Printable View
I kinda have to question this too. When the accusations were first made public, they said he gave the boy alchohol AND sleeping pills. Then it became just alchohol. What happened to the sleeping pill story?Quote:
Originally posted by Scooby4
I do believe he was guilty of giving alchohol to the minors.
I don't know how innocent MJ is, but that boy and his family aren't innocent either and Tom Sneddon saw a perfect money making opportunity after the British documentary came out.
I think both sides are guilty.
I know the mother of the boy isn't credible and the boy has caused his own fair share of problems as well. But its not like this was the only incident. There were so many boys who had stories. He didn't molest them all of course, but what about the child (male) porn he showed them? They found that in his house as evidence, and many boys described it. There were also fingerprints so that is undeniable evidence. Not evidence of molestation, but evidence that he did show them that kind of stuff. What in the world did he do that for?????? I know the whole case might be filled with circumstantial evidence, but I think that there is just SO much of it, that all put together it does make somewhat of a case. I thought they had definately proven the alcohol claims. Seemed like there was really good evidence for that. Even if he didn't molest the children, he was doing some VERY WRONG stuff!!!!
I know that my children would never be allowed to sleep in his, or ANY other adult's, bed ... thats for sure. I do partially blame the dumb parents for leaving their children to his care.
Just my opinions...
I really think he has the mentality of a very young person. He doesn't seem to be comfortable around adults, and, hangs out with kids because that's who he feels he relates to. Young boys try alcohol, young boys look at dirty pictures. I don't know, that's just the impression I've always had about Michael Jackson. It doesn't make it right, of course, but, I don't think he does any of that with bad intentions. I don't know if I'm explaining my feelings well, but, it's just like he feels that he is more their peer than their elder.
I see what you're saying Kari. It does make sense to me the way you explained it. He just REALLY needs to get help for that ASAP!
I thought it was mentioned that he had a variety of child pornography laying around. I thought it was against the law to even possess that stuff. Am I wrong?
I think there was adult pornography. There was a coffee table book called "boys" or something like that, it isn't considered pornography. (although maybe it should be)
That's the only thing I'm sure of, regardless of what is going on. Either way, he needs to get some counseling.Quote:
Originally posted by aly
I see what you're saying Kari. It does make sense to me the way you explained it. He just REALLY needs to get help for that ASAP!
I am just glad the entire circus is over. If we could only get the media to realize that. How many weeks will they discus what should/shouldn't have been done. They over kill every thing.Quote:
Originally posted by Sus
Putting people out for a public spectacle on TV is not only cruel and heartless (as if their predicament wasn't already great enough!) - it is downright medieval. We should all be more civilized than that!
I never believed that he would be - what's it called? - sentenced? And why? Simply because the story of his life is the very epitome of the "American Dream". Shutting MJ down would be like throwing mud into the very heart of every american.
If he had been sentenced it wouldn't have bothered me one way or the other. This is one American who does not equate the American Dream with MJ. His life seems more like the American Nightmare to me.
At the very least, I hope this fightens him so much he gets the help he needs. Lots of people have rotten childhoods and bad things happen to them. They don't go all wacko!
Jay Leno wondered what Martha Stewart thinks of the verdict.
OJ charged with murder & goes free.
Robert Blake charged with manslaughter and goes free.
Martha Stewart makes a phone call to her broker and serves time.
Hmmmmmm.
I heard on the news today, that MJ will no longer be having young boys in his bed, at least he has finally got the common sense to realise how stupid this was of him and completely not normal, I am pleased at least he has seen the errors of his ways , let us hope he makes some serious lifestyle changes because I think we are all in agreement he certainly needs to.
Whether MJ is guilty of child molestation some time in his life, apparently he was not this time around, I feel the jury made the right choice, but I still have my doubts as to whether MJ is completely innocent
From the evidence it does appear he plyed the children with as he put it Jesus Juice, alcohol, if that was the case he should have been found guilty on those charges at least.
I probably sound like I am contradicting my last post, but I feel if he was innocent that it would have been terrible to see him serve time in jail for it, and it is obvious the mother was not a credible witness, and from my way of thinking was purely a gold digger, not a loving, caring and nuturing mother.
I dont understand why in gods name any parent would let their kids sleep with anyone is beyoned me. espically when someone is questiond about getting jiggy with children before.
i woudlnt want my house plant to stay over night at that place.. let alone my own kid if i had one.
but anyway my entire family knew he would walk,, AGAIN...
Quote:
Originally posted by carole
I honestly cannot see how his wealth and fame could get him a Not Guilty verdict, unless he had a way of paying the jurors, and that would not have happened, I saw and heard the Jury speak, they are your average person on the street, a real mixture of age groups, etc, and they said they it was an easy decision, that in itself tells me the evidence was rubbish, and the woman was anything but credible, the fact MJ did not take the stand was a very good move on his lawyers part IMO, does not mean he was guilty just because he did not do so.
None of us were there in the court or heard the evidence, we have only know what the media tells us, and we all know how that can get mis-construed.
Carole, it was as if I wrote your post! Those are my thoughts, exactly.
I said it before, and I will say it again. It is totally insulting to those jurors, who heard every ounce of evidence, to say "well, he should have been found guilty....". They were there, we were not. They did their job. We play Monday Night Quarterback.
It is RARE, in a criminal case, for the defendant to take the stand. RARE. Not unheard of, obviously, but RARE. The jurors would have been instructed heavily that nothing can be drawn from MJ not taking the stand. It is a basic, and essential, Constitutional right of ours not to be called to testify against oneself.
If the prosecution (whom, btw, had been gunning for MJ for YEARS) didn't sustain the burden of proof, MJ can't be found guilty. If you want to blame someone, blame the prosecution, not the jurors.
The MJ trial had a pertroleum related link.....Quote:
Originally posted by christa
Hey, I didn't mean to cut you down . . . If you want to *seriously* talk about the "oil crisis" maybe you should start a new thread.
The "vaseline" that the prosecutor was crowing about.
Pam, I must admit that I did not follow this trial closely, but I never heard anything about child pornography. I did hear that they had adult pornography (I'm assuming it was magazines like Playboy, etc...but I don't know for sure) as "evidence" from his home. I think if it were child pornography, the trial would have been much different.Quote:
Originally posted by Pam
I thought it was mentioned that he had a variety of child pornography laying around. I thought it was against the law to even possess that stuff. Am I wrong?
Logan
...I did a little research on my own just now - on the profiles of all of us who has replied to this thread. Hope you don't mind! I guess it's alright to "pry" if info on the year of birth is stated! I was wondering whether there would be a difference between generations on the view on MJ...? I was wondering if it would make any difference if you had actually watched MJ on TV at the time when he was just a cute little kid with a lot of spunk and a great voice already at the age of 5?
Well, I couldn't make out any difference - but still,on a larger scale it may mean something, I think. I know it probably meant a lot to me. I didn't want him to be guilty. It would have saddened me so. I wanted - and still want that little boy to be alright. I guess you could say that I really wanted to believe that this little black kid would make it even if he came out of moderate circumstances. I guess you could say that I needed to believe in the "american dream" - that this could be possible.
It would have been so great!
Anyway, I too sincerely hope, that he has learned from this. It's great if he states that he shall no longer let boys sleep in his bed. To me, that just doesn't cut it - I think that he should see to it that he is never alone with a boy again. Visits should be supervised in some way.
I hope he hasn't lost his marbles completely over this whole affair. But just in case.... I went and bought all the albums I could lay my hands on this afternoon. I got them at a very much reduced price... hm! I wonder why...!!
Love,
Sus and Bella