Jacko

Who Shot Sam? · Post by **Who Shot Sam?** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:32 pm

Not guilty on all counts. What a surprise.

Post by **BlueChair** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:59 pm

I know. Maybe he needs to be more famous or something.

so lacklustre · Post by **so lacklustre** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:27 pm

Have faith, come judgement day he'll burn in hell. I trust the good lord on this.

Amen

King Hoarse · Post by **King Hoarse** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:45 pm

He'd like that. "Hell Is For Children" - Pat Benatar, I think.

Gillibeanz · Post by **Gillibeanz** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:19 am

Only he knows if he is guilty or not. Either way I think this is the end for him both professionally and emotionally - I think he will just be too unstable now to cope with anything.

Shame if he is innocent . If not then he deserves all he gets.

verbal gymnastics · Post by **verbal gymnastics** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:26 am

Gillibeanz wrote:Only he knows if he is guilty or not.

Mind you, if you tell yourself that what you're doing is innocent and beautiful often enough then you'll believe it yourself.

mood swung · Post by **mood swung** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:15 am

I think that's what all the plastic surgery is about - trying to turn himself into something innocent and beautiful, kind of like Buffalo Bill in the Silence of the Lambs.

Post by **spooky girlfriend** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:55 am

He's just too weird for words.

so lacklustre · Post by **so lacklustre** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:08 am

He shows classic signs of mental illness and probably needs treatment.

Who Shot Sam? · Post by **Who Shot Sam?** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:37 am

so lacklustre wrote:He shows classic signs of mental illness and probably needs treatment.

Ya think?

bobster · Post by **bobster** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:42 pm

My personal opinion is that he's probably not going to live very much longer. I think he may literally be "too weird to live."

Even if he did everything he's accused of, I personally can't hate him. He's just so incredibly pathetic and sad.

Leaving out the criminal/sick stuff, given the circumstances, his madness is kind of understandable and, when you think about it similar to the Brian Wilson case -- though Brian's story, thank goodness, has a much happier ending.

In any case, the only thing that might be more pathetic and sad than Michael, are those people who, according to NPR, maxed out their credit cards and gave up jobs to "be with" him in Santa Maria. Talking about taking fandom too far.

lawngnome · Post by **lawngnome** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 1:10 pm

I may be in the minority, but I don't think he did anything. I also think OJ was innocent. Afterall, 12 people that knew all the providable facts of the case and that were specifically selected of imparitality unanaimously agreed that he'd done nothing wrong. Good enough for me, now lets find another missing white woman to obsess over...

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:54 pm

The jurors in the OJ case were not allowed to see several key pieces of evidence that the rest of us were able to see (the jury was often instructed to leave the courtroom while evidence was introduced by attorneys and then disallowed by judge Ito. The point is that those 12 jurors made their decision based on what they saw, but the cameras recorded more that they saw. He had the means, the motive, and her blood was on his gloves. He killed his wife.

And Michael Jackson isn't the only one who knows if he's guil;ty or not. There are also several boys who know as well. Shame is that those kids are going to be denied justice because their parents were irresponsible golddiggers. The biggest shame is that if he is a pedophile (and I firmly believe he is), he will do it again. (BTW, some of the jurors interviewed today said that on the molestation charge, the original count was more like 6-6. They believed he was guilty, but not completely boyond a reasonable doubt. They may have done their job, but he still walked.)

Gillibeanz · Post by **Gillibeanz** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:34 am

Its not for us to judge is it? All we know are the facts the newspapers and TV chose to tell us - and they may be biast. I dont know if he did it or not and neither does anyone else on this board, and its not very nice to ruin a persons life who might be innocent by 'assuming' that he did it. I wonder if it was 'Joe Bloggs' rather than Michael Jackson and a fortune in money involved if there ever would have been an accusation? What do the public want to do? go back to the dark ages - ignore the fact that hes been tried and found innocent and burn him at the stake anyway?

Maybe he did, maybe he didnt. He has been tried and found not guilty. Its now up to parents to ensure that they protect their children around him which is what they should have done in the first place and then it cant happen again - if it ever did.

lawngnome · Post by **lawngnome** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:35 pm

Never heard truer words, Gillibeanz. And just as a note from the PreLaw major side of my personality, evidence is disallowed in a trial because a judge has decided its either tampered with, not pertinent, or improperly collected as is lined out in the constitution.

bobster · Post by **bobster** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:35 pm

It's hard to imagine where Michael will find new underage pals now, but then human stupidity/greed is a seemingly bottomless well.

so lacklustre · Post by **so lacklustre** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:31 pm

He was found not guilty due to insufficient evidence, that doesn't mean he didn't do it, and it doesn't mean he did do it. He seriously needs psychotherapy, I'm sure of that. Noiseradio is sure he is guilty but I'm not totally convinced (however much I would have loved seeing him put away for a while). Any parents letting their kids near him from now on should be locked up that's for sure.

lawngnome · Post by **lawngnome** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:33 pm

I understand, but doesnt 'insufficient evidence' to prove him guilty mean he's innocent??

so lacklustre · Post by **so lacklustre** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:36 pm

No, it means he is 'not guilty', doesn't mean he is innocent.

Only (real) children are innocent (and you're innocent when you dream).

Boy With A Problem · Post by **Boy With A Problem** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:46 pm

bobster wrote

It's hard to imagine where Michael will find new underage pals now, but then human stupidity/greed is a seemingly bottomless well.

Thailand. Czech Republic... the USA

In any case, the only thing that might be more pathetic and sad than Michael, are those people who, according to NPR, maxed out their credit cards and gave up jobs to "be with" him in Santa Maria. Talking about taking fandom too far.

I saw a documentary on these people last weekend. Scary shit.

lawngnome · Post by **lawngnome** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 3:40 pm

*innocent of the charges. Sorry for being concise...

Mr. Average · Post by **Mr. Average** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:21 pm

He is guilty of adopting the "Peter Pan" complex, but there is nothing substantive whatsoever that he actually molested young boys (or girls). Literally hundreds of young children have been his guest at NeverLand, and a total of three in 13 years have made claims. Two are completely ridiculous witnesses with zero credibility. One of the accusers has some credibility, but no proof.

When I was a child, I hid Playboy magazines in my room, and occassional shared some of my Dad's jug wine with my friends. We took about 5 ml's and were convinced that we were drunk. We looked at dirty pictures together as friends, and the thrill of possibly getting caught was electric. But we did not engage in homosexual or pedophilic activities at all...never.Currently, I sometimes sleep with my Westie and my Scottie, both males. By extension then...

So Michael Jackson, adopting and choosing to remain a child, is acting appropriately for a child. He is quilty of having a psychological aberration that disallows him to see himself as an adult with adult responsibilities. Surprised? No me, not at all. He has never HAD to behave as an adult, except when he was a small black child, and Daddy Joe would beat the shit out of him for NOT acting like an adult.

I absolutely LOVE the position that he is quilty because if there is smoke, then there must be fire. Will you guys who are absolutely positive that he fondled little boys reveal your proof? The testimony of other troubled youths? You don't know. Neither do I. Neither did the jury.

I think he is 100% innocent of child molestation charges. I think he is 100% quilty of exhibiting poor judgement and being a major loon.

Imagine if the accusations were made of you, and you were innocent. Can you imagine anything more painful then to be accused of something so reprehensible that you couldn't imagine it?

Last point. When Mia accused Woody of molesting the small boys, Dylan and ???, because she was pissed off maximal about Soon Yi: Did you see Woody's press conference when he faced the accusations but could barely constrain his revulsion for being accused of something so sick? His presentation was very convincing, and while he is an actor, he ain't that good of an actor. Michael addressed, up-front, the accusations with a zeal and an honesty that, in my opinion, was equal to or greater than that exhibited by any of his paper accusers.

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:30 pm

He says himself he slept in the same bed hundreds of times with small children--all of them boys. Never girls. It's delusional to think that a 45 year old man is innocent under those circumstances.

And not being found guilty absolutely DOES NOT EQUAL being innocent. I interned in the Public Defender's office in Baltimore my senior year in high school. The attorney I worked with got the same guy off for murder three separate times (in other words, three separate murders). In one of them, it was pretty plainly self-defense. But in the other two, he was guilty as sin. He had just hidden the evidence well enough that the police didn't find it all. Because of attorney/client privilege, that info was kept out of court. But, I heard it with my own ears, out of his mouth. And he's walking the streets today, guilty as OJ and Michael (hereinafter to be referred to collectively as "sin").

Gillibeanz · Post by **Gillibeanz** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:11 pm

Noise - that was a case which you say you had inside information on - you 'knew' he was guilty. You have no inside information on Jacksons case so how can you possibly make such a superior judgement to say he is guilty?

Wasn't it jesus who said 'Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone'?

Tim(e) · Post by **Tim(e)** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:45 pm

noiseradio wrote:He says himself he slept in the same bed hundreds of times with small children--all of them boys. Never girls. It's delusional to think that a 45 year old man is innocent under those circumstances.

Hey, I am 53 and often sleep in the same bed as my 3 and 6 year old sons - so by extension, either you are delusional or I am guilty of some heinous act

Actually, in this whole discussion, the comment that amused/stunned/disappointed me the most (and I sincerely hope it was made with tongue firmly planted in cheek), was that by so lacklustre, to whit: "Have faith, come judgement day he'll burn in hell. I trust the good lord on this." - if that is the comment of a christian, then I am glad I have no religion at all. If it was a joke, then it was extremely funny.

As for Jacko, this is a case of "damned if he did it, and damned if he didn't" - I too believe he does not have much time left on this mortal coil - I get the feeling that either he will take his own life or someone will take it from him.