New topic
PrintableTheFrog said: On the evidence, with a beyond reasonable doubt balance of proof, i could never have found him guilty.
never can predict a jury though. honestly, i think this is the right decision. i wanted MJJ to speak afterwards though.  man, did he look emotionally drained.He looked like he was going to collapse... like he couldn't walk properly. Poor guy. I'm really glad that he's been found not guilty! I just hope that he's going to be alright. Now maybe that family can go fly off in their hot-air balloon  e.knuf | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
My heart beamed. Come back stronger, Michael.
love | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Shapeshifter said: I agree with you that MJ is a paedophile, and he will definitely do it again at some point.
MJ was, however, rightly acquitted in this instance because the case against him was based on flimsy evidence and his accusers were proven extortionists and liars. Following the top paragraph with the bottom one really proves how fucking stupid people can be. I really don't care - and anyone for that matter shouldn't - that you "agree" a person involved in alleged sex crimes really did them. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Holy cow, there are 9 MJ threads on the front page of Non-Prince.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
And let's not forget that even Prince was once accused by his close associates/personal friends of murdering his own son. Allegations mean absolutely nothing if not proven valid. And in the Michael Jackson trial, the goddamn Trial of the Century, absolutely nothing was proven. It was the opposite, you should have realized that by now.
Trust it on the Internet to make anyone declared innocent guilty the next day the verdict comes out. Hell, everyone's an expert on these issues. And it seems to me that so many people are all of a sudden so very concerned about paedophilia and possess all kinds of thoroughly detailed information on the behaviour patterns of child molesters. They must have studied all this information for years just waiting for this case to happen. And furthermore, I totally detest people using trite expressions like "there's no smoke without fire" and draw real life parallels with actual circumstances just based on a saying such as that. As far as I am aware of the details in this case it didn't involve any proposed evidence of either smoke or fire. The cause-and-effect phenomenon has absolutely nothing to do with finding someone guilty or not of being a sex offender. When we are dealing with concepts that take place on a level involving human interaction, as opposed to just physical phenomenons, there's no reason why there couldn't be tons of so-called metaphorical "smoke" without metaphorical "fire". "But you know there's no smoke without fire!", "Yeah, that's right! He must be a paedophile then!". | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Novabreaker said: And let's not forget that even Prince was once accused by his close associates/personal friends of murdering his own son. Allegations mean absolutely nothing if not proven valid. And in the Michael Jackson trial, the goddamn Trial of the Century, absolutely nothing was proven. It was the opposite, you should have realized that by now.
Trust it on the Internet to make anyone declared innocent guilty the next day the verdict comes out. Hell, everyone's an expert on these issues. And it seems to me that so many people are all of a sudden so very concerned about paedophilia and possess all kinds of thoroughly detailed information on the behaviour patterns of child molesters. They must have studied all this information for years just waiting for this case to happen. And furthermore, I totally detest people using trite expressions like "there's no smoke without fire" and draw real life parallels with actual circumstances just based on a saying such as that. As far as I am aware of the details in this case it didn't involve any proposed evidence of either smoke or fire. The cause-and-effect phenomenon has absolutely nothing to do with finding someone guilty or not of being a sex offender. When we are dealing with concepts that take place on a level involving human interaction, as opposed to just physical phenomenons, there's no reason why there couldn't be tons of so-called metaphorical "smoke" without metaphorical "fire". "But you know there's no smoke without fire!", "Yeah, that's right! He must be a paedophile then!".  Been gone for a minute, now I'm back with the jump off | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JackieBlue said: Novabreaker said: And let's not forget that even Prince was once accused by his close associates/personal friends of murdering his own son. Allegations mean absolutely nothing if not proven valid. And in the Michael Jackson trial, the goddamn Trial of the Century, absolutely nothing was proven. It was the opposite, you should have realized that by now.
Trust it on the Internet to make anyone declared innocent guilty the next day the verdict comes out. Hell, everyone's an expert on these issues. And it seems to me that so many people are all of a sudden so very concerned about paedophilia and possess all kinds of thoroughly detailed information on the behaviour patterns of child molesters. They must have studied all this information for years just waiting for this case to happen. And furthermore, I totally detest people using trite expressions like "there's no smoke without fire" and draw real life parallels with actual circumstances just based on a saying such as that. As far as I am aware of the details in this case it didn't involve any proposed evidence of either smoke or fire. The cause-and-effect phenomenon has absolutely nothing to do with finding someone guilty or not of being a sex offender. When we are dealing with concepts that take place on a level involving human interaction, as opposed to just physical phenomenons, there's no reason why there couldn't be tons of so-called metaphorical "smoke" without metaphorical "fire". "But you know there's no smoke without fire!", "Yeah, that's right! He must be a paedophile then!". Double
That's why I hope I never get put in any situation that requires placing my fate in the hands of a jury because people believe anything the see peddled on television. Then they claim to make informed opinions from the outside of a courtroom and from thousands of miles away. It's astonishing...the masses  [Edited 6/14/05 8:15am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Shapeshifter said: I agree with you that MJ is a paedophile, and he will definitely do it again at some point.
MJ was, however, rightly acquitted in this instance because the case against him was based on flimsy evidence and his accusers were proven extortionists and liars. Who would you believe? The jury made the right call. They may have thought that there was a possibility that Arvizo was telling the truth - and they may even believe that Jackson is indeed a paedophile - but the likelihood that he and his mother were lying was too high to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I would have acquitted him on those grounds. I think Juror #1 corroborated everything you said. It amazed me that these jurors were able to maintain a focus on the legal standards of criminal guilt despite their apparent discomfort with MJ's habits, and their opinions that MJ had molested children in the past. So MJ fans, please keep this in perspective. MJ was not vindicated. He was acquitted. It's sad for everyone involved. Especially the accuser, who has led the most tragic life of all. Plagued by cancer, reared by a con artist mother, and exposed to MJ's disturbing life. He's still a kid and he is a victim of circumstance. Even if he did lie. Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Hey you guys check out this link,it tells why and how he is free from the molestation case. http://slate.com/id/2120812/?GT1=6554 [Edited 6/14/05 8:32am] When you wanna give up, don't cause ya' know, you've always got a friend-Tamar BLB | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Xagain said: SassyBritches said: i don't agree and the jury has repeatedly said otherwise. You...uh...DON'T THINK SCOTT PETERSON WAS GUILTY EITHER?
Good grief. The point is that a lot of people, including myself, believe that Scott Peterson WAS guilty but there wasn't enough evidence to convict. M MyeternalgrattitudetoPhil&Val.Herman said "We want sweaty truckers at the truck stop! We want cigar puffing men that look like they wanna beat the living daylights out of us" Val"sporking is spooning with benefits" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
kookie said: Hey you guys check out this link,it tells why and how he is free from the molestation case. http://slate.com/id/2120812/?GT1=6554
[Edited 6/14/05 8:32am] Great that you pointed out that link. What it really is, is just a personal view, and a quite biased one for that matter. And doesn't even make terribly interesting reading. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
YEEEEES!!! AWESOME!! YEEEES! JUSTICE PREVAILED IN THE END!!
IN YO' FACE SNEDDON!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DorothyParkerWasCool said: JackieBlue said: Double
That's why I hope I never get put in any situation that requires placing my fate in the hands of a jury because people believe anything the see peddled on television. Then they claim to make informed opinions from the outside of a courtroom and from thousands of miles away. It's astonishing...the masses
[Edited 6/14/05 8:15am] Well, from day one, a lot of MJ fans and detractors were opining about the evidence before it was even presented at trial. Personally, I had my suspicions but I generally wanted to wait to see what the prosecution had. When they finally started the trial, it turned out that the evidence and theory of the case was shoddy. The timeline didn't work and the key witnesses had credibility issues. But the allegations about "prior bad acts" are really what I think disturbed people (including me) the most. Certainly, people can have opinions based on what they know. But only 12 had access to all the arguments and relevant information and acted accordingly. They paid attention to the evidence (mostly), kept the prior bad acts evidence in perspective, and returned an acquittal. We can't challenge that, but we can surely argue about it. Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
purpledoveuk said:[quote] MIGUELGOMEZ said: Yeah but 10 year olds experiment sexually sometimes. If Michael is 10 years old when it comes to having fun then HELLO!!!!!
EXACTLY...thats my point Ive been trying to make but I always get teh door shut in my face with "I never experimented when I was a kid"...YOU FUCKING LIAR we all did [Edited 6/13/05 15:24pm] Speak for yourself there, buddy...  I am MrVictor.... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sosgemini said: VoicesCarry said: Of course the long thread that everyone was posting on was locked, and the one with 10 replies remains.
yeah....this was an error on us mods parts....i would like to apologize for this cause i too felt frustrated that the 1st thread created didnt stay open...its only fair.. plus, it takes away from super's 1st post for which danza was going to issue a plague in honor of.. us mods should feel ashamed..
 Please, not the great plague...I think they'd be betta off with a plaque.  I am MrVictor.... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Novabreaker said:
And let's not forget that even Prince was once accused by his close associates/personal friends of murdering his own son. Allegations mean absolutely nothing if not proven valid. And in the Michael Jackson trial, the goddamn Trial of the Century, absolutely nothing was proven. It was the opposite, you should have realized that by now. Trust it on the Internet to make anyone declared innocent guilty the next day the verdict comes out. Hell, everyone's an expert on these issues. And it seems to me that so many people are all of a sudden so very concerned about paedophilia and possess all kinds of thoroughly detailed information on the behaviour patterns of child molesters. They must have studied all this information for years just waiting for this case to happen. And furthermore, I totally detest people using trite expressions like "there's no smoke without fire" and draw real life parallels with actual circumstances just based on a saying such as that. As far as I am aware of the details in this case it didn't involve any proposed evidence of either smoke or fire. The cause-and-effect phenomenon has absolutely nothing to do with finding someone guilty or not of being a sex offender. When we are dealing with concepts that take place on a level involving human interaction, as opposed to just physical phenomenons, there's no reason why there couldn't be tons of so-called metaphorical "smoke" without metaphorical "fire". "But you know there's no smoke without fire!", "Yeah, that's right! He must be a paedophile then!". Double thanks Novabreaker for fighting? I don´t have energy...but just one question.... I have a questin for you guys who think Mj is GUILTY because he shared bed with kids. HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU KNOW WHO SLEEP WITH THEIR PETS??? DOGS etc??? I know a lot. Do you call them ZOOPHILES (or how do you spell it?)? "When Michael Jackson is just singing and dancing, you just think this is an astonishing talent. And he has had this astounding talent all his life, but we want him to be floored as well. We really don´t like the idea that he could have it all." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
dag said: HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU KNOW WHO SLEEP WITH THEIR PETS??? DOGS etc??? I know a lot. Do you call them ZOOPHILES (or how do you spell it?)?
No. They are called lonely. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
thedoorkeeper said: dag said: HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU KNOW WHO SLEEP WITH THEIR PETS??? DOGS etc??? I know a lot. Do you call them ZOOPHILES (or how do you spell it?)?
No. They are called lonely. I really don't think you can compare adults sleeping with non-familial children to people who let their pets sleep on their beds. Anyway, those who wanted to see him fry were so happy he had been arrested and was going to trial. He was going to have a ‘fair trial’ and hopefully the outcome would be that he’d go to jail. He 'manned up' when they thought he would 'p*ssy out'. He didn’t flee the country, he didn’t kill himself, he didn’t not show up for the verdict. Through everything he was there (when he could be) and in pajamas if need be. The evidence was presented and it was lacking thus he was acquitted. Now those same people who believed in the justice system (when they thought it would bring him down) think it sucks. They think the wonderful non-(or mostly)black jury of his peers are now all stupid idiots. You can’t convince someone that a person is innocent (or guilty for that matter) if they don’t want to believe it and many people are staunch in their belief that MJ is guilty regardless of weak evidence or defense witness testimony. They’re views won’t be changed. This was planted back in ’93 and reinforced ten years later. Coming up with excuses for why you didn’t get the ultimate outcome you wanted is weak. [Edited 6/14/05 9:47am] Been gone for a minute, now I'm back with the jump off | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Novabreaker said: And let's not forget that even Prince was once accused by his close associates/personal friends of murdering his own son. Allegations mean absolutely nothing if not proven valid. And in the Michael Jackson trial, the goddamn Trial of the Century, absolutely nothing was proven. It was the opposite, you should have realized that by now.
Trust it on the Internet to make anyone declared innocent guilty the next day the verdict comes out. Hell, everyone's an expert on these issues. And it seems to me that so many people are all of a sudden so very concerned about paedophilia and possess all kinds of thoroughly detailed information on the behaviour patterns of child molesters. They must have studied all this information for years just waiting for this case to happen. And furthermore, I totally detest people using trite expressions like "there's no smoke without fire" and draw real life parallels with actual circumstances just based on a saying such as that. As far as I am aware of the details in this case it didn't involve any proposed evidence of either smoke or fire. The cause-and-effect phenomenon has absolutely nothing to do with finding someone guilty or not of being a sex offender. When we are dealing with concepts that take place on a level involving human interaction, as opposed to just physical phenomenons, there's no reason why there couldn't be tons of so-called metaphorical "smoke" without metaphorical "fire". "But you know there's no smoke without fire!", "Yeah, that's right! He must be a paedophile then!". This deserves one more...
...and BTW, where does this "he slept with the boy for 365 days" come from all of a sudden?  [Edited 6/14/05 9:58am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
calldapplwondery83 said: ...and BTW, where does this "he slept with the boy for 365 days" come from all of a sudden?
I dunno, Juror #1 talked about it though, so it must have come up in the trial. Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
hopefully they will get him next time (thats twice now he's got away with it)
jordy/gavin,,,, will the jurors let their kids stay over at mikey's ?????  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
namepeace said: calldapplwondery83 said: ...and BTW, where does this "he slept with the boy for 365 days" come from all of a sudden?
I dunno, Juror #1 talked about it though, so it must have come up in the trial. Brett Barnes said he stayed with Mike for almost a year and nothing ever happened | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
danielboon said: hopefully they will get him next time (thats twice now he's got away with it)
jordy/gavin,,,, will the jurors let their kids stay over at mikey's ????? oohh yeah after the 'I was as high as a chimney during my questioning kid' / and the 'my mother left her brains in the car boy', the next one oughta be REAL good ! [Edited 6/14/05 10:24am] It was not in vain...it was in Minneapolis! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Novabreaker said: And let's not forget that even Prince was once accused by his close associates/personal friends of murdering his own son. Allegations mean absolutely nothing if not proven valid. And in the Michael Jackson trial, the goddamn Trial of the Century, absolutely nothing was proven. It was the opposite, you should have realized that by now.
Well, as a parent and victim of a pedophile, I have always been concerned with the issue. My first instinct is going to be to side with the kid and I don't give a fuck who the alleged molestor is. I notice how people keep saying he was proven innocent when that was not the case. They just didn't have enough evidence to convict. Vindicated my ass.Trust it on the Internet to make anyone declared innocent guilty the next day the verdict comes out. Hell, everyone's an expert on these issues. And it seems to me that so many people are all of a sudden so very concerned about paedophilia and possess all kinds of thoroughly detailed information on the behaviour patterns of child molesters. They must have studied all this information for years just waiting for this case to happen. And furthermore, I totally detest people using trite expressions like "there's no smoke without fire" and draw real life parallels with actual circumstances just based on a saying such as that. As far as I am aware of the details in this case it didn't involve any proposed evidence of either smoke or fire. The cause-and-effect phenomenon has absolutely nothing to do with finding someone guilty or not of being a sex offender. When we are dealing with concepts that take place on a level involving human interaction, as opposed to just physical phenomenons, there's no reason why there couldn't be tons of so-called metaphorical "smoke" without metaphorical "fire". "But you know there's no smoke without fire!", "Yeah, that's right! He must be a paedophile then!". | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
what the hell makes you people so sure that he's not guilty? I was on his side when this shit started but then as it went on, i turned in my glove. i think he's a pedophile. i don't think he knows what he's doing is wrong, but that doesn't make him any less dangerous to be around little kids. if i kill someone, but don't know what i'm doing is morally wrong, i'm no less of a killer. \ Join me under the waterfall
Climb the rainbow tree love is my color when I am shown love in return | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LightOfArt said: namepeace said: I dunno, Juror #1 talked about it though, so it must have come up in the trial. Brett Barnes said he stayed with Mike for almost a year and nothing ever happened And this "a year" turned into "365 days"? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
oh, and for all those people who say "we'll macaully culkin said he never touched him" molesters are smart. they know who they can abuse and get away with it. it's who's less likely to tell. kit culkin probably would have killed micheal if he touched his kid. he got off because there wasn't enough evidence, which is what's suppose to happen. it's reasonable doubt. but is he actually innocent? hell no. Join me under the waterfall
Climb the rainbow tree love is my color when I am shown love in return | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
This is one big ass redundant thread!
Wooooo! 
 |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
'brand new day' never sounded as good as it did today !!!!
 It was not in vain...it was in Minneapolis! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I always believed in you Michael Joseph Jackson. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |