|
|
Post by ptsteelers on Jun 13, 2005 21:25:21 GMT
So another rich man goes free. Michael "Freaking Pedophile" Jackson is found not guilty.  I swear my head is going to just explode !!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Jun 13, 2005 21:28:19 GMT
I know, I'm [Censored]ing pissed.
I am utterly and completely pissed off. I've read the original charges against him.
A 12 year old, managed to describe Michael Jackson's body, in detail, and police confirmed it. Including Jackson's penis.
And then this comes up, and he gets off scott free, its maddening, its completely and utterly maddening.
I hope Jackson is shot.
Jackson is just another peice of proof that if you have neough money, you can buy justice.
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsteelers on Jun 13, 2005 21:33:54 GMT
A man can walk into a store, steal a pound of hamburger to feed his kids, and get 30 years.
A man can (essentially) "rape" little boys and go free ... or end up working for the Vatican ... just freaking stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Jun 13, 2005 21:40:13 GMT
Except we don't know if he IS guilty or not, and will probably never know.
I haven't followed the trial that closely and don't have children so I can't relate to this case in the same way as those Cascaders who have.
We can probably all agree that the guy desperatly needs help. He's had a sleepover with children, he's shown some mental behaviour, but that does not necessarily make him a pedophile, just f***** up in the head.
Anyway, le'ts forget the issue of Jacksons guilt one moment and discuss the parents of they boy and wether they are to blame or not.
If he's innocent then they're money grubbing white trash and if he's guilty, then who's to say they're not speculating their childs welfare to get some money? I mean, with his reputation, and he did have that reputation at the time it supposedly happened, would YOU let your child sleep over? How about some the parents taking some responsibility?
One question: Is it possible to have a new trial based on this or is it the end?
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Jun 13, 2005 21:40:45 GMT
I know. As long as you can get the best lawyers, you'll win.
OJ won
Jackson won
that other idiot a few months ago won.
90% of corperate criminals get away with it too.
Its complete bull[Censored]
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Jun 13, 2005 21:44:14 GMT
Peter, here is the thing.
The family was not asking for money! If this was a civil case, they would be money grubbers, but this was a criminal trial. CRIMINAL. MEaning they didn't get spit!
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 13, 2005 21:47:17 GMT
I agree with Peter. The truth is, we know he's weird, but that does NOT make him a paedophile.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Jun 13, 2005 21:47:58 GMT
Peter, here is the thing. The family was not asking for money! If this was a civil case, they would be money grubbers, but this was a criminal trial. CRIMINAL. MEaning they didn't get spit! Really? I've heard mention of money several times on tv. Could it be that money was involved or tried to be involved before the trial? Drath - do you have some good US links to it, or maybe to just what a criminal trial IS? I know next to nothing about the US system and have only read what the Danish press is sayin  But I still stand by we'll never know.. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsteelers on Jun 13, 2005 21:49:53 GMT
True, but you DO have to put some of the blame on the IDIOT parents. What sane parent would even consider letting their child stay with Freak ... I mean with Michael Jackson. IDIOTS
He is guilty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 13, 2005 21:51:28 GMT
If Jackson was found guilty, the next step would be the civil courts for compensation, if the criminal court didn't award it anyway. Plus endless newspaper fees.
The prosecutor in question has been actively chasing Jackson for years, evidently. That doesn't mean he's wrong, but it doesn't mean he's right, either.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Jun 13, 2005 21:52:02 GMT
True, but you DO have to put some of the blame on the IDIOT parents. What sane parent would even consider letting their child stay with Freak ... I mean with Michael Jackson. IDIOTS He is guilty. my point Perry |
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Jun 13, 2005 21:53:22 GMT
If Jackson was found guilty, the next step would be the civil courts for compensation, if the criminal court didn't award it anyway. Plus endless newspaper fees. The prosecutor in question has been actively chasing Jackson for years, evidently. That doesn't mean he's wrong, but it doesn't mean he's right, either. Thanks El, that was probably what I got mixed up. Just wanted to know if money was out of the order and apparently its not. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsteelers on Jun 13, 2005 21:57:38 GMT
True, but you DO have to put some of the blame on the IDIOT parents. What sane parent would even consider letting their child stay with Freak ... I mean with Michael Jackson. IDIOTS He is guilty. my point Perry I know, tried to respond to your post, but others were waaay too fast for my old hands  He is still guilty (Not legally obviously), but he is. Just look at the things in the past, look at the things in the present, GUILTY. Was I there? No. But I was not there to see O.J MURDER his wife either ... also guilty. The parents should be prosecuted for child endangerment, and He should be in freaking jail. And on a side note ... I just want to see 1 parent, just 1, let their kid(s) go to that ranch again. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsteelers on Jun 13, 2005 22:14:23 GMT
Count one: Conspiracy involving child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion, including 28 specific acts between Feb. 1 and March 31, 2003. Verdict: Not guilty. (This is THE ONLY CHARGE, I can see him getting off on ... oooops bad choice of words when it comes to M.J.) Counts two through five: Lewd act upon a child under the age of 14, between Feb. 20 and March 12, 2003. Verdicts: Not guilty. _Count six: Attempt to get a child under age 14 to commit a lewd act upon Jackson between Feb. 20 and March 12, 2003. Verdict: Not guilty. _Counts seven through 10: Administering an intoxicating agent — alcohol — to assist in the commission of child molestation. Verdicts: Not guilty. Bull !!!!!! AARRRGGGHHHHH |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 13, 2005 22:21:49 GMT
The big problem with all of these high profile cases is that they involve famous and very rich people. They are natural targets for all kinds of malicious accusations, even when they are perfectly normal people.
We can never be sure where the truth really lies.
I definitely agree with Perry & Peter that the parents are at the very least negligent, however.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Jun 13, 2005 22:50:12 GMT
Here is the thing EK-
I don't believe the mother is innocent either. I think she purposely put her son in harms way to get that civil suite.
However, here is the thing. It does not mean the boy was not molested. Its like a mouse trap. Just because she set it up, doesn't mean that Michael should get away scott free from playing penis tag with her underage son!
|
|
tragic
Chaosite
Happiness is a cigar called hamlet
Posts: 627
|
Post by tragic on Jun 13, 2005 23:00:49 GMT
First of all if the criminal case fails you can still bring a civil action..e.g
O.J simpson...found not guilty under crminal action but guilty under civil...and now hes bankrupt.....
Jackson... he was molested as a kid according to psychologists.....most pedophiles become like that becuase their parents molest them.
Rumor has it he is already bankrupt...or will be..a new trial can be oredered if there is fresh evidence....Jackson can also be brought back to court if another person were to make similar accusations on him.....and there is enough evidence to take it to court.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Jun 13, 2005 23:18:32 GMT
He got away with it before, and I think he'll do it again.
And he's FAR from bankrupt, he has 500,000,000 in assets. He's money poor, and asset rich.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jun 13, 2005 23:40:32 GMT
It doesn't mean he wasn't, TD, and it doesn't mean he WAS either...
As for the professional opinion of a psychiatrist, well, psychiatrists are people too, and they don't always call it right...
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Jun 14, 2005 0:05:46 GMT
Ek, I've really read up on this, believe you me, the 1990's accusations alone spell guilt, these are just a follow up. He is guilty of that I'm sure.
|
|
