The Pop Culture Information Society...

These are the messages that have been posted on inthe00s over the past few years.

Check out the messageboard archive index for a complete list of topic areas.

This archive is periodically refreshed with the latest messages from the current messageboard.

Check for new replies or respond here...

Subject: The Official Michael Jackson Trial Thread

Written By: Robbo on 05/04/05 at 2:01 am

There is God knows how many threads discussing the same thing. Is Michael Jackson guilty or not?
One thread was originally discussing what the DA's closing statement would be, turned into a guilty or not thread. Another thread was originally discussing the accuser's family, and what sexualy innappropraite things go on between them, turned into a guilty or not thread. All up there's like five of the same sort of topics. So instead of having five different topics which were originally something different and turneds into guilty or not threads, I thought we'd have one thread discussing the hot topic, is Michael Jackson guilty or not guilty on child molestation?

I didn't think I'd have to do this, but it might be a big help to keeping this topic under control.

Rules and Guidelines

No Michael Jackson jokes, there are other threads for this
Please back-up your opinions with evidence, facts, whatever
If you post an article about the MJ trial, please provide a link
Please don't resort to name calling ro insults directed at anyone who shares a different opinion to you

I must admitt, I am guilty of breaking some of the above rules in other threads, but in this thread can we please follow the rules and stay on topic. I want a nice, clean, mature argument.

Subject: Re: The Official Michael Jackson Trial Thread

Written By: Robbo on 05/04/05 at 3:07 am

I'll kick off the argument.

This prosecution has finally wrapped up their case and the defense start tomorrow. It's been forty days of the prosecution's case (kinda reminds me of Billie Jean, "For forty days and for forty nights, the law was on her side"), and I thought it'd be crucial to evaluate what the prosecution has presented in order to form some sort of opinion, on whether or not Michael Jackson really is guilty. I'm going to list what the prosecution has presented and then put my take on it, feel free, infact I encourage you to argue with me.

So basically Michael Jackson is charged for conspiring against the familt in order to kidnap them, and intoxicating a minor in order to molest him. In order to prove this, the prosecution has brought foward many witnesses. I will not deal with all of them, because some are insignificant. But the important one's like, the accuser and his family, the past acts witnesses, I will deal with.

First the prosecution put Martin Bashir on the stand. He refused to answer any question and not much at all was revealed on this day. So his testimony doesn't count. There's nothing to evaluate.

Then they put the accuser on the stand. His testimony was a bit iffy, but overall didn't really set back the prosecution and in all fairness was a big help to them and damaged the defense significantly. The reason why I say the kid's testimony was a bit iffy, was because his testimony was absolutely flooded with "I don't know" or "I can't recall". In his testimony, he said Michael molested him 5 times, then it was 7 times, then it was 2 times, then it was "I can't recall" (Michael has been charged for 2 counts of molestation, just so your all clear on that). This is what makes the kid so uncredible. I've heard enough of the tired argument that kids can't remember what happened until years later. It has been two years, and it's not what happened which keeps changing ever minute of the boy's testimony, it's how many times it actually happened. I'm sorry, but I can't believe anyone who testifies like this. Sure the kids only 15 and he might've been nervous. I guess you would feel a tremendous amount of pressure testifying against propably the most famous, if not the most talked about celebrity in the world. But it wasn't a credible testimony, and the fact that it's probably the biggest celebrity trial in history next to OJ's trial, doesn't exuse the kid. I'm sure he couldn't have lied about everything. There were some things that may have been true, but some things, is not enough. I don't believe what this kid is saying.

Then the prosecution brought forward the accuser's brother, who allready wasn't taken seriously as a credible witness, after the boy's testimony. The brother claims he witnessed the molestation. He said he was standing in the staircase and could see Michael molesting the accuser on the bed. From where he says he was standing, there is no way he could've seen the bed. There is even video that was taped when police raided Neverland that shows it's impossible to see the bed from where he was standing, no matter which angle you look or which way you are facing. So for that reason, I don't believe he saw anything.

Then Sneddon filed a motion to bring in "past acts" victims and accuser's, which the judge approved because of California law. Sneddon said there were five victims. Jason Franscia, Jordy Chandler, Brett Barnes, Macauley Kulkin and Wade Robson. Only one of the victims testifies for the defense, Jason Franscia. Barnes, Kulkin and Robson are all testifying for the defense and Jordy Chandler fled the country.

Jason Franscia presented a very good testimony and the defense would really have to work hard to prove it was false. The only thing which damages Jason's credibilty is his mother. His mother was a maid who worked for Michael and Neverland. For $25 000, she sold her soul... I mean story to the devil... I mean Diane Dimond. She said she saw Michael molest her son. However, she didn't go to police or anything, the first person she went to was tabloid journalist, Diane Dimond who paid $25 000 to have her say on her show, Hard Copy, that she saw Michael molest her son. This doesn't seem right and if Jason Franscia was molested, and the mother really did see it, she is a very, very bad mother and a very, very greedy person. She took $25 000 over justice for her poor molested son. Anyhow, as for Jason Franscia's testimony, I can't find anything wrong with it. He was there to testify that MJ molested him and he did that well. There were some iffy thing, like not being able to remember a 6 hour long meeting last year, or who the DA was he went to and little stuff like that. But as I said, the defense will have a hard time proving these past allegations to be false.

I don't take any of the past acts witnesses seriously. If they can't be trusted to call the cops when they see a grown man molest a small boy, then they can't be trusted to provide a truthful testimony. The fact that the all have some sort of an agenda, raises a high level of suspicion. Some feel they were unfairly terminated from their job at Neverland, some lost lawsuits against Michael, some still owe Michael alot of money for the lawsuits they lost against him, most have since filed for bankruptcy. That and the fact they claim the saw something but did nothing about it, leads me to believe these witnesses aren't credible.

Then the prosecution put the accuser's mother on the stand. Big mistake. She has mental problems and I don't know why anyone let her up there. She said nothing worth while, her testimony was just filled with finger pointing at Michael Jackson and calling him names and pleading with the jury to not judge her. She's a nut. She even tried to claim Michael conspired to send her and the family away in a hot air balloon.  ;D

Debbie Rowe was next in line for the prosecution and she ended up helping the defense more than the prosecution. She said Michael was a wonderful person, a loving father, a brilliant business man and she broke down in tears saying she wanted to be back in his like again. All I have to say for her testimony is, Thank-you Debbie. 

That was last week and since then not much has happened. The prosecution has brought forward some experts who talked about the typical behavious of pedophiles and stuff. Michael's financial adviser has also come forward and tlaked about his current financial state. He said at the moment Michael is in a huge amount of debt. The prosecution tried to claim, Michael conspired against them to make a video so he could revitalise his career and make some money and pay back all his debts. What the prosecution failed to think about was that the alleged molestation happened in 2003, and the finance guy was talking about Michael current financial state. When asked how it was 2 years ago, he said it was stable and Michael had enough to give away hundreds of millions to chairty and still mantain a stable financial state.

Now looking at the evidence...

Porno mags which are on the borderline of child porn, but still legal. All the girls featured in these magazines are 18+ with an appearance of a 14-16 year old. On one porno mag is fingerprints of both mciahel and the boy, however Michael's prints are on a different page to the boy's which means they weren't nessercarily looking at the mag together.
Two books which were given to Michael be a fan. They are art books with some nude pictures of boys. However, most boys in the artworks are clothed. It's not child porn, it's art. They are both antique books worth probably $1000 these days and they weren't even brought by Michael in the first place.

^ That's about it. By evaluating the witnesses testimony and the evidence, my first conclusion is that this is a very week case. There is some credible testimony, but mostly uncredible and if there is any doubt, they jury must aquit. So if I was a juror, I'd say not guilty. My honest opinion is that he's innocent. You could argue that I'm a fan so I'm blinded by his artistic genius. But it's ture I am a fan, and as a fan this case means a great deal to me. Because I'm so interested in it, I follow the case more closely and even ahd the chance to be in the court room as it happens. I've read every testimony, and I have talked to people who are in the court room every day. So I know alot about the trial and what happens each day because of my interest in it. So because I know so much, is why I so strongly believe he is innocent. The facts say he's innocent. I'm not blinded because I'm a fan. I know people who are not fans, and disliked his music, but believe he's innocent.

Bottom line, he is innocent. Your veiws...

Check for new replies or respond here...