
» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society
Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
Subject: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Suzy on 05/27/04 at 7:02 am
Hi!
I have just read the "OJ revisited" thread in the 90's section and it made me think of one of today's high profile cases: the Michael Jackson child molestation charges. I just would like to know what everybody thinks of it here.
During his first case I thought it was just a set-up. Now I rather tend to think he is guilty. What made me change my mind? It's just that I did some reasearch on him and pedophilia(sp?) on the WWW and he does seem to fit into the pedophile profile! Also he never really had normal relationships with women. Meanwhile he is always with these 12-14 year old boys. Not girls, just boys and always about the same age (12-14). And when they grow up he just loses interest in them.
So yes, I think MJ is BAD and it is a pity because he had the talent.... :-\\
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: philbo on 05/27/04 at 8:18 am
Still doesn't prove that he's actually molested or harmed any of them in any way: he's certainly a screwed-up kind of character, which isn't exactly surprising given the life he's led, but that doesn't make him a child-molester.
My gut feeling is that he's not sexually assaulted any of the boys, but probably does gain some kind of gratification from having them around. I wonder whether the boys concerned have come to any harm (mental more than physical - if it were the latter it would be an open-and-shut case)... and if not, should there be a trial at all?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Cheetara on 05/27/04 at 10:42 am
I don't have the facts. Therefore, I cannot convict him and say that he is guilty. It wouldn't be fair. Michael, is strange...everyone agrees. Being strange doesn't necessarily means that he is a child molester. If he is, then by all means he should be prosecuted. The parents of the victims should be prosecuted as well for being so stupid and careless. :-\\ It just goes to show that people are willing to put their children in harm's way for the sake of money and fame. Sad... :-X
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/27/04 at 11:16 am
I heard that a lady at the beach had to deal with him yesterday. She said "Would you please move...you're in my son"....But seriously, okay, so the dangling his kid out of a window and then going on 20/20 last year to say that he has NEVER had plastic surgery ::)....that doesn't mean he's guilty but I sure hope they prove that he is.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/27/04 at 11:41 am
Still doesn't prove that he's actually molested or harmed any of them in any way: he's certainly a screwed-up kind of character, which isn't exactly surprising given the life he's led, but that doesn't make him a child-molester.
My gut feeling is that he's not sexually assaulted any of the boys, but probably does gain some kind of gratification from having them around. I wonder whether the boys concerned have come to any harm (mental more than physical - if it were the latter it would be an open-and-shut case)... and if not, should there be a trial at all?
Ditto, Philbo.
I think he's guilty of something to do with touchy-feely with minors, and possibly providing minors with prescription drugs and alcohol. I don't think I could serve on a Wacko Jacko jury. This stuff is too hard to prove.
I also agree with 80sCheerleader, the parents were irresponsible letting their kids go to MJ's unchaperoned, especially after the last round of suspicions.
It's too bad there wasn't a "responsible adult" who could supervise MJ himself. You know, "Michael, it's great to invite kids to your park for fun, but we don't sleep in the same bed with them..." However, when your a multi-multi-millionaire weirdo recluse, you pretty much get to do what you want.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Cheetara on 05/27/04 at 11:52 am
One thing....we do know for a fact. A crime has been committed here. Michael is guilty of committing a "fashion felony". LOL What is up with the whole military looking outfits?  He hasn't even been in the BOY SCOUTS let alone...serving the armed forces... lolÂÂ
OK...ok... I'm just being silly here. ÂÂ
:D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: SuperFreak on 05/27/04 at 1:12 pm
Guilty
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: LyricBoy on 05/27/04 at 1:36 pm
I am not sure how much of his persona is a "sickness" and how much is just plain old criminality. Evil, if you will.
He has this public personal that is shown by his childlike behaviour and his fairy-like voice and mannerisms.
But once he got Mesereau as a lawyer, and Mesereau told him that this is not a joke and that he could go to the slammer, he got up to that podium and WALKED and TALKED like a normal person. Normal speech, normal diction, normal mannerisms. To me, that means that he does NOT have a childlike "personality" and rather, he knows EXACTLY what he has been doing. If I am right this is an issue of complete CRIMINALITY rather than psychologically-driven criminality.
I have a customer who has a distinctive, foreign-sounding name, and he talks with this great Brazilian accent when we do business. But on more than one occasion I've caught him accidentally slipping into a Brooklyn accent. I've always been waiting for the right time and place to "call him out" on his charade.
I feel similarly about MJ now. That podium speech was a big mistake for him, 'cause we now all know that the fairy thing was a big act.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: QueenAmenRa on 05/27/04 at 3:14 pm
"I...I think it's terrible what the police do to wealthy black men....Yes! They do it because...because their hearts are full of greed and they have doo-doo in their souls." :P
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/27/04 at 4:15 pm
"I...I think it's terrible what the police do to wealthy black men....Yes! They do it because...because their hearts are full of greed and they have doo-doo in their souls."   :P
Sorry but I think it's horrible that rich, poor, black, white...people...whatever, like to think they can get away with crap like this...remember, OJ was rich too ::) Although so was that Kennedy guy that murdered Martha Moxley >:(
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Cheetara on 05/27/04 at 4:23 pm
Sorry but I think it's horrible that rich, poor, black, white...people...whatever, like to think they can get away with crap like this...remember, OJ was rich too ::) Although so was that Kennedy guy that murdered Martha Moxley >:(
Yeah it seems like people who have MONEY have a better chance of getting away with it...rather than the average joe.ÂÂ
In Michael's case, I look at it like this...if he is GUILTY then prosecute him. If he is, NOT GUILTY then he should be exonerated.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/27/04 at 4:29 pm
Yeah it seems like people who have MONEY have a better chance of getting away with it...rather than the average joe.ÂÂ
In Michael's case, I look at it like this...if he is GUILTY then prosecute him. If he is, NOT GUILTY then he should be exonerated.
I agree...I just hope "Race Card Johnnie" doesn't ever defend him...then if he really is guilty Cochran will find a way to ...pardon this...."Get Him Off" :o ;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 05/27/04 at 5:23 pm
I'd say he's GUILTY! Thing Is,when are they actually gonna send to Jail? It seems this trial is taking forever! >:(
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Hairspray on 05/27/04 at 7:35 pm
At this juncture, my opinion is he's too much of a lying freak not to be guilty. Just the fact that he lied about something so obvious as his many surgeries; to say he's only had one to fix a breathing problem is quite blatant. I can only imagine what else he lies about. Heck, the man lies to himself for Pete’s sake. :P In all seriousness though, I truly believe he's mentally damaged and very likely to have committed crimes related to children, with whom he obsesses.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: AL-B on 05/27/04 at 7:40 pm
I heard that Michael Jackson had to quit Cub Scouts...he was up to three packs a day! ;D ;D ;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 05/27/04 at 9:58 pm
I heard that Michael Jackson had to quit Cub Scouts...he was up to three packs a day! ;D ;D ;D
Oh, these joke are soooo bad! Here's one I heard:
Why did Michael Jackson go to Wal-Mart?
He heard boys pants were half off!
:P
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Suzy on 05/28/04 at 1:46 am
I don't have the facts. Therefore, I cannot convict him and say that he is guilty. It wouldn't be fair. Michael, is strange...everyone agrees. Being strange doesn't necessarily means that he is a child molester. If he is, then by all means he should be prosecuted. The parents of the victims should be prosecuted as well for being so stupid and careless.  :-\\ It just goes to show that people are willing to put their children in harm's way for the sake of money and fame. Sad... :-X
I agree that being strange doesn't prove guilt. This is how I felt about him for a long time. I thought: people think he is guilty only because he is different. But now I look at it from another aspect. Can it be that he is actually hiding his perversity behind his strangeness? I mean he just wants us to beleive he is this "big kid", a little wierd but harmless?
I mean if an everyday 45-year-old guy would want to have sleepovers with your son you would have suspecions immediately. But because he is Michael Jackson, people think: "Oh he is just a big kid, let him do that." This is actually the big deception of this man in my opinion.
BTW, I feel sorry for his own kids. Whether MJ is guilty or not, they don't seem to have a normal childhood and I'd be very surprised if they turned out to be healthy adults with healthy souls. I wish they could have a normal family with normal parents.
RockandRollFan!
I think the race card is more than likely to be played out in this case. What did MJ do when he had a problem with Sony Music? Yes, he played out the race card and accused Tommy Motolla to be a racist (never mind that Motolla was married to Mariah Carrey who is half black)....
And BTW, they are already suggesting that the DA Tom Sneddon is a racist....
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/28/04 at 12:43 pm
RockandRollFan!
I think the race card is more than likely to be played out in this case. What did MJ do when he had a problem with Sony Music? Yes, he played out the race card and accused Tommy Motolla to be a racist (never mind that Motolla was married to Mariah Carrey who is half black)....
And BTW, they are already suggesting that the DA Tom Sneddon is a racist....
Suzy :)
It depends on what "Color" he chooses to be at the trial! When I was very young we had a television that was just like him....A Black And White ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: QueenAmenRa on 05/28/04 at 1:04 pm
Sorry but I think it's horrible that rich, poor, black, white...people...whatever, like to think they can get away with crap like this...remember, OJ was rich too ::) Although so was that Kennedy guy that murdered Martha Moxley >:(
Hey! I know MJ's guilty as hell. I was just making a South Park quote. Guess nobody caught it.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/28/04 at 4:46 pm
Hey! I know MJ's guilty as hell. I was just making a South Park quote. Guess nobody caught it.
Sorry QueenAmenRa...I need to start watching it more ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 05/28/04 at 7:00 pm
just imagine if he goes to jail by the time his 46th Birthday August 29th comes up? :o
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Suzy on 05/29/04 at 1:51 am
just imagine if he goes to jail by the time his 46th Birthday August 29th comes up? :o
Howard
I don't think there's a chance for that because it seems it's going to be a long process. Some say the real trial won't even start before the end of this year.
Just read this and compare to what you know about Michael Jackson. It is interesting:
http://www.times10.org/pedophile112002.htm
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: LyricBoy on 05/29/04 at 7:25 am
One thing....we do know for a fact. A crime has been committed here. Michael is guilty of committing a "fashion felony". LOL What is up with the whole military looking outfits?  He hasn't even been in the BOY SCOUTS let alone...serving the armed forces... lolÂÂ
OK...ok... I'm just being silly here. ÂÂ
:D
Au contraire. I bet that Michael has been VERY interested in boy scouting.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 05/29/04 at 9:01 am
So,when they say he's guilty and done with,My guess is that his music and acting career would be over and no one would be able to save him maybe except for Jermaine and brothers and then after 20 years he will be long forgotten.
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 05/29/04 at 11:14 am
Nope, read in the paper this morning that a "tentative" trial date has been set for Sept 13.
There is no way that he'll be innocent.I'd say he's guilty and gone to jail for 20 years. >:(Good bye Career! >:(
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: goodsin on 05/29/04 at 12:58 pm
He hasn't even been in the BOY SCOUTS let alone...serving the armed forces... lolÂÂ
At this stage, I'd not like to lay a bet against him having experience of both!
Culpable, yes, guilty, no. I think he has a strange obsession with teenage boys, and as stated above, uses his 'Peter Pan' bit to cover his perversions. I believe he probably has made sexual advances towards some of the boys he choses to share his personal life with. I have said no to him being guilty in the sense that I feel his brand of psychopathy would not let him feel remorse, as he feels he is not responsible for his actions in the first place. I feel he is a dangerous man, whom the shock of being convicted (he won't be, but if he was) would drive to suicide.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: AL-B on 05/29/04 at 1:27 pm
I went to www.thesmokinggun.com a while back and they had the deposition from the kid who first accused Wacko Jacko of sexual molestation about 10 years ago (and whose accusation Jackson DID NOT challenge, but instead settled for $10 MILLION). It went into graphic detail about what Jackson had done to him and it was one of the SICKEST things I'd ever read. I will not repeat anything I read there because it was so vile and revolting, but I will say that if these allegations are true then I think Michael Jackson deserves the DEATH PENALTY for what he did to these boys. >:( >:( >:(
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Suzy on 05/29/04 at 3:55 pm
At this stage, I'd not like to lay a bet against him having experience of both!
Culpable, yes, guilty, no. I think he has a strange obsession with teenage boys, and as stated above, uses his 'Peter Pan' bit to cover his perversions. I believe he probably has made sexual advances towards some of the boys he choses to share his personal life with. I have said no to him being guilty in the sense that I feel his brand of psychopathy would not let him feel remorse, as he feels he is not responsible for his actions in the first place. I feel he is a dangerous man, whom the shock of being convicted (he won't be, but if he was) would drive to suicide.
It is interesting that you say this because you are not the first pesron I hear to have this opinion (that if he'll be convicted he probably will try to commit suicide). One of the people who said it also said she was worried about his kids. Let's hope he won't do anything crazy to them!
BTW, this Peter Pan obsession is also really interesting. I have read that the author of Peter Pan was a suspected pedophile himself....
Of course, at that time it was tabu, so we cannot be sure but given his strange relationship with young boys (and even he had stories which could be easily condisered as pedopile today!) some think he probably had pedophilic orientations!
Here is an article about that:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/02/22/the_real_peter_pan/
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: LyricBoy on 05/29/04 at 5:41 pm
There is no way that he'll be innocent.I'd say he's guilty and gone to jail for 20 years. >:(Good bye Career! >:(
Howard
Just think Howard... they could do a whole new genre of those cheesy "Jackson Reunion" shows.
The Michael Jackson 15 years in Prison Show... live from Folsom Prison. Hosted by Pee Wee Herman.
;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: LyricBoy on 05/29/04 at 8:13 pm
I think he said that a looooooooong time ago ;D
Well, if he goes to jail and experiences the "thug life", he could resurrect his career doing Gangster Rap. ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 05/30/04 at 10:33 am
Just think Howard... they could do a whole new genre of those cheesy "Jackson Reunion" shows.
The Michael Jackson 15 years in Prison Show... live from Folsom Prison. Hosted by Pee Wee Herman.
;D
I just can't see Michael in jail with gray hair mustache,beard & glasses.At 65,who knows if he'll be able to dance again.He'll wind up with arthritis. ;D
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 05/30/04 at 10:35 am
Well, if he goes to jail and experiences the "thug life", he could resurrect his career doing Gangster Rap. ;)
Gangster Rap...I don't think so but it's a possibility.His new name would be Wacko Jacko. ;)
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: hoogbest on 05/30/04 at 10:43 am
What I want to know is how he got away with his lifestyle so long without being seriously busted before. Yea I know he's an eccentric big star BUT..............this whole children thing was always weird. What a shame to see such a great talent come to this and where were his close friends, advisors and confidants like Germain and Elizabeth while he was morphing from a handsome mega-star to a potential giver and receiver in a prison ward? :P
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: LyricBoy on 05/30/04 at 3:23 pm
I just can't see Michael in jail with gray hair mustache,beard & glasses.At 65,who knows if he'll be able to dance again.He'll wind up with arthritis. ;D
Howard
I don't know about arthritis, but if Michael is still in prison when he is 65, he'll certainly have a case of proctitis.
:P
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Bobby on 05/30/04 at 6:52 pm
I may have been misinformed but what's this I hear about somebody finding a crotchless bunny suit in Jackson's ranch?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 05/31/04 at 10:02 am
I don't know about arthritis, but if Michael is still in prison when he is 65, he'll certainly have a case of proctitis.
:P
Let's just assume that the next day on TV there was a very special news bulletin that Michael Jackson after a 30 year career was headed off to jail for 20 years,how do you think the fans would react or would they give a crap? :P
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Suzy on 05/31/04 at 12:39 pm
I think his fans are some of the most fanatical people I've ever seen! (Maybe because only the most fanatical are left by now :P ) They totally refuse any suggestion of WHAT IF he did it. It is unimaginable for them so no, most of them would never accept he is or MAY BE guilty. I'm afraid not even if there would be evidence against him that speaks crystal clearly for anybody else.
They would say it is fake, it is this, it is that. On the other hand we have to admit that it is very difficult to give 100% evidence in such a case so at the end there would always be people who question the outcome of the case - no matter what it is.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: LyricBoy on 05/31/04 at 4:30 pm
Let's just assume that the next day on TV there was a very special news bulletin that Michael Jackson after a 30 year career was headed off to jail for 20 years,how do you think the fans would react or would they give a crap? :P
Howard
Who knows? Maybe there will be celebrations, maybe there will be riots. :-\\
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 06/01/04 at 4:36 pm
Who knows? Maybe there will be celebrations, maybe there will be riots. :-\\
I bet girls from all around the world would be writing letters to Michael Jackson saying that he's not guilty. ;D
The guys probably wouldn't even care ???
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 01/03/05 at 7:16 pm
there was some breaking news about Michael Jackson's wife and some allegations.I'll bring it to you when I get some more details.
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 01/03/05 at 7:30 pm
Actually, the mother of the victim supposedly scammed some people in their hometown out of some $$ for her son's cancer treatment, which had been covered 100% by the dad's insurance. Oh, and Debbie Rowe filed for joint (or sole, can't remember) custody of the kids or visitation or something like that.
his trial starts January 31st.this time there won't be any dancing in the courthouse. >:(
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 01/04/05 at 11:50 am
his trial starts January 31st.this time there won't be any dancing in the courthouse. >:(
Howard
I just hope it's not another OJ trial. "Michael Jackson couldn't fit into the little boys pants" ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 01/04/05 at 5:59 pm
I just hope it's not another OJ trial. "Michael Jackson couldn't fit into the little boys pants" ::)
If he is to be found guilty,so be it.I guess it was meant to be.He deserves it.Let's see how many years he'll get. >:(
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 01/05/05 at 8:38 pm
We can all say goodbye to his career soon. >:(
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Tanya1976 on 01/05/05 at 8:54 pm
Yup, he's guilty!
Tanya
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 01/06/05 at 4:40 pm
What will happen if news reports that he does get jail time? >:(
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: ktelqueen on 01/06/05 at 11:48 pm
guilty.totally.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 01/08/05 at 9:14 pm
I can't wait for the newspaper to have the front page say: JACKO-JAIL-O. >:(
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 01/09/05 at 9:40 pm
So January 31st is the day that he'll know whether he's guilty or not guilty? ???
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Miss Tainted on 01/10/05 at 3:22 am
The man has issues........... :o I'd say he's guilty
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 01/10/05 at 7:31 pm
Jacko Jail-o
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 01/10/05 at 9:44 pm
It's for sure that he's gulity of these things but unfortunately there's no law against them ???
1. Looks like a FREAK!http://www.cyberpaperboy.com/M_Jackson.jpg
2. ACTS like a FREAK! http://www.star.niu.edu/images-daily/112002/michael_jackson_baby.jpg
3. Is a VERY MEAN "Person"....read on: "The Girl Is Mine", recorded with emerging pop megastar Michael Jackson. Another successful McCartney-Jackson duet, "Say, Say, Say" was released in 1983.
McCartney's friendship with Jackson was shortlived, however. Not long afterwards, Jackson paid a huge sum to acquire the Northern Songs catalogue, which included the publishing rights to all the Beatles' songs. Although McCartney subsequently approached Jackson hoping to negotiate an increase in his royalty rate, he was rebuffed. In an interview in MOJO magazine, McCartney told how he phoned Jackson and argued that, had he been a simple employee, he would surely have been entitled to a raise, considering the great success he had generated for the company. Jackson reportedly answered "Oh Paul, that's just business" and hung up. They have apparently never spoken since then.
If he's found guilty of molestation then I say to to H E L L with MJ and if he's not found guilty I still say to H E L L with this piece of garbage >:(
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: bj26 on 01/13/05 at 12:54 pm
I don't have the facts & probably never will, so I have uncertain feelings about MJ's case. If I could interview him, I could probably make a conclusion but don't think that's in the cards. Anyway, I watched the Southpark spin on MJ and Blanket last night. I recall laughing out loud watching the episode a month or so ago. Seeing it again last night, I found it to be rather dark and sad.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: saver on 01/13/05 at 5:50 pm
We're missing a good opportunity here: Let's ask what 'The Medium' sees so we can tell her if she was right after it's over..(or Sylvia Brown?) :o
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 01/13/05 at 5:54 pm
So,January 31st we will actually find out if he's guilty or not guilty? ???
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 01/13/05 at 6:02 pm
I don't have the facts & probably never will, so I have uncertain feelings about MJ's case. If I could interview him, I could probably make a conclusion but don't think that's in the cards. Anyway, I watched the Southpark spin on MJ and Blanket last night. I recall laughing out loud watching the episode a month or so ago. Seeing it again last night, I found it to be rather dark and sad.
It's sad that he chose not to stay "Dark"...he was a nice looking gut pre 80's before he turned into...whatever he is :-\\ I alos hate the fact that he screwed Paul McCartney and the rest of the Beatles....he's a jerk now and I really hope he gets what's coming to him whether it's through this case or just good old "Karma" ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 01/13/05 at 6:04 pm
It's sad that he chose not to stay "Dark"...he was a nice looking gut pre 80's before he turned into...whatever he is :-\\ I alos hate the fact that he screwed Paul McCartney and the rest of the Beatles....he's a jerk now and I really hope he gets what's coming to him whether it's through this case or just good old "Karma" ;)
I hope he gets beat up in jail. >:(
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 01/13/05 at 10:16 pm
I hope he gets beat up in jail. >:(
Howard
We don't know if he molested kids or not...we DO know that he is a little punk who is very mean, mixed up and certainly Sick :D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 01/14/05 at 4:22 pm
We don't know if he molested kids or not...we DO know that he is a little punk who is very mean, mixed up and certainly Sick :D
I guess we'll have to wait and see cause we don't know for sure. >:(
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 01/15/05 at 10:21 pm
I guess we'll have to wait and see cause we don't know for sure. >:(
Howard
I know for sure what he did to the Beatles....used thier songs in commercials...he's a jerk, whether he's found guilty or not :P
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Bobby on 01/15/05 at 10:24 pm
I know for sure what he did to the Beatles....used thier songs in commercials...he's a jerk, whether he's found guilty or not :P
Yes, I remember hearing about Jackson buying the Beatles songs off McCartney. Do you know if it was a legit sale or was their deception? I know that McCartney is pretty peeved off with Jackson.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 01/15/05 at 11:08 pm
Yes, I remember hearing about Jackson buying the Beatles songs off McCartney. Do you know if it was a legit sale or was their deception? I know that McCartney is pretty peeved off with Jackson.
Hey Rob! Yeah, the story I got was that the songs were owned by "Northern Songs" and there was an auction to sell the rights....McCartney made the mistake of asking Yoko to make SURE they kept them in the "Beatles" family....yes, Yoko :o She must have been in cahoots with the weird one as he bought the rights. I am very disappointed to know that Jackson doesn't give a crap about the Beatles agreement NOT to use ANY of thier songs in commercials. He is a chump who keeps making money by being a very mean person.....I believe in karma....he will get his someday >:(
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 01/16/05 at 10:21 pm
Do you think Michael Jackson will get nervous when talking in front of a jury? ???
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Force on 01/20/05 at 4:33 pm
You guys are clueless! You're gonna be so dissapointed. And NO you won't find out wether he's guilty or not on January 31st, criminal trials tend to last a little longer than a day. Tell me, is ignorance really bliss?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 01/20/05 at 4:38 pm
We'll just have to see what happens.Maybe he won't get jail time just community service.
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Force on 01/20/05 at 4:47 pm
Gavin Arvizo's mother Janet has accused her ex husband of abusing their son and kidnapping him, she's filed a lawsuit for sexual harrasment against a JC Penny security guard, has comitted benefit fraud and campaigned in a local newspaper to get funds for her sons medical care even though she was already covered by insurance. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Jackson won't be going anywhere near a jail. The only ones who'll be doing community service are the DA of Santa Barbara and Janet Arvizo. It's a scam folks.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Force on 01/20/05 at 5:12 pm
He will NEVER go to jail. He will NEVER commit suicide. His career will continue forever, even after his death.
By the way he's sold well over 30 MILLION records WORLDWIDE since the 1993 extortion case and 2 MILLION in the US alone since the 2003 scam.
For you own sakes, don't kid yourself. Your bash the weirdo attitude is medievil.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 01/20/05 at 5:18 pm
He's shown his true colors....dangling a baby over a railing. yeah, THAT is normal. As for character? Lying to the world that he NEVER has had plastic surgery. What he did to "Friend" Paul McCartney...MJ is a jerk. I don't CARE how many records he sold...or how much money he has. His soul is devoid of any richness.... Guess I'll go back into my castle now ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Force on 01/20/05 at 5:30 pm
What insight!! Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Michael Jackson is guilty of sexually molesting a minor because he didn't want to tell the world the extent of his plastic surgery and he shrewdly invested in the rights to The Beatles song catalogue!
Not only that but RockandRollFan says his soul is devoid of any richness!!! LOCK HIM UP NOW!!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Force on 01/20/05 at 5:33 pm
Also, I'm fascinated, when did Jackson say he'd "NEVER" had surgery? I'll answer that for you - he's never said that.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 01/20/05 at 5:47 pm
Also, I'm fascinated, when did Jackson say he'd "NEVER" had surgery? I'll answer that for you - he's never said that.
I thought he got surgery back in the 80's? ???
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Force on 01/20/05 at 5:50 pm
Yes he did Howard, that much is obvious but my point is that he has never said that he's "NEVER" had plastic surgery. Keep up.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Force on 01/20/05 at 5:55 pm
Howard, you look so familiar. Were you in The Village People?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 01/20/05 at 5:58 pm
Yes he did Howard, that much is obvious but my point is that he has never said that he's "NEVER" had plastic surgery. Keep up.
Oh Ok,I see.So,why can't any other of the family members get plastic surgery? Jermaine looks like a dried-up raisin. ;D
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 01/20/05 at 5:58 pm
Howard, you look so familiar. Were you in The Village People?
No,can't say that I was.Why? ???
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Force on 01/20/05 at 6:00 pm
I've always though of Jermaine as more of a rotting prune actually.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 01/20/05 at 6:01 pm
I've always though of Jermaine as more of a rotting prune actually.
I also thought that.What is he? 50 years old now? :P
I think Tito must be 53? ???
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Force on 01/20/05 at 6:02 pm
Are you in a Queen tribute band then? I know I've seen you somewhere.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Force on 01/20/05 at 6:03 pm
53 stone maybe.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 01/20/05 at 6:04 pm
Are you in a Queen tribute band then? I know I've seen you somewhere.
No.I don't have a mustache anymore.I shaved it all off.That picture was in 2003. ;D
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Force on 01/20/05 at 6:05 pm
Good move.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 01/20/05 at 10:16 pm
Also, I'm fascinated, when did Jackson say he'd "NEVER" had surgery? I'll answer that for you - he's never said that.
20/20 interview last year...must have missed that?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 01/20/05 at 10:18 pm
What insight!! Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Michael Jackson is guilty of sexually molesting a minor because he didn't want to tell the world the extent of his plastic surgery and he shrewdly invested in the rights to The Beatles song catalogue!
Not only that but RockandRollFan says his soul is devoid of any richness!!! LOCK HIM UP NOW!!
Nope...let him have a fair trial....let justice reach a verdict...Guilty or Not guilty....he's STILL done the dangling, denying and deceit...relax....it's JUST an opinion, that's ALL ::) ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: 80s Lady on 01/20/05 at 10:39 pm
What insight!! Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Michael Jackson is guilty of sexually molesting a minor because he didn't want to tell the world the extent of his plastic surgery and he shrewdly invested in the rights to The Beatles song catalogue!
Not only that but RockandRollFan says his soul is devoid of any richness!!! LOCK HIM UP NOW!!
Well, I agree 100% with you that Michael Jackson is not guilty of sexually molesting a minor because he didn't want to tell the world the extent of his plastic surgery nor because he shrewdly invested in the rights to The Beatles song catalog..........however the following link may perhaps shed a little light on the REAL reason why he is:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/010605jackson.html
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 01/20/05 at 10:51 pm
Well, I agree 100% with you that Michael Jackson is not guilty of sexually molesting a minor because he didn't want to tell the world the extent of his plastic surgery nor because he shrewdly invested in the rights to The Beatles song catalog..........however the following link may perhaps shed a little light on the REAL reason why he is:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/010605jackson.html
Thanks for the "Education" 80s Lady ;) Here's yet another link filled with FACTS for the hanging on fans of a once very good looking, kind guy....The "King has lost his nose crown" :D
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Jackson.html
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Force on 01/21/05 at 10:25 am
Here's a link that shows you that your smoking gun link is full of lies.
http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/news/0501/03a.html
Oh and by the way, Jackson never said that he hasn't had surgery, not even in the 20/20 interview, which let me assure you I did not miss. I guarantee you that you will not be able to find a clip of Jackson claiming that he's never had surgery becuase it doesn't exist. You want to believe he's said that because it would make him look stupid but you've invented it. The real morons are the journalists who have to ask him if he's had plastic surgery - I mean you don't have to be Columbo to work that out.
And until an artist can top Thriller's sales, The Crown is his. No one's got close (apart from Jackson himself).
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mona on 01/21/05 at 10:40 am
I agree 100% with this. I would NEVER let any of my kids spend the night with an adult (well, other than relatives), no matter how famous the person was. IMO, he's guilty, just as he was in the prior case. I'm sorry, but I don't believe ANYONE would settle a case out of court if they weren't guilty and didn't want the facts to come to light. In this case, the family wasn't suing for monetary damages (that may have changed) and I can't imagine anyone would want to put their child through a court case (even stupid ones who let their kids sleep over at an adult's house) if the allegations weren't true.
Not true, my husband owned a custom cabinet company and a woman sued him (too long of a story for here) but anyway his lawyer recommended that he settle because to fight the case would be more costly than the settlement plus if it went before a jury they would feel sorry for the woman and possibly award her even more money. Which is unfortunate because if you mention this woman's name to any contractor in the area, they have heard of her or even had similar dealings with her. She orders work to be done and then sues the contractor so that she doesn't have to pay. Of course if you have as much money as Micheal Jackson, you think he'd take the risk to save his name.
But I agree with the part about the parents being partially responsible.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Force on 01/21/05 at 11:05 am
If a man raped my child, I'd never accept money to be silent. I'd want him jailed for what he did to my child and so that he couldn't harm more children. Any parent should agree or else shame on you.
The 1993 allegations against Jackson were a blatant scam and this latest "case" is just a poor copy cat scam.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 01/21/05 at 11:07 am
And until an artist can top Thriller's sales, The Crown is his. No one's got close (apart from Jackson himself).
Fine, but he still dangled his baby over a balcony....and he's still a jerk to McCartney ;) BTW, Thriller is a great LP but I liked Off The Wall better....as for sales...he can keep his hollow crown.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: 80s Lady on 01/21/05 at 11:12 am
Here's a link that shows you that your smoking gun link is full of lies.
http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/news/0501/03a.html
Um....ok!!  So, I gave you a link to a site that contains court filings and police reports and to prove this site is "full of lies", you give me a link to Warner Brothers???  ::)  Oooooooooooh, I gotcha now!!  I really think that perhaps you should quit playing on the computer in class and go back to paying attention to your teacher before you get detention!!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Jen82 on 01/21/05 at 11:23 am
Um....ok!! So, I gave you a link to a site that contains court filings and police reports and to prove this site is "full of lies", you give me a link to Warner Brothers??? ::) Oooooooooooh, I gotcha now!! I really think that perhaps you should quit playing on the computer in class and go back to paying attention to your teacher before you get detention!!
;D Don't know if he's going to be found guilty or not but I don't like him either, never have, never will. He's so full of himself, as well as "Plastic" :D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: The Force on 01/21/05 at 12:20 pm
The court filings and police reports are based on nothing more than the word of  a family of grifters. The link I gave contained damning quotes from a third party newspaper reporter who witnessed first hand one of the family's previous scams. This is just one of numerous dubious attempts at extorting money from the innocent. Her lawsuit against a JC Penny security guard for sexual harrasment is another and her lawsuit against her exhusband for child abuse and kidnapping (sound familiiar?) is another still. So, she's either an extremely unlucky victim of horrific coincidence or she's a seasoned extortionist.
I don't care if you guys like him or not, but I just want you to know that millions of people disagree with you and that he won't be going to Jail. You're going to be sorely let down if you believe that he will. This "case" is rotten to the core.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: joedeertae on 01/21/05 at 4:19 pm
Um....ok!! So, I gave you a link to a site that contains court filings and police reports and to prove this site is "full of lies", you give me a link to Warner Brothers??? ::) Oooooooooooh, I gotcha now!! I really think that perhaps you should quit playing on the computer in class and go back to paying attention to your teacher before you get detention!!
LOL ;D
I will take a no vote. As much as I want to guess guilty, thats all it would be is a guess and I would not do that on such a serious accusation. That being said...
That dude(?) has turned into such a freak of nature! Guilty or not if he manages to stay out of jail this time he should go back to his Neverland Ranch, leave the kiddies alone and maybe throw the occasional "Jesus Juice" party for his loyal followers that hang onto the fantasy that this guy is a result of a tough childhood. ::) I will agree that at one time he was sitting on top of the world as the "King of Pop" but those days are long gone now and he has made his share of BAD decisions that have affected the way a lot of people see him.
Micheal Jackson... the only one in the world to go from a poor little black boy with a great voice to a beautiful white woman and then on to a total freak of nature. :o
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 01/21/05 at 4:22 pm
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/packageart/michaeljackson/predator/accuser.jpg
I don't undertstand why the hell they have to blur the kid's face in that picture? ::)
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: joedeertae on 01/21/05 at 4:26 pm
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/packageart/michaeljackson/predator/accuser.jpg
I don't undertstand why the hell they have to blur the kid's face in that picture? ::)
Howard
It's prolly got something to do with the kid being a minor.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 01/21/05 at 4:30 pm
How I really miss the days of when Michael Jackson had a nose. ;D
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 01/21/05 at 4:32 pm
The court filings and police reports are based on nothing more than the word of  a family of grifters. The link I gave contained damning quotes from a third party newspaper reporter who witnessed first hand one of the family's previous scams. This is just one of numerous dubious attempts at extorting money from the innocent. Her lawsuit against a JC Penny security guard for sexual harrasment is another and her lawsuit against her exhusband for child abuse and kidnapping (sound familiiar?) is another still. So, she's either an extremely unlucky victim of horrific coincidence or she's a seasoned extortionist.
I don't care if you guys like him or not, but I just want you to know that millions of people disagree with you and that he won't be going to Jail. You're going to be sorely let down if you believe that he will. This "case" is rotten to the core.
If he's guilty and gets away with it (ala, OJ) then I'll be pissed, but I'll continue to listen to his music from "Thriller" and back, albeit not very often since before all this came about I never cared for him that much anyway :-\\ If he's found innocent that's the verdict and I'll accept. I really hope he's never molested ANY child, be it this one or any others, but if has, that's a very horrible thing.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 01/31/05 at 5:41 pm
With the MJ vs Journey thread in Eightiesland I though I'd revive this topic. I really don't know where I stand on this case. I mean MJ was a star since he was born basically, so it's almost like he was molested himself in a sense. But on the other hand he could use it and his weirdness as a mask for innappropriate behavior. If he IS guilty and it not found insane than I say give him a life sentence. Child molestation and all sex crimes are almost as sick as murder, and although far behind homicide imo in badness, are DEFINITELY number #2 in top offenses (not counting treason and attempted murder). It is a big enough crime to warrant a life sentence in my opinion.
I think he has done something with kids, but it might not be truly his fault.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 01/31/05 at 7:45 pm
If he's convicted,he gets 20 years in jail.I guarantee he won't last a minute in prison. >:(
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 01/31/05 at 9:10 pm
If he's convicted,he gets 20 years in jail.I guarantee he won't last a minute in prison. >:(
Howard
Well, I don't hope he's murdered or beaten, but 20 years isn't long enough. >:( He needs a life sentence.
Scum like him don't deserve freedom. His case is just SICK and there's almost no chance he feels any remorse.
All that applies only if he's truly guilty, of course. ;) (which is very possible)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 01/31/05 at 10:43 pm
If he's convicted,he gets 20 years in jail.I guarantee he won't last a minute in prison. >:(
Howard
Well, I don't hope he's murdered or beaten, but 20 years isn't long enough. >:( He needs a life sentence.
Scum like him don't deserve freedom. His case is just SICK and there's almost no chance he feels any remorse.
All that applies only if he's truly guilty, of course. ;) (which is very possible)
IF he's guilty and shows no remorse then I don't care what happens to him >:(
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 01/31/05 at 11:20 pm
IF he's guilty and shows no remorse then I don't care what happens to him. >:(
I agree. If he's repentant than he still deserves prison but I wouldn't wish death or torture on him. If he's not sorry, than I wouldn't be happy if he suffered, but I won't weep over it either.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 01/31/05 at 11:23 pm
IF he's guilty and shows no remorse then I don't care what happens to him. >:(
I agree. If he's repentant than he still deserves prison but I wouldn't wish death or torture on him. If he's not sorry, than I wouldn't be happy if he suffered, but I won't weep over it either.
Exactly ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Tam on 02/01/05 at 8:07 am
You guys are clueless!
Your bash the weirdo attitude is medievil
What insight!! Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Michael Jackson is guilty of sexually molesting a minor because he didn't want to tell the world the extent of his plastic surgery and he shrewdly invested in the rights to The Beatles song catalogue!
Not only that but RockandRollFan says his soul is devoid of any richness!!! LOCK HIM UP NOW!!
Too bad "The Force" didnt have the guts to actually sign up for an account. Actually had some good points however they are overshadowed by his blatant ignorance and snide attitude. I have never gotten even remotely upset over someone else's opinions in my life but his bashing of my friends' opinions has p*ssed me off!
Kudos to those of you who didnt let him get to you.
Tam
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: pimpinsteelersfan on 02/01/05 at 4:51 pm
Sorry but I think it's horrible that rich, poor, black, white...people...whatever, like to think they can get away with crap like this...remember, OJ was rich too ::) Although so was that Kennedy guy that murdered Martha Moxley >:(
I agree. Any time someone rich gets found guilty they are always able to pay their way out of jail. I think that for any rich person they need to be sent to jail without bail. Every time.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 02/01/05 at 6:35 pm
Sorry but I think it's horrible that rich, poor, black, white...people...whatever, like to think they can get away with crap like this...remember, OJ was rich too  Although so was that Kennedy guy that murdered Martha Moxley
I agree.  Any time someone rich gets found guilty they are always able to pay their way out of jail.  I think that for any rich person they need to be sent to jail without bail.  Every time.
Absolutely Pimpin.  If I was rich and commited a high crime I'd just fess it up and plead guilty.  What's up with "bail" anyway?
Rock, As for Ted Kennedy, he didn't exactly murder the woman from what I've heard.  But he didn't help her when she was in danger, which was very selfish.  I'd call it a very bad manslaughter, but Ted isn't quite a murderer.  Scum yes, but murderer no. ÂÂ
On a side note:  did anyone hear a woman charged Snoop Dogg with sexual assault?  I sure hope that isn't true, especially since I'm such a Snoop fan.  :P  :-\\  ???
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 02/01/05 at 7:03 pm
Well,news just in.It seems that we won't know if he's guilty OR not guilty when it happens in either July OR August.It's gonna take 6 months. ::) >:( just imagine the tired jury having to spend so much time on this garbage. ::)
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 02/01/05 at 7:14 pm
Well,news just in.It seems that we won't know if he's guilty OR not guilty when it happens in either July OR August.It's gonna take 6 months. just imagine the tired jury having to spend so much time on this garbage.
Howard
Methinks they just want more tabloids. ::) >:(
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 02/01/05 at 7:29 pm
Well,news just in.It seems that we won't know if he's guilty OR not guilty when it happens in either July OR August.It's gonna take 6 months.  just imagine the tired jury having to spend so much time on this garbage.
Howard
Methinks they just want more tabloids. ::) >:(
This is gonna be one long decision. >:( ::)
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 02/01/05 at 7:35 pm
This is gonna be one long decision. >:(
Howard
May I ask why you feel so strong about this case particulary? I mean I feel strongly about it too, sex crime is horrific, especially against children, but MJ's isn't any sicker than the average child molestation case? Do you find his act particulary hateful or is it particulary setting off because you liked MJ so much back in the day and you wish he wasn't so despicable?
BTW I am in NO WAY sticking up for Wacko Jacko. He is a creep that needs to be locked away from society forever, guilty or not. >:(
Is Snoop is found guilty I am going to be so mad and upset >:( :( ???
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 02/01/05 at 7:43 pm
This is gonna be one long decision.  >:(
Howard
May I ask why you feel so strong about this case particulary? I mean I feel strongly about it too, sex crime is horrific, especially against children, but MJ's isn't any sicker than the average child molestation case? Do you find his act particulary hateful or is it particulary setting off because you liked MJ so much back in the day and you wish he wasn't so despicable?ÂÂ
BTW I am in NO WAY sticking up for Wacko Jacko. He is a creep that needs to be locked away from society forever, guilty or not. >:(
Is Snoop is found guilty I am going to be so mad and upset >:( :( ???
There was a time that I was infatuated with him(20 years ago) now I don't care about him that much anymore >:(
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 02/01/05 at 7:51 pm
There was a time that I was infatuated with him(20 years ago) now I don't care about him that much anymore
Howard
Yeah I see what you're saying.  That guy's a freak  >:(  It must ruin all the memories of when he still seemed cool.  Is the reason you hate him so much now the fact that you liked him so much back in the day?
This stuff doesn't hit home quite with me, Jackson's been a freak as long as I can remember, so I've never had to learn to accept how weird and mean he is.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 02/01/05 at 8:11 pm
There was a time that I was infatuated with him(20 years ago) now I don't care about him that much anymore
Howard
Yeah I see what you're saying.  That guy's a freak  >:(  It must ruin all the memories of when he still seemed cool.  Is the reason you hate him so much now the fact that you liked him so much back in the day?
This stuff doesn't hit home quite with me, Jackson's been a freak as long as I can remember, so I've never had to learn to accept how weird and mean he is.
I used to act,dress and imitate him back in 1984.the zippered jacket,sequined glove the glasses.But now,who cares.I still respect him as a person.
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 02/01/05 at 8:17 pm
I used to act,dress and imitate him back in 1984.the zippered jacket,sequined glove the glasses.But now,who cares.I still respect him as a person.
Howard
I say it's understandable, perhaps right, to dislike people who deserve it, but never to hate them. That's stooping to their level and will only make things worse.  I have respect for all people (all creatures actually), even scum like Michael Jackson. That doesn't mean I'd hang with them or want them to escape punishment though!
You are a very forgiving person, Howard. :)ÂÂ
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 02/01/05 at 8:21 pm
I used to act,dress and imitate him back in 1984.the zippered jacket,sequined glove the glasses.But now,who cares.I still respect him as a person.
Howard
I say it's understandable, perhaps right, to dislike people who deserve it, but never to hate them. That's stooping to their level and will only make things worse.  I have respect for all people (all creatures actually), even scum like Michael Jackson. That doesn't mean I'd hang with them or want them to escape punishment though!
You are a very forgiving person, Howard.  :)ÂÂ
Thanks. :) Maybe I'll post some pics of me dressed up as Michael Jackson. :)
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 02/01/05 at 8:25 pm
Thanks. Maybe I'll post some pics of me dressed up as Michael Jackson.
Howard
You're Welcome :) That would be cool!
:D
:)
;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Suzy on 02/02/05 at 5:12 am
Howard
May I ask why you feel so strong about this case particulary? I mean I feel strongly about it too, sex crime is horrific, especially against children, but MJ's isn't any sicker than the average child molestation case? Do you find his act particulary hateful or is it particulary setting off because you liked MJ so much back in the day and you wish he wasn't so despicable?ÂÂ
I think indeed people who used to like his music feel stronger about this case than those who didn't. Why? I think because we (I'm one of these people) feel kinda 'betrayed'. He sold this 'friend of the kids' image and when I was a naive kid myself I bought into it. Now I can see what it was all about and it's disgusting and it makes me more angry. I admit I used to like his music and bought his image of this naive 'Peter Pan' figure. But I was like 12-14 and I can see now how naive I was.
I think back in the 80s he did some great music, I still think so although I can't listen to them any more because I think he is a child molestor and that disgusts me and I can't even listen to him any more. In the 90s when they parted ways with Quincy Jones (who, I think was the engine behind MJ's greatness) MJ started to decline musically, artistically. He became self-repetitive in music, in his lyrics and also in dance. His concert programme is almost the same for 20 years now. He thought he can sell anything just because he is MJ and to a certain extent he was right because his fanatical fans buy everything he does - even if he released a fully empty CD they would buy it. That made MJ spoilt and lazy artistically. I thought it was a pity because he has the talent - only he wasted it.
But of course declining musically won't make him guilty of any charges. Not even his freaky ways (plastic surgery etc.). With talking about it I just wanted to point out that I'm not a fan of him any more and I see many things in connection with him from a certain distance now. And I came to the conqlusion he is probably guilty of these charges. I didn't think that so initially - not even if I wasn't a fan any more. I really beleived the charges in 1993 were extortion etc. So I beleived MJ's version of things. When this recent case broke in November 2003, I intentionally sat on the fence at first. But then I got to learn a lot of things about pedophilia and I have to say MJ fits into the profile. He is a textbook pedophile! It's scary. I'm 99% convinced now that - unfortunately - he did it. You know what walks like a duck, talks like a duck and acts like a duck that is very certainly a duck.
Edited to add: As for the trial it seems it will be a bigger media circus than OJ Simpson's trial but let's hope they won't commit the same mistakes again (letting a guilty man run).
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 02/02/05 at 7:35 pm
let's say he does go to jail,what will happen to career then?
Most likely it'll be finished. >:(
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 02/03/05 at 4:50 am
I hate it when people calim to have researched the case and concluded that Michael is guilty. If you think Michael is guilty, you obviosuly know nothing about the case. I suggest www.mj-case.com as a good research destination.
In 1993, a very greedy and jealous father (Evan Chandler), found an attorney (Larry Feldman) who was more than happy to frame a rich black man. Together they brought forward accusations of child sex abbuse against Michael Jackson, long term friend of Chandler's ex-wife and son (Jordy). Evan Chandler, being a dentist, gave his soon a drug which has been proven to plant false memory's (usually fo sex abbuse) in people's minds, and claimed he used it as a anysthetic to extract his son's tooth. . They successful got the son (Jordy) to actually believe that Michael Jackson molested him. They brought forward a civil case agaist Michael Jackson. However, the case eventually fell apart because Michael's attorney's and record company advised him to pay off the accuser. However, the case that the accuser brough forward against Michael was a civil case, and even after Michael paid them off, they still could've brought out a criminal case against him. If they did, Michael would not be able to pay his was out because a criminal case doesn't involve money, where as a civil case does.
It made Tom Sneddon (DA) very angry, because hepaid million and millions of dollars, supporting a case that never happened!
Sneddon was more angry at Michael for paying his way out of a civil case, rather than at Chandler for not pursuing a criminal case. In 2003, he got his chance to get his money back. He saw Michael in "Living With Michael Jackson" and saw it as a chance to frame him once again. He contacted the family and pressured them into accusing Michael of molesting their son. Anyway, he was successful at this and brought out a criminal case against Michael. The trial has started and a jury is currently being selected. As Michael said in his interview with Geraldo Rivera on the 30th of Jan 2005, "I will be aquitted and vindicated when the trith is told. Let me have my day in court!"
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 02/03/05 at 5:07 am
Also, about the Beatles catalogue...
GET OVER IT! McCartney basically told Michael to buy their songs. Paul told Michael that to succeed in the business you need to own alot of royalties and publishing rights. Michael took Paul's advice and the first thing he did was buy the Beatles catalogue. Anyway, I wouldn't worry, Michael isn't making any money off owning the Beatles catalogue. It's not like the Beatles sell anything these days! They aren't even a good band. Their songs were simple, you could train a monkey to write songs like that. The Beatles music can't even contest the masterpieces that Michael Jackson has created in his career. His music doesn't stop at pop either. He has even composed a few classical pieces. I would put him right up there with Mozart and Beethoven!
Also, Michael isn't wack
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 02/03/05 at 8:17 am
I hate it when people calim to have researched the case and concluded that Michael is guilty. If you think Michael is guilty, you obviosuly know nothing about the case. I suggest www.mj-case.com as a good research destination.
It made Tom Sneddon (DA) very angry, because hepaid million and millions of dollars, supporting a case that never happened!
Sneddon was more angry at Michael for paying his way out of a civil case, rather than at Chandler for not pursuing a criminal case. In 2003, he got his chance to get his money back.
after going to the above link and reading all of it, I really beleive Micheal Jackson is not guilty.
guilty of being foolish and stupid-(for letting kids sleep in his bed)
guilty of being very strange
but not guilty of sexually abusing kids.
As for that Tom Sneddon guy-he seems like a typical racist a-hole
in his eyes MJ is guilty because he is a "black" man
That article is a real eye opener
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: BodaciousBoy on 02/03/05 at 4:38 pm
after going to the above link and reading all of it, I really beleive Micheal Jackson is not guilty.
guilty of being foolish and stupid-(for letting kids sleep in his bed)
guilty of being very strange
but not guilty of sexually abusing kids.
in his eyes MJ is guilty because he is a "black" man
You forgot "Guilty" of dangling an infant over a railing" Some would consider that "Abuse". I also don't believe silicone come in black, thus he must be white.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 02/03/05 at 4:50 pm
Well,hopefully when this case ends either in July OR August we'll know for sure.
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 02/04/05 at 4:51 am
Well,hopefully when this case ends either in July OR August we'll know for sure.
Howard
Lets just hope and pray that the jurors can forget that Michael Jackson is the most famous person on the planet, and just treat him like a regular guy. I think it's going to be really hard, because most of the jurors would have been alive to witness his peak, and his downfall. At this stage in Michael's career, you either hate him or love him. Most jurors would probably have strong feelings about Michael. Their decision will probably be influenced heavily on alot of stuff that has been said about Michael often times. Let's just pray for justice. Let's pray that the truth will prevail!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 02/04/05 at 5:45 pm
I guess I'm jinxing him too much.he could be innocent,you know.
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 02/04/05 at 5:57 pm
I think MJ is psychotic. I think he's done some lewd things with the kids but I don't think he realized it's bad. I mentioned before, being a star at such a young age is in a way similar to child molestation (to the mind, which is where most damage caused by sex abuse is). That is he was raped himself in a way. I mean look at the Olsen twins. They were cute kids on Full House, but they're kinda weird today. I'm sure we'll hear crime cases on them in decades to come (I mean its already happened with Mary-Kate! :o )
Or perhaps he's guilty and simply has a sick set of mind, which may or may not have been caused by his stardom at such a young age.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 02/04/05 at 5:58 pm
BTW I voted not guilty.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: blake36 on 02/04/05 at 9:23 pm
I hate it when people calim to have researched the case and concluded that Michael is guilty. If you think Michael is guilty, you obviosuly know nothing about the case. I suggest www.mj-case.com as a good research destination.
In 1993, a very greedy and jealous father (Evan Chandler), found an attorney (Larry Feldman) who was more than happy to frame a rich black man. Together they brought forward accusations of child sex abbuse against Michael Jackson, long term friend of Chandler's ex-wife and son (Jordy). Evan Chandler, being a dentist, gave his soon a drug which has been proven to plant false memory's (usually fo sex abbuse) in people's minds, and claimed he used it as a anysthetic to extract his son's tooth. . They successful got the son (Jordy) to actually believe that Michael Jackson molested him. They brought forward a civil case agaist Michael Jackson. However, the case eventually fell apart because Michael's attorney's and record company advised him to pay off the accuser. However, the case that the accuser brough forward against Michael was a civil case, and even after Michael paid them off, they still could've brought out a criminal case against him. If they did, Michael would not be able to pay his was out because a criminal case doesn't involve money, where as a civil case does.
It made Tom Sneddon (DA) very angry, because hepaid million and millions of dollars, supporting a case that never happened!
Sneddon was more angry at Michael for paying his way out of a civil case, rather than at Chandler for not pursuing a criminal case. In 2003, he got his chance to get his money back. He saw Michael in "Living With Michael Jackson" and saw it as a chance to frame him once again. He contacted the family and pressured them into accusing Michael of molesting their son. Anyway, he was successful at this and brought out a criminal case against Michael. The trial has started and a jury is currently being selected. As Michael said in his interview with Geraldo Rivera on the 30th of Jan 2005, "I will be aquitted and vindicated when the trith is told. Let me have my day in court!"
Don't give me that crap about "everyone is trying to frame Micheal because hes a rich black man".
None of us know enough to make a decision, so please.
Oh, and the Beatles don't suck
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 02/04/05 at 10:41 pm
Don't give me that crap about "everyone is trying to frame Micheal because hes a rich black man".
None of us know enough to make a decision, so please.
Oh, and the Beatles don't suck
It's not crap! They did frame him and 1993! Read the web-site, read the GQ article, read Geradline's Hughes book, read the court documents if you like. Michael Jackson is innocent!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 02/04/05 at 10:42 pm
It's not crap! They did frame him and 1993! Read the web-site, read the GQ article, read Geradline's Hughes book, read the court documents if you like. Michael Jackson is innocent!
I'm not sure if he's innocent. I think he's done something lewd, but I'm not sure if it's really his fault.
But being so sure is simply wishful thinking.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 02/04/05 at 11:02 pm
It's not crap! They did frame him and 1993! Read the web-site, read the GQ article, read Geradline's Hughes book, read the court documents if you like. Michael Jackson is innocent!
I'm not sure if he's innocent. I think he's done something lewd, but I'm not sure if it's really his fault.
But being so sure is simply wishful thinking.
I just think, that from seeing Michael Jackson on the news, no-one can walk into a court room so confident and strong if they were guilty.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 02/05/05 at 1:24 am
I just think, that from seeing Michael Jackson on the news, no-one can walk into a court room so confident and strong if they were guilty.
Oh, okay!! Scott Peterson....GUILTY!! OJ....(Guilty)....hmmm, maybe MJ should hire Johnny Cock to get him off ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 02/05/05 at 1:35 am
Oh, okay!! Scott Peterson....GUILTY!! OJ....(Guilty)....hmmm, maybe MJ should hire Johnny Cock to get him off
Johnny Cock is a cock!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 02/05/05 at 9:03 pm
I wonder why this Michael Jackson trial is 6 months long? ???
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: bbigd04 on 02/05/05 at 9:58 pm
Jackson is 100 % guilty, imo. We all know about the 1993 investigation and settlement, plus these new stories about how he paid Debbie Rowe millions of dollars to keep quiet about his personal life and basically purchased those kids of his. This guy is one sick man or whatever he is. I was watching Leno yesterday and they had that Geraldo on, and he was going on an on defending Jackson, God that pissed me off, it even pissed off Leno. Well what do you expect from a guy that mapped out our troop positions on national tv in the middle of a war.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Suzy on 02/06/05 at 4:18 am
I hate it when people calim to have researched the case and concluded that Michael is guilty. If you think Michael is guilty, you obviosuly know nothing about the case. I suggest www.mj-case.com as a good research destination.
In 1993, a very greedy and jealous father (Evan Chandler), found an attorney (Larry Feldman) who was more than happy to frame a rich black man. Together they brought forward accusations of child sex abbuse against Michael Jackson, long term friend of Chandler's ex-wife and son (Jordy). Evan Chandler, being a dentist, gave his soon a drug which has been proven to plant false memory's (usually fo sex abbuse) in people's minds, and claimed he used it as a anysthetic to extract his son's tooth. . They successful got the son (Jordy) to actually believe that Michael Jackson molested him. They brought forward a civil case agaist Michael Jackson. However, the case eventually fell apart because Michael's attorney's and record company advised him to pay off the accuser. However, the case that the accuser brough forward against Michael was a civil case, and even after Michael paid them off, they still could've brought out a criminal case against him. If they did, Michael would not be able to pay his was out because a criminal case doesn't involve money, where as a civil case does.
It made Tom Sneddon (DA) very angry, because hepaid million and millions of dollars, supporting a case that never happened!
Sneddon was more angry at Michael for paying his way out of a civil case, rather than at Chandler for not pursuing a criminal case. In 2003, he got his chance to get his money back. He saw Michael in "Living With Michael Jackson" and saw it as a chance to frame him once again. He contacted the family and pressured them into accusing Michael of molesting their son. Anyway, he was successful at this and brought out a criminal case against Michael. The trial has started and a jury is currently being selected. As Michael said in his interview with Geraldo Rivera on the 30th of Jan 2005, "I will be aquitted and vindicated when the trith is told. Let me have my day in court!"
Sorry to say but these MJ fan sites usually have their spins on this case which make their conqlusions very much biased. I wouldn't base my opinion on fan sites' spins, so thank you but reading a MJ fan site is not what "research" is to me.
But for your information, I know all about the infamous GQ article and about its ridiculous claims about Jordy having "false memories" planted etc.
If he had those false memories planted then how did Jordy's description of his genitals fit? Because it did fit! How could this little boy describe MJ's privat parts if nothing inappropriate happened and it was only "false memories planted by his father"?
The GQ article has very much spins - more than the above - but I won't go into details now. I have reasearched both sides, not just the MJ fans' version and I have came to the conqlusion that he is guilty of it.
For example after reading the GQ article I have also read Ray Chandlers article (the 1993 accusers uncle) in that he tears that article apart - by pointing out the spins in it and supporting his version referring to documents and laws etc. To me his article was more convincing.
Also go and research pedophilia and you will find that MJ unfortunately 100% fits into that profile.
Beleive me when I say I researched this case because I did. And unlike you I haven't only read one side of the story but both!
And if you gave a link to the MJ fans version, here is another to show that's not the only view on this case we have:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/010605jackson.html
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 02/06/05 at 9:57 pm
Maybe this'll be forgotten by August. ???
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 02/13/05 at 2:44 am
I wonder why this Michael Jackson trial is 6 months long?
Because they are trying out a new jury selection process on this case. It's supposed to be really good, and the best way that they can think of getting 12 people who wont be bias towards the defendant or the accuser. One downside to this new jury selection process is that it take so long.
Something just occured ot me about this case. The boy reckons he was molested in Neverland right? Well doesn't Michael have 24-hr survelliance and camera's in every room? Couldn't they just ask the boy what time of day it happened, and look at the tapes? If the tapes show Michael fondling the boy - GUILTY!! If the tapes show nothing - INNOCENT!!!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mona on 02/21/05 at 4:28 pm
A little gross maybe, but still amusing.
What shall I wear to court?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 02/21/05 at 5:17 pm
A little gross maybe, but still amusing.
What shall I wear to court?
;D VERY funny, Mona!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 02/21/05 at 8:21 pm
A little gross maybe, but still amusing.
What shall I wear to court?
So,he's really picking his own nose? ;D
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mona on 02/22/05 at 6:36 pm
So,he's really picking his own nose? ;D
Howard
;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 02/24/05 at 6:10 pm
Has anyone else noticed how great Michael Jackson is looking at the moment? In 2001-2003 he was the ugliest mug on the planet, but he's been fixed up by the looks of it and he looks a lot better. I think he look exactly like he did in 1985-89, except white instead of black.
Also, in case you're not away, the prosecution ran a mock-trial, which is kind of like a practise run. The boy's testimony can be found on www.mjjforum.com it's a very interesting read. Expecially the bits where the boy says one thing, and then half and hour later, when the question is brought up again, his whole answer has changed. Can you say, "L-I-A-R"?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 02/24/05 at 8:00 pm
We're all forgetting that he did do ONE good thing though it was long ago (1983). He hired guitar great Edward Van Halen to play a solo on his hit "Beat It" , as song that has a whole new meaning now :D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 02/25/05 at 2:01 am
Alcohol Could be Crucial Jackson Case Issue
February 24, 2005
It sounded more like a pep rally than a trial Thursday as fans chanted their support for Michael Jackson on his return to court. But inside, the business of picking a jury continued -- a jury that will hear more than just the abuse allegations leveled against the international superstar.
Onboard planes and inside Neverland, Jackson is accused of giving his then cancer-stricken accuser alcohol. It's highly likely that the jurors will clear Jackson of molestation, but a guilty verdict on felony charges of plying the boy with booze would be big trouble for Jackson.
FOX News analyst Jim Hammer was the first to predict that jury selection would move along so quickly. "Under the law, the most he will probably get if convicted is six years in prison, which would still be a lot for Michael Jackson," Hammer said.
He also said that some consider the alcohol allegations potentially the strongest part of the case against Jackson: "If the prosecution can bring one Jackson employees who say they saw this boy drunk on Neverland Ranch, there's no good explanation for that from Jackson that I can see."
And prosecutors may have just that. In grand jury transcripts obtained by TheSmokingGun.com, a former Jackson security guard testified he once saw the accuser "staggering around" and driving a golf cart at Neverland.
When the guard told him he shouldn't be drinking, the boy replied, "Michael said if I can handle it, it's okay. It's part of being a man."
Jackson denied all of the charges against him in a video statement one month ago. But it'll ultimately be up to a jury to decide.
The Los Angeles Times has reported Judge Rodney Melville had his own drinking problems -- quitting in 1978 with the help of Alcoholics Anonymous. He now stresses treatment as part of sentencing. Courtwatchers wonder how that might affect this case.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it looks like the molestation charges are very weak and the prosecution will be focusing on the alcohol charges.
The journalist who wrote this article forgot one very important thing. The charges are fo intoxicating a minor with intent to molest him. So if the molestation charges are weak, and the jury find him innocent of those charges, then there is no way they can convict him on the intoxication charges, because they rely on the molestation charges.
It looks like this case will crash and burn when this trial gets into the nitty-gritty!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 02/25/05 at 11:09 am
It looks like this case will crash and burn when this trial gets into the nitty-gritty!
Yeah, then the kid can get drunk more and drive the golf cart with OJ and Flit-Boy....Now if THAT crashed and burned...and the kid escaped injury...yeah :D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 02/25/05 at 11:14 am
Feb. 25, 2005  A woman who had suffered a massive heart attack died after hospital personnel moved her out of a trauma room to accommodate a flu-stricken Michael Jackson, the patient's family said.
Jury selection in Jackson's child molestation child had to be temporarily postponed Feb. 15 when the pop star was taken to Marian Medical Center in Santa Maria, Calif., complaining of flu-like symptoms. Manuela Gomez Ruiz, a 74-year-old grandmother, was moved from the primary trauma room and taken off the machine ventilator, with her breathing instead assisted manually by hand pump, until she was relocated to a smaller room nearby, her family told ABC News.
Full Coverage: The Michael Jackson Case
Family: Heart Attack Victim Moved for Michael Jackson
Special Coverage: Oscars 2005
The larger room was kept for Jackson, the family says. Hospital records show Jackson, 46, told emergency room staff he had severe abdominal pain. His body temperature, 96.9 degrees, was below normal and he had tears in his eyes. The initial emergency room report said he could go home anytime.
There was no doubt Jackson was sick  as a doctor assured the judge presiding over his trial  but how sick? Anna Ruiz, Ruiz's daughter-in-law, says she watched as Jackson entered the emergency room.
"He walked in," she said. "When I saw him, he was walking unassisted."
Anna Ruiz was in the emergency room with her mother-in-law who was in the primary trauma room, attached to IVs and a ventilator.
"It's a large family and the mom is the heart of the family, " she said. Ruiz was a mother of eight, grandmother of 24 and great-grandmother of 26.
But Ruiz's heart was failing rapidly. She would have two more heart attacks before she died that day.
The family has hired an attorney to sue both the hospital and Jackson.
'They Shouldn't Have Treated Us Any Different'
Maria Elena Ortiz, the ailing woman's daughter, said she was in the room when Jackson came in. She was also present when her mother was moved and objected.
"Why does she have to be moved if he's coming in for a stomach flu?" Ortiz said. "I said, 'My mother just had a heart attack and I think it's more critical than a stomach flu.' They didn't say anything."
No one knows if moving Ruiz added to her trauma, but family members said they were told her heart was functioning at 30 percent and other organs were failing. But they say the chaos caused by Jackson's arrival distracted staff, and robbed them of precious time with their mother and grandmother as she died.
When Ruiz was moved to a smaller room, the family says equipment had to be crammed into the room. They also were limited to two visitors at a time. Once those visitors were in the room they could not leave and let other family members in because the hospital restricted movement in the hallways after Jackson arrived, the family says.
"This was the last time we might be able to talk with our grandma. They took that from us," said Marcos Meraz, one of Ruiz's grandsons.
here is some more news regarding the MJ case.
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 02/25/05 at 8:15 pm
a) The trial wasn't delayed because of Michael. Judge Melville delayed the trial because there was a bug going around Santa Maria and half the juror's were sick.
b)That's not Michael's fault, it's the hospital's fault.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, adding to the intoxication charges, Sneddon asked the boy in a mock trial what type of alcohol Michael gave him and the boy replied with the brand name of the liquor. Later on in the mock trial, Sneddon asked for more info on the time Michael "intoxicated" the boy. The boy said Michael gave him the liquor in a soft drink can. Then Sneddon asked, do you know what it was that Michael was giving you? The boy replied, 'no!'
There are soooo many holes in this case that it's not funny!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 02/25/05 at 8:23 pm
Did anyone see on Court TV how the did a lie detector test on Michael voice?
They used a professional detective service who have technology to tell if someone is lyring from their voice!! They said it is about 90% right everytime!
They used Michael's voice from the Geraldo Rivera interview. They said Michael told the truth about him being innocent and never touvhing a kid in his life!!!
What do you have to say about this?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: UKVisitor on 02/26/05 at 12:28 am
The hospital case is just nuts. I mean if the guys guilty of a crime then bang him up as per the law but as someone said, how can it be MJs fault if another patient at a hospital dies when he is a) not the owner or administrator of the facility and b) did not directly request or demand that resources be taken from the woman's care and made available for him. Even then it would be tenuous.
Also I would like to see all the money grabbing lowlifes - especially some of the parents of the kids who were allowed to sleep over at MJs - get their come-uppance. What in your opinion is worse, molesting a child or allowing your child to be molested so you can extort money from the molester? I know its a hard one to call but somehow if I had to punch the lights out on one or the other first, it would be the parents. I mean jeez what the chas n dave were they thinking? The guy had already been all over the media as having had a questionable relationship with a child which, though never proved in law and settled out of court, would not have put him at the top of my babysitting list ! Its almost as if he could claim entrapment, like someone leaving the crown jewels on the table in front of a jewel thief and then being surprised and shocked when he nabs them !
Anyway, I dunno. I reckon he's guilty but that should be down to a court of law and a jury to decide impartially with all the evidence and facts to base their decision upon. Hopefully some of us will live long enough to see a verdict finally in this tired charade.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 02/26/05 at 6:48 am
Anyone notice how T Mez and Michael Jackson always say, "The truth will be found when we have our DAY in court"? I know it just a saying, but T Mez and Michael always say it. They even put emphasis on the word 'day'!
Do you think that T Mez has something up his sleeve that will prove Michael's innocence in just one day? It's just a thought.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mona on 02/26/05 at 8:31 am
I definately don't see this being over in just one day.
As far as the woman who died, the doctors had already told the family her heart was functioning at 30% and her other organs were failing. Perhaps it's wasn't the best decision to move her, but let's face it, she didn't have much of a chance of surviving anyway.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 02/26/05 at 1:53 pm
Guilty or not people can now add that he's an even bigger creep than before beacuse he thinks he deserves to be treated better than anybody else....the list keeps growing >:(
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 02/26/05 at 7:59 pm
Guilty or not people can now add that he's an even bigger creep than before beacuse he thinks he deserves to be treated better than anybody else....the list keeps growing >:(
Hahahahahaha. When i read that post I think of desperacy! People are getting so angry, so stressed, so desprate, so hopeless because they can see Michael's innocence slowly coming out. He is innocent, and people know this. They just don't want to believe it.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 02/26/05 at 8:01 pm
I doubt Michael Jackson's innocent. I do think he's most likely insane though. Sorta like the Olsen Twins, he's been a star since childhood, it really f's up your mind. Although he could be using it as a mask ...
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 02/26/05 at 8:10 pm
Hahahahahaha. When i read that post I think of desperacy! People are getting so angry, so stressed, so desprate, so hopeless because they can see Michael's innocence slowly coming out. He is innocent, and people know this. They just don't want to believe it.
I'm not stressed at all...he'll get off (pardon the pun) just like OJ.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 02/26/05 at 8:13 pm
I'm not stressed at all...he'll get off (pardon the pun) just like OJ.
That sure is a shame. :( But let's be fair and not assume he's a molestor for sure, although I think he's doing something indecent. Remember innocent before proven guilty.
But I think he's a wackjob either way >:(
-FHF ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 02/26/05 at 8:15 pm
That sure is a shame. :( But let's be fair and not assume he's a molestor for sure, although I think he's doing something indecent. Remember innocent before proven guilty.
But I think he's a wackjob either way >:(
-FHF ;)
He may not be a molester, but anyone with common sense would see that it's a risk at best, to have young children spend the night with him. I fault the parents of those kids as well as Jackson.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: ski_luvr on 02/26/05 at 8:20 pm
I think he's guilty but who are we to judge?  Im not a real religious person but I do believe GOD will handle all.  Life is short and NOONE can escape final judgment! His childhood was to say the least f....d up and between his fathers abuse and his mothers religious beliefs he was totally screwed up!  And even if our short comings in life didnt come even close to the shameful things hes done  not one person without being guilty of lying can say they havent done something their ashamed of.  :(
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 02/26/05 at 8:21 pm
He may not be a molester, but anyone with common sense would see that it's a risk at best, to have young children spend the night with him. I fault the parents of those kids as well as Jackson.
Agreed. IF he is a molestor I say 20+ years in jail. >:(
-FHF ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 02/26/05 at 8:23 pm
I think he's guilty but who are we to judge? Im not a real religious person but I do believe GOD will handle all. Life is short and NOONE can escape final judgment! His childhood was to say the least f....d up and between his fathers abuse and his mothers religious beliefs he was totally screwed up! And even if our short comings in life didnt come even close to the shameful things hes done not one person without being guilty of lying can say they havent done something their ashamed of. :(
How DARE you come in here and say the right thing! ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 02/26/05 at 8:25 pm
How DARE you come in here and say the right thing! ;)
;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: ski_luvr on 02/26/05 at 8:26 pm
How DARE you come in here and say the right thing! ;)
Guilty as charged You dont think I meant Me did you LOL ::) :o
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 02/26/05 at 8:38 pm
Guilty as charged You dont think I meant Me did you LOL ::) :o
;D ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/01/05 at 5:07 pm
I still don't understand how anyone in their right mind can think Michael Jackson is guilty of these crimes.
The accuser's family has a history of making false accusations against celebrities in court. Some of the families past victims include, Jim Carey, Mike Tyson and Adam Sandler.
Michael Jackson, being the most famous person on the planet, and an easy target, was unfortunate to become the families next victim.
The district attorney's son is a member of the Aryan Nations (a white supremacy).
The districe attornet also fought hard to make sure there was no African American people on the jury. He won his battle. The jury is made up of 10 white people, a hispanic and an asian. No African Americans what so ever!
Tom Sneddon is only on this case because he hates African American people. I wouldn't be surprised if furing this trial, Tom Sneddon tries to place child molestation, or some other ridiculous allegation on other members of the Jackson family as well! I doubt very much that this case would've happened, if Tom Sneddon's family was not involved in the Aryan Nation.
A member of the Sanata Barbara police force, who was in charge of investigations of Michael Jackson in mid-2003, concluded that the charges were unfound and cleared Michael of all charges because the police force was unable to find any evidence against Michael Jackson what so ever.
The investigator who called the shot to clear Jackson of all charges was fired by the district attorney, Tom Sneddon, and the Santa Barbara police department moved forward and arrested Michael Jackson and charged him with child molestation. Again, if Tom Sneddon was not involved with the Aryan Nations, he would not have fired the investigator, and moved forward to arrest Jackson.
Orginally, Tom Sneddon charged Michael Jackson on 7 counts of child molestation, in November 2003. Now, in March 2005, Michael Jackson only has 4 counts of child molestation against him in this case. What happened to the other 3?? "Poof"! Gone!!! If 3 of the 7 charges were obviously made up (otherwise, why has Sneddon not included them now?) then it leaves very little to say about the 4 that Sneddon is still persuing in this trial.
What's even more ironic, is that the media have not picked up on this. Their reports went from 7 counts of molestation, to 4, without any explanation what so ever!
Back in 2004, we were told that if Michael Jackson was found guilty of all charges, including child molesting, itoxicating a minor, false imprisonment, and conspiracy, then he would go to jail for 70 years!! Now, in 2005, we are being told that he only faces 20 years in jail. Even with 3 of the child molestation charges gone, his time in jail would not be taken back by 50 years! There are obviously other charges that Sneddon made up which he decided weren't believable enough to persue it the trial.
Again, the media have not picked up on this. Their reports went from 70 years, to 20 years, without any explanation what so ever!
The timeline in which Michael Jackson allegedly molested the boy, has changed from time to time. The origianl timeline the boy gave to child protection agencies, differs from the Grand Jury indictment, which also differs from the boy's testimony.
The accuser's aren't only liars... they are bad liars!!
The accuser's history
Tom Sneddon't involvment in the Aryan Nations
The mysterious disappearance of the child molestation charges
The ever-chaging timeline
There is so much evidence that shows this case is completely bogus? It baffles me to wonder why people can't see it!!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 03/02/05 at 1:50 pm
Unlike Bill Clintons nose growing as he uttered those famous words "I did NOT have sex with that woman!" Micheal's would fall off if he says "I did NOT have sex with that boy!"...but just maybe he'll get a sign like Bill has in Arkansas...
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 03/02/05 at 1:57 pm
Unlike Bill Clintons nose growing as he uttered those famous words "I did NOT have sex with that woman!" Micheal's would fall off if he says "I did NOT have sex with that boy!"...but just maybe he'll get a sign like Bill has in Arkansas...
Is Bill Clinton a sex criminal as well as a scandalist? If so that's terrible!
-FHF
btw Awesome sig pic Mark :)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 03/02/05 at 4:46 pm
Is Bill Clinton a sex criminal as well as a scandalist? If so that's terrible!
-FHF
btw Awesome sig pic Mark :)
All I know for sure is that upon further review of that statement made by him, he COULD have meant "I did not have sex with THAT woman ;D
Thanks, but I must credit my lovely Maria and her friend ;)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 03/02/05 at 4:53 pm
All I know for sure is that upon further review of that statement made by him, he COULD have meant "I did not have sex with THAT woman ;D
Thanks, but I must credit my lovely Maria and her friend ;)
You're welcome! Awesome job Maria and her friend (Mare)!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 03/02/05 at 5:00 pm
You're welcome! Awesome job Maria and her friend (Mare)!
Well I think it's really nice what they've done for me, and if we ever meet, one will get a handshake and hug and the other a nice swift kiss on the mouth!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 03/02/05 at 7:19 pm
Unlike Bill Clintons nose growing as he uttered those famous words "I did NOT have sex with that woman!" Micheal's would fall off if he says "I did NOT have sex with that boy!"...but just maybe he'll get a sign like Bill has in Arkansas...
funny stuff ;D
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 03/02/05 at 7:23 pm
So say image experts, trial consultants and defense attorneys, who contend Michael Jackson is committing a fashion crime by bringing his flamboyant carnival-barker look to the courtroom.
"Costumes are for a particular type of event. Funerals are not one, church is not one, and the courtroom falls into that category," said Pat McEvoy, a longtime trial consultant who's worked with celebrity clients.
"The whole idea of going in there dressed like Sergeant Pepper could really backfire for him. He has to think about what effect this is going to have on a panel of jurors, and I just don't think he has that in mind."
Unlike other celebrity defendants, Jackson, who's currently being tried on charges he molested a 13-year-old boy, isn't toning down his look for the trial.
Rather, he's been going full-throttle with his trademark red armbands, military-style medallions, satin brocade vests and cherry lipstick.
"Before showtime, there's court time, and it has to take precedence," said Danit Ran Schrieber, a defense attorney turned image consultant based in Westchester. "I don't think the way he's managing his image is working for him."
The more wacko he looks, say critics, the less he appears human to the jury.
"For years he's been complaining that people don't see the real him. Well, tone down the show and let us see the real you," said New York-based image consultant Lauren Solomon. "Let people see the person behind the clothes."
Instead of looking like a guest at the Mad Hatter's tea party, Jackson should wear "something the average person can relate to a little."
His extreme fashion statements communicate a lack of respect for the court and for the gravity of the charges against him.
The daily fashion show "elevates the fact that he doesn't think this is a big deal," said Solomon.
"It's almost like he's thumbing his nose at the whole thing. He needs to show he recognizes that this is serious."
Many celebrities have toned down their image when it's time to face a jury. Winona Ryder's demure suits gave her a quiet dignity when she was on trial for shoplifting.
Anthony Keidis of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, rap bad boy Eminem and R&B crooner R. Kelly all donned suits when their day in court came (for sexual battery, assault and statutory rape, respectively).
Even the walking trainwreck Courtney Love dolled herself up in Marc Jacobs when facing assault charges in New York last summer.
And "Look at Kobe Bryant," said Schreiber. "He was clean as a pin."
Jacko might do well to follow suit.
"Why does he need thick pancake makeup in a courtroom?" asked David Graeven of the firm Trial Behavior Consulting. "You don't want to communicate that you're hiding something."
The fluffy bob hairdo is a problem too, said McEvoy - not so much because it's effeminate, as because it obscures his eyes. His aviator shades present the same problem.
"Eye contact is one of the ways people judge credibility," she said. Jackson ought to "get a haircut or tie it back."As for the clothes, forget the splashy red and the all-white getups. Neutral, dark hues are the way to go, experts agree.
"Something more subtle and average," said Solomon, suggesting "a solid, dark suit, and a basic shirt and tie."
And Jackson needs "a clean look, not a lot of busy patterns," said Schreiber. "Something low-key and respectful. What he needs to communicate is, 'I'm a rational person, I didn't do these things.'"
Looking less like a sideshow attraction could do lot for Jackson's battered public image, she said.
"Don't overlook the importance of being perceived as being as human as possible," she said. "It's horrible to be a defendant and go through that procedure, and it's something you can use to your advantage to stress your humanity."
Americans "are very forgiving," she said, and they'll "give him benefit of the doubt "if they see he's trying hard."
Yet a few image experts said a marked sartorial shift on Jackson's part could come off as pandering - and jurors could see through it.
"You have to look like who you are," said Dan Young, CEO of the trial consulting firm Directed Decisions. "If he came in with a traditional suit and tie, it would be so odd that it could be more detrimental than what he normally wears."
Defense attorney Stephen Scaring, who counts Lizzie Grubman among his high-profile clients, agrees.
Jackson's look "makes sense" for him, he said, adding it's a dead certainty that it's been focus-grouped and otherwise strategized over by Jackson's legal team.
"One of the things he's got going for him is his eccentricity and his celebrity status," he said. "The fact that he's odd is a way to explain some of his conduct that might be suspicious if you or I were to engage in it."
The bottom line, said Scaring, is that Jackson "can't run away from who he is. He is Michael Jackson, and it's too late to change that."
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 03/03/05 at 12:20 am
And, I'm sure that he was innocent the last 2 times as well ::) So, my parents are devout Catholics...it wouldn't be the first time GASP!!! parents and children had different beliefs And, if Michael Jackson was white, he would've fought to keep whites off the jury....it's called strategy....if you keow ANYTHING about practicing law, you'd realize that ANY attorney would do the same Proof? Again, just because a member of his family is involved doesn't mean he is ummm, hate to inform you, but it is a grand jury that decides if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, not just the district attorney... Again, if you knew anything about the law, you would realize that this type of thing happens all the time, it doesn't necessarily mean that the other 3 were made up, it's a decision based on the evidence if they can win or not. Heck, I know that simply from watching CSI. I don't remember ever hearing 70 years, but so what? If someone's tried for murder, there is no "general" sentence for "murder", there are different classes, etc. (i.e. 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree, etc and those classes apply to other charges as well, not just murder) The kid was, what 12? 13?? when it happened? It's 2 years later....do you remember exact dates things happened to you 2-3 years ago? I sure as heck don't.  It's all a conspiracy.....the wine/alcohol in the pop cans, the kiddie porn found at his house, the fact that he showed MANY children porn, the "sharing a bed", the fact that he would not allow other adults in the room with him and the children....there's so much evidence that shows that these charges are most likely true it baffles me to wonder why people can't accept the fact that he's a perv ::)
That sure is sad :\'( Poor kids and it's a shame such a talent has to be such an empty person. I can't imagine how scared I'd be to be one of those kids. I hope he's in prison until he croaks >:(
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/03/05 at 12:53 am
I am sick and tired of people labelling Michael wacko? Seriously, what is so wacko about the way he dresses in court. People must keep in mind he has very strong values and beliefs. He wears an armband to signify suffering. He said, "As long as there is still people suffering in the world, I will wear an armband." He wears crusifix's and sometimes has religous symbols on his jacket because he is a very strong christian. He looks nice in what he's wearing. What's so wacko about trousers, a jacket coat, a vest, a shirt and a tie. It seems pretty normal to me. What do people expect? Do they want him to go into court wearing jeans and a T-shirt? This is a court proceeding. it's expected that if you are a witness, prosecutor or defendant, that you look well presented.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Mona on 03/03/05 at 7:55 am
Unlike Bill Clintons nose growing as he uttered those famous words "I did NOT have sex with that woman!" Micheal's would fall off if he says "I did NOT have sex with that boy!"...but just maybe he'll get a sign like Bill has in Arkansas...
LOL Is that for real? I don't remember seeing it when I went thru there about a year ago.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/04/05 at 9:41 pm
Well, for one, everyone KNOWS you don't wear white between Labor Day & Easter :P
That's why Michael's been wearing black.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/04/05 at 9:42 pm
Hey cool! Looks like I'm not the only person who thinks Michael is not guilty.
E! Online poll: Do you think Michael Jackson is guilty or not guilty?
Guilty 31 %
Not Guilty 68 %
;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 03/04/05 at 9:48 pm
And, I'm sure that he was innocent the last 2 times as well ::) So, my parents are devout Catholics...it wouldn't be the first time GASP!!! parents and children had different beliefs And, if Michael Jackson was white, he would've fought to keep whites off the jury....it's called strategy....if you keow ANYTHING about practicing law, you'd realize that ANY attorney would do the same Proof? Again, just because a member of his family is involved doesn't mean he is ummm, hate to inform you, but it is a grand jury that decides if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, not just the district attorney... Again, if you knew anything about the law, you would realize that this type of thing happens all the time, it doesn't necessarily mean that the other 3 were made up, it's a decision based on the evidence if they can win or not. Heck, I know that simply from watching CSI. I don't remember ever hearing 70 years, but so what? If someone's tried for murder, there is no "general" sentence for "murder", there are different classes, etc. (i.e. 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree, etc and those classes apply to other charges as well, not just murder) The kid was, what 12? 13?? when it happened? It's 2 years later....do you remember exact dates things happened to you 2-3 years ago? I sure as heck don't.  It's all a conspiracy.....the wine/alcohol in the pop cans, the kiddie porn found at his house, the fact that he showed MANY children porn, the "sharing a bed", the fact that he would not allow other adults in the room with him and the children....there's so much evidence that shows that these charges are most likely true it baffles me to wonder why people can't accept the fact that he's a perv ::)
I agree, crazymom...too bad it didn't register with everyone :-\\
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/04/05 at 9:58 pm
And, I'm sure that he was innocent the last 2 times as well ::) So, my parents are devout Catholics...it wouldn't be the first time GASP!!! parents and children had different beliefs And, if Michael Jackson was white, he would've fought to keep whites off the jury....it's called strategy....if you keow ANYTHING about practicing law, you'd realize that ANY attorney would do the same Proof? Again, just because a member of his family is involved doesn't mean he is ummm, hate to inform you, but it is a grand jury that decides if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, not just the district attorney... Again, if you knew anything about the law, you would realize that this type of thing happens all the time, it doesn't necessarily mean that the other 3 were made up, it's a decision based on the evidence if they can win or not. Heck, I know that simply from watching CSI. I don't remember ever hearing 70 years, but so what? If someone's tried for murder, there is no "general" sentence for "murder", there are different classes, etc. (i.e. 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree, etc and those classes apply to other charges as well, not just murder) The kid was, what 12? 13?? when it happened? It's 2 years later....do you remember exact dates things happened to you 2-3 years ago? I sure as heck don't.  It's all a conspiracy.....the wine/alcohol in the pop cans, the kiddie porn found at his house, the fact that he showed MANY children porn, the "sharing a bed", the fact that he would not allow other adults in the room with him and the children....there's so much evidence that shows that these charges are most likely true it baffles me to wonder why people can't accept the fact that he's a perv ::)
The prosecution has no evidence. the family has a history of this kind of rubbish. Michael has an ullaby and a witness to prove that he was with him at the time of the alleged molestation. The sister openly admitted to lying today in court. T Mez is grilling this family, ti'll all be over in a matter of 1-2 weeks.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Apricot on 03/04/05 at 10:04 pm
I really don't care... it's taking to long to either get him in a cell or send him back home. Enough already.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/04/05 at 10:06 pm
I really don't care... it's taking to long to either get him in a cell or send him back home. Enough already.
You don't have to wait anymore. Don't be surprised if this thing is over this time next week!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: say on 03/05/05 at 1:52 am
michael's a pervert...ok..and he's guilty... :-X
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 03/05/05 at 3:28 am
Guilty or not, I think crumbum parents with ulterior motives to leech of MJ are partially to blame!
Would you let your kid sleep over unchaperoned at the Neverland Ranch? No, no more than you would've let your kid sleep over at the Spahn Ranch.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Dave Brown on 03/05/05 at 4:12 am
Hi!
I have just read the "OJ revisited" thread in the 90's section and it made me think of one of today's high profile cases: the Michael Jackson child molestation charges. I just would like to know what everybody thinks of it here.
During his first case I thought it was just a set-up. Now I rather tend to think he is guilty. What made me change my mind? It's just that I did some reasearch on him and pedophilia(sp?) on the WWW and he does seem to fit into the pedophile profile! Also he never really had normal relationships with women. Meanwhile he is always with these 12-14 year old boys. Not girls, just boys and always about the same age (12-14). And when they grow up he just loses interest in them.
So yes, I think MJ is BAD and it is a pity because he had the talent.... :-\\
Michael Jackson is a guilty as hell. What he did to those poor kids was truly disgusting. He ought to be ashamed of himself.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/05/05 at 5:13 am
Michael Jackson is a guilty as hell. What he did to those poor kids was truly disgusting. He ought to be ashamed of himself.
WTF?? Whatchu smokin?
So far in the trial, Sneddon has describe the graphic details of his story and T Mez has proved that the family have a history of smuggling money from celebrities. T Mez also let the jury know that the prosecution had no evidence against Michael Jackson.
The "Living With Michael Jackson" documentary was shown to jurors and surprisingly, turned on the defence. After witnessing Jackson's behaviour, the jurors thought very highly of him and the way he treated children. You don't molest something you love. T Mez then asked the creator of the documentary, Martin Bashir, a series of questions which Bashir didn't answer.
The jury was then shown a video in which the accuser's family gave praise to Michael and referred to him as a father figure.
The sister of the accuser took the witness stand and (after a grilling by T Mez) admitted she had lied about Jackson and her mother had made her lie about other celebrities in the past.
Still believe he is guilty?
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Philip Eno on 03/05/05 at 5:18 am
Michael Jackson is a guilty as hell. What he did to those poor kids was truly disgusting. He ought to be ashamed of himself.
It is still yet to be proven in court. The only way to really know what happened is to had been there yourself!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/05/05 at 5:33 am
It is still yet to be proven in court. The only way to really know what happened is to had been there yourself!
The thing is, Michael wasn't even there when "it" happened. He has an ullaby, and he has witnesses who can confirm he was with them when the alleged child molestation took place.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/05/05 at 6:08 am
LMAO! I just saw this pic and had to post it. For some reason, a priest came along to the court proceedings today. I think he is the priest of the AME church Michael and his family attend. I just had to laugh because it seems everyone that's been attending the court proceedings, fram fans to reporters are catching Michaelmania. Even the priest is doin' the crotch grab, lol....
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y27/thedreamstaff2/FOTO%20UDIENZE/4marzo2005/21.jpg
That, and the fact that Michael was wearing socks with sandals, is one of the funniest things I have seen all day!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: ski_luvr on 03/05/05 at 11:41 am
And, I'm sure that he was innocent the last 2 times as well ::) So, my parents are devout Catholics...it wouldn't be the first time GASP!!! parents and children had different beliefs And, if Michael Jackson was white, he would've fought to keep whites off the jury....it's called strategy....if you keow ANYTHING about practicing law, you'd realize that ANY attorney would do the same Proof? Again, just because a member of his family is involved doesn't mean he is ummm, hate to inform you, but it is a grand jury that decides if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, not just the district attorney... Again, if you knew anything about the law, you would realize that this type of thing happens all the time, it doesn't necessarily mean that the other 3 were made up, it's a decision based on the evidence if they can win or not. Heck, I know that simply from watching CSI. I don't remember ever hearing 70 years, but so what? If someone's tried for murder, there is no "general" sentence for "murder", there are different classes, etc. (i.e. 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree, etc and those classes apply to other charges as well, not just murder) The kid was, what 12? 13?? when it happened? It's 2 years later....do you remember exact dates things happened to you 2-3 years ago? I sure as heck don't. It's all a conspiracy.....the wine/alcohol in the pop cans, the kiddie porn found at his house, the fact that he showed MANY children porn, the "sharing a bed", the fact that he would not allow other adults in the room with him and the children....there's so much evidence that shows that these charges are most likely true it baffles me to wonder why people can't accept the fact that he's a perv ::)
You go Girl Im behind you 100% My Boys are 20 and 15 now and theres NO fricking way I would have allowed them to go with someone like that when they were little! I have followed Michael Jackson from the 70"s . He's a man with some serious issues The way he BUTCHERED his Face almost makes you think hes ashamed of his Ethnic Background :(
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 03/05/05 at 1:37 pm
You go Girl Im behind you 100% My Boys are 20 and 15 now and theres NO fricking way I would have allowed them to go with someone like that when they were little! I have followed Michael Jackson from the 70"s . He's a man with some serious issues The way he BUTCHERED his Face almost makes you think hes ashamed of his Ethnic Background :(
Ah yes, but his defenders/fans will say that it was HIS choice to have a single procedure done to his face ::) Oh and that it's never been proven that he actually did anything to any kid...sorry but WHY would he get himself in the position (pardon the pun) with kids in the first place. So have kids overnight but have a couple other adults around to make sure nothing happened....THEN people might believe he didn't do what he's been accused of.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 03/05/05 at 1:45 pm
You don't molest something you love.
People molest others that they love all the time, most cases of molestation are from relatives. or close friends of the family.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 03/05/05 at 1:49 pm
People molest others that they love all the time, most cases of molestation are from relatives. or close friends of the family.
Yep, my ex went through a very traumatic childhood and will always have the scars :\'(
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 03/05/05 at 2:15 pm
Hey cool! Looks like I'm not the only person who thinks Michael is not guilty.
E! Online poll: Do you think Michael Jackson is guilty or not guilty?
Guilty 31 %
Not Guilty 68 %
;D
i think you got that backwards, it's 31% not guilty and 68% guilty
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 03/05/05 at 2:36 pm
i think you got that backwards, it's 31% not guilty and 68% guilty
Let's also not forget that OJ was aquitted because he didn't commit the crime he was accused of either ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 03/05/05 at 3:24 pm
Let's also not forget that OJ was aquitted because he didn't commit the crime he was accused of either ::)
Oh I know that I was just correcting robbo cause he had that backwards, personally I think MJ is not guilty because of the fact that his accuser's mother has done this before.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 03/05/05 at 3:37 pm
Oh I know that I was just correcting robbo cause he had that backwards, personally I think MJ is not guilty because of the fact that his accuser's mother has done this before.
It's cool...I just hope they don't turn this trial around and use her to get Michael off... ::)....if he is guilty. Kinda like they did with the OJ trial...turning into a circus and not focusing on the accused and the victims only :-\\
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/05/05 at 6:03 pm
The thing I don't understand is how people say he's not guilty of this crime, but he was guilty in 1003, so he should go to jail. He's not on trial for 1993. That case was settled in court and there is no way Michael can go to prison for that unless the Chandler family choose to take out a criminal case. But it's taken so long that if they were to take out a criminal case, it'd be very hard for them to prove. They wont be able to find any DNA evidence. All the "witnesses" they had back in 1993 who said they saw Michael molest boys have since stated that they lied, and they only said it because they were getting paid to do so, and most of them were ex-employees of Neverland so they had a grudge against Michael for firing them. With no witnesses and no evidence, there is no way the Chandler family can win if they take out a criminal case against Michael. I'm not even sure if they can take out a criminal lawsuit against him, because it's been so long.
Afetr Michael is vindicated, he wont let any children sleepover at Neverland anymore, so hopefully there'd be no reason for this kind of mess to ever happen again.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/05/05 at 6:08 pm
i think you got that backwards, it's 31% not guilty and 68% guilty
No it's not. Check it out yourself... http://www.eonline.com/News/Specials/Jackson/Scorecard/050305.html#poll
Based on this day's proceedings, I think Michael Jackson is:
Guilty 32 %
Not Guilty 67 %
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 03/05/05 at 6:09 pm
he wont let any children sleepover at Neverland anymore, so hopefully there'd be no reason for this kind of mess to ever happen again.
And he would've done this years ago...or at the very least had some other adults in the same room, maybe all of this would'nt have happened to begin with :-\\
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/05/05 at 6:11 pm
And he would've done this years ago...or at the very least had some other adults in the same room, maybe all of this would'nt have happened to begin with :-\\
Well, according to the prosecution, there was an adult in the room when it allegedly happend, Frank Tyson. Frank Tyson is also involved in many of the conspiracy charges.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 03/05/05 at 6:14 pm
Well, according to the prosecution, there was an adult in the room when it allegedly happend, Frank Tyson. Frank Tyson is also involved in many of the conspiracy charges.
Well he should've had somebody else....more people involed...OR realized that it may not be the smatest thing to have children in his bedroom alone in the first place. A common sense issue, really...and he lacked that common sense.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/05/05 at 6:19 pm
Well he should've had somebody else....more people involed...OR realized that it may not be the smatest thing to have children in his bedroom alone in the first place. A common sense issue, really...and he lacked that common sense.
Anyway, that's just what the prosecution are saying. The defence are saying Michael wasn't even there at the time. Face it, Michael's innocent. He has an ullaby, he has witnesses, the prosecution have no evidence and any witnesses they've brought to the stand so far haven't helped them at all. Infact, they've been more of a help to the defence rather then the prosecution.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 03/05/05 at 6:23 pm
No it's not. Check it out yourself... http://www.eonline.com/News/Specials/Jackson/Scorecard/050305.html#poll
Based on this day's proceedings, I think Michael Jackson is:
Guilty 32 %
Not Guilty 67 %
I stand corrected, I thought you were talking about this post.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/05/05 at 6:33 pm
I stand corrected, I thought you were talking about this post.
Oh okay, in that case it was just a matter of misunderstanding. It's all cool.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 03/05/05 at 8:17 pm
I know this has nothing to do with the topic but I found it cute, Robbo remember that I to beleive he is NOT GUILTY
http://www.lolfun.com/funpages/view.cfm/10310
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 03/05/05 at 8:32 pm
I know this has nothing to do with the topic but I found it cute, Robbo remember that I to beleive he is NOT GUILTY
http://www.lolfun.com/funpages/view.cfm/10310
I think he's done some weird stuff but I think he is too mindless to truly be responsible for it. I barely consider Jackson human and I really couldn't care either way about him.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: ski_luvr on 03/05/05 at 11:30 pm
If a man raped my child, I'd never accept money to be silent. I'd want him jailed for what he did to my child and so that he couldn't harm more children. Any parent should agree or else shame on you.
The 1993 allegations against Jackson were a blatant scam and this latest "case" is just a poor copy cat scam.
The only ones that know the truth are the ones involved not those who hate him and want to beleive the wosrt or those who are all FREAKY over him Maybe hes lying to keep himself out of Prison hes a germaphob like Tiny Tim who really knows his true hidden evils. Had anyone heard him being accused of molesting a black boy? Just curious or was it just white? Why did he Butcher his Face to look white Im not talking skin color Im talking features he doesnt look black any more was he ashamed of his Ethnic Origin? Have you ever heard about people that lie so much they actually start beleiving their lies. Could that be possible his up bringing How about a lie detector test. And on the flip side of those people taking money! If he's innocent why did he pay them off? To shut them up I dont think so. Would you give someone your money if you were innocent Hell no! If one is innocent they dont need to pay someone off! Does any of this make any sence??????!!!!!!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Philip Eno on 03/06/05 at 5:48 am
Not guilty, unless proven otherwise.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 03/06/05 at 8:12 am
If he's innocent why did he pay them off? To shut them up I dont think so. Would you give someone your money if you were innocent Hell no!  If one is innocent they dont need to pay someone off! Does any of this make any sence??????!!!!!!
Actually most celebrities settle out of court on the advice of their lawyers. the family in 1993 also had the lawyer sign a document that says that MJ will not counter sue if they went to court on criminal charges and he was proven innocent.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 03/06/05 at 9:32 am
if he is found guilty here is what wll happen
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: ski_luvr on 03/06/05 at 9:19 pm
Actually most celebrities settle out of court on the advice of their lawyers. the family in 1993 also had the lawyer sign a document that says that MJ will not counter sue if they went to court on criminal charges and he was proven innocent.
So what are we to understand here? That beings hes a celebrity his Lawyer told him to settle out of court and pay these people for something he was supposedly innocent of? Doesn't make sence to me! If he was GUILTY it would not INNOCENT!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/07/05 at 12:21 am
Why did he Butcher his Face to look white Im not talking skin color Im talking features he doesnt look black any more was he ashamed of his Ethnic Origin?ÂÂ
He does look black. Last week, his brother Jackie came to court with him, there is a picture of the two of them together and they look exactly the same. Michael just has a more narrow nose and he has a lighter skin tone. Jackie hasn't had any plactic surgery btw.
Have you ever heard about people that lie so much they actually start beleiving their lies. Could that be possible his up bringing How about a lie detector test.
Who know the technology that they used to identify if it was the real Osama Bin Laden who sent over the videos? Well they used the same technology to identify if Michael was lying in the Gerlado Rivera interview. The test results said that he was telling the truth when he said he was innocent and that he never would harm a child. However, they said he lied when he said he was staying strong and he lied when he said he was certain he would be vindicated. But the main thing is, he was telling the truth when he said he was innocent of the crime!
And on the flip side of those people taking money! If he's innocent why did he pay them off? To shut them up I dont think so. Would you give someone your money if you were innocent Hell no!  If one is innocent they dont need to pay someone off! Does any of this make any sence??????!!!!!!
Michael record company (Epic/Sony) advised him to pay off the accusers. Also, did you know that after Michael apid them off they could've still took out a criminal lawsuit against Michael but they never did. If Michael was guilty then it seems the boy's parents were willing to prostitute their son!! However, the fact taht they never tried to seek justice, makes it obvious that nothing really happened, they were just after money.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 03/07/05 at 10:37 am
It is still yet to be proven in court. The only way to really know what happened is to had been there yourself!
While I agree I also know that many people are found not guilty in court and sometimes it doesn't mean they weren't :-\\
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 03/08/05 at 10:04 am
The thing is, Michael wasn't even there when "it" happened. He has an ullaby, and he has witnesses who can confirm he was with them when the alleged child molestation took place.
Oh that's right, and OJ claimed he wasn't there when his wife and friend were murdered ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 03/08/05 at 10:24 am
Earlier in the day, the jury heard an audiotape in which the accuser’s siblings and mother effusively praised the “King of Pop†as a father figure who took them in after years of abuse by the mother’s ex-husband. The tape was used by the defense in an attempt to impeach the credibility of the accuser’s 18-year-old sister.
The sister, hunched over in her seat, cried on the witness stand as the tape was played.
“At that point I still liked Mr. Jackson and I was just latching onto something,†she said of her comments on the tape. “I had 16 years of abuse and I didn’t know what a father was.â€Â
this statement comes from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7118247
The sister really messed this part up, on Friday she testifies that they made the tape from a script, that they were being held hostage when it was made and were scared not to do it. Now she is saying that it ws when she still liked him. That's the problem with lying, you can't keep the facts straight.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 03/08/05 at 10:40 am
The sister really messed this part up, on Friday she testifies that they made the tape from a script, that they were being held hostage when it was made and were scared not to do it. Now she is saying that it ws when she still liked him. That's the problem with lying, you can't keep the facts straight.
Michael has done pretty good so far ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Miss Tainted on 03/08/05 at 5:38 pm
He has little boys underwear framed on his wall. That's all I have to say....
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: ski_luvr on 03/08/05 at 6:20 pm
He does look black. Last week, his brother Jackie came to court with him, there is a picture of the two of them together and they look exactly the same. Michael just has a more narrow nose and he has a lighter skin tone. Jackie hasn't had any plactic surgery btw.
Who know the technology that they used to identify if it was the real Osama Bin Laden who sent over the videos? Well they used the same technology to identify if Michael was lying in the Gerlado Rivera interview. The test results said that he was telling the truth when he said he was innocent and that he never would harm a child. However, they said he lied when he said he was staying strong and he lied when he said he was certain he would be vindicated. But the main thing is, he was telling the truth when he said he was innocent of the crime!
Michael record company (Epic/Sony) advised him to pay off the accusers. Also, did you know that after Michael apid them off they could've still took out a criminal lawsuit against Michael but they never did. If Michael was guilty then it seems the boy's parents were willing to prostitute their son!! However, the fact taht they never tried to seek justice, makes it obvious that nothing really happened, they were just after money.
Yes he looks more white then black He had many surgeries on his face his nose and lips dont look anything like they would if he hadn't had it done! I didn't say his skin color! I don't hate Michael I just wont let the fact that hes rich or black cloud my judgment as soon as someone says someone of color is guilty your called racist Ive been following him from the 70's and hes always been different as we are all different hes in the public eye and we notice it more so! He had that hidden door in his closet behind all the Military uniforms that led up stairs to a room made up for a child it had a makeshift alarm that when someone was to climb the stairs instruments would sound off. It just strikes me as extremely STRANGE that he would need such a room hidden from everyone what do you suppose was the need for this room! Im sure youll have some reason for this aswell! This was in a Article in Peoples Magazine! Many stories from many sources from children to adults and his help! So EVERYONE is lying and hes the only one telling the truth! I say if hes GUILTY All the more reason to make it public as well as the punishment! He is a role model for many people and the thought that he could get away with such a thing as to destroy these children would make these who look up to him think they may be able to get away with such things or maybe its not bad "Well Michael did it and got away with it" Punishment should fit the Crime! Dont let his Celebrity standing cloud your judgment you cant buy your way out of everything! Justice will be served Eventually One way or the other! :(
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 03/08/05 at 6:24 pm
SANTA MARIA, Calif. (Reuters) - A teenage boy testified on Tuesday that Michael Jackson told him and his brother, who has accused the pop star of sex abuse, to keep their activities at Jackson's ranch secret "even if they put a gun to your head."
But during cross-examination, Jackson's lead defense attorney accused the 14-year-old boy of lying, breaking into the singer's suitcase full of adult magazines and wine cellar and "snooping" around his bedroom.
The testimony of the boy, who told jurors on Monday that he saw Jackson masturbating while groping his sleeping brother, is at the heart of the child molestation trial. He has also said that Jackson showed the boys pornography and gave them wine, called "Jesus Juice" by the performer.
"One time me and my brother and (another boy) were sitting on the bed and (Michael) told us not to tell anyone what happened, even if they put a gun to your head," the boy said in response to questions from Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon.
He said Jackson once made a similar remark about their older sister, who has also testified at the trial.
"He told us not to tell her anything, he was afraid she might tell our mom what we were doing," the boy said. Asked by Sneddon what Jackson was referring to, the boy said "drinking."
Jackson, 46, is charged with molesting the boy's older brother, then 13, plying him with alcohol in order to abuse him and conspiring to commit child abduction, extortion and false imprisonment. Jackson, who has pleaded innocent, faces more than two decades in prison if he is convicted on all 10 criminal counts.
On cross-examination, lead defense attorney Tom Mesereau hammered at the boy's testimony that he twice stumbled on Jackson groping his sleeping brother. He said he witnessed both incidents while climbing a stairway leading to the pop star's bedroom in February or March of 2003.
The boy agreed with Mesereau that a bell sounds in a hallway whenever visitors approach Jackson's bedroom door. But he refused to concede that Jackson would have heard the alarm, saying that it was only audible from the bed area if a second door was open.
Mesereau also hammered at what he said were inconsistencies in the boy's account, saying that his testimony about the two incidents conflicted with what he had previously told a psychologist.
The attorney also pointed out that a copy of the adult magazine "Barely Legal," presented by prosecutors as among those that Jackson showed the boy, was dated August of 2003 -- six months after the family left Jackson's Neverland Valley Ranch for the last time. The boy said he never claimed to have seen that issue.
Mesereau also called on the boy to admit that he and his brother had been caught breaking into Jackson's wine cellar, bedroom, and stash of adult magazines -- in keeping with a defense theory that they ran wild at Neverland.
"You went snooping around the entire bedroom area when Mr. Jackson wasn't even there, didn't you?" Mesereau asked. The boy responded: "No."
Here is another story from the case^
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: ski_luvr on 03/08/05 at 6:25 pm
He has little boys underwear framed on his wall. That's all I have to say....
Yes with all these abnormal things he has like the underwear and the hidden stairway in the back of his closet! Gee isn't this normal!!WTF
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: ski_luvr on 03/08/05 at 11:04 pm
huh? The technology used to identify Osama was facial & vocal recognition software...it can't determine if you're lying or not ::)
I don't think they know what their talking about Their just flapping to sound intelligent! And hoping no one else notices. Great point! :)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 03/08/05 at 11:51 pm
Thanks ;)
You know something....I loved how you broke down stuff bit by bit....but I hate that the Jackson fans choose to "Ignore" them ::) Must be in denial :D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/09/05 at 12:46 am
huh? The technology used to identify Osama was facial & vocal recognition software...it can't determine if you're lying or not ::)
It was done on ET or something. Don't say I'm flapping around not knowing what I'm saying. It's the tabloids that claimed they used this technology to determine if Mikew as lying or not. Your hero Diane Dimond is going to jail anyway, so there will be no more of this BS tabloid stories because, lets face it, they all start from Diane Dimond and then spread out accross different networks and stuff. Dimond is goind down and I'm lovin it!!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/09/05 at 12:51 am
Also, this might be kinda OT but look at this amazing picture...
http://www.2and2.net/Uploads/Images/52298415.jpg
That's called PRIDE! Joe is so proud of Michael, it's very touching. This sort of thing, pride and love between a father and son is something that is lost in today's society and it's so nice seeing something like this. Joe is so proud of Michael. I'm proud of Mike aswell. Keep it up Mike, the truth ALWAYS prevails!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/09/05 at 1:06 am
http://www.thisislondon.com/til/jsp/module...itemId=17091008
Jackson has been set up
By Sarah Hills, Metro
Michael Jackson has been 'set up' in his child abuse trial because he is famous, music legend James Brown said yesterday.
The singer should be touring parts of Asia ravaged by the tsunami instead of defending himself in court, added the Godfather of Soul.
Advising Jackson to pray, Brown, who spent two years in jail on drug and assault charges in the 1990s, compared the star's trial with his own.
'I think he's has been set up like most entertainers. People think you have a lot of money. They've been trying to do that to me all my life - trying to get something for nothing,' said Brown.
The 71-year-old, famous for hits such as Please, Please and Papa's Got ABrand New Bag, spoke before a tsunami fundraising concert in Indonesia.
He said: 'We need Michael out here entertaining. One day, I'll be too old to travel and I'll want to see good entertainers like him spreading the good word.'
The soul man said he and his wife Tommie Rae, 33, were thinking of adopting Asian children orphaned by the tsunami and shrugged off talk of retirement, saying: 'Retire for what? What would I do? I want to make the world better and more peaceful.'
Jackson's trial in California will resume today. The 45-year-old faces up to 20 years in jail if convicted of sexually abusing a 13-year-old cancer patient.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 03/09/05 at 6:19 pm
SANTA MARIA, Calif. Mar 9, 2005  Michael Jackson's young accuser took the witness stand Wednesday, facing the singer in court for the first time. With an expression that appeared to be verging on a sneer, the boy said yes when District Attorney Tom Sneddon asked him if he recognized the defendant.
The accuser followed his 14-year-old brother, who testified he saw Jackson grope his sibling in 2003.
The 15-year-old accuser, who was a cancer patient when he met Jackson, talked about attending a Los Angeles comedy camp hosted by Jamie Masada, the comedy club owner who would eventually bring him and Jackson together.
Accuser Faces Michael Jackson in Trial
Cannon Wanted for Thompson's Bang-Up Salute
Financial Trouble for Michael Jackson?
The boy said he met comedians including George Lopez and Chris Tucker. He said his favorite comedian was "Tonight Show" host Jay Leno and that he often asked Masada if Leno would attend the camp, but Leno never did.
The defense contends Leno is one of several comedians the boy's family tried to bilk out of money.
Jackson's accuser also testified about his father hitting him, his sister and mother, and talked about what it was like to have cancer.
"I felt like there was a knife in my stomach," he said, adding that he would hold a pillow to his stomach as he slept to quell the pain.
Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting the boy, giving him alcohol and conspiring to hold the boy's family captive to get them to rebut a damaging TV documentary in which Jackson said he allowed children to sleep in his bedroom. Jackson's defense contends the family has a history of filing false claims to get money.
Jackson's accuser took the stand after his younger brother, who under cross-examination by defense lawyer Thomas Mesereau Jr. admitted discrepancies between his testimony and his other accounts of allegedly seeing Jackson molest his brother.
During questioning by the prosecution the boy told of twice looking through the doorway of Jackson's bedroom as the pop star molested his sleeping brother while he masturbated.
Mesereau confronted the witness with a previous statements to sheriff's investigators in which he said that during the second incident he was in the room curled up on a little couch pretending to sleep.
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 03/09/05 at 6:45 pm
I think the term "Face It" is coming up too often in this thread...coinsidence...or reference to THIS:
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 03/09/05 at 7:01 pm
heehee
he certainly has a NOSE for NEWS ;D
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Gee on 03/10/05 at 12:30 am
NOT GUILTY...... There are to many inconsistencies with the accusers family. The mother of the accuser, daughter and 2 sons are compulsive liars. The family is out to get money. The abuse and molesting is coming from the MOTHER of the children. Michael has to be proven guilty without a reasonable doubt. I have a lot of doubt and think he is Innocent. The family has sued JC Penney for sexual abuse and lied. The mother had the children lie against their own father and accused him of sexual abuse. The guilty parties are the crazy mother and her children.
NOT GUILTY
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 03/10/05 at 3:25 pm
SANTA MARIA – Michael Jackson arrived late to his child molestation trial Thursday to face a judge who threatened to arrest him and revoke his $3 million bail, but the judge took no action against the singer in open court and the pop star's accuser resumed testifying, saying the singer once gave him wine.
Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville had issued an arrest warrant when Jackson failed to arrive on time, but told defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. he would hold it for one hour.
Mesereau, who told the judge Jackson had suffered a severe back problem and was being treated at a hospital, paced outside court and talked on his cell phone until the singer arrived, a few minutes past the deadline.
Jackson walked in gingerly, dressed in a jacket over pajamas and looked distressed.
Attorneys met with the judge in chambers before court resumed and Melville addressed the jury.
"Mr. Jackson had a medical – problem and it was necessary for me to order his appearance," Melville said.
He said he didn't want jurors to draw any negative inferences from the fact that Jackson did not appear or that the judge had to order him to appear.
"The trial is going to go forward. In doing that I'm not expressing any opinion about the case or Mr. Jackson or the district attorney," Melville said.
Jackson spokeswoman Raymone K. Bain said outside court that Jackson woke up around 4:30 a.m. and his "back gave out on him." She said he notified his attorney and others and was rushed to an emergency room, arriving at 5:45 a.m. She said Jackson had wanted to be in court to hear from his accuser, who took the stand Wednesday.
"I talked to Mr. Jackson about four or five times yesterday. He was not intimated at all. He is wanting to be in court every day. This is about his life. This is not a joke to him.
"He knows the seriousness of this. He's not play acting," she said.
The 15-year-old accuser returned to the stand and testified about a TV documentary in which he appeared with Jackson, showed them holding hands and then putting his head on Jackson's shoulder. The boy was a 13-year-old cancer survivor at the time.
The documentary, aired on Feb. 6, 2003, raised a furor because of Jackson's comment that he shared his bed with children. The prosecution claims Jackson molested the boy after the documentary aired and conspired to hold the boy's family captive to get them to rebut the documentary.
The accuser's 14-year-old brother has testified he twice saw Jackson molesting his sleeping brother in the master bedroom at Jackson's Neverland ranch.
The accuser testified that Jackson suggested they hold hands in the documentary and he spontaneously put his head on the singer's shoulder.
"I was really close to Michael and he was like my best friend. I just put my head on his shoulder," he testified.
The boy also testified that Jackson invited him to Miami because he wanted the boy to be with him when he held a news conference to respond to the documentary.
The boy said Jackson was initially reluctant to let his mother come along but agreed when the boy said he might not be allowed to go otherwise.
He described several private meetings with Jackson in Miami on the day the documentary aired, including one in which he did an "audition" for the singer in which he pretended to be a student in trouble and Jackson played his principal.
He also said Jackson gave him wine in a Diet Coke can, saying it would help him relax amid all the media reports about the documentary.
"He told me if I had ever heard of Jesus juice. He told me, 'Like you know how Jesus drank wine? We call it Jesus juice,'" he said.
"I drank a little bit of it and I told him it tasted ugly. ... He said he knew I was stressed out from all the media stuff going on and the Jesus juice would relax me."
The boy said he had previously sipped wine in church.
The witness said he also shared the soda can on a private jet flight back from Miami. He said Jackson offered it to him after the singer said he used to be afraid of flying.
"He told me to drink the Jesus juice, it would relax me," the boy said, adding that they also shared the can with his brother.
He said Jackson gave him a jacket when the left the Miami hotel and gave him a watch on the plane.
"He told me not to tell anyone about the Jesus juice. He said that this is a symbol that we will be friends together," the witness said.
The boy said he gave the watch to an attorney, Larry Feldman, who represented his family after they left Neverland for the last time.
He was asked if Jackson employee Dieter Wiesner ever tried to get the watch back from him and he said no.
His brother previously testified that Wiesner had tried to get the watch back. Wiesner is named in Jackson's indictment as an unindicted co-conspirator.
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: whitewolf on 03/10/05 at 6:50 pm
I wonder if he made it to court today? Last I heard, he was uber late and had 30 minutes or the judge was going to revoke his bail....
Yep he made it, he was 1 hour and 5 minutes late.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 03/11/05 at 3:47 pm
He was wearing his pj's. ::)
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Philip Eno on 03/11/05 at 4:09 pm
He was wearing his pj's. ::)
Howard
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050311/images/michael300.jpg
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 03/11/05 at 5:19 pm
He looks like he just climbed out of bed and forgot to shower :P
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 03/11/05 at 5:24 pm
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050311/images/michael300.jpg
That picture reminds me a television set we had when I was young, a Black And White ;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/11/05 at 8:06 pm
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050311/images/michael300.jpg
He hee, look at Joe's face. He's like, "WTF are you doing, turnin up in yo PJ's???" Lol! Still not as funny as the priest doing the crocth grab, but still good!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: AL-B on 03/11/05 at 8:10 pm
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050311/images/michael300.jpg
Well, at least he wasn't "trawling." ;D ;D ;D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/11/05 at 8:17 pm
Yeah, it's allright to joke, but you've gotta realise what actually happened. He was practise his dance routines and tripped over and hurt his back. He couldn't move at all. He rang his attorney's and they told him to go to hospital. He turned up anyway. If it was Sneddon or one of the Arizo's. they'd have the whole day off.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/12/05 at 2:17 am
Well, then why didn't the attorney tell the judge that? From what I heard from a friend who was IN the courtroom, noone seemed to have a clue where he was ???
Well, your friend was paying attention because T Mez called twice to exlain the situation, that's why Melville gave the 1 hour time limit. Michael was 5 minutes late, on top of the 1 hour which Melville allowed.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Lulu Lombongo on 03/12/05 at 9:16 am
The mutherfudgecer is guiilty as helll........he is incapable of having intercourse with a woman and now he takes out his frustration oin inocent kids,hes going down.....we frgave him the firs time,but 2 kids is really too mutch!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: jaytee on 03/12/05 at 10:34 am
Guilty - he is just too bizarre for words :P
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 03/12/05 at 11:49 am
Even though I was an audience member at all 3 of the guys trials responsible for Blaines death, I had the decency to wear decent clothes...h ell, if OJ dressed nice for his circus trial! This just goes to show more of what an above the law "Oh, let's use this to make people know I'm waay out there", crap the this jerk thrives on! sore back or not..put some slacks on you freak >:(
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 03/12/05 at 5:58 pm
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050311/images/michael300.jpg
He hee, look at Joe's face. He's like, "WTF are you doing, turnin up in yo PJ's???" Lol! Still not as funny as the priest doing the crocth grab, but still good!
His Father should've slapped him silly >:(
Howard
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/13/05 at 5:14 pm
1 day he rocked up in PJ's. Everyother day his looked fine. Stop your complaining, geez, your worse then a mob of of bloody sheila's.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 03/14/05 at 12:01 am
1 day he rocked up in PJ's. Everyother day his looked fine. Stop your complaining, geez, your worse then a mob of of bloody sheila's.
You DON't show up in a court of law in pj's EVER...oh, poor baby had a sore back....he couldn't sloide into a pair of slacks. Get real :D
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/14/05 at 12:44 am
You DON't show up in a court of law in pj's EVER...oh, poor baby had a sore back....he couldn't sloide into a pair of slacks. Get real :D
He couldn't move at all! He had ot be carried to the hospital. As sson as the docotr said he would be able to walk, he rushed as quickly as he could to the court room. He got changed in the car, but his body guards forgot to bring his slacks. Big deal.
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 03/14/05 at 12:48 am
He couldn't move at all! He had ot be carried to the hospital. As sson as the docotr said he would be able to walk, he rushed as quickly as he could to the court room. He got changed in the car, but his body guards forgot to bring his slacks. Big deal.
So he couldn't move at all....people could "Dress" him...yes it IS a big deal! It's a fricking Court Of LAW. My freind was asked to leave the courtroom for wearing shorts. It's all about celebrity and getting "star" treatment....and anyway it's spun it's still BS ::)
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Robbo on 03/15/05 at 3:46 am
Don't buy it. I've been in courtrooms enough to know that if a defendant is being treated at a hospital (and the judge can verify that he really needs to be there), there is NO JUDGE in the world who would order them to appear in court. They can be censured for doing something like that. Oh, and let's not forget that his excuse for missing court another time was......*drumroll please*......he was in the hospital. I think the judge sees through his crap just like 90% of the world. ::)
Yes, your right, Melville (the judge), can see through his "crap". But it's unfortunate for him (and as you claim, 90% of the world) that the jury can see through the prosecution's "crap" and are allready prepared to deliver a "not guilty" verdict. It's also unfortunate for you, that despite Michael turning up in PJ's a few days ago, it still doesn't make him "guilty" and 70% believe so to. Based on today's proceedings, 70% of people who voted on the E! Online poll, say he is not guilty!
It seems that despite your continued argument that Michael Jackson is guilty, it was clear that he was innocent, when today, the accuser admitted to telling his school teacher that Michael never ever molested him. There goes your theory!
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: RockandRollFan on 03/15/05 at 1:34 pm
Oh, you've talked to them? How nice for you. So, are they voting not guilty on ALL charges or just some of them? Never said him in his PJ's had anything to do with it. Also funny how when they're saying bad stuff about your close personal friend Michael, you're against the "tabloids", but have no problem quoting them like they're gospel when it's in HIS favor ::) No, I think my theory still stands. If you knew anything about kids who have been molested, you would know it is very common for them to lie about it and say it didn't happen. How do I know this? I was molested as a child and I did the exact same thing. I had priests and teachers and counselors and friends ask me, flat out, if I was being molested and I told them No. It wasn't until I was an adult that I found the courage to finally tell the truth. So, there goes YOUR theory.
I absolutely LOVE what you said, Kim...couldn't agree more http://elouai.com/images/yahoo/35.gif
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Full_House_Fan on 03/15/05 at 4:15 pm
Oh, you've talked to them? How nice for you. So, are they voting not guilty on ALL charges or just some of them?  Never said him in his PJ's had anything to do with it.  Also funny how when they're saying bad stuff about your close personal friend Michael, you're against the "tabloids", but have no problem quoting them like they're gospel when it's in HIS favor ::) No, I think my theory still stands. If you knew anything about kids who have been molested, you would know it is very common for them to lie about it and say it didn't happen. How do I know this? I was molested as a child and I did the exact same thing. I had priests and teachers and counselors and friends ask me, flat out, if I was being molested and I told them No. It wasn't until I was an adult that I found the courage to finally tell the truth. So, there goes YOUR theory.
I sure hope those kids aren't telling the truth :\'( Molestation sounds like such a horrible thing.
Sorry to hear about you having to go through that. I hope you feel better :)
-DR
Subject: Re: Michael Jackson - guilty or not?
Written By: Howard on 03/15/05 at 5:33 pm
Michael Jackson's accuser left the witness stand Tuesday after declaring, "I don't like him anymore," and claiming that he was ridiculed at school for his relationship with the pop idol.
The 15-year-old boy, in his fourth day of testimony, was questioned by the prosecutor in an attempt to have the witness explain potentially damaging admissions he had made to Jackson's defense attorney.
District Attorney Tom Sneddon asked why he told a school administrator that Jackson did nothing to him.
"All the kids would laugh at me and try to push me around and say, 'That's the kid that got raped by Michael Jackson,'" said the boy, who claims Jackson twice molested him at his Neverland ranch in 2003.
"Sometimes I would fight them. I didn't like to throw the first punch," the boy added.
But he said that he did fight and then was summoned to the office of a school dean and that was when "I told him that it didn't happen."
"Why did you tell him that?" asked Sneddon.
"All the kids were already making fun of me in school and I didn't want them to think it happened," the boy said.
The defense revealed Monday that the boy told Jeffrey Alpert, a dean at John Burroughs Middle School in Los Angeles, that Jackson had done nothing to him.
The conversation was prompted by the Feb. 6, 2003, TV documentary that showed Jackson with the boy and in which Jackson acknowledged sharing his bed with children, although he characterized it as innocent and non-sexual.
Sneddon's redirect questioning came after defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. concluded an interrogation in which he asked the boy if he realized that he could profit by filing a lawsuit against Jackson before he turns 18.
The boy said he did not know that.
Prosecutors claim Jackson conspired to hold the boy, his mother, sister and brother captive to get them to record a video rebutting the TV documentary. The family heaped praise on Jackson in the rebuttal video.
Mesereau also asked repeatedly why the boy and his family did not alert anyone if they thought they were being held against their will at Jackson's fairytale Neverland estate.
At one point the boy said, "They hardly ever let us be apart. They wanted to keep us together."
But he added, "I was actually happy to be at Neverland the whole time," and compared it to Disneyland.
"I was having a lot of fun," he said. "My mother was the one that was worried. I didn't realize 'til the last time that I didn't want to be there."
Sneddon's redirect questioning was relatively brief. He had the boy talk again about his bout with cancer, how he had become close to God and what he thinks of Jackson now.
"I don't really like him anymore," the boy said. "I don't really think he's deserving of the respect I was giving him as the coolest guy in the world."
The prosecution then called a series of law enforcement witnesses.
Santa Barbara County sheriff's Sgt. Steve Robel showed items seized from Neverland during a Nov. 18, 2003, search, including a sex magazine called Teenage with a woman on the cover, a black-and-white image of a nude woman and a book called "The Chop Suey Club" by photographer Bruce Weber.
Robel said he found the items in a closed box at the foot of Jackson's bed.
The relevance of the items was attacked by defense attorney Robert Sanger.
"You know of no witness who saw any of these items," he asked.
"No," Robel said.
"None of these items are per se illegal to possess?" asked the lawyer.
"No, they are not illegal to possess," Robel said.
Asked if the models in the magazine were over age 18, Robel said, "They're supposed to be, yes."
Sanger said the black-and-white photo is a collector's item called "The Glory of de Dienes Women," and he asked Robel if the "The Chop Suey Club," featuring a young man in a straw hat on the cover, was seized because investigators believed it to be sexual in nature. Robel said yes.
Sanger said the book was sent to Jackson unsolicited by Weber, who has photographed the Jackson 5 and other famous people. Asked if he was aware that it had a photo of Jackson friend Elizabeth Taylor, Robel said he was not.
Terry Flaa, a former sheriff's investigator who is now with the Santa Maria Police Department, testified about early stages of the Jackson case.
Flaa said that in March 2003 he decided not to investigate two child welfare complaints involving Jackson after learning of an interview by Los Angeles County children's services authorities in which the boy's family said nothing had happened. The complaints were demands for investigations made by Los Angeles attorney Gloria Allred and psychologist Carole Lieberman after the documentary aired.
The next witness, sheriff's Lt. Jeff Klapackis, said he ordered the Jackson investigation reopened after talking with the family's attorney, Larry Feldman, and psychologist Stan Katz, who had interviewed the boy and his brother.
Prosecutors say the molestation allegations came to light came during the boys' interviews with Katz.
Here is another story for you to read.^
Howard