If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Michael Jackson cleared of abuse
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Comments
Im not surprised that he has been found not guilty because in America they need a Unanimous verdict, so even if all but one thought he was guilty, hed be found not guilty.
Id be as likely to let him look after my son as Jonathan King.
You make it up as you go along sometimes.
The more I hear about Jacksons childhood I just think he is wierd, trying to regress and have a childhood now, but not a sex offender.
so youd like be happy to see a potentially innocent man go to prison for child sex offences, about as caring as that boys mother who was willing to let her son sleep over there
i dont think hes a paedo but he can do what he wants with his own life, but to take into his home children, well you doubt the mothers responsiblity as well...
and you must remember the DA is looking to get relected so a high profile conviction will make it seem hes doing something
the without a doubt clause stays because otherwise it makes the prosecution sloppy and lazy and uninvestigative
Unless of course you are a 'terrorist' or a suspected drug dealer and then a fair trial is a waste of time anyway.
Well Greer said she is, to be fair. You just don't agree that that is what she meant.
And what bongbudda has said is what I think of Jackson. I don't think he ever got past the nine-year-old boy stage, and I don't think there is anything weird about two nine-year-old boys sleeping in the same bed. A normal stable man doesn't call a monkey his best friend and doesn't spend all his money running a personal funfair. He's definitely weird, but I don't think he is a paedophile.
Fair enough the comments about rape trials having such a low turnout, but when the star prosecution witness says that Jackson abused Macaulay Culkin only for Culkin to come to court and say it was crap then there's something that doesn't quite add up.
I'd agree with you about not letting kids near the man though. Which is one of the main reasons why they disputed the entire testimony of the boy's mother.
That and she has lied under oath before.
My thoughts exactly.
I'm not sure I think MJ's completely innocent, but I don't think I could have found him guilty on the strength of the evidence or the witnesses advanced by the prosecution.
yeah, exactly.
a lot of people are saying 'well, he's definitely innocent. there was no evidence at all to the contrary'.
what evidence are they expecting? abuse cases like this are generally word against word. it just so happens that in MJ's case the boy's word is totally unreliable, which has definitely gone in his favour.
i don't think we can say that he definitely did it, but i also don't think we can say he definitely didn't do it.
after all, if you wanted to commit a crime like that, and get away with it, wouldn't it make sense to do it to someone/a family that no one would believe? the family that cried wolf? you know, there's almost nothing that money won't get you in america.
It isn't fucking news it's entertainment. Yet every single source of "news media" was running non-stop, front-page stories about it.
GAH! :banghead:
I don't know whether he is guilty or not but if they couldn't prove he was then it was right to give the not guilty verdict.
Exactly. Which I find can be very distressing.
People have just made their mind up here, either standing by the verdict and believe the man is infact innocent as he does not appear to be the kind of man that is mentally fit to sexually abuse a child. At least that's what you'd like to think. But unfortunately you will never know for certain in what happened behind closed doors. Then ya got your guys, who feel, the verdict may have been bought. As it all is a little suspicious how he got off in all charges.
We could sit here and talk about the possibilities, talking about the man like you know him... except the verdict found him innocent.
I personally would like to think he didn't do it. Though I'm not 100% convinced he is defintely innocent in all charges. That's just my thoughts.
With the case I served on, I think it must have been very similar in aspects to this one. Many jurors, myself included, thought that the chap in the dock wasn't 100% kosher, but that doesn't mean that you can pass a guilty verdict. You can't. In Scottish law I think we would have found not proven, but the end result would be the same, chappy walks.
And no bad thing in this case, methinks.
Sure we don't feel comfortable with the idea of a full grown guy hanging out with little kids but then none of us have even walked a foot in his shoes let alone a mile.