic surgery. BS!!! He never lied about that. He said he had no two surgeries on his nose (that he could remember right there and then), and he said he never got his cheeks or his lips done. He never said "I never had any plastic surgery".
It comes down to what Raymone Bain said on Larry king Live about things Michael says being taken out of context.
Michael never said he had no plastic surgery.
Michael never said he sleeps with boys.
What Michael said was, he shares his bed with kids, BUT, Michael sleeps on the floor or on the sofa. He said you should always give your bed to the guest.
Think what you want. Bottom line is, Michael is innocent. Give me proof that he's not, and I might change my mind. Until then, stop making such a fuss about someone who dislike.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Miss Tainted on 04/28/05 at 12:20 am
Ya know... whatever. You speak of Karma, but what for. What has Michael done that means karma's gonna get him. If Karma's gonna get anyone, it's Tom Sneddon.
God is a God of love. He doesn't care if Michael showed his baby to a mob of fans from a hotel balcony. God doesn't care is Michael never had the same success as he did in the 80's. The bottom line is, God loves everyone.
Btw, you say Michael lied about never having plastic surgery. BS!!! He never lied about that. He said he had no two surgeries on his nose (that he could remember right there and then), and he said he never got his cheeks or his lips done. He never said "I never had any plastic surgery".
It comes down to what Raymone Bain said on Larry king Live about things Michael says being taken out of context.
Michael never said he had no plastic surgery.
Michael never said he sleeps with boys.
What Michael said was, he shares his bed with kids, BUT, Michael sleeps on the floor or on the sofa. He said you should always give your bed to the guest.
Think what you want. Bottom line is, Michael is innocent. Give me proof that he's not, and I might change my mind. Until then, stop making such a fuss about someone who dislike.
You're telling me he only had 2 surgeries?
Before:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38471000/jpg/_38471031_jackson76_79_300.jpg
After:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38471000/jpg/_38471043_jackson2001_2002_300.jpg
Look how tiny his nose is!! And his chin is now the size of superman's complete with a cleft. :o
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/28/05 at 12:26 am
You're telling me he only had 2 surgeries?
Before:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38471000/jpg/_38471031_jackson76_79_300.jpg
After:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38471000/jpg/_38471043_jackson2001_2002_300.jpg
Look how tiny his nose is!! And his chin is now the size of superman's complete with a cleft. :o
Now it's being turned around on me. Now your twisting me words around. I siad Michael said he only had 2 surgeries on his NOSE!!! He didn't tell us how many he had on his entire face. the question was, how many surgeries he had on his nose.
Anyway, for those who still think the prosecution are doing a good job, I thought I'd share this. The official score board for the day's events.
POINTS FOR THE PROSECUTION
• Um, well...maybe they didn't get a chance to get to the good parts today.
• Oh, hey, here's one: Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville rejected the defense's latest request for a mistrial. Jackson's camp apparently got bent over some testimony offered by Moslehi regarding the shoot for Bashir's Living with Michael Jackson.
POINTS FOR THE DEFENSE
• It all goes back to the accuser's mother. Last week, the mother said that when she and her children sat down to tape their interview, "the whole thing," even the outtakes, was scripted. As prosecution witnesses, Rowe and Moslehi ostensibly were called to corroborate that account, seeing as how Rowe made a video of her own for the Jackson camp and Moslehi shot both of them. Problem was, neither Rowe nor Moslehi could back up the mother. Rowe said she insisted her own interview be unrehearsed; Moslehi said he never saw the accuser's family running lines.
• The word "script" is coming back to bite the prosecution big-time. In the Jackson indictment, it charges that the singer's associates, in one of their "overt acts" of conspiracy, prepared "a script of questions" for the accuser's family. But while the prosecution is using script, as in "scripted questions," most everyone else, including the defense, is hearing script, as in dialogue. If the jury believes the prosecution is talking about script, as in dialogue, it may wonder about the location of the "script," as in bound pages with brads and a cover. (The answer: It's nowhere. The prosecution never said it had one. But its terminology might have raised expectations.)
• In his cross-examination of Moslehi, Jackson attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. piled it on the accuser's mother, running through the woman's greatest hits (or perceived defense crimes) and asked the videographer if she'd ever told him that she'd taken money from comics and accepted gifts from Jackson and Chris Tucker. Moslehi said the woman had not shared any of those stories with him.
• Other things the accuser's mother never told Moslehi: that she was being held captive by Jackson's toadies and was starring in the rebuttal video because of threats to her family.
• Um, well...maybe they didn't get a chance to get to the good parts today.
LMAO!! ;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Miss Tainted on 04/28/05 at 12:41 am
1. He has little boys underwear framed on his wall
2. He is absolutely OBSESSED with little boys
3. He had a weird life and was abused as a child which in most cases makes the person that had such a life weird themselves
4. The kid that was allegedly molested KNEW where Michael Jackson kept all of his pornos.
5. Even if Michael Jackson didn't molest any children (which I highly doubt) he is a VERY sick and strange man who atleast shares his porn collection with the kids at his ranch.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/28/05 at 1:22 am
1. He has little boys underwear framed on his wall
WTF?? No he doesn't you jerk. What a complete jerk
2. He is absolutely OBSESSED with little boys
He finds self pride in helping children in need. Oh, no. That's sooo sick. ::)
3. He had a weird life and was abused as a child which in most cases makes the person that had such a life weird themselves
He didn't have weird life. He grew up in front of the camera, if that's what you mean. He was NOT abuse as a child. What the hell have you been smokin?
4. The kid that was allegedly molested KNEW where Michael Jackson kept all of his pornos.
So what? The kid got drunk, and went into MJ's room. Went through all his stuff and found his porn collection. What does this prove?
5. Even if Michael Jackson didn't molest any children (which I highly doubt) he is a VERY sick and strange man who atleast shares his porn collection with the kids at his ranch.
He doesn't share his porn collection with kids. What have you been smoking? Sick, no way. Strange, possibly. Different, YES!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/28/05 at 1:31 am
My turn...
THE CURRENT ALLEGATIONS
1. The accuser admitted to telling his school teacher that Michael never touched him
2. The accuser gave a different story to the grand jury, than he did to the court
3. The accuser's brother claims he witnessed Michael moelst his brother, but there is no way of seeing the bed from where he claims he was standing
3. The accuser's borther admitted to lying under oath
4. The accuser's mother has been charged with perjury
5. The accuser's mother also admitted lying under oath
6. There was no witnesses to the molestation
7. There was no DNA evidence found
8. There has been no concrete evidence presented to the court
9. Tom Sneddon has had a personal vendetta against MJ since 1993
10. The accuser's family has a history of making false claims against celebrity and big companies
THE PAST ACTS
1. All witnesses who came forward were fired from Neverland, and owe Michael large amounts of money for losing lawsuits agaisnt him back in 1990-1994
2. Only one of the victims, out of the five who MJ allegedly molested, came forward
3. Three of those five are testifying for the defense
4. There is no concrete evidence of these bad acts
5. All witnesses failed to mantain credibility through-out their cross examining
6. A number of the witnesses admitted to lying under oath and have been charged with perjury in the past
7. Most witnesses seemed clueless and their testimony was flooded with, "I don't know", "I can't recall", "I'm not sure".
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Miss Tainted on 04/28/05 at 1:46 am
That doesn't change the fact that he had little boys underwear on his wall..... :-\\
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/28/05 at 4:52 am
That doesn't change the fact that he had little boys underwear on his wall..... :-\\
But... he doesn't. There was no little boy's underwear found at Neverland apart from his son's. Geez, what you been smokin?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 04/28/05 at 7:21 am
But... he doesn't. There was no little boy's underwear found at Neverland apart from his son's. Geez, what you been smokin?
There was underwear found in the bathroom that did not belong to his kids.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mr Tumnus on 04/28/05 at 7:35 am
That Debbie Rowe's a bit of a freak dont'cha think??
They never shared a home together in all the time they were married?? WHAAATTT?
You know something, I bet they never even kissed each other, let alone have any sexual relations, I bet those two little babies where conceived using a Pipet.
She's another one on the make!!!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mark In The Dark on 04/28/05 at 11:17 am
I siad Michael said he only had 2 surgeries on his NOSE!!! He didn't tell us how many he had on his entire face. the question was, how many surgeries he had on his nose.
Oh but he DID tell us. He said he's never had any :D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mark In The Dark on 04/28/05 at 12:08 pm
No, actually, he DID admit to having ONLY 2, which "he said" were to help his breathing and to help hit high notes.....yeah right ::)
;) yeah, I've never noticed any "Other" changes :D ;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: D. M. Neddermeyer, PhD on 04/28/05 at 6:52 pm
Michael Jacksonâ€â€Guilty or Innocent?
The media will hash Michael Jackson’s case for the duration of his trial. What is tragically lacking are the facts regarding pedophiles/ephebophiles and sexual child abuse. Studies reveal 62% of girls and 31% of boys will be sexually abused by age 18â€â€considered low based on health services. 80% are sexually abused by a family member; 19% are abused by someone the child knows and trusts; government statistics reveal 1% are abused by strangers.
The unbelievable truth: Pedophiles/ Ephebophiles conduct themselves as average and ordinary to the world. He or she may be a leader in the church; the community; or business. Pedophiles/ephebophiles seldom fit a classic stereotypeâ€â€education, socioeconomic status, career or culture.
Furthermore, sexual abuse/incest is more difficult to believe or accept when the person we like, admire, love, and/or marry is the perpetrator. This is precisely why Jackson’s family, fans and the uninformed can unequivocally believe he could not possibly be an Ephebophileâ€â€sexual attraction to adolescents.
Pedophiles/Ephebophiles are cunning predators with forethought and a well-honed mode of operation. They are experts at manipulation, thus escaping adult reality. They feel entitled, justifying their actions as loving; not harming the child. They expend considerable energy maintaining this illusion to themselves and others. They create a persona of goodness beyond reproach. They go to great lengths to present themselves as exemplary people, who love children. ÂÂ
Jackson’s defense attorney, Mesereau, invoked this convoluted logic in response to the judge’s ruling that previous accounts of sexual abuse claims, which were settled, was admissible. Mesereau countered, "He also has spent millions on children with AIDS. We can drown them with examples of where Mr. Jackson has been so benevolent, so generous, so charitable, so giving for good causes, that it will make their theory look silly."
Mesereau’s statement exemplifies, that anyone who sees through the perpetrator’s façade is met with admonishment and rebuke for being critical, irrational, racist, out-to-get the person, and/or jealous. The perpetrator is the family and society's emperor with no clothes. "I know my son, and this is ridiculous,"  Jackson’s mother, Katherine Jackson, said in an interview on CBS "The Early Show." She said people who believe Michael is guilty "don't know him." Jackson's father, said his son was beloved around the world but had trouble in the United States because of racism. He said the accuser's motives were clear: "It's about money."
Even more frightening Pedophiles/Ephebophiles do not hold beliefs reflecting society’s moral and ethical values. Therefore, coupled with the child’s innocence and trust of the abuser usually pressure or violence is seldom required. Thus, the perpetrator can unequivocally state, “I love children. Never-ever. I could never harm a child or anyone. It’s not in my heart. It’s not who I am.† --Michael Jackson, 1993.
There is another insidious aspect to Jackson’s contact with adolescentsâ€â€he cunningly exposes the the relationship to the world via a documentary as ‘sweet and innocent’ admonishing anyone for believing it is sexual.
Using the definition of sexual abuse, Jackson’s befriending adolescent boys under the guise of helping them with a life threatening illness and/or sleeping with them, albeit, he slept on the floor and the child slept in his bed, is in and of itself sexual abuse.
"Incest is both sexual abuse and an abuse of power. It is violence that does not require force. Another is using the victim, treating them in a way that they do not want or in a way that is not appropriate by a person with whom a different relationship is required. It is abuse because it does not take into consideration the needs or wishes of the child; rather, it meets the needs of the other person at the child's expense. If the experience has sexual meaning for another person, in lieu of a nurturing purpose for the benefit of the child, it is abuse. If it is unwanted or inappropriate for her age or the relationship, it is abuse. Incest can occur through words, sounds, or even exposure of the child to sights or acts that are sexual but do not involve her. If she is forced to see what she does not want to see, for instance, by an exhibitionist, it is abuse. If a child is forced into an experience that is sexual in content or overtone that is abuse. As long as the child is induced into sexual activity with someone who is in a position of greater power, whether that power is derived through the perpetrator’s age, size, status, or relationship, the act is abusive. A child who cannot refuse, or who believes she or he cannot refuse, is a child who has been violated." (E. Sue Blume, Secret Survivors).
Dorothy M. Neddermeyer, PhD,  author,  If I’d Only Known…Sexual Abuse in or out of the Family: A Guide to Prevention, speaker/seminar leader has over twenty years experience in Personal/Professional Development. She is noted for her pioneering work in Emotional, Physical and Sexual Abuse Prevention and Recovery.  dorothyneddermeyer@gen-assist.com or 480-704-0603
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mark In The Dark on 04/28/05 at 10:31 pm
Michael Jacksonâ€â€Guilty or Innocent?
The media will hash Michael Jackson’s case for the duration of his trial. What is tragically lacking are the facts regarding pedophiles/ephebophiles and sexual child abuse. Studies reveal 62% of girls and 31% of boys will be sexually abused by age 18â€â€considered low based on health services. 80% are sexually abused by a family member; 19% are abused by someone the child knows and trusts; government statistics reveal 1% are abused by strangers.
The unbelievable truth: Pedophiles/ Ephebophiles conduct themselves as average and ordinary to the world. He or she may be a leader in the church; the community; or business. Pedophiles/ephebophiles seldom fit a classic stereotypeâ€â€education, socioeconomic status, career or culture.
Furthermore, sexual abuse/incest is more difficult to believe or accept when the person we like, admire, love, and/or marry is the perpetrator. This is precisely why Jackson’s family, fans and the uninformed can unequivocally believe he could not possibly be an Ephebophileâ€â€sexual attraction to adolescents.
Pedophiles/Ephebophiles are cunning predators with forethought and a well-honed mode of operation. They are experts at manipulation, thus escaping adult reality. They feel entitled, justifying their actions as loving; not harming the child. They expend considerable energy maintaining this illusion to themselves and others. They create a persona of goodness beyond reproach. They go to great lengths to present themselves as exemplary people, who love children.
Jackson’s defense attorney, Mesereau, invoked this convoluted logic in response to the judge’s ruling that previous accounts of sexual abuse claims, which were settled, was admissible. Mesereau countered, "He also has spent millions on children with AIDS. We can drown them with examples of where Mr. Jackson has been so benevolent, so generous, so charitable, so giving for good causes, that it will make their theory look silly."
Mesereau’s statement exemplifies, that anyone who sees through the perpetrator’s façade is met with admonishment and rebuke for being critical, irrational, racist, out-to-get the person, and/or jealous. The perpetrator is the family and society's emperor with no clothes. "I know my son, and this is ridiculous," Jackson’s mother, Katherine Jackson, said in an interview on CBS "The Early Show." She said people who believe Michael is guilty "don't know him." Jackson's father, said his son was beloved around the world but had trouble in the United States because of racism. He said the accuser's motives were clear: "It's about money."
Even more frightening Pedophiles/Ephebophiles do not hold beliefs reflecting society’s moral and ethical values. Therefore, coupled with the child’s innocence and trust of the abuser usually pressure or violence is seldom required. Thus, the perpetrator can unequivocally state, “I love children. Never-ever. I could never harm a child or anyone. It’s not in my heart. It’s not who I am.†--Michael Jackson, 1993.
There is another insidious aspect to Jackson’s contact with adolescentsâ€â€he cunningly exposes the the relationship to the world via a documentary as ‘sweet and innocent’ admonishing anyone for believing it is sexual.
Using the definition of sexual abuse, Jackson’s befriending adolescent boys under the guise of helping them with a life threatening illness and/or sleeping with them, albeit, he slept on the floor and the child slept in his bed, is in and of itself sexual abuse.
"Incest is both sexual abuse and an abuse of power. It is violence that does not require force. Another is using the victim, treating them in a way that they do not want or in a way that is not appropriate by a person with whom a different relationship is required. It is abuse because it does not take into consideration the needs or wishes of the child; rather, it meets the needs of the other person at the child's expense. If the experience has sexual meaning for another person, in lieu of a nurturing purpose for the benefit of the child, it is abuse. If it is unwanted or inappropriate for her age or the relationship, it is abuse. Incest can occur through words, sounds, or even exposure of the child to sights or acts that are sexual but do not involve her. If she is forced to see what she does not want to see, for instance, by an exhibitionist, it is abuse. If a child is forced into an experience that is sexual in content or overtone that is abuse. As long as the child is induced into sexual activity with someone who is in a position of greater power, whether that power is derived through the perpetrator’s age, size, status, or relationship, the act is abusive. A child who cannot refuse, or who believes she or he cannot refuse, is a child who has been violated." (E. Sue Blume, Secret Survivors).
Dorothy M. Neddermeyer, PhD, author, If I’d Only Known…Sexual Abuse in or out of the Family: A Guide to Prevention, speaker/seminar leader has over twenty years experience in Personal/Professional Development. She is noted for her pioneering work in Emotional, Physical and Sexual Abuse Prevention and Recovery. dorothyneddermeyer@gen-assist.com or 480-704-0603
First...thanks for starting yet another Flit-Boy Topic....lastly....guilty or not ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/29/05 at 1:18 am
No, actually, he DID admit to having ONLY 2, which "he said" were to help his breathing and to help hit high notes.....yeah right ::)
No, actually, he DIDN'T. Just like he never admitted to sleeping in the bed with boys.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 04/29/05 at 5:55 am
I think in the picture below, she cracked a smile because he was checking if his nose was still there or perhaps trying to cover it. ;D ;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 04/29/05 at 6:02 am
I siad Michael said he only had 2 surgeries on his NOSE!!! He didn't tell us how many he had on his entire face. the question was, how many surgeries he had on his nose.
No, actually, he DIDN'T. Just like he never admitted to sleeping in the bed with boys.
Make up your mind, first you say he did admit to surgery, then you say he didn't. :o :o
You don't even know if he is telling the truth. ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/29/05 at 7:38 am
Make up your mind, first you say he did admit to surgery, then you say he didn't. :o :o
You don't even know if he is telling the truth. ::)
WTF???
I said "No, actually, he DIDN'T." To crazymom when she said Michael only admitted to have 2 operations. That's BS. He said 2 on his nose, that he could remember. He never mentioned how many he had alltogether on his entire face. he never said I've only ever had 2 operations, he said I've only had two on my nose, that I can remember at the moment.
God damn, how many times I gotta explain this to you?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Gis on 04/29/05 at 9:05 am
Robbo you SERIOUSLY need to calm down and chill.
also bear in mind that people here like to have a laugh and some people just might be pulling your leg.............
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 04/29/05 at 7:30 pm
Robbo you SERIOUSLY need to calm down and chill.
also bear in mind that people here like to have a laugh and some people just might be pulling your leg.............
Of course I knwo that. But child molestation is not a laughing matter, expecialy when the person at the end punchline of the joke is innocent.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mark In The Dark on 04/29/05 at 9:34 pm
:D
http://forum2.kicken.fm/uploads/post-37-1074227033.jpg
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 05/01/05 at 1:00 am
I'm not denying he had plastic surgery. In LWMJ he said 2 on my nose, and never mentioned how mnay on his face. He hates to talk about, and by just reading those transcripts it seems he's trying to avoid answering the question and wants to change subject. It's not a big deal. Read his book, Moonwalk, take MJ's advice. If you are really interested in this stuff, read his all-revealing book.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/01/05 at 1:47 am
He hates to talk about, and by just reading those transcripts it seems he's trying to avoid answering the question and wants to change subject.
That's what he'd be doing if they got him on the stand as well ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 05/01/05 at 5:42 am
That's what he'd be doing if they got him on the stand as well ;)
Well just wait. He may suprise you. I think him and T Mez have a few tricks up their sleve.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/01/05 at 10:11 am
Obviously, you missed this:and this:
Many things are missed, Kim! Like these!
Seriously, it's like trying to tell a Jim Jones follower that he's NOT God! Some people are just plain delusional :D I agree with Erin though...he will get away with it. "If the rubber don't fit, you MUST aquit" ::)
http://www.gagreport.com/images/jacksoncourt.jpg
http://www.mtv.com/shared/media/news/images/j/Jackson,_Michael/sq-michael-baby-balcony-cnn.jpg
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 05/01/05 at 7:10 pm
Who cares what he said in interviews. Read his book. That's if you are interested in that sort of thing.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: robocop 100th on 05/02/05 at 9:13 am
Many things are missed, Kim! Like these!
Seriously, it's like trying to tell a Jim Jones follower that he's NOT God! Some people are just plain delusional :D I agree with Erin though...he will get away with it. "If the rubber don't fit, you MUST aquit" ::)
http://www.gagreport.com/images/jacksoncourt.jpg
http://www.mtv.com/shared/media/news/images/j/Jackson,_Michael/sq-michael-baby-balcony-cnn.jpg
i like the top pic, ;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/02/05 at 8:49 pm
i like the top pic, ;D
;) ;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/04/05 at 10:51 am
The trial continues...AND the vote here is currently 55-17 guilty ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: robocop 100th on 05/04/05 at 12:23 pm
;) ;D
that top pic had me in stitches,lol
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 05/04/05 at 4:38 pm
The trial continues...AND the vote here is currently 55-17 guilty ;)
This poll has been in action since about the time the trial started. In that sense it isn't very accurate. Why not check out eonline.com and see the polls that they put up every day asking what your current opinion is. Because people's opinion change with everyday in court.
THE DEFENSE START THEIR CASE TODAY!!! THE NIGHTMARE IS OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/04/05 at 4:45 pm
This poll has been in action since about the time the trial started. In that sense it isn't very accurate. Why not check out eonline.com and see the polls that they put up every day asking what your current opinion is. Because people's opinion change with everyday in court.
THE DEFENSE START THEIR CASE TODAY!!! THE NIGHTMARE IS OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ah, back to E network again...yeah, I believe in the "Stars" network ::) AND if he's found not guilty, the nightmare will most certainly continue for all the young boys in the world :\'(
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 05/05/05 at 12:59 am
Great news!! :) The defense filed a motion today to have Michael Jackson aqquited of all charges. Legal experts are saying it's more that likely the judge will grant the motion!!! This trial is OVER!!!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/05/05 at 8:57 am
GREAT NEWS! These are now on sale ;)
http://www.syberg.be/zMentalSpace/sSys/photo's/pJ7e/blinders.jpg
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: robocop 100th on 05/05/05 at 11:57 am
i like Michael Jackson music but i cant forgive him for what he has done in the past,
i think people are gust out to get money out of him in caught,
like in the past,
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: robocop 100th on 05/05/05 at 12:04 pm
WTF is that ??? Looks like it belongs on "another" board ;)
it boesnt look like fun to me that thing,
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/05/05 at 6:03 pm
WTF is that ??? Looks like it belongs on "another" board ;)
;DThey're Blinders!!http://www.wordwiseweb.com/images/2004index/blinders.jpg
and THESE are for people...namely the defense and all the flit-boy fans :D ;)
http://nowscape.com/mormon/blinder2.jpg
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: quirky_cat_girl on 05/05/05 at 8:55 pm
ya....if this trial was for Mr. Average Joe....his A S S would be rotting in jail as we speak......BUT....
since the trial is all about the "king of pop".....he is exempt from what every other "average" person would have to endure, having done the same crimes.
Totally sick if you ask me
Erin
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/11/05 at 1:21 pm
No kidding....if it were some "average Joe", there's no way in hell the judge would allow umpteen "character witnesses", (which, IMO is a bunch of bullcrap anyway).
Laughed my butt off though that the defense's motion to dismiss was DENIED!!! ;D ;D
Me Too ;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mr Tumnus on 05/12/05 at 6:09 am
Hey this McCaulay Culkin character - now there's a poor excuse for a man!
I mean those cherry red pouting lips?? uhh ???
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: quirky_cat_girl on 05/12/05 at 8:03 am
ya....he was so cute when he was little and in the "Home Alone" movies....but, that look just isn't working for him anymore
Erin :)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Gis on 05/12/05 at 9:22 am
He's actually been working in plays in the U.K to great critical aclaim.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mr Tumnus on 05/12/05 at 10:35 am
He's actually been working in plays in the U.K to great critical aclaim.
He has?? I've never seen or heard any promotion or advertising of him being here.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/12/05 at 12:07 pm
Hey this McCaulay Culkin character - now there's a poor excuse for a man!
I mean those cherry red pouting lips?? uhh ???
Oh, you KNOW you'd like to kiss them cherry red pouting lips all night long, just don't wanna admit it!
;D
I think the prosecution has done such an abominable job, the judge should have thrown the case out. I don't feel sorry for anybody involved. They're ALL creeps, including MJ. Wish they'd all just go away!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/12/05 at 1:21 pm
I think the prosecution has done such an abominable job, the judge should have thrown the case out. I don't feel sorry for anybody involved. They're ALL creeps, including MJ. Wish they'd all just go away!
Same feeling I had during the OJ circus trial..though ITO was a poor excuse for a judge.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mr Tumnus on 05/12/05 at 1:36 pm
Oh, you KNOW you'd like to kiss them cherry red pouting lips all night long, just don't wanna admit it!
;D
I think the prosecution has done such an abominable job, the judge should have thrown the case out. I don't feel sorry for anybody involved. They're ALL creeps, including MJ. Wish they'd all just go away!
NO Mr Maxwell, looking at those lips I'd rather not,
thanks all the same for the thought..goes away and vomits!!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/28/05 at 7:35 pm
Bumping this "Hard to find" Original thread/poll ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/28/05 at 9:15 pm
Hey...IF he's aquitted MAYBE they can rule that he can't be around young children much less have them in his bed anymore. THAT would be cool if he couldn't be in a position to be accused of it much less do it! At the very least to have the parents with the kids at all times and NO overnights.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: naaacho on 05/29/05 at 1:43 am
it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure it out. he's guilty
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: GoodRedShirt on 05/29/05 at 1:58 am
I wonder what rocket scientists say instead of "This isn't rocket science"?
I also wonder what people who reinvent the wheel say instead of "We aren't trying to reinvent the wheel here!"?
???
it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure it out. he's guilty
And it isn't a rocket scientist who is giving the verdict... it's a judge.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: philbo on 05/29/05 at 10:10 am
And it isn't a rocket scientist who is giving the verdict... it's a judge.
er.. isn't it the jury who gives the verdict, and the judge who decides sentence?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: GoodRedShirt on 05/29/05 at 11:45 pm
er.. isn't it the jury who gives the verdict, and the judge who decides sentence?
Yes, that's right. Thanks for the correction. ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/30/05 at 11:24 am
It doesn't take rocket science that no matter what anyone says, the public will continue to believe he is guilty because they want to believe he is guilty. I honestly think the only way people are ever going to realise he is truely innocent is if Michael Jackson goes to prison. It's kind of like Jesus Christ. No-one believed he was the messiah until after they killed him. No-one's going to believe Michael Jackson is innocent until after he's been sent to prison for a crime he didn't commit.
Newsflash...Michael Jackson is NOT Jesus Christ and shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence :P You and all Jackson's cronies will always belive he innocent while others won't. Just like OJ...just because he will probably be aquitted and get away with it....like OJ did...people will differ on thier opinions. What the bottom line here is...Common sense, which is something he does NOT have. If accused many times of molesting young boys...STOP sleeping with them, have the parents present on visits and keep his "Willy" in his pants ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/30/05 at 6:09 pm
So he should be convicted because he has shared his bed with children? Is that what you're saying?
Nope, just that with all the accusations of molesting children over the years, perhaps he would be well served by NOT having them ALONE with him...in his bed, overnight or at any other time....and if not the parents, have some ADULTS around. He may get away with this but knowing he's stupid enough to continue getting himself in the same situations..well, shows most people with common sense that he's a screwball. I wore all my opinions out on "Robbo" so I'm not going to go over it all again.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 06/01/05 at 8:57 pm
BUMP!!! If you vote in the "Duplicate Thread" PLEASE vote here in the "ORIGINAL" thread as well ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 06/02/05 at 11:00 pm
The verdict is coming soon.....
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Philip Eno on 06/03/05 at 3:05 am
The next few days will be interesting.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: FireBrand79 on 06/03/05 at 4:59 am
I think he's gonna be found not guilty just because of his celebrity.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: saver on 06/03/05 at 2:12 pm
I didn't get to hear the court room talk...I feel he'll walk er..(moon) walk away but they should put some kind of stipulation..DON'T LET HIM BE ALONE WITH OTHERS KIDS!!!
Why isn't anyone bringing up WHERE ARE THE GIRLS??? if he likes kids so much...
Wendy in Peter Pan wasn't bad looking...sharing your bed is loving when love is equal..boys AND girls! Nobody would be arguing this if any girls took the stand...maybe even THEY think he's weird..
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 06/03/05 at 3:12 pm
He might get 20 years in prison.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: saver on 06/03/05 at 6:04 pm
With 10 charges to decide on will he really not get at least 1??
I'll start the ball rolling now: so when Michael went to prison a cell mate asked him if he would do 'the Moonwalk?'
He said,' sure!' Then the guy called out 'Hey Moonwalk, get in here!' ooooooooohhhh :o
Catch this one..IF Michael is found guilty, should anything be done to HIS parents...?
Some are asking the childs' parent should be dealt with for letting him sleep like that...so?????
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 06/04/05 at 1:59 pm
Jackson's fate now in the hands of the jurors:
AM - Saturday, 4 June , 2005 08:00:00
Reporter: Mark Simkin
EDMOND ROY: Jurors have retired to consider their verdict in the child abuse trial of American pop star, Michael Jackson. The jury was sent out after rival lawyers finished their closing statements. Michael Jackson denies all 10 charges against him, including giving alcohol to a boy of 13 and abusing him. He could be jailed for 20 years if convicted on all charges.
Our reporter, Mark Simkin, joins us from the courthouse now.
Mark, how did the defence finish its case?
MARK SIMKIN: It finished with a very aggressive and relentless attack, Edmond, an attack on the accuser, the teenage boy who says that Michael Jackson molested him, and an attack on the accuser's family.
Thomas Mesereau, the lead defence lawyer repeated that these people are con artists, actors and liars. And he said that again and again. He said they've perjured themselves, they're cunning and they're smart and they flip flop, they lie, and all they're trying to do is shake Michael Jackson down for money.
And then the very last thing in the case presented by the defence was something of a risky tactic I think. They showed a video of Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson hasn't testified in his own defence, but instead they used a video of him, outtakes from an interview in which Michael Jackson talks about his love of children, about his desire to organise a party for his pet chimp and invite Lassie and other animals. He talked about… he loves innocence and why he likes to invite children to his Neverland property.
And it really was portraying Michael Jackson as someone who might be strange, but perhaps, is not a criminal.
EDMOND ROY: I suppose the prosecution is exactly the opposite?
MARK SIMKIN: Absolutely. The prosecution was… well, similar in one case. They were also very aggressive, but they were arguing that Michael Jackson is not a victim, Michael Jackson is a person who creates victims.
Again, Ron Zonen the Deputy District Attorney was saying to the jurors, you would be outraged if there was a man in your neighbourhood who was taking boys in his bed amid a sea of porn and alcohol.
And then he played a video of his own. And this was very powerful. This was the video… the testimony that had already been seen, or video that had already been shown, but it was replayed. And this was the boy, the accuser's first interview with police.
And given that the whole case of the defence is based around the fact that this boy is making it all up, that he's being coached, that he's an actor, this was very powerful, because it showed just how reluctant, how embarrassed and how honest he seemed and it was a very powerful way to end the prosecution case.
EDMOND ROY: And with all that, what was the atmosphere like in the courthouse then?
MARK SIMKIN: It was very tense in there. There were tears. Some people said they saw Michael Jackson crying, I didn't see that myself. Certainly members of his family were crying. There was real silence after the two cases rested. People just didn't speak, it was real tension.
Michael Jackson's spokeswoman came out and spoke to the media afterwards to say what Mr Jackson was feeling. This is what Ramone Baines had to say.
RAMONE BAINES: He's relieved that it's over. He has a great confidence in the justice system and he is hoping and believing that the jury is going to acquit him of these charges.
He feels that Tom Mesereau and his defence team has done an excellent job, an excellent job throughout this entire trial.
EDMOND ROY: That was Ramone Baines, spokesperson for Michael Jackson.
Mark Simkin, when is the verdict expected?
MARK SIMKIN: A very good question, Edmond. The jury, as you said in your introduction, is now deliberating. They will only deliberate for a short time today. They're not expected to do any deliberating over the weekend, which means they will obviously reflect on it themselves over the weekend and then get together again on Monday.
So the expectation is we'll probably see a verdict sometime next week. Michael Jackson has returned to his Neverland Ranch where he's surrounded by his family, his famous sisters, Janet, Latoya and other members of the family, and he's waiting there, waiting for the verdict, waiting for the decision on his fate.
EDMOND ROY: Mark Simkin, thank you. Mark Simkin there in Santa Maria.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: saver on 06/04/05 at 6:03 pm
THE WORLD KNOWS...BUT WHY DON'T THE PSYCHICS WHO ARE SAYING THEY ARE REAL STEP UP AND MAKE A PREDICTION ON THIS ONE,,,too frivalou :Ps?....
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: dave kurtz on 06/06/05 at 12:31 pm
1). The mother's accuser is NOT the most credible person, but her son, the child/victim did testify that Michael Jackson did subject him to some sort of sexual acts which WAS independently supported by the maid and security peson who witnessed MJ and victim showering together. Come on, plain as day, beyond reasonable doubt. You have someone saying somebody did something wrong and you have two independent witnesses to say "yes" that somebody actual did that. Good enough for me!
2). Circumstantial evidence- Classic pedophile behaviors: MJ had a troubled childhood (so what) and MJ was physically abused by his father. I'm NOT a psychiatrist, but in most cases, this abuse that MJ endured detached MJ from the father figure which made MJ more feminine which he connected to becoming closer to boys/men. MJ mind is a sick twisted disassociated mess! MJ is not living his childhood through these boys, but rather punishing them for what he didn't have. In addition, to having a playground or other material to lure kids (boys), giving children alcohol to change their perception to be more susceptable to sexual acts, and presenting boys with pornographic material (sexual arousal) while sleeping in the same bed (w/ alarmed motion detector in the hallway to give MJ notice when someone is approaching his bedroom). All this makes me ask the question...what is a 47 year old man without a girlfriend/wife who likes to associate with only certain aged and similar looking BOYS! The 1993 allegations where MJ payed someone $20 million plus dollars as a settlement! Let me tell ya, if I didn't have any culpability or negligence in the matter, I certainly wouldn't give anyone a dime!!!
3). With the overwhelming evidence, I predict MJ to be found GUILTY, convicted of sexual and/or indecent assault. MJ will do some time in prison.... 8 years.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 06/06/05 at 1:33 pm
1). The mother's accuser is NOT the most credible person, but her son, the child/victim did testify that Michael Jackson did subject him to some sort of sexual acts which WAS independently supported by the maid and security peson who witnessed MJ and victim showering together. Come on, plain as day, beyond reasonable doubt. You have someone saying somebody did something wrong and you have two independent witnesses to say "yes" that somebody actual did that. Good enough for me!
2). Circumstantial evidence- Classic pedophile behaviors: MJ had a troubled childhood (so what) and MJ was physically abused by his father. I'm NOT a psychiatrist, but in most cases, this abuse that MJ endured detached MJ from the father figure which made MJ more feminine which he connected to becoming closer to boys/men. MJ mind is a sick twisted disassociated mess! MJ is not living his childhood through these boys, but rather punishing them for what he didn't have. In addition, to having a playground or other material to lure kids (boys), giving children alcohol to change their perception to be more susceptable to sexual acts, and presenting boys with pornographic material (sexual arousal) while sleeping in the same bed (w/ alarmed motion detector in the hallway to give MJ notice when someone is approaching his bedroom). All this makes me ask the question...what is a 47 year old man without a girlfriend/wife who likes to associate with only certain aged and similar looking BOYS! The 1993 allegations where MJ payed someone $20 million plus dollars as a settlement! Let me tell ya, if I didn't have any culpability or negligence in the matter, I certainly wouldn't give anyone a dime!!!
3). With the overwhelming evidence, I predict MJ to be found GUILTY, convicted of sexual and/or indecent assault. MJ will do some time in prison.... 8 years.
I appreciate an agree with most of your points. Unfortunately he will probably get off and then we'll all have to listen to his blinded fans saying "I told you so" ::) I will always think of him as a molester and even if he gets away with this most people will know he has no common sense by continually putting himself into such precarious positions. Also, if by some miracle he IS found guilty I don't think he'd last very long in prison before someone killed him. Convicts don't like child molesters either >:(
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: saver on 06/06/05 at 5:54 pm
Now after this settles WHY DON'T WE GO AFTER THE RAPISTS AND CRIMINALS OUT THERE ON THE RUN OR TRYING TO OUTWIT THE LAW??
They should be the ones tied up in courts to get justice!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 06/06/05 at 6:56 pm
Now after this settles WHY DON'T WE GO AFTER THE RAPISTS AND CRIMINALS OUT THERE ON THE RUN OR TRYING TO OUTWIT THE LAW??
They should be the ones tied up in courts to get justice!
I think molesting children IS rape :-\\
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: saver on 06/06/05 at 9:44 pm
I think if mj is found innocent I can live with it, but how many will go @#***!&*% if he's found guilty?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 06/06/05 at 9:54 pm
I think if mj is found innocent I can live with it, but how many will go @#***!&*% if he's found guilty?
Well, I was outraged when those cops were found not guilty in the first trial of the Rodney King debacle...but I had no urge whatsoever to loot a storee or beat people, and when oj got away with murder I felt the same. It's the same for me with this case except IF he gets off, the little creep had better stop his sick habits >:(
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: saver on 06/07/05 at 2:05 pm
Plus how can he keep BUYING things if he is so called reportedly broke...don't they do a finance check to make sure he can pay??
He must not be broke if everyone just let's him take whatever he is 'Buying'...
There must be money somewhere in his accounts... ???
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 06/07/05 at 2:07 pm
Plus how can he keep BUYING things if he is so called reportedly broke...don't they do a finance check to make sure he can pay??
He must not be broke if everyone just let's him take whatever he is 'Buying'...
There must be money somewhere in his accounts... ???
Like I've said...He's only "Morally" bankrupt ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: jiminy on 06/07/05 at 4:39 pm
My mom was watching court TV and a guy was telling the viewers what items MJ wouldn't be able to have in his jail cell... No make-up, the reason being he could alter his appearance and escape, I can imagine the guards arriving at his cell in the morning and asking the "black" guy in his cell where is MJ? :D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 06/07/05 at 4:47 pm
SANTA MARIA, California  Michael Jackson, recovering at Neverland Ranch from his back injury, is "anxiously awaiting" the verdict from his child-molestation trial, his spiritual advisor Jesse Jackson told reporters gathered at the Santa
Maria courthouse on Tuesday. The reverend has been visiting and praying with the singer during the wait, and described the singer's state of mind.
Jesse Jackson also spoke with reporters on Monday, and has been the only public figure to make such demonstrations of support during deliberations. When asked about Jackson's other friends and supporters  such as Elizabeth Taylor and Oprah Winfrey  the reverend said simply, "You'll have to ask them."
The reverend, who is not staying at Neverland but at a local hotel, said Michael is hurt by insinuations that he's faking his back injury or using his physical pain as a ploy for sympathy during deliberations. He said that the singer's pain is quite "severe" (see "Michael Jackson Alleges Conspiracy, Explains Back Pain").
"He is not faking it," Jesse Jackson said. "He's grimacing in pain, but he's fighting back."
He said that the singer's back spasms had gotten worse with the stress of the trial, and that he very much "realizes the gravity of the situation and the implications."
Still, Michael is not completely bedridden, he said, and is walking about during the day. And he hasn't become "paralyzed by fear" at the prospect of prison time. He had to choose between fear and hope, the reverend said, and Michael has chosen hope, remaining "amazingly optimistic." The singer has confidence in his lawyers, due process, and his well of public support, the reverend said, reminding supporters at the same time, "Michael must not be made to feel alone or abandoned."
Michael had felt betrayed during the trial, the reverend said, when some of the people he trusted and was the most generous to had testified against him, though he felt they "withered" under cross examination. Michael has no bitterness or anger now, the reverend said, only confidence and hope as he waits the word of the jury.
Asked if Michael has made any plans for the care of his children if he is convicted, Jesse Jackson replied, "His plans are for acquittal."
MTV News will have live coverage from Santa Maria on-air, online and in Overdrive when a verdict is handed down.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 06/08/05 at 6:08 pm
If he is headed to prison,he will be in jail till he's 65.I wonder what he'll look like? ;D :o
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 06/08/05 at 6:18 pm
If he is headed to prison,he will be in jail till he's 65.I wonder what he'll look like? ;D :o
IF he goes to prison...which I unfortunately predict he won't....he wouldn't LIVE more than a week :D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 06/08/05 at 7:30 pm
IF he goes to prison...which I unfortunately predict he won't....he wouldn't LIVE more than a week :D
I hope he does.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 06/08/05 at 8:09 pm
I hope he does.
What...gets away with it or dies after a week ???
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 06/09/05 at 2:40 pm
What...gets away with it or dies after a week ???
most likely he'll get away with it.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Philip Eno on 06/09/05 at 3:34 pm
most likely he'll get away with it.
Indeed he will be acquitted of the serious charges, but for the minor offences like supplying alcholic drinks to young children he will receive some form of punishment.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 06/09/05 at 7:10 pm
Indeed he will be acquitted of the serious charges, but for the minor offences like supplying alcholic drinks to young children he will receive some form of punishment.
I don't think he'll serve anytime and he'll probably get a slap on the wrist....and enjoy it ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: saver on 06/09/05 at 10:29 pm
My latest feelings are they will charge him with the more minor(no pun intended), violations to avoid prison.
As they say there are 10 things to go over something might stick at this point...
:-\\ :-\\ :-\\ :-\\
And for all the Jesse Jacksonites who are trying to make it sound like America is trying to make Michael the next OJ..why didn't they complain when Kobe Bryant went to court and claim 'you're just looking to charge a black guy since OJ didn't get it'??
They had to wait over 10 years!!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: saver on 06/10/05 at 3:40 pm
Another question for MJ doubters ..maybe a test of your stance....
Would YOU let your kids sleep with MJ?
Would YOU let 12-13 yr. olds look at your porn collection?
Would YOU give pre-teens liquor/Jesus Juice?
Well, testimony is that MJ did!
GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!! What else would you need to convict? ???
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Rocksteady on 06/13/05 at 11:26 pm
Guess not. He's been acquitted from all ten charges. So much for all the guilt-talk. Frankly, I'm happy for him. I found way too many holes in the prosecution's witnesses, and I'm not the type to identify with the perpetrator. I frankly believe pedophiles should be treated with thumbscrews and impalement. However, each case is unique and I followed the details of the trial with as open and objective mind as possible. I think the judgement was fair considering the evidence. Do I think it's possible he molested a kid? Sure...anything's possible in this god-forsaken world. But he seems to be too much of a kid to act like an adult that *wants* kids in that way. I don't know for sure--no one does but Michael himself.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: GUEST on 06/14/05 at 12:01 am
Uh,..yeah, that was MY alibi, uh....reasoning :o
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 06/14/05 at 10:28 am
Just because a prosecution totally blew the case and he was found not guilty doesn't neccessary mean he is. IF he doesn't seriously change his ways he will eventually get caught with his hand....well, whatever ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: croesus on 06/14/05 at 3:41 pm
Guess not. He's been acquitted from all ten charges. So much for all the guilt-talk. Frankly, I'm happy for him. I found way too many holes in the prosecution's witnesses, and I'm not the type to identify with the perpetrator. I frankly believe pedophiles should be treated with thumbscrews and impalement. However, each case is unique and I followed the details of the trial with as open and objective mind as possible. I think the judgement was fair considering the evidence. Do I think it's possible he molested a kid? Sure...anything's possible in this god-forsaken world. But he seems to be too much of a kid to act like an adult that *wants* kids in that way. I don't know for sure--no one does but Michael himself.
exactly. I wouldn't let my kids stay there because he's weird, but I don't have any reason to think he's a child molester. Gee -- a grown man who keeps alcohol and porn in the house with kids around. Must be a child molester. duh.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: saver on 06/14/05 at 6:08 pm
As they said after the mixed OJ verdict...he was found not guilty but that doesn't mean he's INNOCENT! ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Mezinator on 06/18/05 at 3:51 am
Justice was done. The man's innocent. He always was.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Guiness on 06/18/05 at 11:26 am
Yes, there is no way someone that famous can be around so many kids for so many years and be a pedophile and there isn't at least 10 legitimate credible believable stories from people. It doesn't make sense that the only witnesses or people who make claims are sleazy opportunist scumbags and ex-employees with a grudge. Come on. Yes, he used bad judgment and acted irresponsibly around kids, letting them sleep in his bed. Probably, he had porn magazines (like a lot of guys), and maybe drinks around kids (like a lot of parents), and maybe talks to them about sex. If he did, it was very, very inappropriate. But that is not child molestation.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 06/18/05 at 1:00 pm
ENOUGH ALREADY
who the fudge cares one way or the other, if he did it- then the system sucks, if he didn't do it-the system works.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 06/18/05 at 2:46 pm
As they said after the mixed OJ verdict...he was found not guilty but that doesn't mean he's INNOCENT! ::)
THAT is what I'm talkin' about ;)
Justice was done. The man's innocent. He always was.
Yeah right, he always was....I suppose that's why a few jurors said they thought he was definately guilty of molesting other children in the past...just not this time ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Marian on 06/18/05 at 4:32 pm
Another question for MJ doubters ..maybe a test of your stance....
Would YOU let your kids sleep with MJ?
Would YOU let 12-13 yr. olds look at your porn collection?
Would YOU give pre-teens liquor/Jesus Juice?
Well, testimony is that MJ did!
GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!  What else would you need to convict? ???
Testimony by Anna Ayala's distant relatives is not admissable,you see ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: saver on 06/18/05 at 4:41 pm
This was what Michael said I thought:
on tv:what's wrong with sharing your bed with...
pointed out in court: the books were artistic books
Michael would hide his alcohol by putting it in soda cans
This came out, was it in the court room, I didn't watch the whole reenactment..would you let YOUR relatives SLeep with him???
He won his case: that's good
He celebrated his victory by going to Disneyland :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 06/18/05 at 5:04 pm
This was what Michael said I thought:
on tv:what's wrong with sharing your bed with...
pointed out in court: the books were artistic books
Michael would hide his alcohol by putting it in soda cans
This came out, was it in the court room, I didn't watch the whole reenactment..would you let YOUR relatives SLeep with him???
He won his case: that's good
He celebrated his victory by going to Disneyland :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
He's be in prison right now if the case had been for other kids....many of the jurors said they think he has molested before.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Mezinator on 06/20/05 at 9:54 pm
WRONG!!
One juror said it's possible Michael Jackson molested children in the past. Geez, get your facts rioght. I have the actual vido on my computer, I know what the guy said.
Btw, Michael Jackson did not go to Disneyland, there has been no plans for any victory parties. Michael Jackson is resting at Neverland. He is emotionally and physically destroyed. His weight dropped to under 100 pounds. He needs to rest and eat. The maybe he'll make music again. But there's definately not going to be any form of celebration. Why celebrate the darkest four months of your life?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Mezinator on 06/20/05 at 9:58 pm
Might I also add that the judge told jurors they could convict MJ if they felt the past acts were credible enough. If they thought he had molested before, they could assume he molested this time. They found him not guilty. Which means he didn't molest this kid, and he never had molested any kid before.
One juror said maybe, the rest were 100% certain he has never touched a child!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 06/20/05 at 10:29 pm
DUDE!! Pop a F*cking Midol and enjoy your boys win!! IF he did molest kids before he WILL pay...If not....that's alrighty then :D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Mezinator on 06/20/05 at 10:55 pm
DUDE!! Pop a F*cking Midol and enjoy your boys win!! IF he did molest kids before he WILL pay...If not....that's alrighty then :D
First off, I don't like the racist implications in your message.
Secondly, what's to enjoy. That there are greedy people out there that will go to extreme measures to get money, even if that means putting an innocent person. This trial is not something to celebrate. This trial hurt alot of people. I would tell you what I thought of the people involved in the malicious prosecution of Michael Jackson, but I am a christian.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 06/20/05 at 11:12 pm
First off, I don't like the racist implications in your message.
Secondly, what's to enjoy. That there are greedy people out there that will go to extreme measures to get money, even if that means putting an innocent person. This trial is not something to celebrate. This trial hurt alot of people. I would tell you what I thought of the people involved in the malicious prosecution of Michael Jackson, but I am a christian.
First off...racist? Holy OJ...which, BTW, could be very comparable to this case! ANYWAY, for all his fans that say he's so powerful and has a lot of money...I don't give a crap. He can't and won't take anything with him when he dies. The bottom line....again...so listen close and absorb it this time....IF he has NEVER molested a child that's great...if he HAS I hope someday he will get punished for it. I agree this case was a crock though and the kid was probably never molested. As for past molestations? YOU have NO idea and neither do I. As for the racial crap...um, NO, it ain't gonna fly. Molestation has nothing to do with race, sorry
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: philbo on 06/21/05 at 3:36 pm
First off, I don't like the racist implications in your message.
Have to agree with RnRf, here: there were no racist implications, and to throw the 'r' word around doesn't help.
Besides, we all know MJ only got off 'cause he's white ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 06/21/05 at 3:49 pm
Has he ever thought of painting his skin in "blackface"? ;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Mezinator on 06/25/05 at 9:28 am
Did anyone watch Larry King Live with 8 of the jurors?
Larry asked them if they thought Michael ever molested children in his life. Their answer - ABSOLUTELY NOT!
So SUCK ON THAT!!!!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Mezinator on 06/25/05 at 9:36 am
I'd also like to add that once again the media was wrong. They said all jurors thought he was guilty of something but there was no proof. Wrong again pundits, only 2 jurors believe he may of molested kids in the past, the rest - absolutely not!!
What else were the media wrong about? Hmm, let's see...
They were wrong about police finding child porn in Michael Jackson's bedroom
They were wrong about police finding the DNA of 3 different boys (no DNA evidence was found)
They were wrong about Michael Jackson planning a victory party.
They were wrong about one juror being invited to that party.
They were wrong about Michael wanting to be in Live 8.
Most of all, they were wrong about Michael. He is not a child molester, the law says so and 12 average people say so. The man is innocent and he always was.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 06/25/05 at 9:38 am
Did anyone watch Larry King Live with 8 of the jurors?
Larry asked them if they thought Michael ever molested children in his life. Their answer - ABSOLUTELY NOT!
So SUCK ON THAT!!!!Why don't you try being a "Good" winner? Your boy is free to molest...you won! As dead as his career is to me...so is this topic, buh-bye ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Mezinator on 06/25/05 at 10:02 am
This is the last time I ask you. Stop using that word, 'boy'. It implies racism and it implies pedophilia and I don't need to explain why it implies these two things. You know perfectly well why and you use that word on purpose.
He is not free to molest, what garbage are you talking about? In case you didn't realise, Michael Jackson was charged of child molestation, he was found not guilty which means he did not molest the child. Michael Jackson is not a child molester, end of story.
His career is not dead. In case you haven't noticed, his record sales have increased dramatically. His #1's and Thriller albums have re-entered the Billboard charts numerous times since his vindication. He's sold an extra million records since his vindication. He has now sold 60 million records in the US. I know 60 million is no match for the 500 million your beloved Beatles have sold, but it's still a hell of alot better than most artists have sold. Michael Jackson is the best selling black artist in the US. He is the only black artist in the top 10 of all-time. Also keep in mind that Motown was not registered with RIAA, so all the solo records he sold under the Motown label aren't countered towards his grand total of 60 million.
So his career is not dead, he is still selling millions and albums he made 20 years ago are still re-entering the Billboard chart. Epic are soon releasing an Essential Michael Jackson CD in July which could be a high seller. Then again it could not because God knows how many MJ greatest hits collections Epic have released. Anyone interested in Michael Jackson's music probably allready has a good collection of his hits on CD. But I have no doubt his vindication will boost the sales of Essential MJ. His new album is due anytime within the next 1-2 years. I'm sure he'll use his vindication as a promotional tool for the album. But an album is like a recipe and you need to get all the ingredients right. With the right tunes, the right image, and the right promotion, Michael Jackson's new album could easily sell over the 20 million mark. A mark he has failed to reach since HIStory in 1995.
Michael Jackson is innocent and his career has never been stronger. He is in a position now where anyone would offer him any amount of money to sign with them. People want him with their label. People want him for their shows. His career is at the top of it's game.
You may say I'm not a good winner. But you are a bad loser. ÂÂ
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: saver on 06/25/05 at 1:19 pm
Sounds like you're weeding through the background of this prformer BUT call it as it is Michael (and anyone)who is found NOT GUILTY in court does NOT mean tthey are INNOCENT.
This goes for OJ and all the other names unknown who've had the money or wits to get the NOT GUILTY vote.
Look at the outstanding facts NOT brought up in the courtroom that has others emotional about MJ, he SLEEPS/SLEPT with kids and
whether they testified or not, claims were out there from people involved who said he would put alcohol in Coke cans...
Did you see the Emmanuel Lewis photos of a teen boy(EL) SUCKING ON A BABY BOTTLE...what's that?!!
Something smells fishy. ???
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 06/25/05 at 1:32 pm
This is the last time I ask you. Stop using that word, 'boy'. It implies racism and it implies pedophilia and I don't need to explain why it implies these two things. You know perfectly well why and you use that word on purpose.
You may say I'm not a good winner. But you are a bad loser.
Knock off the racism crap. Sorry to disappoint you but UI was NOT using it as a racist term. Actually it's used in boxing a lot..."You're boy looks strong"..and NO it;'s not only about colored boxers either. As for it implying pedophilia...so be it. I have a right to my opinion aboutr him just like you do...we just disagree is all. I'm a bad loser because, like the OJ circus, I hate when criminals are set free. I will stop being a bad loser but can YOU stop being a bad winner and drop this topic. I just made my last post. Nice talkin' to you again...Robbo ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Jessica on 06/26/05 at 3:58 am
I still say he's guilty. If we're lucky, he'll drop dead of guilt or excessive plastic surgery or something.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: memory on 06/26/05 at 1:44 pm
i thought he was guilty
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Mezinator on 08/10/05 at 6:36 am
These two jurors who are now saying he is guilty prove that Michael Jackson is innocent. The defense's case was the the family was doing for money, because if they win a criminal trial the ultimately win a civil lawsuit. The family accusing Michael Jackson of molesting their son love being on television and in newspapers. The fame, or infame they get from saying Michael Jackson molested their son was intoxicating and these two jurors who have just come out, also obviously find the cameras intoxicating. These jurors were probably the most outspoken, when the verdict first came out, that they made the right decision and they felt very strongly that Michael Jackson was not guilty. They were also the two who said he may have molested boys in the past, but not this time. Every other juror believes 100% innocent of 1993 and 2003. These two jurors are now saying they think he is guilty because they know it will get them TV interveiws, book deals and in the end, money, money, money. This is what Michael Jackson and his lawyers said all along and it has just been proven big time by these two whacko's.
I hope Michael stays away from this. I hope he stays away until all this post-trial mayhem is long forgotten. Then think about getting his career going again. I am glad Michael is in Bahrain because I bet he is treated alot better there than he is in America. He's given billions of dollars to sick and dying people. He has blessed millions with his music. He has been a positive role model for youth for years. And this is how they treat him. Utterly, pathetic!
Michael, do what you want man. Stay in Bahrain and live it up. Don't give in to these morons. They want an interview, but don't let the fudgeer's get it. Just let these 2 whacky juror's do what they want, and sit back in Bahrain knowing they are proving what you've said all along. People will do anything for money.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Dagwood on 08/10/05 at 7:16 am
Robbo?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Philip Eno on 08/10/05 at 10:59 am
I believe his is still not guilty.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mickey D. on 08/10/05 at 1:29 pm
About two months ago, I've heard the news on the radio once, and it said Michael Jackson was not guilty, he was innocent just like the album by one of my all-time favorites Billy Joel! That was hot stuff! ;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: quirky_cat_girl on 08/10/05 at 3:47 pm
why are we all still talking about this....he was found innocent, some may think he was guilty...but we are never going to agree on that, nor will it make the outcome any different...so, let's agree to disagree....there are a lot more problems to worry about then this matter.
Erin :)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Mezinator on 08/10/05 at 5:15 pm
why are we all still talking about this....he was found innocent, some may think he was guilty...but we are never going to agree on that, nor will it make the outcome any different...so, let's agree to disagree....there are a lot more problems to worry about then this matter.
Erin :)
I'm sorry, but an African American middle-aged male being robbed of his rights and labelled as a child molester when a court of law found him innocent, is an issue of major concern.
Sure there a bombing going on in the world, there a people dying in Iraq, but we as people can do nothing about that. It's up to the world leaders to get off their arses and no something about it. We can do something about the treatment of Michael Jackson. The man was found innocent for christ's sake show some mercy. If the public does not respond to the media constantly calling him a child molester, they will stop. They say "Whacko Jacko" on TV, hear it said in the mall one day and they know they have done a good job. If instead of hearing "Whacko Jacko" they heard simply, "Michael Jackson", they would be out of a job. A journo's job is to brainwash the public and they have done one hell of a good job. There was no evidence, there was no case. He was found not guilty but still the public say he is guilty. WTF?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 08/10/05 at 5:57 pm
why are we all still talking about this....he was found innocent, some may think he was guilty...but we are never going to agree on that, nor will it make the outcome any different...so, let's agree to disagree....there are a lot more problems to worry about then this matter.
Erin :)
Exactly, Erin! But you see, it's because they refuse to be good winners. tThey want ALL of us to believe what they believe. But already stating how I feel, I refuse to reply anymore to ANY of "Screwball Nation", I wish they'd all go and have a huge slumber party and leave all of the non believers alone. I couldn't agree more with what you said though ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 08/10/05 at 6:33 pm
oh good grief, not this again ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 08/10/05 at 8:13 pm
oh good grief, not this again ::)
Yep, I'm afraid that until we all bow down and worship the King Of Molestation and join his fans in "Screwball Nation"...they just won't leave it alone!! ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Mezinator on 08/11/05 at 1:20 am
But don't you understand? I don't want you to believe anything. I want you to stop believing what the media tells you to believe. We can't stop the Iraq war, but we can stop the mistreatment of Michael Jackson.
I didn't start this again. The 2 whacko jurors did when they said, "oops, changed my mind. He's guilty." It proves what Michael Jackson has said all along and if you can't see that then you are living in denial.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: quirky_cat_girl on 08/11/05 at 7:05 am
But don't you understand? I don't want you to believe anything. I want you to stop believing what the media tells you to believe. We can't stop the Iraq war, but we can stop the mistreatment of Michael Jackson.
I didn't start this again. The 2 whacko jurors did when they said, "oops, changed my mind. He's guilty." It proves what Michael Jackson has said all along and if you can't see that then you are living in denial.
I just don't understand what the big fixation on Michael Jackson is all about....ok, so you are a fan of his, you like his music, you think he is a cool guy...that's fine. I just don't understand why you are fighting tooth and nail for this guy? What? Did he do you some big favor? Is he a long lost relative? I mean, it's not like anything you are saying in his favor will change the course of your life or anything. I can understand thinking that someone is innocent and wanting to defend them...but it seems like (by some of your comments) that you are trying to clear the name of someone that you hold dear to you (a mother, father, spouse, etc), rather than a pop star. That's what I don't really understand. I could see your passion about this if it were regarding someone who you were directly connected to, but to get all bent out of shape over a person that you have never met, nor have a relationship with...it just seems like a waste of time to me. What I was trying to say in my last post is that it's OVER now...he went to trial, he was found not guilty, HOWEVER, there will always be people who think he got off easily and that he truly was guilty. He may or may not be, but here's the thing.....when you are a figure in the public eye, you have to know that whatever the matter is, you are always going to be in the public eye...with people for you and against you....that's the price "famous" people have to pay for being public icons. I am not trying to argue whether he was innocent or guilty...because truly...I don't care either way, the outcome of his trial has nothing to do with my life path....all I am saying is that you can't convert every single person to "your side" or "your beliefs" on the matter....and that goes for both sides of the spectrum (being for or against him).
Erin :)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Mezinator on 08/12/05 at 2:05 am
It's very hard to understand why Michael Jackson fans are so passionate. But when someone says, "Michael Jackson is a child molester", "Michael Jackson is a whacko", "I wish Michael Jackson was dead", I feel like they are calling me a child molester, a whacko or they wish I was dead. When someone says something bad about Michael Jackson I feel my heart sink and I feel like throwing up. I have to, I must defend Michael Jackson. It absolutely kills me that he was found not guilty, but everyone still says he is a child molester. What the hell is wrong with humanity? I can't believe that people can sit back and call Michael Jackson whacko, when they are the one's lying about him and trying so desperately to destroy his life. To me that seems pretty whacko. You say you can't understand why I try so hard to defend Michael Jackson. Well I wonder all the time why people try so hard to destroy Michael Jackson.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Jessica on 08/12/05 at 2:38 am
It's very hard to understand why Michael Jackson fans are so passionate. But when someone says, "Michael Jackson is a child molester", "Michael Jackson is a whacko", "I wish Michael Jackson was dead", I feel like they are calling me a child molester, a whacko or they wish I was dead. When someone says something bad about Michael Jackson I feel my heart sink and I feel like throwing up. I have to, I must defend Michael Jackson. It absolutely kills me that he was found not guilty, but everyone still says he is a child molester. What the hell is wrong with humanity? I can't believe that people can sit back and call Michael Jackson whacko, when they are the one's lying about him and trying so desperately to destroy his life. To me that seems pretty whacko. You say you can't understand why I try so hard to defend Michael Jackson. Well I wonder all the time why people try so hard to destroy Michael Jackson.
Whine, whine, whine. Don't you have a frickin' life?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Mezinator on 08/12/05 at 4:36 am
Take a look at yourself lady. You are so insecure about yourself that you create a cartoon face that is suppose to resemble yourself and use it as your avatar. You are too ashamed of yourself to put a real photo of yourself as your avatar. You may say you do it for fun or whatever, but on a subconcious level you are hiding yourself from the world. Yahoo! and other companies designed these avatar making programs because real people are too ugly to use their own faces as avatars so they have to make a cartoon version of themselves. By doing this you are destroying your real self. This cartoon face has become you.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: GoodRedShirt on 08/12/05 at 5:08 am
Take a look at yourself lady. You are so insecure about yourself that you create a cartoon face that is suppose to resemble yourself and use it as your avatar. You are too ashamed of yourself to put a real photo of yourself as your avatar. You may say you do it for fun or whatever, but on a subconcious level you are hiding yourself from the world. Yahoo! and other companies designed these avatar making programs because real people are too ugly to use their own faces as avatars so they have to make a cartoon version of themselves. By doing this you are destroying your real self. This cartoon face has become you.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You so funnee!
Oh, and by the way I was being sarcastic.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: quirky_cat_girl on 08/12/05 at 8:27 am
Take a look at yourself lady. You are so insecure about yourself that you create a cartoon face that is suppose to resemble yourself and use it as your avatar. You are too ashamed of yourself to put a real photo of yourself as your avatar. You may say you do it for fun or whatever, but on a subconcious level you are hiding yourself from the world. Yahoo! and other companies designed these avatar making programs because real people are too ugly to use their own faces as avatars so they have to make a cartoon version of themselves. By doing this you are destroying your real self. This cartoon face has become you.
ya know, you are taking this way too far. It's one thing to disagree with someone over whether Michael Jackson is guilty or not, but when it comes to personal attacks against someone....that's when it is just wrong! Just because someone has a cartoon avatar of themselves does not mean that they are insecure or think badly of themselves. I do not know Jessica personally, but from reading her posts, etc..I would say that she is far from being insecure...she seems like a very strong-willed, assertive woman.
I will never understand (and I am not sure if I even want to) how someone can be so obsessed with Michael Jackson, or any celebrity for that matter. How can you think that without a shadow of a doubt that he was 100% innocent? Were you there during the time of his accusations? You act like you are physically connected to the man, like you feed off of each other or something...that is just really creepy.
Think what you want regarding the matter, voice your opinion concerning the Michael Jackson controversy....but don't go making out of place, rude comments to members of the board.
Erin :)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 08/12/05 at 8:32 am
Take a look at yourself lady. You are so insecure about yourself that you create a cartoon face that is suppose to resemble yourself and use it as your avatar. You are too ashamed of yourself to put a real photo of yourself as your avatar. You may say you do it for fun or whatever, but on a subconcious level you are hiding yourself from the world. Yahoo! and other companies designed these avatar making programs because real people are too ugly to use their own faces as avatars so they have to make a cartoon version of themselves. By doing this you are destroying your real self. This cartoon face has become you.
Personally attacking someone because they disagree with you're views on your God, you have NO class in doing so ::) Seek some help.....Robbo....or just go sleep in MJ's bed, you know you want to, but leave the rest of us who do NOT agree with your opinion of that freak, alone ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Paul on 08/12/05 at 9:30 am
He was, crazymom...he used to be known as 'Robbo'...
Personally, I think it's MJ himself, but that's just me!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: quirky_cat_girl on 08/12/05 at 9:46 am
He was, crazymom...he used to be known as 'Robbo'...
Personally, I think it's MJ himself, but that's just me!
gosh, that's what it seems like, huh? The way he talks...it's either MJ...or maybe MJ's relative!
Erin :)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Gis on 08/12/05 at 10:19 am
He was, crazymom...he used to be known as 'Robbo'...
Personally, I think it's MJ himself, but that's just me!
No he's not quite mad enough...................
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Jessica on 08/12/05 at 2:49 pm
Take a look at yourself lady. You are so insecure about yourself that you create a cartoon face that is suppose to resemble yourself and use it as your avatar. You are too ashamed of yourself to put a real photo of yourself as your avatar. You may say you do it for fun or whatever, but on a subconcious level you are hiding yourself from the world. Yahoo! and other companies designed these avatar making programs because real people are too ugly to use their own faces as avatars so they have to make a cartoon version of themselves. By doing this you are destroying your real self. This cartoon face has become you.
Maybe if you'd stop getting so hot and bothered over Michelle Michael Jackson and take a look elsewhere on the board, you'd see that several pictures are posted of me. And stop trying to be all deep and cr*p. It doesn't fly when you defend a scumbucket like Jackson.
Here's a picture for you, courtesy of an awesome website:
http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a270/a270.gif
I'm so going to hell for that. I guess I'll see Michael there!
P.S. Thanks to Erin, Mark, GRS, and Crazymom for getting all up on this guy. ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 08/12/05 at 6:53 pm
Hey, you know me....I'll argue with ANYONE ;D ;D
Oh no, not You, Kim ;D ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 08/12/05 at 7:02 pm
Maybe if you'd stop getting so hot and bothered over Michelle Michael Jackson and take a look elsewhere on the board, you'd see that several pictures are posted of me. And stop trying to be all deep and cr*p. It doesn't fly when you defend a scumbucket like Jackson.
Here's a picture for you, courtesy of an awesome website:
http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a270/a270.gif
I'm so going to hell for that. I guess I'll see Michael there!
P.S. Thanks to Erin, Mark, GRS, and Crazymom for getting all up on this guy. ;)
You won't be joining Michelle/Michael "Ladies Man" in hell, Jess. He's got all the reservations for himself and his "Screwball Nation" :D Anyway, ANYTHING for you, anytime ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Mezinator on 08/12/05 at 8:29 pm
ya know, you are taking this way too far. It's one thing to disagree with someone over whether Michael Jackson is guilty or not, but when it comes to personal attacks against someone....that's when it is just wrong!
Whine, whine, whine. Don't you have a frickin' life?
ÂÂ
Just because someone has a cartoon avatar of themselves does not mean that they are insecure or think badly of themselves. I do not know Jessica personally, but from reading her posts, etc..I would say that she is far from being insecure...she seems like a very strong-willed, assertive woman.
I was simply making a point about these avatar things that Yahoo! and other companies have created.
I will never understand (and I am not sure if I even want to) how someone can be so obsessed with Michael Jackson, or any celebrity for that matter. How can you think that without a shadow of a doubt that he was 100% innocent? Were you there during the time of his accusations? You act like you are physically connected to the man, like you feed off of each other or something...that is just really creepy.
That's right. No-one will understand. That's why you'll keep throwing around words like "creepy". How dare you say I take things to far, I resort to personal attacks. You just called my actions creepy. The majority of people on this board have said nasty things about Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson is a person, so any smart ass comments made about him are personal attacks.
Think what you want regarding the matter, voice your opinion concerning the Michael Jackson controversy....but don't go making out of place, rude comments to members of the board.
Erin :)
Think what you want regarding the matter, voice your opinion concerning the Michael Jackson controversy....but don't go making out of place, rude comments about Michael Jackson or his fans.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Mezinator on 08/12/05 at 8:38 pm
I laugh at the effect the media has had on your minds. They've turned you into hypocrits. It's OK for you all to say I am a screwball, I am going to hell - Michael Jackson is a screwball, Michael Jackson is going to hell. But if I make a simple statement about the Yahoo! avatars and how they rob people of them trueselves, I am the bad guy. It doesn't make sense.
What has Michael Jackson ever done to you that he deserves such harsh insults? He fought through a whole trial just to prove to you lot that he is innocent. But that's not good enough for you. It's hard enough for him to have to deal with the media saying insulting things about him and spreading lies. The public believing what the media tells them just makes it worse. Do you know how to show any mercy to the poor guy?
Animals strike from malice because they want to live. It's the same for those who critisize. They desire our blood, not our pain. So have mercy for I've been bleeding a long time now. - Michael Jackson
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 08/12/05 at 8:41 pm
I was simply making a point about these avatar things that Yahoo! and other companies have created.That's right. No-one will understand. That's why you'll keep throwing around words like "creepy". How dare you say I take things to far, I resort to personal attacks. You just called my actions creepy. The majority of people on this board have said nasty things about Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson is a person, so any smart butt comments made about him are personal attacks. Think what you want regarding the matter, voice your opinion concerning the Michael Jackson controversy....but don't go making out of place, rude comments about Michael Jackson or his fans.
Listen, your God WON! He's FREE! to do "Whatever" he wants....so quit coming back and making us all more sick about it. There are a LOT of people here who just want him....and you to "Go Away"....bye, Robbo ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Mezinator on 08/12/05 at 9:06 pm
OK. Yes, you're right. It's time for me to leave. It seems I came to this board to talk, but I was disgusted by people's misrepresentations and disrespect for Michael Jackson. You don't even understand who Michael Jackson is, or what he stands for. All you know is what the media tells you. All you know is lies. You can't base your opinions on someone, from lies. It's ridiculous. I came to this board and didn't agree that Michael Jackson was a child molester like the rest of you. So straight away I wasn't welcome. All the time I put up with RocknRollFan's hurtful and degrading PM's. I put up with people saying they want me to go to hell, calling me a screwball. I put up with it and stuck around because I hated seeing Michael Jackson treated like dirt. I had to defend him. I feel sorry for you all. You have been manipulated by the media. You are missing out on the magic that is Michael Jackson, while the fans are soaking it up. If you knew how happy Michael Jackson makes us all. Just a picture of him sends out hearts a flutter. It you understood how we felt about him, you'd understand why we all defend him so passionately. Michael Jackson is my passion. When I feel cold and alone I turn to Michael Jackson. He makes a dark day bright. He sows a broken heart together. His music, his voice, his beautiful smile, his persona makes me so happy, even when I'm feeling really down. He brightens up my days. Not even you lot can make me feel upset or angry when I've got Michael Jackson by my side.
So I will make this board a better place and leave. But just remember, you don't have to believe what the media tell you. You don't have to treat Michael Jackson like sheesh. It you find it in your hearts, you can show him some mercy. But I highly doubt, with dominating personalities like RNRF on the board that you will ever step out of your comfort zone and say, "Hey, let's leave the poor guy alone. He's had it rough". Ah well.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: quirky_cat_girl on 08/12/05 at 10:08 pm
wow....i feel really sorry for someone that would use this comment regarding a celebrity.....
"If you knew how happy Michael Jackson makes us all. Just a picture of him sends out hearts a flutter".
Here's the thing....you keep saying, "how do you know he did all of this"....."quit listening to the media"....etc....but it works in reverse as well....how do YOU know that he is innocent? Do you know Michael Jackson personally? Do you stay in his home and sleep in his bed? You can't say that you know 100% that he is innocent, can you? It's all a matter of opinion (on both sides)...you KNOW in your heart that he is innocent....and others KNOW in their hearts that he is guilty. Furthermore, I never once BASHED Michael Jackson in my replies, nor did I cast your soul to hell....the only comment that I made was that it seemed really creepy of the extent that you take it when it concerns your love and passions for Michael Jackson....that was it. So please do not say that I was bashing you or your hero, ok?
As for your comments regarding the boards, etc....the people here are awesome, open-minded, and very friendly....they just differ in opinion from you.
Erin
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: MidKnightDarkness on 08/12/05 at 10:09 pm
You are missing out on the magic that is Michael Jackson, while the fans are soaking it up. If you knew how happy Michael Jackson makes us all. Just a picture of him sends out hearts a flutter. It you understood how we felt about him, you'd understand why we all defend him so passionately. Michael Jackson is my passion. When I feel cold and alone I turn to Michael Jackson. He makes a dark day bright. He sows a broken heart together. His music, his voice, his beautiful smile, his persona makes me so happy, even when I'm feeling really down. He brightens up my days.
:o Omfg....Please, seek help. This just isn't healthy, and I'm genuinely concerned for you...  :-\\
-Beth
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 08/12/05 at 11:28 pm
OK. Yes, you're right. It's time for me to leave. It seems I came to this board to talk, but I was disgusted by people's misrepresentations and disrespect for Michael Jackson. You don't even understand who Michael Jackson is, or what he stands for. All you know is what the media tells you. All you know is lies. You can't base your opinions on someone, from lies. It's ridiculous. I came to this board and didn't agree that Michael Jackson was a child molester like the rest of you. So straight away I wasn't welcome. All the time I put up with RocknRollFan's hurtful and degrading PM's. I put up with people saying they want me to go to hell, calling me a screwball. I put up with it and stuck around because I hated seeing Michael Jackson treated like dirt. I had to defend him. I feel sorry for you all. You have been manipulated by the media. You are missing out on the magic that is Michael Jackson, while the fans are soaking it up. If you knew how happy Michael Jackson makes us all. Just a picture of him sends out hearts a flutter. It you understood how we felt about him, you'd understand why we all defend him so passionately. Michael Jackson is my passion. When I feel cold and alone I turn to Michael Jackson. He makes a dark day bright. He sows a broken heart together. His music, his voice, his beautiful smile, his persona makes me so happy, even when I'm feeling really down. He brightens up my days. Not even you lot can make me feel upset or angry when I've got Michael Jackson by my side.
So I will make this board a better place and leave. But just remember, you don't have to believe what the media tell you. You don't have to treat Michael Jackson like sheesh. It you find it in your hearts, you can show him some mercy. But I highly doubt, with dominating personalities like RNRF on the board that you will ever step out of your comfort zone and say, "Hey, let's leave the poor guy alone. He's had it rough". Ah well.
Hey first I never said you should go to hell, next, I'm glad YOU find comfort with MJ. Next, I DON'T, which is MY right just like you worshipping him is yours. Just stop trying to persuade me and the MANY others who have a difference of opinion from yours, enjoy your idol's court victory and move on with your life ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: GoodRedShirt on 08/12/05 at 11:31 pm
You are missing out on the magic that is Michael Jackson, while the fans are soaking it up. If you knew how happy Michael Jackson makes us all. Just a picture of him sends out hearts a flutter. It you understood how we felt about him, you'd understand why we all defend him so passionately. Michael Jackson is my passion. When I feel cold and alone I turn to Michael Jackson. He makes a dark day bright. He sows a broken heart together. His music, his voice, his beautiful smile, his persona makes me so happy, even when I'm feeling really down. He brightens up my days.
I think you've mistaken Michael Jackson for God. :-X ;)
Ever heard of a fundy-MJ Fan? (Similar to a Fundy-Christian or a Fundy-Muslim etc) ???
That is you! :o
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 08/12/05 at 11:36 pm
I think you've mistaken Michael Jackson for God. :-X ;)
Ever heard of a fundy-MJ Fan? (Similar to a Fundy-Christian or a Fundy-Muslim etc) ???
That is you! :o
Well, the guy does have a right to his beliefs, it's just that he needs to stop trying to shove them down other peoples throats!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Jessica on 08/13/05 at 2:26 am
OK. Yes, you're right. It's time for me to leave. It seems I came to this board to talk, but I was disgusted by people's misrepresentations and disrespect for Michael Jackson. You don't even understand who Michael Jackson is, or what he stands for. All you know is what the media tells you. All you know is lies. You can't base your opinions on someone, from lies. It's ridiculous. I came to this board and didn't agree that Michael Jackson was a child molester like the rest of you. So straight away I wasn't welcome. All the time I put up with RocknRollFan's hurtful and degrading PM's. I put up with people saying they want me to go to hell, calling me a screwball. I put up with it and stuck around because I hated seeing Michael Jackson treated like dirt. I had to defend him. I feel sorry for you all. You have been manipulated by the media. You are missing out on the magic that is Michael Jackson, while the fans are soaking it up. If you knew how happy Michael Jackson makes us all. Just a picture of him sends out hearts a flutter. It you understood how we felt about him, you'd understand why we all defend him so passionately. Michael Jackson is my passion. When I feel cold and alone I turn to Michael Jackson. He makes a dark day bright. He sows a broken heart together. His music, his voice, his beautiful smile, his persona makes me so happy, even when I'm feeling really down. He brightens up my days. Not even you lot can make me feel upset or angry when I've got Michael Jackson by my side.
So I will make this board a better place and leave. But just remember, you don't have to believe what the media tell you. You don't have to treat Michael Jackson like sheesh. It you find it in your hearts, you can show him some mercy. But I highly doubt, with dominating personalities like RNRF on the board that you will ever step out of your comfort zone and say, "Hey, let's leave the poor guy alone. He's had it rough". Ah well.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Don't leave, Robbo. You brighten my day with your defensive little boy attitude about your idol.
Crazymom: What a coincidence. I also like to argue a lot. Especially when people go on about stupid sh*t.
Mark: I knew you'd have my back. ;) :-*
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 08/13/05 at 11:44 am
Mark: I knew you'd have my back. ;) :-*
And I always will, Jess :-* ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whistledog on 09/08/05 at 1:42 am
I wonder if when Michael resumes his recording career, will his album/singles sell? I haven't really liked anything he's done since his 1991 album Dangerous
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Gulf2Gulf on 09/08/05 at 7:28 am
He's back in the music industry. He's ready to get the ball rolling again.
He's announced his first single since the acquittal which is, "From The Bottom of My Heart" (a hurricane relief single).
He's contacted Kanye West to produce an album with him and West said he'd definately do a few tracks with him. R Kelly also has a whole album with Michael's name on it.
It's all systems go.
He's back.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mushroom on 09/08/05 at 8:24 am
I wonder if when Michael resumes his recording career, will his album/singles sell? I haven't really liked anything he's done since his 1991 album Dangerous
I doubt it. He may have the occasional "comebacks", but he will never be the powerful industry powerhouse that he was 20-25 years ago.
Nobody can deny how important Elvis was to music. But by the mid 1960's, he had largely been left behind. The industry had changed, and his fans got older and older. The newer generations prefered music by groups like The Beatles and The Doors. His last #1 record was "Suspicious Minds" in late 1969. He had a short revival after performing in 1973, and then his career died again. He was planning yet another "comeback" when he died in 1977.
Michael's career is over. He may have an occasional song pop up here and there, but they will be flukes. He does not seem to understand that his style has been left behind. His antics have alienated even more of his former fans.
And hanging onto the career of R. Kelly may be an even bigger mistake. Nobody wants to listen to 2 pedophiles singing together. R. Kelly is another known pedophile, and his career also has taken a sharp dive since this became public knowledge. After all, he was 27 when he married a 15 year old Aaliyah. And the rumors of his involvement with underage girls go way back to the early 1990's. And with the videotape of him having sex with 2 different 14 year old girls is rather convincing, unless you live in the state of Denial.
Who knows, maybe they can make a reality TV show. Every week, viewers could tune in, and see the antics of 2 over the hill, washed up R&B singers as they chase young boys and girls.
Naw, that is to disturbing, even for todays trashy TV market.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 09/08/05 at 12:24 pm
He's back in the music industry. He's ready to get the ball rolling again.
He's announced his first single since the acquittal which is, "From The Bottom of My Heart" (a hurricane relief single).
He's contacted Kanye West to produce an album with him and West said he'd definately do a few tracks with him. R Kelly also has a whole album with Michael's name on it.
It's all systems go.
He's back.
Isn't R. Kelly the guy who filmed himself having sex with a 13 year old girl? ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 09/08/05 at 1:52 pm
That would be him....he is best known for the song "Fly" (I believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky...) Although, I think she was 14, but either age, it's still pretty sick (though I've seen the tape and one of them sure as heck doesn't LOOK 14) >:(
I've never seen the tape but I thought it was just one girl...though that's bad enough >:(
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 09/08/05 at 2:51 pm
There are multiple tapes ;)
What a sicko :P
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mushroom on 09/08/05 at 3:22 pm
There are multiple tapes ;)
I have seen clips of the tapes. They were on the news, with the girl's face and other areas blured out. They showed 2 different girls, 1 was 14 the other was 15.
The 14 year old was the neice of one of his "associates", so I don't see how he can claim he did not know her age.
I can understand how once was an "oops". But we are now talking about 3 different girls, all 15 or under. This is a disturbing and disgusting trend.
I think R. Kelly and Michelle Jackson deserve each other. And I will never buy one of their CDs again. I do not even play them at gigs, unless I am pestered by the customer to play them.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Gulf2Gulf on 09/08/05 at 5:21 pm
I think R. Kelly and Michelle Jackson deserve each other.  And I will never buy one of their CDs again.  I do not even play them at gigs, unless I am pestered by the customer to play them.
Why wont you play Michael Jackson at "gigs"? He was found not guilty. Is that not enough for you? By court of law he did not do it.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 09/08/05 at 5:21 pm
I have seen clips of the tapes. They were on the news, with the girl's face and other areas blured out. They showed 2 different girls, 1 was 14 the other was 15.
The 14 year old was the neice of one of his "associates", so I don't see how he can claim he did not know her age.
I can understand how once was an "oops". But we are now talking about 3 different girls, all 15 or under. This is a disturbing and disgusting trend.
I think R. Kelly and Michelle Jackson deserve each other. And I will never buy one of their CDs again. I do not even play them at gigs, unless I am pestered by the customer to play them.
Oh but haven't you heard? Whacko is doing a hurricane relief CD, so that makes him "Good" again ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 09/08/05 at 5:23 pm
Why wont you play Michael Jackson at "gigs"? He was found not guilty. Is that not enough for you? By court of law he did not do it.
Robbo!! This place just wan't the same without you. JUST because he was found not guillty does NOT mean he was innocent ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: woops on 09/08/05 at 5:25 pm
Obiviously guilty
Though I still listen to his "Thriller" & "Bad" albums once in a while
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whistledog on 09/08/05 at 5:26 pm
He's so guilty. He's on such a roll lately, maybe his next song should be a cover of the 1986 Kenny Loggins hit 'Playing With the Boys' ;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 09/08/05 at 5:33 pm
people that rape should be casterated.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mushroom on 09/08/05 at 7:00 pm
Why wont you play Michael Jackson at "gigs"? He was found not guilty. Is that not enough for you? By court of law he did not do it.
Mr. Guest, I refuse to buy or play them, because they are morally reprehensible pedophiles.
In fact, most of the jurors who have been interviewed admit that they think he is a pedophile. They simply state that there was not enough burden of proof in this case. And as everybody should know, being found Not Guilty is not the same as being found Innocent.
Not Guilty means that the State did not meet the Burden Of Proof. Innocent means that the person did not do it.
OJ was found Not Guilty also. But he is still a wife beating murderer. I will not buy any movie with him in it. I refuse to put money into the pockets of people like them.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: quirky_cat_girl on 09/08/05 at 7:13 pm
Robbo!! This place just wan't the same without you. JUST because he was found not guillty does NOT mean he was innocent ::)
Ha! Ya, I was just going to say that....Robbo just can't stay away!
Erin :)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 09/08/05 at 7:30 pm
Ha! Ya, I was just going to say that....Robbo just can't stay away!
Erin :)
:) I suppose we should brace ourselves for yet another bout of crap ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: quirky_cat_girl on 09/08/05 at 7:31 pm
:) I suppose we should brace ourselves for another wave of crap ::)
ya, as long as Michael Jackson is still getting publicity...we will have to hear all about it.
Erin :)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 09/08/05 at 9:41 pm
ya, as long as Michael Jackson is still getting publicity...we will have to hear all about it.
Erin :)
Sad but true, though it does set him up for more scrutiny, which he SO deserves ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Gulf2Gulf on 09/08/05 at 10:50 pm
Hahaha. I can't believe people still aren't over the trial. Good grief.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Dagwood on 09/09/05 at 12:29 am
people that rape should be casterated.
Amen to that.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 09/09/05 at 1:46 am
people that rape should be casterated.
Casterated?
http://www.cwih.com/Images/images1/albion-caster.jpg
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Philip Eno on 09/09/05 at 1:50 am
He has been proved not guilty ten times and that is that!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 09/09/05 at 6:29 pm
He has been proved not guilty ten times and that is that!
Not guilty does NOT always mean innocent....Example: OJ Simpson ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 09/09/05 at 6:32 pm
Hahaha. I can't believe people still aren't over the trial. Good grief.
Hahaha, I can't believe you keep coming back for more ridicule....Robbo :D ;D BTW, I'm over the trial but forever sickened that the pervert got away with it >:(
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Gulf2Gulf on 09/09/05 at 8:39 pm
Robbo? Who the hell is that?
I came hear to promote Michael Jackson's new charity single. I was sickened by people's disrespect for the man.
He was found not guilty, that's that. The point is, before the verdict and before the trial, everyone was saying "I don't know if he is guilty or not, so let's see what the jury says." The jury says "not guilty" and everyone still says he is guilty. The man endured a 4 month trial just to prove that he didn't do it, when he did, people still didn't believe it. What does he have to do?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Jessica on 09/10/05 at 1:41 am
Robbo? Who the hell is that?
I came hear to promote Michael Jackson's new charity single. I was sickened by people's disrespect for the man.
He was found not guilty, that's that. The point is, before the verdict and before the trial, everyone was saying "I don't know if he is guilty or not, so let's see what the jury says." The jury says "not guilty" and everyone still says he is guilty. The man endured a 4 month trial just to prove that he didn't do it, when he did, people still didn't believe it. What does he have to do?
Hey babycakes! Good to see you back and defending your weenie sucking hero!
Wow, he made a single. Just for the record (and I hate to do this because actors and such usually blow), have you noticed how many other stars are actually out there making a difference for the victims? They're not sitting on their wannabe white asses trying to do a song that will never fly with anybody. Hell, Sean Penn was out there knee deep in muck rescuing people. And where was your God at? Oh yeah, in Dubai sucking up to the peeps there!
So what does MJ have to do to earn some respect? Maybe 'fess up to being a molestor and then jump off the Golden Gate.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: La Sine Pesroh on 09/10/05 at 3:53 am
The man endured a 4 month trial just to prove that he didn't do it, when he did, people still didn't believe it. What does he have to do?
Perhaps he ought to start staking out the nation's exclusive golf courses in order to try and track down the "real molesters." ;D ;D ;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mushroom on 09/10/05 at 7:41 am
Robbo? Who the hell is that?
Robbo was some pedophile-supporter we had in here a while ago.
He was real easy to spot too. You see, he was so ashamed of his "hero", that he would never sign in as anything but a guest. And he was always changing his name.
Ya know, I wonder if this should be moved to the "Politics" section, because of the "contriversial" nature of Michelle Jackson and it's crimes?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Gulf2Gulf on 09/10/05 at 7:58 am
What have you all got against Michael Jackson?
He's a fine gentleman. Very kind-hearted. He is making a single for the benefit of hurricane victims. He's done it in the past with We Are The World where he raised $60 million in aid of Africa. He was found not guilty of child molestation because he proved it in court.
What have you got against the man?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 09/10/05 at 8:01 am
What have you all got against Michael Jackson?
He's a fine gentleman. Very kind-hearted. He is making a single for the benefit of hurricane victims. He's done it in the past with We Are The World where he raised $60 million in aid of Africa. He was found not guilty of child molestation because he proved it in court.
What have you got against the man?
the only thing proven in court was that the prosecution didn't obtain enough evidence to support a guilty verdict.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Gulf2Gulf2Gulf on 09/10/05 at 8:57 am
Exactly. Everyone is presumed innocent. That prosecution has to prove the defendant is guilty, this didn't happened which means Michael Jackson is still presumed innocent.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 09/10/05 at 9:02 am
Exactly. Everyone is presumed innocent. That prosecution has to prove the defendant is guilty, this didn't happened which means Michael Jackson is still presumed innocent.
presumed is the right word, he is presumed innocent because of the lack of evidence, his innocence has never been proven either
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: joedeertae on 09/12/05 at 5:02 pm
the prosecution mucked up the case
Not to mention (and this may have been said previously in this thread but I'm too lazy to read back to see) the fact that several of the jurors have stepped forward to say that they feel that he really IS GUILTY!!!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mushroom on 09/12/05 at 6:20 pm
Not to mention (and this may have been said previously in this thread but I'm too lazy to read back to see) the fact that several of the jurors have stepped forward to say that they feel that he really IS GUILTY!!!
That is so true. And even as this debate goes on, Michelle is undergoing a trial for....
Child Molestation.
Decades ago, John Gotti was called "The Teflon Don". Everybody knew he was guilty, they just had a problem with making anything stick. But they eventually did find him guilty, and he spent the rest of his life in jail.
Maybe we should call him "The Teflon Pedophile".
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Rocksteady on 09/16/05 at 10:09 pm
Can we please, please, please move on to another topic and leave this one alone? Some people believe he is guilty as sin. Fine, for all any of us know, he could very well be. I don't live inside his head--thankfully--and neither do any of you. Some others are 100% sure of his innocence and are horrified at how many people think he is guilty. That's fine too, because he has done a hell of a lot in his career, and he seems--to a lot of people--to be like a soft-spoken and shy child who only wants to help and entertain others. The bottom line is none of us are ever going to know if he--in fact--did or did not molest kids. He went to court and was found not guilty, and as we all know, the court is not infallible. So you know what? No offense to atheists or people who believe in other religious beings...but let God decide if he's guilty or not and let's not tear each other apart over this matter anymore. It's not worth it.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 09/16/05 at 11:45 pm
Can we please, please, please move on to another topic and leave this one alone? Some people believe he is guilty as sin. Fine, for all any of us know, he could very well be. I don't live inside his head--thankfully--and neither do any of you. Some others are 100% sure of his innocence and are horrified at how many people think he is guilty. That's fine too, because he has done a hell of a lot in his career, and he seems--to a lot of people--to be like a soft-spoken and shy child who only wants to help and entertain others. The bottom line is none of us are ever going to know if he--in fact--did or did not molest kids. He went to court and was found not guilty, and as we all know, the court is not infallible. So you know what? No offense to atheists or people who believe in other religious beings...but let God decide if he's guilty or not and let's not tear each other apart over this matter anymore. It's not worth it.
Yes, I'm sick of reading the support of this crotch-grabbing, child molesting sicko as well. BUT the FACT remains that as much "Talent" as he had, he is a criminal and I for one , will NOT ever let the facts go that he is a sick person who has damaged many peoples lives through his obsession. Just as OJ commited a double murder and got away with it....yet those of us with brains KNOW he did it, we also know that this creep has gotten away with unspeakable acts against innocent boys. "Karma" will get him but unfortunately, the victims will have to live with what happened to them :\'( Lastly...ALWAYS remember that "Not Guilty" does NOT mean "Innocent"
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: woops on 09/17/05 at 1:03 am
I still like his music from The Jackson 5 and solo albums in the 80's 8)
But is a creep :P
Like I still like "Risky Business", but don't believe in that particular's actors' views...
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: TruthSpeaker on 09/25/05 at 6:38 am
There's too much proof that he is innocent to even think he might be guilty. It's out of the question. The proof won in this case, and the proof showed that Michael did not commit those crimes.
He's a great musician, the best there ever was. Elvis Presley, The Beatles, Led Zeppilin...nothing when compared to Michael Jackson.
On the topic of Presley... Elvis Presley is NOT the King of Rock & Roll, Chuck Berry and Little Richard did more for music than he sould ever dream of. He just copied what Chucky Berry had allready been doing for years.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Sister Morphine on 03/27/06 at 4:31 pm
Michael Jackson was found not guilty for the same reason OJ Simpson and Robert Blake were found not guilty.
Because they're famous and money can buy you innonence. If you REALLY think Michael never molested a kid, you're the only living in Neverland, not him. If the man can go on national TV and lie and say he's only had one surgery on his nose, than he can most certainly lie about molesting a child.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whistledog on 03/27/06 at 4:35 pm
OMG this thread is so old. Michael Jackson is like so last year ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Donnie Darko on 03/27/06 at 4:35 pm
[quote author=whis
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mr Tumnus on 03/28/06 at 4:33 pm
Michael Jackson was found not guilty for the same reason OJ Simpson and Robert Blake were found not guilty.
Because they're famous and money can buy you innonence. If you REALLY think Michael never molested a kid, you're the only living in Neverland, not him. If the man can go on national TV and lie and say he's only had one surgery on his nose, than he can most certainly lie about molesting a child.
EDITED.
Where you directing that statement to me in the sentence I've highlighted to bold?