TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Michael Jackson NOT guilty
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Michael Jackson NOT guilty - Page 3

post #61 of 79
What amazes me is how many people in this thread are convinced he is guilty, and are saying that it is a tragedy he was acquitted in this most recent case. Personally, I dont know either way, but I know that there is NOTHING that was presented in this recent case that at all indicated any truth to the allegations. Quite the opposite in fact. Yet so many of you are still convinced he is guilty. Based on what? What has convinced you that he is guilty of this in the face of lying witnesses, contridictory testimony and a complete lack of evidence? Personal feelings about it just arent enough to make the guilty argument. A hunch is only that, and certainly a VERY dangerous way to judge others. Especially a hunch created based on media portrayals only. To be a sucessful and fair society, we must make our judgements based on the presented facts, not just personal thoughts/ideas/feelings. The jury would have given a terrible blow to the justice system to convict based on the great big nothing presented in this trial. I am thankful they made the right decision. Doesnt it scare you to think someone could be brought to trial on serious charges, have their accusers (known to fabricate law suits) mess up their stories numerous times, have no evidence presented, and end up in Jail for 20 years???
post #62 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Februa
What amazes me is how many people in this thread are convinced he is guilty, and are saying that it is a tragedy he was acquitted in this most recent case. Personally, I dont know either way, but I know that there is NOTHING that was presented in this recent case that at all indicated any truth to the allegations. Quite the opposite in fact. Yet so many of you are still convinced he is guilty. Based on what? What has convinced you that he is guilty of this in the face of lying witnesses, contridictory testimony and a complete lack of evidence? Personal feelings about it just arent enough to make the guilty argument. A hunch is only that, and certainly a VERY dangerous way to judge others. Especially a hunch created based on media portrayals only. To be a sucessful and fair society, we must make our judgements based on the presented facts, not just personal thoughts/ideas/feelings. The jury would have given a terrible blow to the justice system to convict based on the great big nothing presented in this trial. I am thankful they made the right decision. Doesnt it scare you to think someone could be brought to trial on serious charges, have their accusers (known to fabricate law suits) mess up their stories numerous times, have no evidence presented, and end up in Jail for 20 years???
I agree 100% with you. There are people that are falsely accused every day by someone exacting revenge, or for profit or whatever and I for one thank God our justice system doesn't allow EMOTIONS to determine the outcome and insists on the FACTS.

I am oft reminded of my Grandmother's saying to us - LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE. I believe that as a society in general we are too willing to believe the media and go along with the majority than to examine facts and reality. All one has to do is look at the numbers of people buying those supermarket tabloids that are 1% fact and 99% fiction and hear these people discussing this SH** like it's for real to know that as a society we are seriously screwed up!

I believe about 1/2 of what I read in the respectable newspapers and probably less than 1/4 of what I hear on radio and TV. Just remember it is HUMANS that are writing this stuff and Lord knows we've been known to ERR.
post #63 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
Oddly enough, my reaction is the opposite of yours. I find it almost impossible to believe that so many of Jackson's accusers (including former employees who testified against him) are "thieving liars", or "lying extortionists", or however one wants to describe them. That's very convenient for the defense team.
Just supposing it's true - why did Jackson surround himself, or allow himself to be surrounded, with such people? Remember that this is a guy who has been described as a "sharp businessman".
Good point, Tricia. Not everyone is "out to get him" like so many people believe. Some people who testified against him had nothing to gain.
post #64 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by mferr84
i am going to make sure that you go to prison, and someone makes you their b***h, and you rot there... not go free so that you can violate other children.
He wouldn't be put into a max. prison with general population even if he were to get time. He would go to a min. security segregated population with people convicted of similar crimes. He wouldn't be anyone's b***h because everyone in the pop. would have the same proclivities....
post #65 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveysmummy
He wouldn't be put into a max. prison with general population even if he were to get time. He would go to a min. security segregated population with people convicted of similar crimes. He wouldn't be anyone's b***h because everyone in the pop. would have the same proclivities....
oh i know, i just meant any person in general who does something like that, should be sent to prison and have the same thing done to them
post #66 of 79
Maybe they need to remove or reword the way that put that "beyond a resonable doubt"
I don't know when there's not alway's in someones mind resonable doubt.
I still don't know even after all is said and done, I just kept saying to myself I hope he didn't do that.
post #67 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Februa
What amazes me is how many people in this thread are convinced he is guilty, and are saying that it is a tragedy he was acquitted in this most recent case. Personally, I dont know either way, but I know that there is NOTHING that was presented in this recent case that at all indicated any truth to the allegations. Quite the opposite in fact. Yet so many of you are still convinced he is guilty. Based on what? What has convinced you that he is guilty of this in the face of lying witnesses, contridictory testimony and a complete lack of evidence? Personal feelings about it just arent enough to make the guilty argument. A hunch is only that, and certainly a VERY dangerous way to judge others. Especially a hunch created based on media portrayals only. To be a sucessful and fair society, we must make our judgements based on the presented facts, not just personal thoughts/ideas/feelings. The jury would have given a terrible blow to the justice system to convict based on the great big nothing presented in this trial. I am thankful they made the right decision. Doesnt it scare you to think someone could be brought to trial on serious charges, have their accusers (known to fabricate law suits) mess up their stories numerous times, have no evidence presented, and end up in Jail for 20 years???
I suppose many of us became cynical after the Jordan Chandler case: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mjdec1.html , and the BBC documentary was just icing on the cake.
post #68 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Februa
What amazes me is how many people in this thread are convinced he is guilty, and are saying that it is a tragedy he was acquitted in this most recent case. Personally, I dont know either way, but I know that there is NOTHING that was presented in this recent case that at all indicated any truth to the allegations. Quite the opposite in fact. Yet so many of you are still convinced he is guilty. Based on what? What has convinced you that he is guilty of this in the face of lying witnesses, contridictory testimony and a complete lack of evidence? Personal feelings about it just arent enough to make the guilty argument. A hunch is only that, and certainly a VERY dangerous way to judge others. Especially a hunch created based on media portrayals only. To be a sucessful and fair society, we must make our judgements based on the presented facts, not just personal thoughts/ideas/feelings. The jury would have given a terrible blow to the justice system to convict based on the great big nothing presented in this trial. I am thankful they made the right decision. Doesnt it scare you to think someone could be brought to trial on serious charges, have their accusers (known to fabricate law suits) mess up their stories numerous times, have no evidence presented, and end up in Jail for 20 years???
Februa, My reasonings for his guilt have nothing whatsoever to do with TV, radio, the press or what anyone else has said. I have mentioned this in other threads when the subject was child abuse. We do know through Jackson's own words that when he was in bed with boys he would cuddle with them. This is my reasoning, preadolescent and adolescent boys are starting to awaken sexuality. Ask any grown man and he will tell you about all the accidental erections he experienced in the time period. Boys at that age can get an erection by looking at a flowerpot, in other words it does not take much. Imagine how confusing it can be for a boy when a grown man starts to cuddle him.Sexually confusing, physically confusing and emotionally confusing. A grown man (Jackson) knows how a young man's penis operates, since he was young once himself. He was sending very wrong signals to the boys in his bed. Why do you think child care professionals tell parents not to let their kids in their beds after a certain age? It is because of the child's burgeoning sexuality. So in my book, that's abuse. Jackson knew he could turn kids on, therefore sexually arousing himself.
post #69 of 79
Since this case was all about THIS PARTICULAR BOY, and not other's in his past, the jurors can't go by the past. He may have molested boys in his life, however, this case wasn't about them. It was about this one lying boy and his evil lying mother. So, they could not convict him on it. Now, I'm sure if a reputable person came forward, then it might have been a different story.

These people were just opportunists who got involved with Jackson for the sole purpose of trying get him, and some of his money.

The verdict was correct.
post #70 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopeHacker
Since this case was all about THIS PARTICULAR BOY, and not other's in his past, the jurors can't go by the past. He may have molested boys in his life, however, this case wasn't about them. It was about this one lying boy and his evil lying mother. So, they could not convict him on it. Now, I'm sure if a reputable person came forward, then it might have been a different story.

These people were just opportunists who got involved with Jackson for the sole purpose of trying get him, and some of his money.

The verdict was correct.
Well, I was talking about this particular boy, AND all the other little boys that predated him, and unfortunately all the boys that will follow. Pedophiles are known to be very ritualistic, they follow a pattern of abuse. The case for the state may have been very flawed, but Jackson won't quit his behavior...pedophiles never do because they are always hungry for some new and very young flesh.
post #71 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mom of Franz
Well, I was talking about this particular boy, AND all the other little boys that predated him, and unfortunately all the boys that will follow. Pedophiles are known to be very ritualistic, they follow a pattern of abuse. The case for the state may have been very flawed, but Jackson won't quit his behavior...pedophiles never do because they are always hungry for some new and very young flesh.
I honestly don't think he molested this boy, and he was tried on this case only. As far as the boys in the past, I say he "may have" done some form of molestation, but I don't know for sure. If the boy who got the millions from him back in 93 had taken it to court, there well have been a different outlook on things completely. Jackson may have been convicted years ago. That is, "if" he really did moleste that boy.

The thing is, the jury couldn't go by hear say of the past, they could only go by the case that was before them. That is way the "had" to reach a "not guilty" verdict.
post #72 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopeHacker
Since this case was all about THIS PARTICULAR BOY, and not other's in his past, the jurors can't go by the past. He may have molested boys in his life, however, this case wasn't about them. It was about this one lying boy and his evil lying mother. So, they could not convict him on it. Now, I'm sure if a reputable person came forward, then it might have been a different story.

These people were just opportunists who got involved with Jackson for the sole purpose of trying get him, and some of his money.

The verdict was correct.
Reputable person? Pedophiles aren't stupid, they pick their victims carefully. Obviously, they are going to pick someone vulnerable, not someone from a great family. Furthemore, someone with great parents wouldn't have gotten that near Jackson anyway, if those parents had an ounce of brain in their heads.
post #73 of 79
Just because a person is poor or is less fortunate circumstances, does not mean they aren't reputable. A vulnerale family could be just as reputable and decent as a Saint. The problem is, with THIS family, they are well known flim flam artists who have tried to swindle money all over the place. I don't believe for one minute that Michael Jackson molested this kid. I believe this kids mother had a plan to try to get herself and her kids involved with Jackson for the express purpose of trying to swindle him later on. It didn't work, so they claimed he molested the kid. They still stand a good chance of making a lot of money off of this, by book deals ect ect.

And you're right, no GREAT parent would have gotten her kid imvolved with Michael Jackson, especially after the alligations of the past. I'm sorry, but I don't buy anything that the family said, and neither did the jury.
post #74 of 79
I totally agree with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HopeHacker
Just because a person is poor or is less fortunate circumstances, does not mean they aren't reputable. A vulnerale family could be just as reputable and decent as a Saint. The problem is, with THIS family, they are well known flim flam artists who have tried to swindle money all over the place. I don't believe for one minute that Michael Jackson molested this kid. I believe this kids mother had a plan to try to get herself and her kids involved with Jackson for the express purpose of trying to swindle him later on. It didn't work, so they claimed he molested the kid. They still stand a good chance of making a lot of money off of this, by book deals ect ect.

And you're right, no GREAT parent would have gotten her kid imvolved with Michael Jackson, especially after the alligations of the past. I'm sorry, but I don't buy anything that the family said, and neither did the jury.
post #75 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopeHacker
I honestly don't think he molested this boy, and he was tried on this case only. As far as the boys in the past, I say he "may have" done some form of molestation, but I don't know for sure. If the boy who got the millions from him back in 93 had taken it to court, there well have been a different outlook on things completely. Jackson may have been convicted years ago. That is, "if" he really did moleste that boy.

The thing is, the jury couldn't go by hear say of the past, they could only go by the case that was before them. That is way the "had" to reach a "not guilty" verdict.

I don't think pedophiles know or live by the word "restraint" I don't think in their day to day lives they say."um, this boy looks good", or "nah, don't want that one" as if they were choosing from an extensive Chinese take out menu. Sorry to be so blunt, but in their world if it has a not yet matured penis, it's game time!
post #76 of 79
completely wrong....... I think he's guilty guilty guilty!!!!!!!!!!!!!
post #77 of 79
I'm not saying Michael may not be a pedophile. What I'm saying is the Jury couldn't base their verdict on anything other than what was involved in this case, and this case only. As one juror said, he felt that Michael probably had molested boys in the past, but in this case, they could NOT prove anything. A juror cannot go by the past, and they can't go by what they think might happen in the future. They have to go by the case, before them. In that particular case, it's hard to believe the words of a bunch of well known con artists. I believe they came to the correct decision in finding him NOT GUILTY of these particular charges.
post #78 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopeHacker
I'm not saying Michael may not be a pedophile. What I'm saying is the Jury couldn't base their verdict on anything other than what was involved in this case, and this case only. As one juror said, he felt that Michael probably had molested boys in the past, but in this case, they could NOT prove anything. A juror cannot go by the past, and they can't go by what they think might happen in the future. They have to go by the case, before them. In that particular case, it's hard to believe the words of a bunch of well known con artists. I believe they came to the correct decision in finding him NOT GUILTY of these particular charges.
I agree Hope about how the verdict came about, and I have posted this before that the state did a lousy job trying to prove its case. Because you seem to believe that Jackson may be a pedophile, remember this word...recidivism, the word a pedophile lives by. Jackson, is unable to turn on and off his desires. This is why most experts agree that pedophiles can NOT be cured. It seems that all the treatment in the world does not touch them. This is why I believe Jackson abused this child, he can not turn off his disease, just like most of us can't help but scratch a mosquito bite.
post #79 of 79
Speaking of pedophiles and recidivism, have you been following this case?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/19/se....ap/index.html This accused serial molester probably had thousands of victims over many decades, and should never have been out on the streets for the length of time he was.
I hope this isn't too . It does illustrate just how inadequate the criminal justice system can be in dealing with deviants.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Michael Jackson NOT guilty