Jackson Jury Reaches a Verdict

[Arturo21]

he wasn't found ...he was acquitted, as someone put in a previous post....meaning he is not or guilty......the jury basicaly just couldn't make a decision....and really......think about it.....guilty or not...that man needs some serious psycological help........i am not saying that he is evil....he is just very disturbed

umm..that's a hung jury..

Acquit [v] pronounce not guilty of criminal charges; "The suspect was cleared of the charges"

 

[Ho-Coture]

I have a question for those who are happy. Will you guys still be happy if he was some average joe that isn't famous? Would you still think he was innocent if this average joe invites little boys that he's not related to inot his bedroom/bed?

 

[Arturo21]

Ummm...jury found him . That's why they saidhe was "not guilty"

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

I have a question for those who are happy. Will you guys still be happy if he was some average joe that isn't famous? Would you still think he was innocent if this average joe invites little boys that he's not related to inot his bedroom/bed?

If there is no strong evidence proving the average joe molested children (as in the Michael case), I wouldn't go assuming he was guilty.

 

[Ho-Coture]

I'm not taking up for MJ at all...but it's funny how if a person has celebrity status they get ridiculed by the masses. Now how many mothers and fathers neglect their children everyday (whether it's abuse, neglect, lock their kids in the cars while they grocery shop, etc...) and those acts go unnoticed?

Those acts go unoticed because they are not being vieotaped, nor do they have millions of fans watching them. People are not telepatic.

 

[CelineChic]

There's a difference between guilty, innocent and being acquitted.

Innocent and being acquitted of charges is the same thing.

Guilty means that the jury believes the charges against you apply.

So he is Innocent, not guilty, and therefore acquited.

 

[Ho-Coture]

If there is no strong evidence proving the average joe molested children (as in the Michael case), I wouldn't go assuming he was guilty.

But you're saying if some grown man that lives across the street from you invites little boys for sleepovers on numerous occasion and they sleep in his room/bed, you wouldn't think anything of it? Let's be realistic here.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

I have a question for those who are happy. Will you guys still be happy if he was some average joe that isn't famous? Would you still think he was innocent if this average joe invites little boys that he's not related to inot his bedroom/bed?

That's an impossible thing to answer.
The thing is that Michael is a really, well, let's say weird guy. He has had alot of issues over time, and everyone can see that he is not just an average joe. There are thousands of reasons why someone would accuse him of pretty much anything because of money etc.
I think what he needs is some help in understanding why it's not okay for him to act like a little boy, not prison. It's pretty clear that's what he thinks he is. A little boy without commitments

 

[softgrey]

did anyone actually hear the interview with the jurors after the trial...?

they said that the mother of the kid made them very uncomfortable...


they didn't believe her...
that's why jackson was completely exhonerated of the crimes...

i agree that being a 'freak' is not a crime...
i didn't see this much press when all those priests CONFESSED to having molested dozens of little boys in their charge..!!!...
funny how no one wanted to talk about that!!!...

the media (and the public) are ridiculous...

 

[CelineChic]

the media (and the public) are ridiculous...

I agree. But in the end they do whatever sells.

 

[CelineChic]

I get the feeling that this is going to happen again to him.
Next time I would send the parent to jail for stupidity.

 

[nujaxx77]

did anyone actually hear the interview with the jurors after the trial...?

they said that the mother of the kid made them very uncomfortable...


they didn't believe her...
that's why jackson was completely exhonerated of the crimes...

i agree that being a 'freak' is not a crime...
i didn't see this much press when all those priests CONFESSED to having molested dozens of little boys in their charge..!!!...
funny how no one wanted to talk about that!!!...

the media (and the public) are ridiculous...

definitely agree

 

[luxmode]

For the record, Rumours and speculation and things that would hint at paedophilia don't make someone a sex offender. If they found him innocent there is a reason for it, and it is not just a clever defense.
People just assume he is guilty, but there is a strong chance that he is not.
I am glad they found him innocent, and I think he is. I hope he is.

My sentiments exactly

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

But you're saying if some grown man that lives across the street from you invites little boys for sleepovers on numerous occasion and they sleep in his room/bed, you wouldn't think anything of it? Let's be realistic here.

Realistically, I would not let my little boy in his bed in the first place. I would actually question parents who would let that happen.

I did not say I "wouldn't think anything of it"; I DEFINITELY would. However, if the case were to go to court, and the Average Joe were found NOT GUILTY based on evidence of BOTH the defense and prosecution, I would not continue to assume he was guilty. Especially, if the prosecuting party had a questionable credibility (based on facts of their history). And even less so, if the Average Joe, was in fact, an Extremely Wealthy Joe.

That does NOT mean I would now let my boy sleep in his bed. Nor does it mean, I think the Average Joe should continue putting himself in compromising situations. It just means, based on the evidence, he was found not guilty, so I would be wrong to continue to believe he was guilty when I have no OTHER evidence giving me the grounds to do so.

 

[Tiny Dancer]

Every normal parent would react on their child having a sleepover at a grown mans house. Now, why did not this family think of this as a problem until recently?

 

[XratedPaperDoll]

Not Guilty On All 10 Counts - Thank God!

I know!!!

 

[CelineChic]

Every normal parent would react on their child having a sleepover at a grown mans house. Now, why did not this family think of this as a problem until recently?

Because they're idiots.

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

i didn't see this much press when all those priests CONFESSED to having molested dozens of little boys in their charge..!!!...
funny how no one wanted to talk about that!!!...

Amen!

 

[Tiny Dancer]

Because they're idiots.

Exactly. And not very believable to accuse someone for what they have. If they thought their child was in danger, they would not let him keep coming over

 

[ChinaLove]

I'm almost positive that there's a difference between an acquittal and a verdict of not guilty. There's even different types of acquittals. An Acquittal just means that there is unsubstantial and insufficient evidence to warrant a conviction. Or in other words, you may be guilty, but there just isn't enough evidence to prove it. So technically, he is not guilty by law. Whatever... I'm sure it doesn't make a difference in this case.

But yea... I wonder what will happen to him after this. I don't know what he did or did not do, so I will just assume he's innocent. But I think there's going to be some kind of moral backlash. People will be more grossed out by him as they're likely to believe an injustice has been committed (by him and the system). And if so, can I just say how UNJUST that is? The public can brand this man as a sick bastard, but still more or less embrace R. Kelly? What is wrong with people these days? I've noticed how the public has handeled these 2 cases, and it's quite clear that people seem to be more forgiving of R. Kelly, letting him return to making sexually suggestive music and allowing him to continue his success, but cast MJ as an old deprepit man with some mental disorder?