Michael Jackson is innocent

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: DonVito
One of the most common tactics of child molesters is to start out by showing their victims adult pornography. In this case, there are pornographic magazines that bear the fingerprints of MJ and the alleged victim.

I am not presuming his guilt, but this is at least potentially a damning piece of evidence.

Seems a weak piece of evidence... it doesnt prove even that MJ showed the kid the porn... The kid could find it just as easily as the police did when they collected it as evidence.

 

[MrBond]

Fixed.

- M4H

In my original post, the death sentence was implied, because while you can't give a child molester the death sentence, it's usually carried out by other inmates. I should have typed "..see them in prison where they die violently at the hands of other prisoners"

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: isasir

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
I'd rather child molestors get publicly humiliated and picked on than slip under the radar.

Uh, innocent until proven guilty?

100% wrong. In the criminal court in the US you are innocent until proven guilty. In just about every other situation (including the court of public opinion) you are always guilty until proven innocent. Don't confuse criminal court with any other situation.

Doboji, I think you are purposely ignoring so much information.
(1) He was accused by someone with a witness of molesting a child.
(2) He has previously been accused by others for the same thing.
(3) He publicly admits that he wants to sleep with children in his bed.
Those three alone are sufficient to warrent a criminal trial. Sure he may be innocent - that is for the trial to determine. I don't think there is enough evidence to convict. But that doesn't mean he is truely innocent either.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: MrBond

Fixed.

- M4H

In my original post, the death sentence was implied, because while you can't give a child molester the death sentence, it's usually carried out by other inmates. I should have typed "..see them in prison where they die violently at the hands of other prisoners"

Ah. Acceptable then. :beer:

- M4H

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: isasir

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
I'd rather child molestors get publicly humiliated and picked on than slip under the radar.

Uh, innocent until proven guilty?

100% wrong. In the criminal court in the US you are innocent until proven guilty. In just about every other situation (including the court of public opinion) you are always guilty until proven innocent. Don't confuse criminal court with any other situation.

Doboji, I think you are purposely ignoring so much information.
(1) He was accused by someone with a witness of molesting a child.
(2) He has previously been accused by others for the same thing.
(3) He publicly admits that he wants to sleep with children in his bed.
Those three alone are sufficient to warrent a criminal trial. Sure he may be innocent - that is for the trial to determine. I don't think there is enough evidence to convict. But that doesn't mean he is truely innocent either.

No No No... I'm sorry... being ACCUSED means absolutely 0. ESPECIALLY when you're as loaded as MJ is. And as for #3... yes it's weird. But it is NOT illegal, and it doesn't necessarily indicate child molestation.

-Max

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: jjsole
People think he would have hell in prison if found guilty, but I think noone would dare touch him, since there are too many brothers in the house that grew up idolizing him. Polls show its like the simpson trial as well, blacks think he's innocent, whites think hes guilty.

There is an incredibly biased type of reporting against Michael Jackson coming from certain white, establishment types. Like that vapid, stupid b1tch from Vanity Fair, who practically promotes the idea that Jackson is guilty in every interview she does.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Seems a weak piece of evidence... it doesnt prove even that MJ showed the kid the porn... The kid could find it just as easily as the police did when they collected it as evidence.

It's just part of the larger picture. I honestly don't have any idea if MJ is guilty - after viewing the Martin Bashir documentary a couple of years ago, I was persuaded he might just be an emotionally stunted weirdo - but this is a man who has for many years shared his bed with young boys, which is at best strange and troubling behavior.

I found the civil complaint from his 1993 lawsuit (the one he settled for $15M) really interesting. It details a halting, awkward, juvenile "seduction," and frankly I find it very easy to believe that he did these things.

I don't know if he's guilty; I lean toward the hypothesis that he is in fact guilty, but that he molested the right young man. The alleged victim's mother is clearly a shakedown artist, and the kid and his brother have a questionable history of truth-telling. I think he'll likely be acquitted, unless he testifies and comes off horribly (which is also fairly likely IMO).

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Doboji
No No No... I'm sorry... being ACCUSED means absolutely 0. ESPECIALLY when you're as loaded as MJ is. And as for #3... yes it's weird. But it is NOT illegal, and it doesn't necessarily indicate child molestation.

-Max

I think you know nothing about the criminal court then. An accusation of a crime is sufficient evidence to have a trial. Having enough evidence for a trial is different than having enough evidence to convict. You are correct that this is 0 evidence to convict. However it is plenty of evidence to have a trial.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Doboji
Remember in middle school when you were the little geek... different than everyone else. People picked on you non-stop, bullies beat up on you, you got picked last for sports teams. Yeah don't bs me... this is ATOT... 90% of you know exactly what I'm talking about.

This is the same thing that is happening in the Michael Jackson trial... look how quick everyone is to condemn the man as a child molesting pervert, just because he looks strange. Thread after thread saying... I think he's guilty, but he'll get off.

How sad is it that our society has utterly condemned this man because of his strange looks.

There's at this point 0 evidence to show that he did any child molestation. In FACT the evidence they're producing... ooodles of STRAIGHT ADULT PORN... shows just the opposite. This whole thing is disgrace.... doesnt this man have the right to a private trial? How pissed would you be if someone accused you of something, and the newspapers announced how much porn you keep, and where you keep it? It's really noone's business.

This whole trial is a grave injustice to Mr. Jackson, he's being treated like a guilty man, and is the clown at which the whole world is laughing. It's just fvcking wrong.

-Max

Private trial? All trials are public and are a matter of public record and for good reason.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DonVito
One of the most common tactics of child molesters is to start out by showing their victims adult pornography. In this case, there are pornographic magazines that bear the fingerprints of MJ and the alleged victim.

I am not presuming his guilt, but this is at least potentially a damning piece of evidence.

not really. all it says is the kid looked at porn magazines that happened to be lying around.

 

[Electric Amish]

I don't care if he's innocent or not. I just wish he'd go the fvck away.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DonVito
One of the most common tactics of child molesters is to start out by showing their victims adult pornography. In this case, there are pornographic magazines that bear the fingerprints of MJ and the alleged victim.

I am not presuming his guilt, but this is at least potentially a damning piece of evidence.

not really. all it says is the kid looked at porn magazines that happened to be lying around.

What part of "at least potentially" don't you understand?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: MrBond

Fixed.

- M4H

In my original post, the death sentence was implied, because while you can't give a child molester the death sentence, it's usually carried out by other inmates. I should have typed "..see them in prison where they die violently at the hands of other prisoners"

Ususally? that's absurd. what percentage of people sent to jail for child sex offences are eventually murdered by other prisoners?

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: MrBond

Fixed.

- M4H

In my original post, the death sentence was implied, because while you can't give a child molester the death sentence, it's usually carried out by other inmates. I should have typed "..see them in prison where they die violently at the hands of other prisoners"

Ususally? that's absurd. what percentage of people sent to jail for child sex offences are eventually murdered by other prisoners?

They're never murdered, they just decide to commit suicide.

- M4H

 

[rh71]

private trial ? celebrities get no privacy in the first place... too bad for him.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DonVito
One of the most common tactics of child molesters is to start out by showing their victims adult pornography. In this case, there are pornographic magazines that bear the fingerprints of MJ and the alleged victim.

I am not presuming his guilt, but this is at least potentially a damning piece of evidence.

not really. all it says is the kid looked at porn magazines that happened to be lying around.

What part of "at least potentially" don't you understand?

I don't think that piece of evidence has much potential to be damaging, at all.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

I don't think that piece of evidence has much potential to be damaging, at all.

Well, no offense, but I've tried several molestation cases, and I take it you haven't. Every piece of corroborative circumstantial evidence is quite meaningful in a he-said, she-said case like this one, and once it's raised, it becomes incumbent on the defense to explain it. That will mean putting MJ on the stand, something that is quite likely to turn into a train wreck. Mesereau is in an unenviable position in that respect. It's ultimately MJ's choice to testify or not, but once he gets up there, if he does, this already-strange trial will turn into a complete circus.

 

[Stark]

Remember in middle school when you were the little geek... different than everyone else. People picked on you non-stop, bullies beat up on you, you got picked last for sports teams. Yeah don't bs me... this is ATOT... 90% of you know exactly what I'm talking about.

I know you're a tool, but that's all.

Even if he didn't touch the kid...
MJ is a 40 year old freakshow who brings desperate, sick, lonely kids into his little world to give them booze and show them pr0n, then pays them millions if they raise a stink. I don't feel sorry for him one bit.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: aidanjm

I don't think that piece of evidence has much potential to be damaging, at all.

Well, no offense, but I've tried several molestation cases, and I take it you haven't. Every piece of corroborative circumstantial evidence is quite meaningful in a he-said, she-said case like this one, and once it's raised, it becomes incumbent on the defense to explain it. That will mean putting MJ on the stand, something that is quite likely to turn into a train wreck. Mesereau is in an unenviable position in that respect. It's ultimately MJ's choice to testify or not, but once he gets up there, if he does, this already-strange trial will turn into a complete circus.

That a teenage boy would be inclined to pick up a porn magazine lying around needs explaining?

Were you working as prosecutor or defence on the molestation cases?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Stark
MJ is a 40 year old freakshow who brings desperate, sick, lonely kids into his little world to give them booze and show them pr0n, then pays them millions if they raise a stink. I don't feel sorry for him one bit.

That's what the kid and his mother are saying. Whether or not it is true is up for debate.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

That a teenage boy would be inclined to pick up a porn magazine lying around needs explaining?

Were you working as prosecutor or defence on the molestation cases?

I believe the alleged victim and his brother have already testified that Michael showed them the pornography. As I said, this is very common grooming behavior in child molestation cases (though, as I said above, I'm not presuming MJ's guilt - he's just too strange for me to have any confidence as to his guilt or innocence).

I have prosecuted and defended molestation cases. Fortunately the ones I've defended involved fairly minor offenders. Among others, I prosecuted what was almost certainly the worst molestation case in the history of the Air Force - the offender committed some acts that are almost unbelievably fiendish, and received life in prison.

 

[GprophetB]

Originally posted by: mobobuff
Yeah, but those fat kids that sucked at dodgeball didn't go around fondling little boys.

yeah

 

[Eli]

I completely agree.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish
I don't care if he's innocent or not. I just wish he'd go the fvck away.

 

[shimsham]

as nice as all this sounds, no one knows if hes innocent or guilty except mj and the boys. i think most people who suspect hes guilty, as do i, couldnt care less what the hell he looks like. i dont look at people who appear freaky and different and thing theyre child molestors. when accusations are made, i look at the evidence.

to try to make sense of why he wouldnt do this, or continues to do that, are useless. hes obviously dealing with some mental issues, so you cant try to understand his choices rationally. the facts are normal adults with pure intentions do not lock their doors and set up motion sensors to detect when someones coming while giving teen boys alcohol and showing them porn(straight porn, of course, as thats what the majority of teen boys like to look at).

also, just as in the kobe case when the girls history was brought up, a persons prior history doenst mean theyre lying. when it was pointed out how "loose" his accuser was, people cried out, and rightfully so, that that doesnt mean she wasnt raped and telling the truth. same for this CHILD. who didnt lie when they were a kid, for whatever reasons? hell, too many adults are bold faced liars these days.

i dont know if hes guilty or not, but all the signs are there. as much as i can make out from what ive been able to stomach on tv, i believe he is.