Michael Jackson Verdict In!

[HMVNipper]

Breaking news -- the verdict in the Michael Jackson trial is in, they should be announcing it in the next five to ten minutes!!

Stay tuned........

[Legs]

This soon, I thought the trial would take longer.

[HMVNipper]

They say it's been 130 days, actually...so not that short a time.

They were supposed to read the verdict a few minutes ago, but apparently Michael Jackso is "running late" getting to the courthouse, his lawyers are there already.

Our local station is running the feed from Los Angeles, they say they'll have an audio link into the courtroom for the verdict.

Still waiting.....

[Legs]

Oh that explains, I was just following it for a few days.

[HMVNipper]

I haven't really BEEN following it, actually...but they cut into all the TV networks and I have the TV on...so...

I sure hope they announce before 5:30, I have to go pick Jamie up from school!

[HMVNipper]

Here it comes...the network feed just kicked in, superceding the feed from LA.

[Lynner]

Man, they keep breaking into the news. Yeesh - just announce it already!

[Legs]

Maybe this will take another 130 days?

[Lynner]

wouldn't be surprised

[Zimmerman The Gnome]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH!

[lonely_rubber_peppers]

*sits on pins and needles*

[Lynner]

It's one thing to break into to regular broadcasts to show th everdict, but jeez, how much more speculation do we need to sit thru?

[HMVNipper]

It's because MJ had to make his "entrance," don'tcha know....you thought this wouldn't be a media circus???

[HMVNipper]

Man, this is just like OJ, he's getting away with murder, so to speak.

I still think he's guilty as sin, sorry....

[Lynner]

Not Guilty on all counts - woah!

[Harbidge]

Found not guilty on all charges!

[ChrisG134]

Not surprised.Too bad they couldn't find him guilty of being a complete idiot!

[HMVNipper]

Yup, but I think it's more because there was reasonable doubt, not because he really isn't guilty. Sorry, but any 46 year old man who sleeps in his bed with little boys is sick, sick, sick.

Just like OJ.... :rolleyes:

[Lynner]

ah, but that wasn't one of the charges!

[ChrisG134]

O.J & Robert Blake got away with it.Why not him.

[HMVNipper]

O.J & Robert Blake got away with it.Why not him.

You said it, Chris....

I'm sorry, he's guilty...but there was just too much doubt6. I wish they could have made it stick, I really do, because I do believe MJ IS a child molester.

And now there's gonna be a dance concert outside the f'n courthouse, can I barf now???

[HMVNipper]

They are saying there could still be a civil case that will cost him millions, OJ had that happen to him.

[Hari's Chick]

ah, but that wasn't one of the charges!

I blame the parents for that, yeah. I think Michael is a sad and lonely guy, and strange, but strange from being sad and lonely. I don't think he actually did what he was accused of.

[ChrisG134]

Now he can bring all the little kids(boys) back to Neverland Ranch again.If that isn't scary I don't know what is!
I hope parents don't let their chilren back there.

[ChrisG134]

I blame the parents for that, yeah. I think Michael is a sad and lonely guy, and strange, but strange from being sad and lonely. I don't think he actually did what he was accused of.

The man needs some serious help.I hope he gets it.

[AnyRoad69]

One should protect Jackson before children.

[Hari's Chick]

The man needs some serious help.I hope he gets it.

I agree totally, yeah. I saw an interview and he was so sad... it's pretty obvious he was amazingly affected by his childhood. He needs to find healthy, socially acceptable ways to deal with his grief. He has his own kids...he should just really love them and care well for them? And he can work with kids charities and things, healthy choices.

[matt5]

I blame the parents for that, yeah. I think Michael is a sad and lonely guy, and strange, but strange from being sad and lonely. I don't think he actually did what he was accused of.

I agree. I believe that he is a lonely and confused individual. People think he is strange but I think most people would have a very hard time with the wealth and fame he had. Most people would probably buckle under that sort of pressure.

In any case I think the media attention that Michael has garnered has nothing to do with guilt or innocence but has more to do with the public's fascination with cheap gossip and 'dirty laundry'. Of course the bloodthirsty press is all too eager to provide the public with this especially with all the $$$ involved. This is sort of the same thing that is happening with Heather but to a much more extreme level. Sad if you ask me.

[ChrisG134]

I agree totally, yeah. I saw an interview and he was so sad... it's pretty obvious he was amazingly affected by his childhood. He needs to find healthy, socially acceptable ways to deal with his grief. He has his own kids...he should just really love them and care well for them? And he can work with kids charities and things, healthy choices.

His father is a jerk.I sure he hit his kids when they were young.He mostly to blame for this mess!

[matt5]

His father is a jerk.I sure he hit his kids when they were young.He mostly to blame for this mess!

I have heard this also. Michael was famous from a very young age and never had a normal childhood. I think his fascination with young children has more to do with trying to recapture his youth more than anything else. Of course I don't know this for a fact. He could be guilty for all I know. This is just my take on it.

[Zimmerman The Gnome]

At the end of the day he is not guilty and that is the desicion. Not many people know if this is true or not but people here saying that he is guilty is wrong IMO. You have no way of knowing. The way the media is today they can print anything they want. I'm no MJ fan or anything but the jury have spoken!

[ChrisG134]

I guess the only thing Michael is guilty of is being really UGLY!!

[Magill]

I knew he'd be acquited. I KNEW IT, I KNEW IT!!! Gahd! Makes me sick---like Susan said. Just like when they announced OJ's acquittal. 'Cept this time my jaw didn't drop because I saw this one coming. 'Scuze me while I hurl! :barf2:

[Zimmerman The Gnome]

I knew he'd be acquited. I KNEW IT, I KNEW IT!!! Gahd! Makes me sick---like Susan said. Just like when they announced OJ's acquittal. 'Cept this time my jaw didn't drop because I saw this one coming. 'Scuze me while I hurl! :barf2:

Why sick? How do you know the desicion is wrong?

[ChrisG134]

Why sick? How do you know the desicion is wrong?

How do you know it's the right desicion?Sometimes people get away with it.They just don't have enough evidience.Just like OJ.Who was guilty as sin and Robert Blake who paid someone else to do it.They'll be watching Mike like a hawk now.

[HMVNipper]

I still believe that MJ is guilty, and the only reason they didn't find him so was because there was reasonable doubt based on the credibility of the accuser and his family. The problem is that it's an "all or nothing" verdict -- if there is reasonable doubt under the law, then you cannot convict. Does not mean he's innocent -- on the contrary, it means they just couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

And I, for one, think he is...but even more guilty are any parents who allow their children to go to Neverland Ranch and remain there unsupervised.

But Mikey'd better watch his ass, he'd better be more careful about who he lets into his bed.....or this will come back to bite him.

And I agree with you, Magill!

[Magill]

Why sick? How do you know the desicion is wrong? It's my opinion as someone with eyes, ears and common sense. Explain to me why he, someone who supposedly loves all children, only invites boys over to visit? Why giving "Jesus Juice" (WINE!) is suddenly OK to give to minors? Why Michael is in his own frame of mind that he himself is a child? (As I recall, Michael, I watched *you* as a child, so hmmm--yes, you *are* older than me! And I'm 42!) If anything, I was hoping they would order that Michael be psychologically evaluated. Anyone who disfigures his own appearance waaaay beyond its natural state isn't right in the head. Sorry---just my opinion.
Anyone else here remember when Michael was a black man? C'mon, a show of hands.

[HMVNipper]

Anyone else here remember when Michael was a black man? C'mon, a show of hands.

Oooh, me! Me!! :wave1:

[Zimmerman The Gnome]

How do you know it's the right desicion?Sometimes people get away with it.They just don't have enough evidience.Just like OJ.Who was guilty as sin and Robert Blake who paid someone else to do it.They'll be watching Mike like a hawk now.

I don't know anymore than you. Maybe they don't have the evidence. I'm not going to say anymore as I don't have any interest in getting into a discussion on MJ as he doesn't really concern me much. But it's innocent until proven guilty and whether he is guilty or just been set up I don't think we'll ever really know....

[Beatle_4]

Im my opinion, he's as guilty as hell. This was the second or third time that he has had this type of trouble only this time, it went all the way to court. And, I believe that he got off this time the same way as before. I'll almost bet that a few people will suddenly become rich. Money talks.

There's an old expression. "If it looks like sh** and smells like sh**, then it must be sh**". Considering all that's been said about Jackson and his love for children in the last few years, well you get the idea.

[cryforashadow]

I don't know if he is actually guilty or not, but now that he has to pay his lawyers and other people who worked for him maybe he will sell the rights to the Beatles songs, hopefully back to Paul and not to Sony or whatever. I just think Paul needs to call Jackson up and give him an offer before he loses his chance and never gets to play "Yesterday", or any other song he wrote that Jackson owns, for free.

(also, sorry to talk about The Beatles in the "everything else" section, but I didn't want to start a new thread or try to post it anywhere else)

[HMVNipper]

Im my opinion, he's as guilty as hell. This was the second or third time that he has had this type of trouble only this time, it went all the way to court. And, I believe that he got off this time the same way as before. I'll almost bet that a few people will suddenly become rich. Money talks.

There's an old expression. "If it looks like sh** and smells like sh**, then it must be sh**". Considering all that's been said about Jackson and his love for children in the last few years, well you get the idea.

:clap3: :clap3: :clap3: Bravo, Beatle4, you said it!

[HMVNipper]

I don't know if he is actually guilty or not, but now that he has to pay his lawyers and other people who worked for him maybe he will sell the rights to the Beatles songs, hopefully back to Paul and not to Sony or whatever. I just think Paul needs to call Jackson up and give him an offer before he loses his chance and never gets to play "Yesterday", or any other song he wrote that Jackson owns, for free.

(also, sorry to talk about The Beatles in the "everything else" section, but I didn't want to start a new thread or try to post it anywhere else)

Sony already owns the majority share of the Beatles catalogue...so even if Paul (AND YOKO, John's estate is involved here too) were to buy MJ's share, he still wouldn't be the majority owner. But he gets performance royalties every time the songs are played and performed, don't cry too hard for him...

[beatlebangs1964]

I still believe that MJ is guilty, and the only reason they didn't find him so was because there was reasonable doubt based on the credibility of the accuser and his family. The problem is that it's an "all or nothing" verdict -- if there is reasonable doubt under the law, then you cannot convict. Does not mean he's innocent -- on the contrary, it means they just couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

And I, for one, think he is...but even more guilty are any parents who allow their children to go to Neverland Ranch and remain there unsupervised.

But Mikey'd better watch his ass, he'd better be more careful about who he lets into his bed.....or this will come back to bite him.

And I agree with you, Magill!

So do I! I also think Beatle4 hit the nail on the head with the trenchant "if it looks like excrement, smells like excrement...well, you get the idea.

I agree totally, yeah. I saw an interview and he was so sad... it's pretty obvious he was amazingly affected by his childhood. He needs to find healthy, socially acceptable ways to deal with his grief. He has his own kids...he should just really love them and care well for them? And he can work with kids charities and things, healthy choices.

Hari's Chick, what you suggested are things a normal, healthy adult secure in adulthood would do. Michael Jackson's father beat him and his siblings - that is very sad and unfortunate, but that is no excuse to behave improperly with children, if indeed Michael Jackson is guilty. You made some good suggestions about healthy ways of working through a bad childhood. Many people, myself included had HORRENDOUS childhoods I wouldn't even wish on Charles Manson, but don't behave in inappropriate ways with children. Now, I am not saying Whacko Jacko DID molest these children; I think he did, but since I don't know that for a fact I am not going to make any accusations. Yeah, the family of this second boy had a history of questionable behavior including extortion, but that doesn't mean Jackson was innocent by any means.

Many people have survived beatings and other heinous atrocities - look at David Pelzer, renowned author and survivor of extreme abuse, and he doesn't abuse anybody. Again, I am not saying Jackson is guilty, but I do think there is something to the allegations made against him. What gets me is that he put himself in a position where people could level these types of charges. Instead of setting boundaries between himself and his young charges, e.g. no more bed sharing and to have other adults present to see that nothing untoward took place, he continued doing what he was doing and eventually somebody accused him of molestation.

Sony already owns the majority share of the Beatles catalogue...so even if Paul (AND YOKO, John's estate is involved here too) were to buy MJ's share, he still wouldn't be the majority owner. But he gets performance royalties every time the songs are played and performed, don't cry too hard for him...


Amen, Sister!

What Whacko Jacko didn't seem to get, even after the Martin Bashir interview is that society at large frowns on any adult sharing a bed with children. Bashir actually dropped his head in his hands and winced when Jackson gushed about how "loving" this was.

Susan, I am glad you said what you did about parents allowing their children to spend time with Jackson. Knowing this man is not a walking board of mental health and knowing that he is emotionally a child and knowing that the cloud of suspicion hangs over him, it does beg the question of why would anybody allow their child to go to Neverland unsupervised. Heck, I think Jackson needs adult supervision!

[beatlebangs1964]

Not surprised.Too bad they couldn't find him guilty of being a complete idiot!

If that was a legal charge, Chris, there would be more jails than houses!

Yup, but I think it's more because there was reasonable doubt, not because he really isn't guilty. Sorry, but any 46 year old man who sleeps in his bed with little boys is sick, sick, sick.

Just like OJ.... :rolleyes:

I still believe that MJ is guilty, and the only reason they didn't find him so was because there was reasonable doubt based on the credibility of the accuser and his family. The problem is that it's an "all or nothing" verdict -- if there is reasonable doubt under the law, then you cannot convict. Does not mean he's innocent -- on the contrary, it means they just couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

And I, for one, think he is...but even more guilty are any parents who allow their children to go to Neverland Ranch and remain there unsupervised.

But Mikey'd better watch his ass, he'd better be more careful about who he lets into his bed.....or this will come back to bite him.

And I agree with you, Magill!

I agree, Susan and Magill. I agree with what you said about reasonable doubt. I think any grown man who sleeps with little boys and sees nothing wrong with sharing his bed with children is very sick indeed. :rolleyes:

All these preliminaries...I think Lynner was right to want the verdict to be announced already instead of drawing it out. For Pete's sake! And since Michael Jackson is involved, you know damn good and well there is going to be a media circus...the entourage...the umbrella...the media....sigh

[adayinthelife]

The dancing on top of the SUV.

I agree with much of what has been said here. I especially agree with the,
"The problem is that it's an "all or nothing" verdict -- if there is reasonable doubt under the law, then you cannot convict. Does not mean he's innocent -- on the contrary, it means they just couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty."

[Hari's Chick]

Many people, myself included had HORRENDOUS childhoods I wouldn't even wish on Charles Manson, but don't behave in inappropriate ways with children.

(((((((HUGS))))))))

Me, too.

[ringo_rama]

I think Michael Jackson needs help, but I still don't think he's guilty. I don't think he's hurting any of these kids. Sleeping with children other than your own is inappropriate, but the thing is, I don't think he even realizes that.

He should get treatment, but I still think the guy is innocent.

[DizzymissLizzy909]

I wasn't very surprised at the not guilty verdict for his molestation charges... I was surprised, however, that he got off on all ten charges. I would have thought they would have found enough evidence against him, after all this time, to charge him for at least a few of them, like serving alcohol to minors.

MJ is one hell of a creepy guy, and he probably IS capable of molesting little kids, but at the same time I don't feel he really did it. I think the jurors made the right decision in this case, although Jackson still freaks me out just because he is the way he is.

[LovinLennon909]

Money makes the world go around, the world go around, the world go around. Money makes the world go around, it makes the world go 'round. A mark, a yen, a buck, or a pound, a buck or a pound, a buck or a pound, is all that makes the world go around, that clinking clanking sound, can make the world go 'round. Whoops. I mean I have total faith in the U.S. judicial system.

That many kids,all those ones who've accused MJ over the years, wouldn't lie. I think MJ not only picks and chooses what kids he's going to molest, he just as carefully picks and chooses kids with idiot parents. I think MJ preys on the parents of the kids he molests, as well; he picks children whose parents will be appeased by a shopping trip or an exotic vacation when they learn that MJ has been abusing their kids. I also think the parents of these children should have been thrown in jail right alongside Jackson for not protecting their own little boys.

Okay, so MJ got away with it, just like OJ and Robert Blake and probably how Phil Spector will too. But the thing is, is that OJ and Blake probaby won't ever kill anyone again. MJ will be free to once again abuse as many young boys as he can file through his bed. I agree, MJ is a sick man who needs treatment...rather than jail, actually, he needs psychiatric rehabilatation.

[ringo_rama]

That many kids,all those ones who've accused MJ over the years, wouldn't lie.

But as you said in your first paragraph, "Money makes the world go around..." Sure, there are a lot of accusers, but who wants to bet that at least a handful of them are enterprising parents whose children casually knew Michael Jackson and are hoping for a huge payday?

Lisa Marie Presley said something in regards to how MJ must be guilty because he handed out a lot of money to the families of accusers. If it were MY child who had been molested, I'd do everything I could to get the guy behind bars, screw the money. Unfortunately, some parents have a price.

[beatlelover45223]

Yup, but I think it's more because there was reasonable doubt, not because he really isn't guilty. Sorry, but any 46 year old man who sleeps in his bed with little boys is sick, sick, sick.

Just like OJ.... :rolleyes:

and Robert Blake, I heard a lawyer with Court TV who was on The View a few days ago, her prediction "Not Guilty" as in other prominent celebrity cases lately.

[beatlelover45223]

MJ definitely acts like a child(child-like frame of mind), that I think that deserves some sort counseling ( I say grow-up, act like an responsible adult).

I think the shadow of a doubt, definitely worked to MJ's advantage....

[anurag]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/13/opinion/courtwatch/printable701455.shtml

Why Jackson Went Free
June 13, 2005


Easy as 1-2-3...

Michael Jackson today won the fight of his life when a jury of his neighbors -- but certainly not his peers -- gave him the benefit of the doubt and acquitted him of molestation and conspiracy charges. It's a verdict that tells the world, at least those of you who care, that it is not a crime in America to be just about the biggest freak on the planet.

The reasons for Jackson's acquittal are not a mystery. The so-called King of Pop is free now because his Santa Barbara County jury refused to believe the story offered by his accuser, a young man who seemed on the witness stand to be more like a street punk than a victim.

Jackson is free because there was no physical evidence against him and very little compelling eyewitnesses to his alleged crimes. He is free because his lawyers were much, much better than prosecutors. And he is free because he faced one of the weakest criminal cases I have ever seen.

He is free because ordinary citizens, people the complete opposite of him in uncountable ways, weren't willing to cut prosecutors a break on their duty to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson owes his life to this jury; he owes the rest of his days on this planet to their willingness to refuse to take the easy way out and send him packing out of his palatial Neverland for a dozen years or so. This verdict is a testament to their ability to separate Jackson's lifestyle from the allegations against him in this case; to judge the man and the moment by different standards.

It's a verdict that says to the world that under our justice system a tie goes to the defense; that allegations of monstrous evil aren't enough when the person making them leaves genuine doubt about the sincerity of his story. I'm sure that these jurors feel bad for the young man and his family who leveled charges at Jackson. And I'm also sure that the panel feels little love toward Jackson, who was, at best, a negligent and irresponsible host. But this verdict reaffirms the rule that this type of sympathy or empathy for the accuser, and this type of antipathy for the accused, is simply not enough to convict someone of a felony and doom them to prison (and, for Jackson, probably death).

Jackson is free because Santa Barbara County District Attorney Thomas Sneddon backed the wrong stable of horses. Putting his personal reputation on the line in this case, the old-school prosecutor endorsed the testimony of a family that he might have instead sought to indict. Sneddon knew or should have known long before trial that the accuser and his mother had terrible reliability and credibility problems; he knew or should have known that they would come off as shady to jurors; and he knew or should have known that Jackson's lead attorney, Thomas Mesereau, would skewer them on the witness stand. Why he picked this family, above all the other families whom he believes also were molested by Jackson, is beyond me. If Sneddon just took his last best shot at Jackson it was a feeble volley indeed.

And yet Sneddon went ahead with the latest trial of the century anyway, figuring I suppose that a Santa Barbara County jury, in its old-fashioned splendor, would see the case as an opportunity to run Jackson out of town. Sneddon must have presumed that jurors would give his witnesses and his theory the benefit of the doubt. But they surprised him, this group, and by the middle of the trial it was clear that they were scoffing at the case against Jackson. One of the many sad sights in this trial was the sight of Sneddon, the hometown boy, pouting and slouching at counsel table when things didn't go his way. I have seen lawyers get angry when they lose a motion or an argument over an objection. I have never before seen them act like a toddler.

It was a bush league performance at the major league level. Somewhere, O.J. Simpson prosecutor Marcia Clark is sighing in relief. Now Sneddon joins her in the pantheon of lawyers who have failed miserably when the spotlight shone the brightest. Only in many ways Sneddon has more to answer for than Clark. Unlike Clark, Sneddon could have waited to bring his case against Jackson or chosen not to bring it at all. Over and over again at trial, prosecution witnesses said things that seemed to surprise Sneddon; over and over again witnesses told jurors that law enforcement officials had not interviewed them before trial.

Even a huge mid-trial ruling by Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville, which allowed prosecutors to parade before jurors other Jackson accusers, could not make up for the obvious deficiencies in the case against Jackson. The judge had said early at trial that he would not save a weak case by allowing these prior "bad acts" witnesses to testify. And then he did precisely that. This case would have been over long ago, in favor of Jackson, if prosecutors had not been able to pour these other witnesses into the breach. If Jackson had been convicted, this ruling surely would have formed the basis of his appeal. But now Jackson doesn't have to worry about all that.

What he still does have to worry about, however, is a civil lawsuit brought by this same family asking for money from the star. If and when this lawsuit comes about, Jackson will be required to testify, under oath, in private in a deposition, and then again in public in a courtroom should the case get that far (don't bet on it). So we have not seen the last of this fight, I suspect, and a lot of what the principals say now in the aftermath of this verdict will be said with a view toward that future litigation. Don't bet your own private Neverland, in other words, that Jackson will be doing any more prime-time interviews.

Unfortunately for Jackson, it's not clear whether he'll be able to use Mesereau in that civil case. Without the silver-haired, silver-tongued counsel, Jackson today might be in prison garb despite the lack of a good case against him. The defense lawyer was masterful. He successfully convinced jurors that Jackson was the prey and not the predator in this story; sold them on the idea that a man who accused of using his power and fame to lure the innocent into sex was instead the innocent being lured into financial catastrophe. Mesereau right now is the Paris Hilton of lawyers. Only his hair is better.

So it's finally over, this grand, gross spectacle of Ick. A man who acts like a kid came up against a kid who acts like a man. Prosecutors backed the kid and the jury backed the man. And I'm fairly sure that no one involved is ever going to be the same again.



©MMV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[adayinthelife]

People will never look at MJ the same again. Even if the verdict was Not Guilty people still look at you differently, with suspicion. I don't think he'll ever be famous in a good way again.

[FPSHOT]

If his kid which he hung over this balcony, is like 18 years of age and sees the video of that, he will also probably say...."Oh but I'm still here.."

I am glad that at least you guys know very well if he is innocent or guilty...

When are the trials starting against all these parents who offered their kids to sleep at his house after the first "rumours" started going round?

Btw...I have no judgement on this case, it's another US Media Circus, and I believe the "Defence" probably laughed their a..es out when they saw what the prosecution came up with....

[beatlebangs1964]

But as you said in your first paragraph, "Money makes the world go around..." Sure, there are a lot of accusers, but who wants to bet that at least a handful of them are enterprising parents whose children casually knew Michael Jackson and are hoping for a huge payday?

Lisa Marie Presley said something in regards to how MJ must be guilty because he handed out a lot of money to the families of accusers. If it were MY child who had been molested, I'd do everything I could to get the guy behind bars, screw the money. Unfortunately, some parents have a price.

Amen, Rama!

I think most people would take the same position - if it was my child, I'd do everything under the sun to get Jackson behind bars and the heck with the money. Sadly, there are people, like you said who have their price. Damn! The child's well being should come before anything else, money included.

[DizzymissLizzy909]

In this case, I think the accuser's mother is more wacko than Jackson himself. That's probably why he got off with a Not Guilty verdict on all ten of the charges...

[beatlebangs1964]

Good point...that woman is 5 cans short of a 6-pack and has not set a good example for her children. From all accounts she has a history of extortion, including trying to get money from Jay Leno. Just because she has her own truckload of problems doesn't mean Jackson is guilty OR innocent!

[beatlegirl9977]

When are the trials starting against all these parents who offered their kids to sleep at his house after the first "rumours" started going round?

You got that right. There are some REAL crazy parents out there who have absolutely no regard for their child's well-being; I've seen it first-hand.

[monstr66]

I think it's a usual thing, they just tried to make some money on old poor Michael. Thanks God they couldn't make it...

[beatlebangs1964]

When are the trials starting against all these parents who offered their kids to sleep at his house after the first "rumours" started going round?

Good question, FPSHOT. The message that sends out is that there is tacit approval of letting this grown man sleep with kids. Sick!

You got that right. There are some REAL crazy parents out there who have absolutely no regard for their child's well-being; I've seen it first-hand.

Amen, FPSHOT & BG! There ARE crazy parents out there and for those who disregard the safety of their children, they are in effect saying they approve of predators and predatory behavior. Sadly, I've seen it first-hand as well and know all too well the high cost of silence. Secrets hurt and harm.

[beatlelover45223]

Btw...I have no judgement on this case, it's another US Media Circus, and I believe the "Defence" probably laughed their a..es out when they saw what the prosecution came up with....

that would be international media circus, many many of the news media were from outside the US...

[HMVNipper]

MORE of the news media, actually -- there was an article I read the other day that said the Europeans and Japanese sent more reporters than the American media, because people are more interested in MJ in other parts of the world than they are here anymore.

[beatlelover45223]

I saw something similar on the news last night about MJ's huge popularity in Europe and Japan Susan.

[jtal909]

"Did you hear that Saddam Hussein wants to move his trial to Santa Maria, California?"

David Letterman

[motherTheresa]

"Did you hear that Saddam Hussein wants to move his trial to Santa Maria, California?"

David Letterman


thanks for the quote jtal!

:jumping:

:laugh7: :laugh7: :laugh7:

[chiliace]

Good question, FPSHOT. The message that sends out is that there is tacit approval of letting this grown man sleep with kids. Sick!



Amen, FPSHOT & BG! There ARE crazy parents out there and for those who disregard the safety of their children, they are in effect saying they approve of predators and predatory behavior. Sadly, I've seen it first-hand as well and know all too well the high cost of silence. Secrets hurt and harm.

The message I see is that parents that use their kids as bait in a grifter's set-up should be put on trial for child endangerment. That's what I thought FPSHOT meant. It's all about the money, at least in the eyes of scammer. This verdict , or message,wasn't about parents approval of sexual predators, tacit or otherwise. To me that does not follow. What the crooked parents "approve of" is cold hard cash. To them, the childs well-being is simply a bargaining chip. So , so sad.

[HMVNipper]

I agree, Chiliace, it's sad when parents put cold hard cash before the well-being of their children.

Unfortunately, the family Thomas Sneddon chose to be his case were just not the most reliable of witnesses..and so even if the kid WAS molested, because of the family's background there was an immediate question about their credibility.

I can tell you that, had it been my child who was molested (IF this child was), I'd do everything within my power to be sure that the guilty party was given what he deserved -- but not for money, for the love of my child. I would quite literally want to kill anyone who harmed my baby, but then I'm not a grifter with a shady past...but because the family in this case had a shady past, even if that was indeed the case, their believability was in doubt.

(Does that make sense?)

[beatlebangs1964]

I also agree, Chil and thought that was EXACTLY what was meant. The children involved sound as if they are being used for bait and that does indeed put them in jeopardy. It takes a sick person to endanger their child knowingly and with the idea of seeing profit.

Sadly, the child's family did have a shady past as Susan stated above. Even on the AOL news the headline read "Jury Irked by Mother." Regardless of her past, I think the normal and natural response is the one Susan made above. It is only natural that any parent would want to kill anybody who harmed their child(ren) and see that the perpetrator got his/her just desserts. This would not be about money, but as Susan said maternal love. Even though in this case the child's family had a questionable background, it does not mean Michael Jackson was innocent.

And why on earth would anybody knowingly allow their child(ren) to stay for overnight visits at Neverland? Where is the adult supervision?!

[FPSHOT]

The message I see is that parents that use their kids as bait in a grifter's set-up should be put on trial for child endangerment. That's what I thought FPSHOT meant. It's all about the money, at least in the eyes of scammer. This verdict , or message,wasn't about parents approval of sexual predators, tacit or otherwise. To me that does not follow. What the crooked parents "approve of" is cold hard cash. To them, the childs well-being is simply a bargaining chip. So , so sad.

I was not referring to money really...just the simple fact that parents do that..being aware of the rumours.

[chiliace]

I also agree, Chil and thought that was EXACTLY what was meant. The children involved sound as if they are being used for bait and that does indeed put them in jeopardy. It takes a sick person to endanger their child knowingly and with the idea of seeing profit.

Sadly, the child's family did have a shady past as Susan stated above. Even on the AOL news the headline read "Jury Irked by Mother." Regardless of her past, I think the normal and natural response is the one Susan made above. It is only natural that any parent would want to kill anybody who harmed their child(ren) and see that the perpetrator got his/her just desserts. This would not be about money, but as Susan said maternal love. Even though in this case the child's family had a questionable background, it does not mean Michael Jackson was innocent.

And why on earth would anybody knowingly allow their child(ren) to stay for overnight visits at Neverland? Where is the adult supervision?!

Yes, Beatle Bangs and Nipper, after reading the posts I believe that all reasonable angles have been explored. The mother's perspective is well taken. I guess this is old news now, but I just thought I would reply to acknowledge the posts and the thought that went into them. Time to move on, and God bless and protect the children.

[Beatle_4]

I found these last night and meant to post earlier, so here you go. There are 18 pages of cartoons concerning the Jackson verdict. I thought they were kind of funny.

http://www.cagle.com/news/MichaelJacksonVerdict/1.asp

[Feef_The_Hippy]

I think he was innocent this time, I really do.

But I would NEVER, under ANY circumstances, send my child to Neverland. Not even before the 1993 allegations were made.

[beatlebangs1964]

But I would NEVER, under ANY circumstances, send my child to Neverland. Not even before the 1993 allegations were made.

Amen, Sistah!

What I DON'T understand is if someone is even so much suspected of pedophilia, why on earth would anyone allow child to spend time with that person?!

[DizzymissLizzy909]

I found these last night and meant to post earlier, so here you go. There are 18 pages of cartoons concerning the Jackson verdict. I thought they were kind of funny.

http://www.cagle.com/news/MichaelJacksonVerdict/1.asp

:laugh5: Some of those are pretty good!

There was one I really liked... "Fellow jurors, it's come down to this - which one is weirder?" in reference to Jackson and the mother. I thought that sums everything up pretty well.

[Feef_The_Hippy]

BeatleBangs - I think because so many people think he's completely innocent, they send thier kids over. It's the only reason I can farthom about it.

[ringo_rama]

Amen, Sistah!

What I DON'T understand is if someone is even so much suspected of pedophilia, why on earth would anyone allow child to spend time with that person?!

Two words: cha-ching!

[beatlebangs1964]

Does "cha-ching" mean $?

[ringo_rama]

Yep.

[beatlelover45223]

I have watched The View (TV show talk show) all week and they have been doing some reporting on Michael, seems that Michael's family members were video taping themselves(their trauma, feelings, thoughts etc;) during this whole ordeal, and are planning on selling it? The View also mentioned that Michael is talking with his brothers about a European tour as the 5 brothers again( safety in numbers perhaps)?

[Beatle_4]

I was watching the news tonight and they were talking about a party MJ threw as a celebration on the verdict. Although MJ didn't show up himself, Janet, his mother and, now get this, so did one of the jurors. Something smells rotten there. To me, this just doesn't sit right. Makes a person wonder if there "might" be some sort of shenanigans going on there. Having one of the jurors at your celebration party just after being aquitted?

I don't know about that.

[Zimmerman The Gnome]

I was watching the news tonight and they were talking about a party MJ threw as a celebration on the verdict. Although MJ didn't show up himself, Janet, his mother and, now get this, so did one of the jurors. Something smells rotten there. To me, this just doesn't sit right. Makes a person wonder if there "might" be some sort of shenanigans going on there. Having one of the jurors at your celebration party just after being aquitted?

I don't know about that.

The juror probably just wants to milk his 5 minutes of fame!

[beatlebangs1964]

The whole thing smells rotten to me. I think the jurors probably wanted to milk their 5 minutes of fame into 15 minutes or more! As for the party, nothing about it sits right or feels right to me!

[DizzymissLizzy909]

I was watching the news tonight and they were talking about a party MJ threw as a celebration on the verdict. Although MJ didn't show up himself, Janet, his mother and, now get this, so did one of the jurors. Something smells rotten there. To me, this just doesn't sit right. Makes a person wonder if there "might" be some sort of shenanigans going on there. Having one of the jurors at your celebration party just after being aquitted?

I don't know about that.

Yeah, that sounds pretty suspicious to me... :thinker:

Does anyone even know what MJ has done since the verdict? I've heard all his plans of his family, remarks made by fans, the jurors, pretty much everyone else involved in the trial, but nothing about Jackson himself. I guess he's secluded himself for a little while?

[motherTheresa]

I have watched The View (TV show talk show) all week and they have been doing some reporting on Michael, seems that Michael's family members were video taping themselves(their trauma, feelings, thoughts etc;) during this whole ordeal, and are planning on selling it?


they were planning on trying to get it on the air as a reality series. i

read (sorry i can't remember the specifics) that 3 networks passed

on the offer....

and as far as where he is or what he is doing.....i wish he would fall off

the planet. can't stand his ass. if one of his songs comes on the radio,

i turn the channel. and if i said what i would really LIKE to say, this

forum would suffer a meltdown from the profanity. too bad, it would

be great fun to go out in a blaze of glory! :wink3: