Hellfire
|
 posted on 19/3/05 at 11:45 PM |
|
|
MICHAEL JACKSON
GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY - that is the question
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
macspeedy
|
| posted on 19/3/05 at 11:58 PM |
|
|
not sure on this one, if he's guilty then the jury will get hell, as the kid in question is dubious to say the least. if he's found not
guilty i don't really see what jackson is going to do as he is seriously in debt and i can't see him doing another album !! is this
another black white trial?
[Edited on 19/3/05 by macspeedy]
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 19/3/05 at 11:59 PM |
|
|
Why?
Who's black?
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
chunkielad
|
| posted on 20/3/05 at 12:35 AM |
|
|
At first I did think he was innocent but now, guilty as sin. I don't think he'll go down though.
We need to remember that if he is found innocent, he can claim his expenses back so he won't be poor anymore and he'll no doubt find some
way to sue and make even more money back.
|
|
|
the JoKeR
|
| posted on 20/3/05 at 01:54 AM |
|
|
Guilty as hell, but he'll be found not-guilty. Here's my theory: the jury is star struck and will convince themselves that there is
"reasonable doubt" and that he may not have done it. Robert Blake and OJ were found not guilty, although I'd bet a single testicle
on each of 'em that they're really guilty. 
"How much justice can you afford?" Jackson is also reported to be in severe financial trouble. I hope he ends up selling the rights to
the Beatles songs back to Paul McCartney. Only seems right that he has 'em.
__________________________
Jeff
http://www.midwestwelding.com
http://www.locostusa.com/forums/
|
|
|
Cita
|
| posted on 20/3/05 at 05:33 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by the JoKeR
. I hope he ends up selling the rights to the Beatles songs back to Paul McCartney. Only seems right that he has 'em.
He (McCartney) sold them in the first place
|
|
|
the JoKeR
|
| posted on 20/3/05 at 01:08 PM |
|
|
I know, but WHY?? He couldn't have been hurting for money. For some reason, it just seems "wrong" for Jackson to have the rights
to the Beatles songs. Same way it's just not right for him to marry Elvis's daughter.
__________________________
Jeff
http://www.midwestwelding.com
http://www.locostusa.com/forums/
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 20/3/05 at 02:02 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Peteff
Who's black?
I remember when Judith Chalmers was white and Michael Jackson was black...
DJ
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 20/3/05 at 11:06 PM |
|
|
I do find this a little strange.
jackson is weird, thats true.
but on whats been heard so far of the accuser and his family and their tactics against at least two other celebrities, HTF can anyone say he could be
found guilty on evidence so far?.
the kid recons he was felt up or whatever by whacko jacko seven times, but could only describe two.
put aside your prejudices and vote on whats being given as evidence in court. Just cos he's wierd and 'seems the sort' or is a
'rich git that needs to go down' doesnt make him guilty.
if i was on the jury, nothing i have heard so far would make me find him guilty. I need evidence, not tosh.
atb
steve
ps - i think he could still sell records. His stuff is still played on the radio, and still will be even if he is found guilty.
[Edited on 20/3/05 by stephen_gusterson]
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 20/3/05 at 11:18 PM |
|
|
Anyone remember the old innocent until proven guilty thing? And theres no proper evidence so far that points to the latter...
As has been said in a previous topic about all this MJ stuff...
I agree with Steve. I dont like MJ, and i dislike his music even more. But i dont think he is guilty. From the evidence there is no one piece that
clearly shows he is guilty. Anyway, why would you state on a show aired to millions, that you sleep in the same room as kids (nothing wrong with that
AFAIK) if you were doing something else too? Thats asking for a lawsuit and lots of trouble!
MJ is a weirdo no doubt about it. But i dont belive he is a paedo...there is no evidence to back it up, only hearsay. As Steve says the background of
the accusers family is certainly dodgy.
What were they sueing for? $20mil? Nice lump to keep your kids and grand kids etc etc in money for a long time eh? just all seems a bit strange that
it all blows up after one dodgy comment on a TV show...coincidence and a chance for some 'easy' money and to have a go at a celeb.
Thats all IMO, until there is some evidence that really proves beyond doubt that he is guilty. And it hasnt surfaced yet...strange that.
I think it may be thrown out due to too much media involvement etc leading to unfair trial (wouldnt be the first time for such a high profile case)
David
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
thekafer
|
| posted on 25/3/05 at 03:04 AM |
|
|
I dont have to wait for a jury to tell me it's just a little weird for a 45 year old man to sleep with other peoples children!!! Idiot deserves
all the heart ache because it was his choice to do that! Poor Micheal my hairy (not as white) ass!
Hey Marie! What the hell were you thinking!?!?
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal labotomy...
|
|
|
mangogrooveworkshop
|
| posted on 4/4/05 at 11:01 PM |
|
|
http://www.criminalcheck.com/
type mjs name into this site popular criminal name........................
|
|
|
DorsetStrider
|
| posted on 11/4/05 at 09:13 PM |
|
|
I have to admit I've not really been following the trial....but from what I gather I think he is guilty of acting innapproprietly.....but NOT
guilty of any sinister intent.
I rather think the because he has a childlike mind that he mistakenly beleive everyone else does too.
Who the f**K tightened this up!
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 12/4/05 at 09:33 PM |
|
|
it was said on the radio today that word is going around that the kids mother is either not going to testify, or will plead the 5th.
i think thats the best course of action if your lies are failing and you are in danger of being sued to oblivion by one m. jackson
atb
steve
|
|
|
