UptownDeb said:

Its like having Porn at Disneyland Mr. Peter Pan!

namepeace said:

You Don't even know how he set himself up?
the more i examine this case, the less doubt i have against MJ
Why don't you do your homework,
Sneddon Change dthe law for one reason, So that Law enforcement would be able to FINISH the investigation before a liable settlement,
Jackson Still has a Civil suit against him and if he settled the civil suit
the alleged victim would drop out and drop charges
in 93 Sneddon needed a willing wittness to testify because the investigation was notbring out any hardcore evidence, against jackson
If evidence was found, the child testimony would not be needed, eergo
Criminal Charges would be brough even if jackson did settle it would not matter because it is a Federal Crime.
The settlement only settled the Civil Suit
But once you don't have any evidence or an Active testimony
you have Jack shit and must give up the case
Sneddon Changed the Laws specifically, Civil and Criminal cases are seperate
therefore Prosecutions Discovery will still be open even if jackson descided to settle
they could still bring charges against him, and arraign him

Jackson never screwed up,
The mother of the Accuser did when she found out that a settlement wasn't in order because of changed laws
And since they're will be no settlement the only chance at her getting money is winning the Criminal suit and civil suit
Jackson Befriended the wrong people, well to put it more truthfully
he pissed off the wrong people
The Mother of the accusers didn't talk about charges of Molestation UNTIL
Jackson had her removed from neverland in the middle of the year
they where staying at neverland for 6 monthes at the time
Once Jackson Kicked them out
The Mother "Jane Doe" Contacted Sneddon, and wished to file charges
as a means of getting back at Jackson

The Dates that the mother told sneddon the Molestations must have happened are in contradiction
Because they where within the weeks that tha Documentary Living With Michael Jackson occurred
the Infamous "Jacko Sleeps with boys" headlines came out
Prosecution must prove that Jackson Acted out a molestation during the days when, the scandle arose
which is hard to prove because, no Pedophile in his right mind
Would commit such a crime whilst Child Services are threatening to take away his children and open a case.
ESPECIALLY A FAMOUS PEDOPHILE

Love4oneanotha - thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!

ok i thought that the accusers family had/has head problems thats y they couldnt get the psychollogists request becaseu the judge already knew the famiy had problems but i find it messed up what people will do 4 money

Luv4oneanotha said:

Yes I do. When he went on TV and behaved the way he did with that boy. When he went on TV and admitted to sleeping with boys. When he did all these things knowing he had an aggressive DA with a grudge that was waiting for him to screw up. Isn't this patently obvious to you?





You are a hopelessly biased MJ lover. I am a fan too, if you've been paying attention. In any event, guilt isn't my issue. I can't make that call. But I do know the reason Michael Jackson is in trouble. It's Michael Jackson.



First of all, Sneddon isn't a one-man legislature. The California legislature has to change the law. Sneddon can't change it on his own.

Sneddon is working against the clock, to be sure, but having the testimony from the kid doesn't make a difference if there is other evidence which indicates MJ is a pedophile. That's why they raided the ranch. That's why they asked for unedited footage of the documentary. And what piqued their interest? MJ's conduct and his admissions on the program. You know as well as I did people were asking questions about him and young boys for the last 10 years. He should have left them alone. There are many other ways to show love for children without sleeping with them. But he just had to do it, and PUBLICLY flaunt it. In so doing, he gave Sneddon a golden invitation to prosecute.

What is it about that you don't understand?




In other words, MJ bought himself out of a legal jam. That's what you're saying. And oh yeah: witness testimony IS "hardcore evidence." It is the most important evidence in many if not most assault cases. MJ eliminated Sneddon's best piece of evidence. I don't know whether the kid was telling the truth, but we'll never know because MJ bought him off.

But then, like a dummy, he puts himself in the exact same situation 10 years later.




Again: Sneddon didn't change the law. The California legislature did.

And as a lawyer, I know the difference between civil and criminal law. I also know when a client creates his own problems by his public conduct. That's what MJ did and no amount of rationalization from his fanatics will change that fact.



Please tell me you're kidding.

PLEASE tell me you're kidding.

Simple and plain. If he doesn't sleep with boys, he doesn't get in trouble.

If he doesn't admit to sleeping with boys, his ranch doesn't get raided.

If he doesn't flaunt his affections for a 12-year old boy on national television, Sneddon doesn't have public support to prosecute him.

He screwed up.



The mother of the accuser exploited his inability to resist young boys by allowing her son to stay with MJ unsupervised. And MJ took the bait. So who's to blame?



But MJ didn't screw up . . . right?

Had MJ contributed money to the boy and limited his contact to supervised, daytime visits, and no sleepovers, he would have been fine. But not only did he sleep with the boy during unsupervised sleepovers, he bragged about it. He bolstered not only Sneddon's case but the mon's case as well. I say this because I am furious at MJ for taking the bait.



1. Who says the kid could not have been molested while the doc was being filmed? You?

2. The headlines came out because Jacko admitted that, well, he sleeps with boys. Surely you didn't miss that.

3. "Pedophile in their right mind?" Are you serious? Pedophiles are mentally sick. Combine mental sickness with fame and ego, and the potential for self-destruction is huge.

4. MJ admitted to sleeping with boys nearly a decade after nearly being prosecuted for child molestation. MJ was seen around the world cuddling and cooing with a boy despite the fact that he was accused of inappropriate conduct with boys in the past. You can say what you want, but if he is a pedophile, he's proven that he's stupid enough to do exactly what you say he wouldn't do.

5. I believe Sneddon should be put to his proof. I don't care for him personally. Nor do I think much of this mother, who should be prosecuted for criminal neglect if MJ is convicted. Nor do I believe beyond a reasonable doubt (yet) that MJ is guilty. But he dug a deep hole for himself by conducting himself in such a way that would give his enemies the impression he is guilty. If you can't see that, I feel for you.

namepeace said:

the Documentery Did not spark the Present Case,
That Documentery Sparked A child services Investigation, to Examine The relationship between the present accuser, and MJ
At that time the Investigation was claimed "UNFOUNDED"

Jackson has been spending night with children SINCE 93, and not another case has emerged EXCEPT this one

Jackson was Used by Martin Bashir, then was Jacksons only fault
That Documentary was a biased peice of Dribble
and not because im a Michael Jackson Sympathis, but because it was!




But he was one the one who began the motion,
Thus he looked for it himself



ONCE AGAIN WRONG
The investigation did not begin because he "Admitted" to sharing the beds of children
It Began when the Mother called Sneddon to report a molestation at the end of april



In celebrity Cases this was protocol,
Johnnie Cochran Jackson's then Advisor
Filed 3 motions on Jackson behalf, during the pre-trial settings
Jackson was shot down (without prejudice) with every motion
not including the other 5 motions filed by Bert Fields The Head Lawyer at the time.
After This
Cochran Advised Jackson that he should settle, Jackson was under stress from his record company and lawyers, thus agreed to the settlement
Jacksons other lawyers resigned after hearing about the settlement because they wanted no part in it, and new Jackson with the evidence they had could win the case
Jacksons settlement was mainly Cochran's settlement








So your telling me 1993 happened because of Jacksons Own Conduct?

PLEASE TELL ME YOUR KIDDING!!!!



Again , Him admittng that did not spark an investigation in SBPD
It sparked an investigation in Child Services
Get your Info Straight






As much as i want to believe that this wa scheme of hers from the begginning
its just not true

namepeace said:

Don't Be asanine, The only reason we know about the sleep overs is because of a documentery, an Extremely biased, Heavily Edited Documentery.
Taking the bait,
Your making it seemed as this a Conspiracy,
In Actuality, Sneddon Case did not open with the Documentery,
It opened
The following month at the end of April,

namepeace said:

!. Because the dates Suggest the Child Was Molested AFTER THE DOCUMENTERY
NOT during,

2. Yes i know the headlines came out but obviously you didn't understand in what context i meant it.

A. During these headlines the WHOLE WORLD was in uproar because of the Documentery
Thus its Not Smart for a Child Molester to Act on his impulses whilst the whole world is just looking for more evidence,

3. Your Right Pedophiles are mentally sick, BUT, That sickness does not blind Commonsense, IF you just said you sleep with boys in your bed,
and child services just opened a case against you,
Do you really want to act on your impulses and Risk being caught?
i do not think so sir

4. Jackson has a Peter Pan Complex, he thinks as long as he hasn't done anything wrong
he can go gallavanting doing what he wants.
It may not be right but he's been spoiled since he was 5 on getting what he wants
and it only gets worst,

I don't agree with it, but i can't accuse him of anything unless another child within those ten years comes forward, with an allegation
if not
He's done nothing wrong.

5. Sneddon wan'ts his Prize Fish, you can't blame the man, He's close to retiring and he wants the one that got away, and at the given chance he will jump on it.
The Mother is a Loon, and should be the one put on for Child Neglect,
this isn';t teh first time she's used her Children in means of "Getting Ahead"
but i understand, Jackson, should not befriend everyone he meets.
because they will always have intent to use him.
I personally think he should limit his contact with children
not because i think he's a predator
But Because he has his own Children Now, and they should be the center of his life
not strangers children,
I know Jacksons innocent not because im a Fan (im really not anymore, hasn't bought or listened to a C.d. in years)
But because i've analyzed the 93 case to a tee,
just like i am currently doing now

Luv4oneanotha said:

And the DA wouldn't look to child services for more ammo for a criminal charge. No, that never happens.

And you miss the point while making the point for me, yet again. The issue isn't guilt (yet). The issue is MJ's blame for opening himself up to scrutiny.



So the fact no one came forward is obvious proof that he's innocent right? After all, molested children are never scared to report abuse and never keep bad incidents to themselves. So MJ must be innocent.



I don't necessarily disagree. That's been my problem all along. MJ should have never tried to justify such creepy behavior by going on the doc.



"Asanine?"

Are you saying the sleepovers were okay as long as we didn't know about them?

No. It wasn't a conspiracy. A series of people took advantage of MJ's arrogance and weakness as follows:

1. The mother, as I see it, used MJ's fondness for young boys to work her way into his household and live on MJ's dime.

2. Bashir, seeing an opportunity to get up close to one of the most eccentric and reclusive celebrities on the planet, filmed a documentary, which he proceeded to edit to reinforce MJ's public image as creepy, weird and perverted. (but it's hard to take some of what was in that documentary out of context, like, you know, hugging up on a 12-year old and saying sleeping with kids was beautiful and loving.)

3. When the doc was a smash, Social Services said, "wait a minute. if we don't look into this we'll be a laughingstock." So they did.

4. Sneddon, with an ax to grind, and with public perception of Jackson at an all-time low as a result of the doc, uses the doc and social services' investigation to create probable cause to raid Neverland. Evidence is gathered. Jackson is indicted.

5. The mother, now seeing another opportunity to exploit MJ and her son in the wake of bad publicity, files a civil suit.

It wasn't a conspiracy. It was a perfect storm which could have been avoided if MJ cut his inappropriately intimate contact with kids. Even if it isn't bad, it looks bad and invites trouble. Somehow that's not registering with you.





But the documentary provides probable cause to believe that MJ was molesting this kid. Not proof of guilt. Probable cause. And from a political standpoint, going after MJ was a no-brainer for Sneddon after the doc was released.




Your writing style is so hard to decipher that it's hard to grasp proper context. But I digress.

And again, you've missed the point AND made it for me at the same time. The issue isn't guilt. It's perception of guilt. And as you said, the whole world was watching the doc, and viewed MJ as a pervert. Had MJ not done the documentary, there wouldn't have been a case. Because after the documentary folks were willing to believe ANYTHING about MJ.



Man, this is really fun!

If you're a 46-year old man, and you came thisclose to indictment for molesting a boy or boys, and everyone watches what you do after that, you don't sleep with boys anymore. You don't talk about sleeping with boys anymore. But that's what his dumb ass did. And then he caught another case.

So in essence, for nearly a decade he was risking getting caught, even if what he was doing was platonic or innocent. When he did the doc trying to convince the world to adopt his standards of what was normal, he was BEGGING to get caught.



Well, finally. That's all I have been trying to get you to say. In any event, don't make excuses for the man. He's grown. He probably needs clinical treatment. He dodged a real bullet 10 years ago and apparently learned nothing from it. And my guess (again, my guess) is, his true friends told him to leave the kids alone and he didn't listen.

But this is what's disturbing to me. You won't pay attention to one child's allegation of wrongdoing, but you'd pay attention to 2 children? What's the difference? One molested child is one too many. Any allegation should be seriously scrutinized, not only for the child's sake but for the accused's as well.

Maybe what you're saying is you don't trust this kid because he and/or his mothert is a proven liar, and you'd need more allegations to come forward to make the claim credible. That is reasonable.



Well, thank you! Like I said, I don't believe (yet) that MJ is guilty. I WANT to believe what you believe. But he's created a horrible image for himself which now threatens to send him to jail, an experience which he is unlikely to survive.

Which is why I am furious with him. And if it turns out he is a molester, it will be all the more tragic.
[Edited 12/17/04 8:38am]

namepeace said:

Sneddon said that the Child service Case was irrelevent




To a psychologist THAT IS PROOF,
Pedophiles act on impulse, this they have an average of 20 victims per year
in a matter of 10 years that could come into alot of children
and no one wan'ts to come forward,
please...
10 years is a huge gap to report abuse...
thats why the case was open for 8 years,
Just in case anyone wanted to come forward.


What you deem as creepy, he deems as innocent, and he will be right unless he is guilty of abuse
if he's just sleeping and hanging around with them,
its innocent, Its creepy to use because we picture creepy things
and you know thats true!




I agree to all


Sure it was Probable Cause, But Sneddon Never acted out after the Documentery, He claimed he didn't care,(which is probably a lie cause defense has proof he was snooping around) Sneddon Could only act out until he was given a Prime wittness, Thus the Child, Sneddon didn't start the investigation until late may after he was told about the molestation.

I don't know why Sneddon Chose those dates, it would be better if chose dates During the Documentery, but he didn't
those are most likely the dates he was told by the mother. in that case it isn't his fault
its the mothers mistake...



Huh?
are we talking about image, or the actual case?



Yes and no, Jackson lives in his own Dream world, of course i think he needs serious help, He's a Spoiled Neurotic paranoid peter pan wannabe,
Sure its all fair to be child like
but you can't run away from adulthood,
but i don't think that just because he enjoys being peter pan he should be condemned by the public,
Sure we don't find it right, but thats because we believe its of sinister nature
thats how demented we are.
Not Mj's Fault, thats just society in general

as for the case in general,
if this case came, lets say around 1996 or 1998
For me it would be more believable,
because its a shorter time span,
But ten years EXACTLY?
it was too damn funny,
And it was brought out the same way the first case was brought out
The mother even went to the same lawyer and Psychiatrist



he hasn't created nothing for himself
he only recently publicly claimed he slept with children in his bed
but we all assumed it was going on in general,
we all no the noew famous Jackson jokes that have been going on since 1993
rather infantile, to make fun of someone that needs serious help

This man is constantly surrounded by people who are Just Yes man, they agree with him to the fullest
He has no real friends?
nobody that will say, Michael , you really can't be doing this
if he did, he probably fired them
[Edited 12/17/04 12:16pm]

Luv4oneanotha said:

An average of 200 victims a year? Can you provide a source for this?

Axchi696 said:

sorry typo its 20,

244 to 300 per life time

Goodtouchbadtouch.com and kidsafenetwork.com

Either I should congradulate myself for holding a deaf ear to all things related Michael in 2004 or this just isn't too newsworthy.

Luv4oneanotha said:



No, I believe he said it was not a significant factor, but it was considered by the judge as part of a "totality of the circumstances" analysis for probable cause to raid the ranch. Sneddon threw the kitchen sink at MJ, and the Child Svc. Investigation (later discredited) was in that sink.




But pedophiles often discourage their victims from coming forward.

It is typical in assault cases that one person with the courage to come forward will inspire previously-silent victims to do so. Look at what happened in the Catholic Church. It takes years, if not decades, for victims to come forward. Sometimes memories are suppressed. Sometimes the victims are intimidated. Sometimes they're bought off. So please. Do me a favor. Take that into consideration.

Now, it is true that the credibility and motives for each new alleged victim must come forward. The passage of time indicates that many of the allegations never materialized, that's true too. But if one alleged victim comes forward, he should not be discredited solely because he's the only one to do so. Each alleged victim can be discredited for his lack of truthfulness, but not simply because no one else has come forward. Simply put, examine quality, not quantity.




This isn't a To-May-To/To-Mah-To argument. There is room for relativism in a lot of things, but not about conduct towards children. It is simply not right for a 46-year old man to sleep in beds, unsupervised or supervised, with prepubescent boys. I defy you to tell me otherwise. Not from MJ's point of view, which you damn well know is warped. MJ is an exceptional talent, but that doesn't except him from right and wrong. Even if there were no sexual contact, it's just wrong to do that. Period. YOU know that. Hanging with children? Cool. Treating them to rides and cotton candy at Wonderland? Fantastic. Having them over for dinner? God bless ya. Letting them spend the night? Well, sure, if the parents are there too or if you're related to them or if they're friends with your kids. Sleeping in the same bed as them, unsupervised? HELL No.

What if it were YOUR kid? Would you let MJ indulge his Peter Pan lifestyle then?

And oh yeah: at a minimum the man is troubled. But if he is a pedophile, his reality is going to be different than ours, which is exactly what you suggest.

http://cms.psychologytoda...hilia.html

"While pedophilia is illegal and harmful to the victims, the offenders are apt to delude themselves into viewing their actions are beneficial to the children, i.e., they are contributing to the children’s development or the children are enjoying the acts . . ."



Look, Sneddon knew that documentary would infect the potential jury pool. So he knew that he stood a better chance of getting his "Big Fish," as you call him, after the documentary. I can almost guarantee you Sneddon started looking for a way to get MJ after the doc was aired.



Nope. The mom took the doc into consideration. She knew, as we do, that the doc would increase the likelihood of trumping up a false charge against MJ (assuming it is false). And I disagree because it is easily possible that his contact with the boy rose to the level of abuse after the documentary.




Okay, I will explain further.

DAs don't win cases without jurors. Jurors are influenced by images and perceptions of the accused. The more famous the accused, the more likely a jury will be swayed to vote based on its perception of the accused. If the accused has a bad image, the jury may be more likely to convict. This is why attorneys like to "farm the jury" by pumping favorable or unfavorable information into media outlets. This is also the reason why many judges presiding over celebrity trials issue gag orders.

Which is why the image MJ created by doing that stupid stuff on the documentary did more damage to him than actual proof of guilt. It created the perception he COULD be a molester. If a jury walks into a courtroom thinking the accused COULD have done it, then the state has a much better chance of convincing them to convict. Sneddon knew this then, and he knows it now.

Which, again, makes me mad at MJ. Assuming he's innocent, he gave the state some powerful ammo to use against him.




So you are saying MJ needs help for his issues, but it's our fault for wrongly condemning him?

Even if he isn't a molester, it's wrong for him to sleep with boys, no less wrong than it would be to be in bed with girls. I defy you to say otherwise.



Again, that could cut against the proof of guilt. But would we have a criminal case without the Bashir documentary? I doubt it.



your first sentence completely contradicts your second. His admissions (and conduct) led to a perception something was criminally wrong. That perception fueled the drive to indict and convict him. So he did create this problem himself.



It is crueler to humor a man who needs clinical assistance.



Again, this is the arrogance I'm talking about.

really,honestly-LET'S STOP THE MADNESS
and lock this motherfucker up before he ruins anymore children's lives!
there is sufficient enough evidence to put this scum-bag away for a long,long time.everything is a little too politically correct these day's.
the dude loves to take advantage of little boy's,lock him up-he is a menace
to society.a very dangerous person....beat it....

namepeace said:

in an interview sneddon deemed the investigation incomplete and even took a Jab at the LA Child Services, he later apologized,
Child Services, began their investigation imediately, after the Documentery,



Very true
But one child did come forward...
and after interviewing Millions of children that have come in contact with jackson, even outside the country
you can't find a single one
thats a tad hard to believe,
The police even lied, claiming they had naked pictures of them, and still nothing
sure these tactics are bit harsh, but
at least 1 out of a million can corroborate the childs story
JUST ONE
That's All I ask,
EVEN NOW, i just need another one to corroborate
In terms of the Catholic church your right
But once the Police probe began alot more men and boys step forward



Truthfulness?, you can't examine truthfulness until a Trial begins, thus, if i wish to be skeptical, i have the right
The statistics for wrongful accusations of Child Molestation are Too High
i know this i use to intern at a law firm that specialized in the matter.
over 60% of all Child Molestation cases are FALSE!
And since the Accused is innocent until proven guilty, you must examine the Abused to the full extent of the law.
We musn't not be hard on a child simply because he's a child
Men have gone to jail for wrongful accusations
because authoroties were too lenient on the child
So if im skeptical i certainly have the right to be,
Im saying is their should not be just an examanation of the accused
but also of the Accuser

Plus don't you find it odd that the child is in a bitter Custody Battle with his parents?
more than 50 percent of all child molestation claims begin during a custody battle, or divorce

now i understand that the child is being used either way,
but...
the matter is too grave to be careless
you can be gentle but not totally avoid that this child might be lying
or being used as a puppet.



I agree to disagree, I have no children so i really can't speak on it
but that would be the fault of the parents, i must admit...
i don't know but if i had children i won't let them sleep over an alleged molesters house, thats a bit much, but he seems to get real close to the families
so i can't really speak
it needs to be thoroughly examined

And this is true about pedophiles, but their are several types of pedophiles
thiers one that sanctifies what he does, etc LIKE NAMBLA etc
Jackson is sanctifying sleep overs not sex
and thier are others, that are impulsive,
and many others
that quote is not deemed to every pedophile type


It is crueler to humor a man who needs clinical assistance.
Okay, I will explain further.


agreed
i understand now


It would be morally wrong, not legally
you know as well as i do that are not played in the courtroom



Again, this is the arrogance I'm talking about.[/quote]
he's arrogant
no surprise


All in All i get the gist of your trying to bring about
Perhaps we don't see eye to eye on things,
perhaps this all just one big conspiracy, begginning with that documentery
and your right, as soon as that documentery aired i had a real bad feeling
my only claim was that legally it had nothing to do wit the Doc, perhaps morally

thats my opinion
but we can both agree on this
Jackson has a D.A. that wants to take a bite out of his ass and ship him straight to jai, this D.A. might no disregard for innocence or guilt, and Mj most likely F*Cked up by revealing so much in said documenetery
Perhaps if the Documentery never aired, their would be no spark,
and we wouldn't be having this convo right now
If Jackson is indeed guilty,
he's guilty of being an arogant, self obsorbed MORON
brainwashed by his own naive Peter Pan complex,
no able to define was morally right and wrong
if this is all true,
Mj should just plead insanity if convicted
[Edited 12/17/04 15:10pm]

namepeace said:

Absolutely.



I'm not suggesting that he didn't bring this upon himself by continuing to flaunt his fondness for children. But why shouldn't he flaunt it if he really is doing it for purely honest reasons? You know people are gonna think what they want no matter the outcome of the trial. So if he's done nothing wrong why should he change his behaviour other than for his own benefit? It's his call. If he's prepared to risk futher accusations, media intrigue and speculation for the sake of friendships with youngsters then more power to him. That is, of course, assuming his innocence. Don't get me wrong, I know how it looks. But if he really is nothing more than a friend to the children who visit his home then I think it's a real shame that he's repeatedly ridiculed for bringing much joy into many people's lives. However, if he is, in fact, a pervert, then....

Luv4oneanotha said:

Yeah. My point was the judge still considered it before issuing the warrant.




Well, the fact that most kids backed MJ helps him (a little). So does the fact that the cops have come after him pretty hard.

As for corroboration, check out MSNBC.com. They have a story about the DA seeking to admit allegations of past abuse to show that MJ has a pattern and practice of abusive conduct, apparently in an attempt to rebut MJ's claim that the boy isn't credible. Sneddon thinks he's got the goods. We'll see.




I was actually talking about the trial process. But do you really think a prosecutor gets an indictment without being comfortable with the credibility of the main witness? Credibility assessments take place all the time.

You have the right as an observer to reserve judgment about MJ's guilt or innocence or the witness' credibility until the evidence is laid out. Believe it or not, I will do so too.



It is a delicate balance.



I am fully aware of these issues surrounding the child and it does raise some problems with the case.




I am childless as well. And I love MJ's music, but there'd no way on earth MJ would get within a country mile of my kid.



I guess this will have to wait for the trial. All I'm saying is that, even if MJ is innocent, there is a fine line -- a really fine line -- between socially unacceptable behavior (sleeping with children) and criminal acts (child abuse). MJ is on the line.


DAs don't win cases without jurors. Jurors are influenced by images and perceptions of the accused. The more famous the accused, the more likely a jury will be swayed to vote based on its perception of the accused. If the accused has a bad image, the jury may be more likely to convict. This is why attorneys like to "farm the jury" by pumping favorable or unfavorable information into media outlets. This is also the reason why many judges presiding over celebrity trials issue gag orders.





But again, if a jury sees MJ is capable of doing morally improper things with kids, then it's not much of a stretch to deem him a pedophile, even if he isn't.




Then we agree on most everything. As soon as it aired I knew there'd be a chance he would face jail time.



I mostly agree, but I think MJ would have to enter an insanity plea prior to the trial starting.