New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
|
How the hell can Michael expect to get a fair trial? Everybody knows him, everybody has preconceived notions about him, alot of (not all!) black folks think he's abandoned them and just who the hell (whatever race) can relate to him?
Obviously a jury has got to come from somewhere, this is a big worry, and supposedly one of the reasons he paid out last time. Do you think we'll see a different MJ to the one that was clowning around, eating sweets and making faces in court a few months back? I hope so, after all, this is his life on the line. |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I c u'r point, but i don't think it will matter. I mean, he won't get a fair trial in the court of public opinion, but in a real court i predict the following:
Or they have hard, physical evidence against him (4 this case or a past case, for xample through that Pelicano guy). Or they don't have hard physical evidence and he will walk. I'm sure the judge and MJ's lawyer will go out of their way to xplain to the jury that general impression about the accused does not matter. The only tricky part could b that the DA was hinting that under the new legislation, ANY misconduct against a child qualifies as child molestation (and not only the actual act of molestation). Sitting/sleeping in the same bed, go swimming, ... all that COULD b argued to b misconduct. If the judge let that line of argumentation pass (but i don't see how he/she could), it might spell trouble. "It's better 2 B hated 4 what U R than 2 B loved 4 what U R not."
My IQ is 139, what's yours? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dont take kids in2 ur bedroom, no sleepover's,
= ,no accusations 2 answer , could'nt b simpler ! i understand wot u sayin, i thought of u right away wen this broke it must b shit bein a jacko fan right now !but its his own fault marrk ! every1 i kno who saw him on bashir with that kid talkin bout sleepovers said , its only a matter of time until the next accusation. its his own fault i dont kno any1 who would behave in that way.its crazy behaviour. i'm not judgin "did he or didnt he" jus sayin, f**k sake mike dont invite this shit on2 yourself,i dunno if he is guilty or not jus sayin no kids no sleepovers = no accusations !!! [This message was edited Fri Nov 21 13:47:59 PST 2003 by danielboon] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
 |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
 |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cloudbuster said: Oooh - I wonder where that came from! 
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I hope they rig the trial, so MJ is guilty. Want to see him in Prison gettin his bootey buttered. lol. All you others say Hell Yea!!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
2freaky4church1 said: I hope they rig the trial, so MJ is guilty. Want to see him in Prison gettin his bootey buttered. lol.
whatever floats your boat nutsack. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Innocent?! Ha!
Morally he's very guilty. a 40-something father of three should not be inviting kids into his bed, no matter what mental illness he has it is no excuse, no matter what records he's made or what he's done in the past, whether he thinks he's a child or not - what he did is WRONG WRONG WRONG. Put it this way. What if, say, Magic Johnson was inviting kids into his house and into his bed. Or John Goodman. Or 45-year old Dave Smith from Nebraska. Sick bastards you'd say, and quite rightly. Whether he "molested" anyone (however that is defined) - who knows, I certainly don't, and it'll be very difficult to prove. In that way the trial is heavily weighted in his favour. And chuck enough money at the legal system and you can get away with just about anything, even murder (can anyone think of the last massive black American icon who went to trial...?) I just can't believe he's still sleeping with kids after everything that's gone on in the past. If he lived in the UK, Social Services would have taken his kids away years ago, and he certainly wouldn't still have them now he's actually been charged. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
bananacologne said: Cloudbuster said: Oooh - I wonder where that came from!
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Marrk said: Everybody knows him, everybody has preconceived notions about him, alot of (not all!) black folks think he's abandoned them and just who the hell (whatever race) can relate to him?
Obviously a jury has got to come from somewhere, this is a big worry, and supposedly one of the reasons he paid out last time. Do you think we'll see a different MJ to the one that was clowning around, eating sweets and making faces in court a few months back? I hope so, after all, this is his life on the line. I'm no fan, but, if the kid in question is the one he had his arm around during the Basher doc, then I think Jackson will get a fair trial because the case will collapse in court - if it even gets that far. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
you know, something that is very important is what people are basing their opinions on. i've noticed here, and with everyone i've spoken to about the case, people are coming to conclusions based on michael's image. im sure these are not isolated opinions. it's going to be very hard for michael to have a jury that isn't biased in one way or another. everyone needs to remember that this situation needs to be judged on the merits of the case, not the merits of his image and what we think we know about the man. we really don't know anything about him.
absolutely NO evidence has been introduced to the public. while, in such a high profile case, that is not unheard of, it is very strange. think back to oj and now with kobe. we knew the evidence almost at the same time everything went to press. with michael's case, well, things get strange (no pun intended). the reporters were obviously tipped to be at the ranch, otherwise they would not have been present when the police were arriving. the da and sherrif were very lighthearted (to say the least) at the intitial press conference and there was little concern shown in giving the website address to the mug shot. yet, with all of this, no evidence has been made available to enlighten the very same public as to why these claims are being supported. what i'm saying is if they wanted to preserve the privacy of the case (which is the supposed reason behind not releasing the evidence for public knowledge) why did they participate in the media circus? why did tom sheddon say he would not give any interviews and then he turns around and gives his only interview to diane dimond? makes no sense to me. the only thing i can think of is the idea that if all they have is circumstantial evidence (like the boy's and the therapist's word) then they will really be relying on the 'court of popular opinion', hence the circus that was started when the media was tipped off. not that there would not have been a circus if they weren't tipped off but let's face it, the police have not helped in preventing this. i don't know if he is innocent or guilty because i don't know all of the facts surrounding the case but judging from what evidence i've heard i'd have to say innocent. i truly believe if the da's office had any real evidence they would have released it at the press conference. i think anyone who is prepared to convict this man (and that's a large portion of the US population) should be able to say WHY they think he is guilty. and those reasons need to be based on information pertaining to the case at hand, not personal feeling towards his image. who f'd up the size of this thread? edit [This message was edited Sun Nov 23 7:16:42 PST 2003 by imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
do not forget there is a large segment of the population that has good will toward michael and are giving him the benefit of the doubt, at least until the actual charges are filed and evidence is presented.
it's just a matter of getting a few of those people on the jury, for him to get a fair trial. but otherwise, i agree. it's going to be difficult to find 12 jurors that haven't heard of the case or haven't formed an opinion based on prior events. however, that's probably not even desirable for either side. the prosecutors will want jurors who've already decided he's guilty, and the defense will want jurors who thing he's been treated unfairly by the DA and media. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty said: you know, something that is very important is what people are basing their opinions on. i've noticed here, and with everyone i've spoken to about the case, people are coming to conclusions based on michael's image. im sure these are not isolated opinions. it's going to be very hard for michael to have a jury that isn't biased in one way or another. everyone needs to remember that this situation needs to be judged on the merits of the case, not the merits of his image and what we think we know about the man. we really don't know anything about him.
absolutely NO evidence has been introduced to the public. while, in such a high profile case, that is not unheard of, it is very strange. think back to oj and now with kobe. we knew the evidence almost at the same time everything went to press. with michael's case, well, things get strange (no pun intended). the reporters were obviously tipped to be at the ranch, otherwise they would not have been present when the police were arriving. the da and sherrif were very lighthearted (to say the least) at the intitial press conference and there was little concern shown in giving the website address to the mug shot. yet, with all of this, no evidence has been made available to enlighten the very same public as to why these claims are being supported. what i'm saying is if they wanted to preserve the privacy of the case (which is the supposed reason behind not releasing the evidence for public knowledge) why did they participate in the media circus? why did tom sheddon say he would not give any interviews and then he turns around and gives his only interview to diane dimond? makes no sense to me. the only thing i can think of is the idea that if all they have is circumstantial evidence (like the boy's and the therapist's word) then they will really be relying on the 'court of popular opinion', hence the circus that was started when the media was tipped off. not that there would not have been a circus if they weren't tipped off but let's face it, the police have not helped in preventing this. i don't know if he is innocent or guilty because i don't know all of the facts surrounding the case but judging from what evidence i've heard i'd have to say innocent. i truly believe if the da's office had any real evidence they would have released it at the press conference. i think anyone who is prepared to convict this man (and that's a large portion of the US population) should be able to say WHY they think he is guilty. and those reasons need to be based on information pertaining to the case at hand, not personal feeling towards his image. who f'd up the size of this thread? edit [This message was edited Sun Nov 23 7:16:42 PST 2003 by imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty] Great points nasty. I can't believe all of the media hype. If the DA doesn't have a persnal vendetta against Mike, why the hell did he tip off the media when his house was raided? The media was there before the damn deputys. And what was with that damn press conference?  Laughing and jokinng with that man's freedom and rep on the line? That shit was totally out of line. Showing my boy in handcuffs. What was the purpose of that shit. They didn't have to do that either. And Diane Diamond is making this shit personal too. Bitch!**************************************************
Pull ya cell phone out and call yo next of kin...we 'bout to get funky......2,3 come on ya'll | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
illimack said: imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty said: you know, something that is very important is what people are basing their opinions on. i've noticed here, and with everyone i've spoken to about the case, people are coming to conclusions based on michael's image. im sure these are not isolated opinions. it's going to be very hard for michael to have a jury that isn't biased in one way or another. everyone needs to remember that this situation needs to be judged on the merits of the case, not the merits of his image and what we think we know about the man. we really don't know anything about him.
absolutely NO evidence has been introduced to the public. while, in such a high profile case, that is not unheard of, it is very strange. think back to oj and now with kobe. we knew the evidence almost at the same time everything went to press. with michael's case, well, things get strange (no pun intended). the reporters were obviously tipped to be at the ranch, otherwise they would not have been present when the police were arriving. the da and sherrif were very lighthearted (to say the least) at the intitial press conference and there was little concern shown in giving the website address to the mug shot. yet, with all of this, no evidence has been made available to enlighten the very same public as to why these claims are being supported. what i'm saying is if they wanted to preserve the privacy of the case (which is the supposed reason behind not releasing the evidence for public knowledge) why did they participate in the media circus? why did tom sheddon say he would not give any interviews and then he turns around and gives his only interview to diane dimond? makes no sense to me. the only thing i can think of is the idea that if all they have is circumstantial evidence (like the boy's and the therapist's word) then they will really be relying on the 'court of popular opinion', hence the circus that was started when the media was tipped off. not that there would not have been a circus if they weren't tipped off but let's face it, the police have not helped in preventing this. i don't know if he is innocent or guilty because i don't know all of the facts surrounding the case but judging from what evidence i've heard i'd have to say innocent. i truly believe if the da's office had any real evidence they would have released it at the press conference. i think anyone who is prepared to convict this man (and that's a large portion of the US population) should be able to say WHY they think he is guilty. and those reasons need to be based on information pertaining to the case at hand, not personal feeling towards his image. who f'd up the size of this thread? edit [This message was edited Sun Nov 23 7:16:42 PST 2003 by imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty] Great points nasty. I can't believe all of the media hype. If the DA doesn't have a persnal vendetta against Mike, why the hell did he tip off the media when his house was raided? The media was there before the damn deputys. And what was with that damn press conference? Laughing and jokinng with that man's freedom and rep on the line? That shit was totally out of line. Showing my boy in handcuffs. What was the purpose of that shit. They didn't have to do that either. And Diane Diamond is making this shit personal too. Bitch!indeed, when I saw dimond sucking all this scripted daddy/family/softball-guy lies out of sneddons mouth i got really sick. sneddon uses CourtTV to promote his pro DA jury movie and dimond gets a career boost again. disgusting! BlueNote | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Your question was "How can Mike get a fair trial?"
WTF??? The jury will be star struck and, with Jackson's camp turning this into a racial issue (INSANE THINKING), how many black folks are going to find him guilty? The question on my mind: How will the (multiple) children get a FAIR TRIAL??? RIDICULOUS! Thanks for the laughs, arguments and overall enjoyment for the last umpteen years. It's time for me to retire from Prince.org and engage in the real world...lol. Above all, I appreciated the talent Prince. You were one of a kind. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Revolution said: Your question was "How can Mike get a fair trial?"
WTF??? The jury will be star struck and, with Jackson's camp turning this into a racial issue (INSANE THINKING), how many black folks are going to find him guilty? The question on my mind: How will the (multiple) children get a FAIR TRIAL??? RIDICULOUS! Yeah, you're right Revolution. You gotta pity the poor souls. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Revolution said: Your question was "How can Mike get a fair trial?"
WTF??? The jury will be star struck and, with Jackson's camp turning this into a racial issue (INSANE THINKING), how many black folks are going to find him guilty? The question on my mind: How will the (multiple) children get a FAIR TRIAL??? RIDICULOUS! What multiple children? Do you know something that the rest of us dont? I don't think that Michael is guilty, but I know PLENTY of black folks that think that he is so...Who knows. **************************************************
Pull ya cell phone out and call yo next of kin...we 'bout to get funky......2,3 come on ya'll | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
illimack said: Revolution said: Your question was "How can Mike get a fair trial?"
WTF??? The jury will be star struck and, with Jackson's camp turning this into a racial issue (INSANE THINKING), how many black folks are going to find him guilty? The question on my mind: How will the (multiple) children get a FAIR TRIAL??? RIDICULOUS! What multiple children? Do you know something that the rest of us dont? I don't think that Michael is guilty, but I know PLENTY of black folks that think that he is so...Who knows. All sorts of stories are coming out about how he had phone sex with a British teenage kid, got a whole bunch of others to play "nude slot machine" in his bedroom, etc, etc. It's only a matter of time before a few other kids step up and say Paeder Pan abused them too. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
well maybe he can pay the kid and his familly 20 million like he did 10 years ago 
That always seemed suspicious to me: why would the kid's parents take the money if what Michale did hurt their poor baby so much? As far as a fair trial goes, he's viewed as a freak, and has been accused of the same thing twice so that might leave a bad taste in people's mouths, true, but the ultimate undoing of him in court is that sorry-ass excuse he has for a lawyer, Mark Geragos, but remember a jury once let OJ go free, so anything is possible. Though I seriously doubt that this will even get as far as court. ~KiKi | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |