Geraldo's mustache safe - Jackson Not Guilty!?!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 13, 2005, 4:54 pm

i say guilty on at least one count.

either that, or he has already killed himself in his home.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » June 13, 2005, 5:04 pm

We can't get so lucky as for number 2 to happen but I'm hopeing that he gets at least a few guilties and has to do some "hard" time...

Marb

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 13, 2005, 5:10 pm

There's 10 counts right? I say guilty on at least 5 of them.

50/50 on the suicide attempt before hard time.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » June 13, 2005, 5:29 pm

I am really hoping for his fanatic fans to commit mass suicide.

Guilty 3/10

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » June 13, 2005, 5:30 pm

not guilty, all charges

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 13, 2005, 5:32 pm

absolutely not guilty. the prosecution utterly failed to prove their case.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » June 13, 2005, 5:35 pm

I think they'll find him not guilty cause he orchestrated the entire thing to sell more albums!

CRAZY CHILD PORN KING!

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » June 13, 2005, 5:36 pm

I will cry if he does not moonwalk for the court.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 13, 2005, 5:40 pm

There will be no Johnnie Cochran to stop us this time! W.A.R.B.

-Whites Against Rich Blacks

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » June 13, 2005, 5:44 pm

LOL Winnow!

Badabidi · Post by **Badabidi** » June 13, 2005, 6:05 pm

Anytime now

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » June 13, 2005, 6:08 pm

Jacko says, "What part of 'Shhh, it will be our little secret' did you not understand!"

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » June 13, 2005, 6:19 pm

Not Guilty and he's baby sitting for me tonight.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » June 13, 2005, 6:20 pm

under the wire and everything

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » June 13, 2005, 6:21 pm

I just wanted his fans to all die at the same time.

cid · Post by **cid** » June 13, 2005, 6:24 pm

Not guilty on all 10 counts

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/13/jacks ... index.html

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 13, 2005, 6:24 pm

OJ
MJ
Who's next?
BB?

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » June 13, 2005, 6:26 pm

I expected it on O'Jay but not this... personally I'm disgusted...

Marb

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » June 13, 2005, 6:35 pm

The Mom was an obvious leech, she lost the trial

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 13, 2005, 6:35 pm

Marbus wrote:I expected it on O'Jay but not this... personally I'm disgusted...

Marb

why? what evidence did they have other than a family who has exploited and blackmailed other celebrities for cash before? they even had a recording of the mother threatening to file a criminal complaint against jackson if he did not pay "play ball". the only other "evidence" they had was they found a bunch of perfectly legal porn magazines in his bedroom.. FULL OF NAKED ADULT WOMEN. their biggest piece of evidence was that he had porn in his room so he is obviously a sexual deviant and predator.

the fact it even went to trial with such an outstanding lack of anything remotely resembling credible evidence is a crime in itself. santa barbara's district attorney's office should be investigated for ethics violations.

I don't even particularly like or dislike micheal jackson, but this whole trial was nothing but a waste of time and money.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » June 13, 2005, 7:02 pm

Look MJ was guilty on circumstancial evidence alone... Kyou, when you go to an OB/GYN check up is there not a nurse in the room when the Dr. actually examines you? When I did counseling with young children it was always done with the door open in view of a nurses station... these are obvious examples of how behave in a possible questionable situation. Hell even Johnny Cochran said that he told MJ NOT to have kids sleep over anymore in the same room, have them to the ranch, even have them stay but stay in another part of the house.

A 40+ year old man, who has been qestioned about child molestation before has kids sleep over, in HIS bed and locks the door. That wasn't in question that was presented as fact and no one disputed it. Why lock the door if something wasn't going on? Not because someone might break in, hell he has tons of security? Common sense tells you not to put yourself in those situations but above and beyond that HIS old lawyer told him not to do it... yet he did time and time again... the only reason to do so IMHO would be to do something others might consider immoral or illegal...

Was the mother a leach? Yes, I'm in 100% agreement with you there. Did she let her sons stay with MJ when any sane parent wouldn't possibly for extortion? Probably so but the mother wasn't the one that got molested... IMHO she is about as guilty as MJ for letting it happen, probably just to get rich but I believe the fact remains that he did it and NOW will get a chance to do it again. Sad thing is another young boys life will probably get ruined before he is brought to justice.

Marb

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 13, 2005, 7:52 pm

I believe he is a sick man, but am not so sure about the sexual part of it. I find it sad that he did not get help a long time ago, and I expected him to be found not guilty in this one due to the mom being a moneyhungry bitch.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » June 13, 2005, 8:02 pm

Unfortunately, our justice system has jack and shit to do with whether you are guilty or not. It has to do with not being able to be proven 100% guilty or tricking retarded people into getting you off. It is a pretty big sham.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » June 13, 2005, 8:05 pm

MJ is one seriously fucked up human being, but it's worth letting him go as a big "Fuck You" to the would-be entrapping shitstains who were looking to make a quick buck.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » June 13, 2005, 8:35 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Unfortunately, our justice system has jack and shit to do with whether you are guilty or not. It has to do with not being able to be proven 100% guilty or tricking retarded people into getting you off. It is a pretty big sham.

While one is enough, he went 12 for 12, not a hung jury, a not guilty verdict

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 13, 2005, 9:18 pm

Marbus wrote:Look MJ was guilty on circumstancial evidence alone... Kyou, when you go to an OB/GYN check up is there not a nurse in the room when the Dr. actually examines you? When I did counseling with young children it was always done with the door open in view of a nurses station... these are obvious examples of how behave in a possible questionable situation. Hell even Johnny Cochran said that he told MJ NOT to have kids sleep over anymore in the same room, have them to the ranch, even have them stay but stay in another part of the house.

Marb; I certainly didn't follow this case, so I can't speak to it directly. But your contention that lack of "exhibiting an obsessive compulsive desire to cover your ass at all times against frivilous sexual harassment lawsuits" constitutes guilt is silly.

My family doctor worked 60 years in a surgery where he was alone with almost every patient, men, women, kids, etc.

Almost every teacher in every school I've been in has been alone behind a closed door alone with students on a regular basis.

Pretty sure none of these people had sleep-overs in their bed... but TBH, I can see how someone from a large, dysfunctional family might want to pretend all kids are his kids, and by extension feel that it was perfectly ok for them to sleep in his bed. Or did you never sleep in your parents bed?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 13, 2005, 9:55 pm

Michael Who?

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » June 13, 2005, 10:20 pm

It was a pretty fucking weak case, honestly. I think that the guys who got owned the first time they tried to nail him for this let their eagerness to get some revenge cloud their better judgement, and they jumped the gun. Getting pressed into action by the money grabbing mom didn't help either. I can't say wether or not MJ is guilty or not, but I know for fucking sure I wouldn't let any child I was responsible for stay at his house because the evidence is solid enough that he is fucked in the head at the very least. Anyhow, even with a not guilty verdict, hes still pretty much fucked in terms of PR damage. I predict MJ headlining in Vegas in about 2 years.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 13, 2005, 10:22 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Unfortunately, our justice system has jack and shit to do with whether you are guilty or not. It has to do with not being able to be proven 100% guilty or tricking retarded people into getting you off. It is a pretty big sham.

so how would you have the criminal justice system work? just put judge judy on the bench and have her convict the side she dislikes the most?

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » June 13, 2005, 11:02 pm

I knew he was going to be found not guilty. For the same reasons as stated by other people in the thread. But something you can count on is the civil suit which I am sure will be popping up anytime now. And with any luck the judge that gets it will just throw the case out without hesitation.

This is a good step towards ending cases in which money grubbing fuckstains get rich off of lies.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » June 14, 2005, 1:11 am

Zaelath, of course you can't convict someone on circumstancial evidence but I was trying to make a point... that obviously something is seriously wrong with MJ. Personally, based upon what I have seen I would bet that he was sexually abused by his father around 4th or 5th grade... just about the time he totally seculded into his mother's strict mormon religion... I didn't follow closely either but from what I did see he looked pretty guilty.

In regards to the family Dr. of course, many Dr.s, including my own, visit all their patients behind closed doors... except OB/GYNs because they have to do somewhat invasive exams. In regards to teachers, which both of my parents were for a least a while and my mom was for 37 years... yes they too USE to have closed door sessions but don't usually anymore unless the children are smaller and if you will note there is always a window somewhere... That dosen't make someone guilty though...

Could it be that MJ being from a large dysfunctional family just wanted to have sleepovers like he never got? Sure that is what he says all the time... but if that is the case why lock the door? why have security camers all over the mansion except for your room where you have the sleep overs? something dosen't fit.

In regards to sleeping with your parents, yes, I had allergies very bad when I was young so until I was 4 or so I slept with them often. In FACT I'm all for co-sleeping. Up until gooberhead Dr. Spock wrote his book it was a common practice all over the world because most people didn't have a big house. So either the kids slept together or they slept with their parents. Both of my sons slept with my wife and I up until they were 6 months or so because it made breastfeeding in the middle of the night much easier on her and because I believe that a child feeling secure and loved their first year of life is one of THE most important things a parent can do... don't buy this "let them cry to sleep bullshit." It was all the rage in the 40s and 50s and look what we got? The "me" generation, a group of people who trusted no one. Children need love, affection, hugging, kissing, teaching and discipline... but not fondeling.

MJ may just be a very needy child trapped in a mans body but my professional opinion, although I admit I don't practice anymore, is that there is more too it than that, there is something deviant there. Maybe it's a hunch, maybe it's because I spent 5 years day in an day out with Sexual abused children and often had to deal with the abusers as well... while NOT good for a justice system, we, my collegues and I, got to the point where were could predict the perperator almost everytime before they were brought to justice... call it a hunch, call it experience...

Call it... my opinion because now... that's all it is

Marb

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 14, 2005, 1:27 am

we have security cameras on our property, but not in our fucking bedroom.. I don't know anyone who has cameras in their bedroom. well.. not security cameras.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » June 14, 2005, 8:14 am

kyoukan wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Unfortunately, our justice system has jack and shit to do with whether you are guilty or not. It has to do with not being able to be proven 100% guilty or tricking retarded people into getting you off. It is a pretty big sham.
so how would you have the criminal justice system work? just put judge judy on the bench and have her convict the side she dislikes the most?

I would damn sure close down technical loopholes that allow people you know are guilty to not walk. The bad thing is that some of the jurors think he was guilty, but the prosecution was so inept that they did not prove it without a doubt. So MJ walks like OJ did. You know that both of them are guilty, yet we could not convict them.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » June 14, 2005, 10:49 am

I won a lot of $$$ playing on my co-workers ignorence of the trial, and thier inherent prejudice towards MJ thanks to the media

Anyone who paid even slight attention to the trial knew the prosecution didn't have a leg to stand on. It was a fucking disaster. They didn't do a damn thing right. Not that I can really blame the courtroom team. They had shit evidence and even shittier witnesses.

I called innocent on all 10 charges and won. I made over 50$ and my mother has to take me out for a steak dinner. Granted, I lost the last bet with my mother and had to take her to dinner after Bush won the last election

dibit_eq · Post by **dibit_eq** » June 14, 2005, 11:03 am

I kinda think that if MJ were to be found guilty that the greedy whore of a mother should take an equal share in that guilt.

What parent leaves their kids with someone who is universally questioned like MJ is? MJ is fucked up, but it's something EVERYONE knows. They might not have any proof, but we all are certain of this. It's like leaving your kid in a shark tank and tossing in some chum for good measure. The sharks will kill out of their nature, just as MJ is driven by his own mental issues. It's up to parents to look out for their kids at least ONCE IN A WHILE. I mean, damn, I hate bringing out the "parents should have done something" arguement, but that moneygrabber showed some blatant disregard for her childs safety...

cid · Post by **cid** » June 14, 2005, 11:18 am

Innocent or guilty he needs help, I wish he would seek it out.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » June 14, 2005, 12:52 pm

What MJ "find jesus" and become a catholic priest now ...

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 14, 2005, 9:46 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote: I would damn sure close down technical loopholes that allow people you know are guilty to not walk.

Oh? Then what other magic tricks are you going to do? Make sure nobody innocent is ever convicted again?

What "technical loopholes" did Jackson's defense use to get him off?

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:The bad thing is that some of the jurors think he was guilty, but the prosecution was so inept that they did not prove it without a doubt. So MJ walks like OJ did. You know that both of them are guilty, yet we could not convict them.

I haven't heard a single juror yet say anything remotely to this effect. Every one so far has said that they found him innocent because the prosecution utterly failed to produce credible evidence, and that it was transparent that the mother was a money grubbing whore.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » June 14, 2005, 10:16 pm

Hultman said Monday he thought that Jackson had previously molested boys, although he said there was reasonable doubt as to whether he committed the crimes he was charged with.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/14/jacks ... index.html

That doesn't really change the argument though.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 15, 2005, 10:25 am

Frankly I would have been surprised if he was found guilty of any charges. It was blatantly apparant the mother was a bastard solely intent on making a cheap buck. If her child was abused, she is more guilty than anyone for her handling of this fiasco.

Would never let any small children near MJ though, that's just asking for trouble.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » June 15, 2005, 11:00 am

Couple of things to comment on.

I knew MJ would be found not guilty. I followed the trial fairly closely and there was no evidence. If MJ is accused of molesting so many kids then how come the prosecution could only get one kid to testify? MJ has had hundreds maybe thousands of kids to his Neverland ranch. He did pay out previously but back then he was worth a hell of a lot more money and maybe he did it just to avoid a public trial. MJ has never been considered very business savvy.

Marbus - I think ever baby is different when determining how to get them to sleep. My wife and I tried that "No-cry-sleep" solution for the first 5 months and read about a dozen books on it. Absolutely none of it worked. Finally we got sick of him waking up 6 times a night and tried the old-timey method of crying themselves to sleep. Our baby is now 7 months old and goes to bed at 7opm with little if any fussing and usually only wakes up once a night before getting up between 6 and 7am. That no-cry crap doesn't work for all kids. As for allowing the kids to sleep with you. My wife and I decided early on that we didn't want that. We have friends who allow their two kids to sleep with them. The husband sleeps on the couch and the kids, 6 and 3, still sleep with the mom. We chose not to get into that habit. We have a nice big house and I'll be damned if I am going to sleep on the couch. For the first two months, we used a basinet right next to the bed to facilitate night feedings.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » June 15, 2005, 11:52 am

Well it sound like that other couple are being kind of ruled by their kids. I said kids need love, but they also need discipline. You are correct, every baby is different. The Dr. Spock theory I was referring to was to let them try themselves to sleep... they will eventually get use to it. Well not all babies will but just as important is how much interaction you and your wife get with the child. My point is that babies need to feel safe, loved and nurtured, espeically the first year of life. IMHO co sleeping can help with that but not at the expense of totally ignoring your baby the rest of the day. On the other hand if you hand if you spend most of your time with the baby when he is awake, and they quickly get use to sleeping alone... that's great.

My first son started sleeping in his own grib at abut 6 months with a very easy transition. My second wakes up a little more in the night but is alomst done. When my second was born we moved Joseph to his room out of the grib and into a toddler bed, took about 3 nights for him to get use to it... While I'm all about my kids I'm also all about my wife

Parents have to have some mommy/daddy time to keep things sane... dad sleeping on the couch won't help that situation

Marb

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » June 15, 2005, 12:38 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:The bad thing is that some of the jurors think he was guilty, but the prosecution was so inept that they did not prove it without a doubt. So MJ walks like OJ did. You know that both of them are guilty, yet we could not convict them.
I haven't heard a single juror yet say anything remotely to this effect. Every one so far has said that they found him innocent because the prosecution utterly failed to produce credible evidence, and that it was transparent that the mother was a money grubbing whore.

What some jurors have said is that they feel he may have molested children based on his constant sleeping with them (sorta what Kilmoll is implying), but they also did say that the prosecution utterly failed prove beyond reasonable doubt, that he molested THIS boy. They can only pass judgement on what they know, not what they suspect... and the fact that the mother went to a civil attorney long before she contacted the police raised an alarm all on its own to them.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 24, 2005, 2:03 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:I knew he was going to be found not guilty. For the same reasons as stated by other people in the thread. But something you can count on is the civil suit which I am sure will be popping up anytime now. And with any luck the judge that gets it will just throw the case out without hesitation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/ ... 2604.shtml

Jackson Accuser's Mom In Hot Water

(CBS/AP) The woman whose son accused Michael Jackson of child molestation could face her own criminal trial on welfare fraud charges.

The woman was charged Tuesday with four felony counts of "perjury by false application for aid" and one count of "aid by misrepresentation," a violation of the state welfare code.

Prosecutors say she collected nearly $19,000 in welfare payments while hiding the fact she had received a $150,000 settlement from a department store chain she sued and failing to report $637 her boyfriend gave her for rent.

At Jackson's trial, which ended in June with his acquittal, the woman refused to testify about the welfare matter, invoking her Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

CBS News correspondent Vince Gonzales spoke with Jackson biographer (video) J. Randy Taraborrelli about the Jacksons' reaction to the woman's legal woes for The Early Show. Taraborrelli broke the news to the Jackson camp, Gonzales reports.

"The Jacksons always believed this woman was a liar and a cheater," Taraborelli said. "So this only reconfirms what they thought of her."

Jackson lawyer Tom Mesereau said of the welfare-related charges, "In light of the evidence at the trial, I'm not surprised. This is certainly warranted."

But Gonzales asks: Are the allegations that the woman took $19,000 in welfare payments only a dirty legal trick? The probe began only after a Jackson attorney tipped off authorities.

"I wanted her to be charged so that the district attorney in Santa Barbara would know what kind of a person he was dealing with," Jackson attorney Carl Capozzola told CBS News.

A criminal complaint filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Bureau of Fraud and Corruption Prosecutions said authorities learned of the fraud allegations through a tip from a private investigator.

Authorities said they received the tip on Feb. 2, 2005, just before the Jackson trial began.

CBS News is withholding the woman's name to protect the identity of her son. She has an unlisted phone number and could not be reached for comment.

The mother of Jackson's accuser was a key witness for the prosecution. Many jurors said her lack of credibility on the witness stand was a major factor in their verdicts of not guilty.

The district attorney's office recommended bail of $50,000 for the woman, who is scheduled to surrender to authorities and be arraigned Sept. 7.

Each perjury charge carries a potential sentence of two to four years in prison. The welfare code violation carries a potential sentence of 16 months to three years.

At the trial, Mesereau portrayed the woman and her family as money hungry grifters who had attached themselves to celebrities before.

He said they invented accusations against Jackson in an effort to pull "the biggest con of their careers."

The complaint said that between Nov. 15, 2001 and March 31, 2003, the woman received $18,782 in welfare aid to which she was not entitled.

This potentially bad news for Jackson's accuser's family could be good news for Jackson's bank accounts — and reputation — CBS News legal analyst Trent Copeland told Gonzales.

"I think this brings an absolute closure to the idea there might be a civil claim against Michael Jackson," Copeland said.

Kwonryu DragonFist · Post by **Kwonryu DragonFist** » August 24, 2005, 2:22 pm

This is my stance in this matter

Click

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 24, 2005, 2:30 pm

Yeah, especially if she is found guilty on any of those charges talked about in that article, she won't have a leg to stand on for a civil case.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » August 24, 2005, 3:08 pm

Her being a lie and a cheat has nothing to do with Jackson's Jesus Juice and fondeling her kid and it shouldn't have had anything to do with his trial. Sure she is a scubag but so is Jackson and focusing on them rather than the victim is how we got here in the first place.

Someday it will come out, I just hate it with all my being that some other innocent child is going to have to suffer before this freak is brought to justice.

Marb

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » August 24, 2005, 3:28 pm

Marbus wrote:Her being a lie and a cheat has nothing to do with Jackson's Jesus Juice and fondeling her kid and it shouldn't have had anything to do with his trial. Sure she is a scubag but so is Jackson and focusing on them rather than the victim is how we got here in the first place.

So you don't think there's any chance that it could all be concoted by her to try and make a lot of money? Open your eyes! It has everything to do with it.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 24, 2005, 4:33 pm

I can see the mother agreeing originally to let MJ have his way with her child or looking the other way and then changing her mind and accusing him of molesting her child because Michael wasn't providing enough "presents" to the family.

That's at least one other possible scenario.