MJ Acquitted!!!!

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Do you think MJ is innocent?

  • yes

    Votes: 49 34.3%

  • no

    Votes: 94 65.7%
  • Total voters
    143
ocean11

ocean11

Senior Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2002
Messages
1,322
Reaction score
6
Members do not see this ad.
WOW! What a great day for Michael Jackson. I personally thought he was innocent and that there wasn't enough evidence against him. So what do you guys think.... I can't help but feel happy for the man.... I felt so sorry for him with his latest medical problems and the media constantly hounding him... yey Michael!! 😀
 
ocean11 said:
WOW! What a great day for Michael Jackson. I personally thought he was innocent and that there wasn't enough evidence against him. So what do you guys think.... I can't help but feel happy for the man.... I felt so sorry for him with his latest medical problems and the media constantly hounding him... yey Michael!! 😀
Click to expand...
he is a freak and most likely some degree of a child molester. however, i cannot think to place him in jail per the allegations of a whackjob media *****.

hopefully, this time he'll stop having children in his bed and act like a grown man. this should've never been an issue after the first time allegations came out.

what happened to billy jean michael, the nice, black pop star?
 
I think applying logic here would suggest that the parents of the accuser deserve to be in jail more than MJ. There are only two possibilities:

1. Their son was abused, in which case they sent their child to spend the night in the home of a man with a history of alleged child molestation - the parents are to blame

OR

2. They concocted this story in an attempt to extort money from MJ in which case the parents are criminals.

Either way, Mommy needs to be behind bars for a bit IMHO. I mean really, who on EARTH would let their child stay at this wackjobs house?
 
idq1i said:
I don't care. Why do you?. Why is this crap even in allo?
Click to expand...

excellent question, why do I care? why don't you ask 'why America, or why the whole world cares?'

It seems that YOU are in the minority :laugh:
 
ocean11 said:
excellent question, why do I care? why don't you ask 'why America, or why the whole world cares?'

It seems that YOU are in the minority :laugh:
Click to expand...

You never asked my opinion of the average american 😉 I know exactly why they care
 
Flopotomist said:
I think applying logic here would suggest that the parents of the accuser deserve to be in jail more than MJ. There are only two possibilities:

1. Their son was abused, in which case they sent their child to spend the night in the home of a man with a history of alleged child molestation - the parents are to blame

OR

2. They concocted this story in an attempt to extort money from MJ in which case the parents are criminals.

Either way, Mommy needs to be behind bars for a bit IMHO. I mean really, who on EARTH would let their child stay at this wackjobs house?
Click to expand...

excellent point! 👍
 
Could you imagine MJ in prison with a 250lb 6'6" cellmate with gold teeth named Tiny. That would be a riot.

"Federal pound me in the a$$ prison" --office space
 
They should have a system where when you accuse someone of a crime, ONE of you will wind up in prison definately. Its not appropriate for michael to be innocent and this kid's mother to be innocent. If my man MJ was innocent in the eyes of the law, then this woman lied, in the eyes of the law, and she ought to be punished. The DA should be fired for clearly have such a poorly constructed and weakly supported case, considering there were TEN charges and none of htem stuck.

Like when Kobe was accused, it was pretty clear to me the situation was simply a girl got used by a guy, and with a little egging on she thought "hey, i've been raped". of course, after some duckets, she dropped it. The law does not forgive criminals for misunderstandings, so they should not forgive accusers either.

You know what's worse that molesting a little boy? Using someone to pay for your medical and family stuff for two years and then accusing them of molesting you, in order to reap millions. Sure, an innocent man spends 2 decades in the slammer, but who cares because he's a freak, right?

This would cut back on all kinds of false accusations. In a civil suit, this could be limited to repayment of legal fees. It disappoints me to see that some people can accuse others, such as doctors, of anything without real proof. Its simple...if you are accused of something, you could pay a fee to put it away, or you could go through the stress of a live changing trial...the choice is simple if you've got money. Thats why patients can sue doctors...its easier to give someone 15k to drop the accusations than it is to go through a trial, which would easily rack up more in legal fees and could result in losing a career.

MJ is a complete freak, but i read up about the investigation on him and it is clear to me that it was a witchhunt perpetuated by the overzealous DA and grifter family.

The significance of this case is that it reveals how little evidence it takes for someone to accuse you of something significant. Many of you on this board will be sued one day by patients whom you served to the best of your ability. Accusers should have to suffer consequences for unjust accusations, and it shouldn't just be from counter suing.
 
bananachip said:
They should have a system where when you accuse someone of a crime, ONE of you will wind up in prison definately. Its not appropriate for michael to be innocent and this kid's mother to be innocent. If my man MJ was innocent in the eyes of the law, then this woman lied, in the eyes of the law, and she ought to be punished. The DA should be fired for clearly have such a poorly constructed and weakly supported case, considering there were TEN charges and none of htem stuck.
Click to expand...


That's the dumbest thing I've read today...and I've been on SDN for half an hour.....
 
bananachip said:
They should have a system where when you accuse someone of a crime, ONE of you will wind up in prison definately. Its not appropriate for michael to be innocent and this kid's mother to be innocent. If my man MJ was innocent in the eyes of the law, then this woman lied, in the eyes of the law, and she ought to be punished. The DA should be fired for clearly have such a poorly constructed and weakly supported case, considering there were TEN charges and none of htem stuck.

Like when Kobe was accused, it was pretty clear to me the situation was simply a girl got used by a guy, and with a little egging on she thought "hey, i've been raped". of course, after some duckets, she dropped it. The law does not forgive criminals for misunderstandings, so they should not forgive accusers either.

You know what's worse that molesting a little boy? Using someone to pay for your medical and family stuff for two years and then accusing them of molesting you, in order to reap millions. Sure, an innocent man spends 2 decades in the slammer, but who cares because he's a freak, right?

This would cut back on all kinds of false accusations. In a civil suit, this could be limited to repayment of legal fees. It disappoints me to see that some people can accuse others, such as doctors, of anything without real proof. Its simple...if you are accused of something, you could pay a fee to put it away, or you could go through the stress of a live changing trial...the choice is simple if you've got money. Thats why patients can sue doctors...its easier to give someone 15k to drop the accusations than it is to go through a trial, which would easily rack up more in legal fees and could result in losing a career.

MJ is a complete freak, but i read up about the investigation on him and it is clear to me that it was a witchhunt perpetuated by the overzealous DA and grifter family.

The significance of this case is that it reveals how little evidence it takes for someone to accuse you of something significant. Many of you on this board will be sued one day by patients whom you served to the best of your ability. Accusers should have to suffer consequences for unjust accusations, and it shouldn't just be from counter suing.
Click to expand...
The problem with your logic is that MJ wasn't found "innocent". He was found "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". (That's the way the US criminal law system works - no one is ever found "innocent", just whether the prosecutor proved their case). Meaning the jury could think that he "probably" was guilty, but if they had some lingering doubt, then by law would still have to find for him. In fact, at least one juror is now on record indicating that he thought that MJ was "probably" a child molester, but that the case as presented simply had too many loose ends. MJ will likely still get sued civilly, because in civil suits, "probably" is the standard used ("preponderance of the evidence" not "beyond a resonable doubt"), and so MJ may have to pay this family a cash civil judgment down the road (as OJ Simpson had to do when he was sued by the Browns and Goldmans after having been found "not guilty" in criminal court). Hope that clarifies.
 
It's like Dave Chappelle said to a parody prosecution on his show last year "Come on, man. He made Thriller . He made Thriller ."
 
And how another comedian said "Man, all y'all can say all you want about Michael Jackson. You know, and I know, that if he walked up on stage right here, right now, half of y'all would scream like little bitches and the other half of y'all would pass the f@#k out."
 
I dunno, i am pretty sure that he is innocent in this case. And since that is what he is on trial for, he's innocent. Not "not guilty", he's innocent. the jury agrees with me. If you look at the evidence and the circumstances, there would be too much coincidence involved to make him guilty, in addition to too much credibility to a woman and son who have both admittedly lied under oath.

Thats reasonable doubt. But beyond that, I think it is reasonable to assume this is a family of grifters and beggars.

Anyway, he did make thriller. THRILLER.
 
Forget MJ. Do you guys remember that movie "13 going on 30"? It had Jennifer Garner doing the thriller dance, and that's all I'll ever need.
 
bananachip said:
I dunno, i am pretty sure that he is innocent in this case. And since that is what he is on trial for, he's innocent. Not "not guilty", he's innocent. the jury agrees with me. If you look at the evidence and the circumstances, there would be too much coincidence involved to make him guilty, in addition to too much credibility to a woman and son who have both admittedly lied under oath.

Thats reasonable doubt. But beyond that, I think it is reasonable to assume this is a family of grifters and beggars.

Anyway, he did make thriller. THRILLER.
Click to expand...
Again, US courts of law do not determine "innocence". No one is ever found innocent - such a finding is not part of the US system. (In some foreign countries, you must prove your innocence; Here the prosecutor must prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt). Defendants are either guilty, or there was reasonable doubt. The jury here found reasonable doubt. And some jurors have gone on record since the case saying he "probably" in fact did it, but there was some doubt due to issues with the prosecution's case, and thus they followed the judge's instructions of the law and indicated not guilty. They certainly didn't come away feeling he was totally innocent of child molestation, notwithstanding the issues you cite, based on their comments. But he won't go to jail for this crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top