PDA

View Full Version : jacko's about to get his verdict


The Norks
13-06-2005, 21:56:28
its live on the bbc now!

Lazarus and the Gimp
13-06-2005, 22:12:14
I say "Not guilty"

Diss
13-06-2005, 22:13:13
not guilty by way of insanity

Lazarus and the Gimp
13-06-2005, 22:16:51
Go me! I rule!

The Norks
13-06-2005, 22:17:25
looks like not guilty on all counts

and i'm not surprised from what i saw of the trial, there was no bloody evidence!

The Norks
13-06-2005, 22:17:53
bloody hell- jacko fans are nuttier than he is

The Norks
13-06-2005, 22:19:31
I'm pleased for him- I don't believe he did anything bad (purely tabloid view). Lets hope he stops acting like a twat now and gets the kids their own bedrooms.

Lazarus and the Gimp
13-06-2005, 22:26:11
Originally posted by The Norks
I'm pleased for him- I don't believe he did anything bad

May I direct you to everything he's released since 1984?

alsieboo
13-06-2005, 22:26:43
His music isn't *that* bad

Lazarus and the Gimp
13-06-2005, 22:28:20
Originally posted by alsieboo
His music isn't *that* bad

I think you'll find he released a song claiming that it was.

Cruddy
13-06-2005, 22:28:22
The cons who were hoping for a new playmate will be so disappointed.

lightblue
13-06-2005, 22:53:32
Just Jacko getting a new playmate then.

protein
13-06-2005, 23:11:54
Him and OJ can do a duet.

Lurker the Second
13-06-2005, 23:40:43
Originally posted by The Norks
looks like not guilty on all counts

and i'm not surprised from what i saw of the trial, there was no bloody evidence!

The young boy whose dick was allegedly fondled testified that his dick was fondled by Michael Jackson, the defendant. If that's not evidence, I don't know what is.

Now, having said that, I suppose you could have made a Funko-like post, in which case I would agree -- there was no bloody evidence. Molestation, however, takes many different forms, and ass raping is just one of them.

This wasn't a he-said, she-said case. It was a he-said, do you believe him case. Obviously, the jury didn't, at least to the degree necessary to convict.

Maybe I'm reading that post too literally. If your point was the prosecution witnesses had no credibility, then that's fair. Reasonable people can disagree on those things.

The Norks
14-06-2005, 00:10:49
i didn't see anything that could be proved. And I personally think that if he really had been molesting young boys, the police might at least have found a bit of child porn knocking about, or some sperm soaked curtains or something. And why would the central witness and his mother lie if they had a case? I agree that he is not necessarily innocent, and if not its a terrible shame for the boys involved, but I just don't get that impression.

protein
14-06-2005, 01:02:19
There was child porn. Semen would prove nothing.

The Norks
14-06-2005, 01:07:25
there was no child porn, there were art books of nude boys and if thats evidence Brian Sewell must be crapping himself along with every other art lover in the country

protein
14-06-2005, 01:10:33
ah yes, there was an "art" book amongst his wank mags. In that case, it was perfectly normal for him to surgically turn himself into a white child, create a children's magic land, wank over pictures of children, magically father two white kids, sleep with and wank off hand picked kids from his selection of hundreds.

Cruddy
14-06-2005, 02:07:28
Nice planet you've got there Protein.

Try reality sometime, you might like it!

He was found innocent, he always WAS innocent, he was NEVER found guilty and I find your comments erratic and far from the situation as it stands.

Greg W
14-06-2005, 02:10:42
I don't think any of us know the truth, and we never will. Assuming that you do is being a tad conceited.

Immortal Wombat
14-06-2005, 02:10:56
He was found innocent of crime. He was not found innocent of being a weirdo.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
14-06-2005, 08:39:09
Who cares about guilt or innocence?

He bought an acquittal. End of story.

Diss
14-06-2005, 08:43:29
Originally posted by alsieboo
His music isn't *that* bad

I actually like beat it. thriller and Billy Jean weren't that bad either. Smooth criminal is alright (though I like the alien ant farm version better).

basically the thriller album came out at that point in my childhood when I still listened to pop music, before I started listening to antisocial music.

and the solo for beat it was played by none other than Eddie Van Halen.

mr.G
14-06-2005, 08:43:47
isn't that the whole issue in law

mr.G
14-06-2005, 08:52:32
Originally posted by Diss
Eddie Van Halen. heheheheheheDUTCHhehehehe

Spartak@work
14-06-2005, 08:54:52
Originally posted by protein
ah yes, there was an "art" book amongst his wank mags. In that case, it was perfectly normal for him to surgically turn himself into a white child, create a children's magic land, wank over pictures of children, magically father two white kids, sleep with and wank off hand picked kids from his selection of hundreds. Quite.

Aredhran
14-06-2005, 09:16:27
Was he acquitted because he once was black ?

The Norks
14-06-2005, 13:47:05
i think they ensured he had a very fair trial, and the odds were well against him since they admitted previous accusations as evidence. To come out of that with not even a minor charge tells me there was fuck all solid evidence.

To have an art book is not a crime. I have an art book of naked women, that doesnt make me a lesbian. his porn was all girlie mags and there was nothing on his computer.

I hope whatever the truth that those families who testified against have a one way ticket to anywhere, becaus ethey will be hounded.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
14-06-2005, 13:48:29
"To come out of that with not even a minor charge tells me there was fuck all solid evidence."

The norks are way too naive.

Lurker the Second
14-06-2005, 13:51:02
Originally posted by The Norks
i think they ensured he had a very fair trial, and the odds were well against him since they admitted previous accusations as evidence. To come out of that with not even a minor charge tells me there was fuck all solid evidence.



Would you say the same thing about OJ Simpson's trial?

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
14-06-2005, 15:04:59
The jurors who were interviewed once the case was over all stated on TV that they believed that there was definitely some bad stuff going down at Neverland (going down, geddit?) but that they couldn't give him a guilty verdict in this specific incidence because the prosecution case was too poorly put together, not to mention the family involved being an irritating bunch of twats.

They believed he was guilty of something, just not what was presented. He got off this time (got off, chortle) but that doesn't make him any less of a potential monster. They said. Paraphrased.


I really don't care, I'm glad it's over so I don't have to listen to that screaming harpy Nancy Grace go on about it all the fucking time.

Greg W
14-06-2005, 15:07:29
Basically it came down to the prosecution not proving anything beyond reasonable doubt. Doesn't mean that it did or didn't happen, just that they didn't prove it.

The Norks
14-06-2005, 15:10:57
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
"To come out of that with not even a minor charge tells me there was fuck all solid evidence."

The norks are way too naive.

no the norks understands the legal system 'beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt'

The Norks
14-06-2005, 15:12:15
Originally posted by Lurker the Second
Would you say the same thing about OJ Simpson's trial?

The police fucked that one up by falsifying evidence.

Please do tell me though how you think Jacko's trial was unfair

Lurker the Second
14-06-2005, 15:34:13
It was not at all "unfair". In fact, it was probably one of the "fairest" trials you'd ever see. I just didn't understand why you seemed to believe the jury's not guilty verdict means there was no evidence of his guilt.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
14-06-2005, 15:39:46
Originally posted by The Norks
no the norks understands the legal system 'beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt'

The norks need to differentiate between total lack of evidence, insufficient evidence, and insufficient evidence in a trial where the defendant invests a shitload of money.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
14-06-2005, 15:40:37
Originally posted by Lurker the Second
It was not at all "unfair". In fact, it was probably one of the "fairest" trials you'd ever see.

Probably.

An under or middle class defendant would have been convicted.

protein
14-06-2005, 15:46:50
Imagine a regulat 46 year old man accused of this who'd built a playground in his back garden, has loads of toys and pornography in his bedroom and sleeps with kids from the neighbourhood.

He'd go down. Or at least get help.

Lurker the Second
14-06-2005, 15:50:49
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel

An under or middle class defendant would have been convicted.

Almost certainly. The prosecution's witnesses wouldn't have nearly the credibility issues that were present in this case b/c there never could be a pot of gold at the end of that rainbow.

The Norks
14-06-2005, 15:59:03
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
The norks need to differentiate between total lack of evidence, insufficient evidence, and insufficient evidence in a trial where the defendant invests a shitload of money.

where does money come into it??? I think if anything, given his previous history, fame and money they were more likely to convict.

The judge made it clear at the beginning and all through the trial that he was to be treated as any other citizen, and the jury backed that up with what they said afterwards.

Ultimately there was no 'smoking gun'.

The Norks
14-06-2005, 16:04:59
Originally posted by protein
Imagine a regulat 46 year old man accused of this who'd built a playground in his back garden, has loads of toys and pornography in his bedroom and sleeps with kids from the neighbourhood.

He'd go down. Or at least get help.

no one thinks the sleeping with kids bit is ok, so if nothing else I hope that he stops that now.

However the fairground has been used mostly for charities to take children to, its not like he's inviting kids off the street and luring them in. The porn was found in a separate room as I understand it, and please do show me a man that has no porn in his house/computer.

The circumstances look bad yes, but I think you are looking at it in your usual one sided way.

What clinched it for me was that Gavin Arvizo couldnt even get his story straight. He said he couldnt remember when he'd been abused or how many times- well I know people who've been abused, and its hardwired in to their memories. I don't believe any of it

I think Jackson has to develop boundaries between him and children and he if he is serious about being innocent, he now needs to stop putting himself in these ridiculous situations.

Lurker the Second
14-06-2005, 16:05:12
Originally posted by The Norks
where does money come into it???

Why do you think the jury didn't believe the boy who said Michael Jackson fondled him?

The Norks
14-06-2005, 16:08:22
Originally posted by Lurker the Second
It was not at all "unfair". In fact, it was probably one of the "fairest" trials you'd ever see. I just didn't understand why you seemed to believe the jury's not guilty verdict means there was no evidence of his guilt.

I think if there was evidence, they'd have clung on to it. In fact they even said that- there was nothing they could point to and say well thats firm evidence. It was all circumstantial or speculative.

Thats not to say nothing has ever happened, but it seems to me that this was lots of smoke and no fire.

None of us were there or in the courtroom tho, so its all speculation

The Norks
14-06-2005, 16:09:30
Originally posted by Lurker the Second
Why do you think the jury didn't believe the boy who said Michael Jackson fondled him?

because he couldnt get his story straight and his family had a history of trying to get cash from celebrities?

Debaser
14-06-2005, 16:16:31
That Jordy Chandler guy could apparently graphically and accurately describe Michael Jackson's cock. Now I know it wasn't him that the case was about, and I appreciate that there wasn't enough evidence to convict Jackson of the charges against him beyond all resonable doubt, thus making the verdict the correct one, but to think he's properly and totally innocent is incredibely nieve. Where were the little girls who also slept over? Why did all his "friends" happen to be vaguely latino looking 11-14yr olds?

He'd haver been convicted if he was black.

Lurker the Second
14-06-2005, 16:21:05
Originally posted by The Norks
his family had a history of trying to get cash from celebrities?

And that's one of two very important ways that money comes into it.

The Norks
14-06-2005, 16:50:56
Originally posted by Debaser
That Jordy Chandler guy could apparently graphically and accurately describe Michael Jackson's cock. Now I know it wasn't him that the case was about, and I appreciate that there wasn't enough evidence to convict Jackson of the charges against him beyond all resonable doubt, thus making the verdict the correct one, but to think he's properly and totally innocent is incredibely nieve. Where were the little girls who also slept over? Why did all his "friends" happen to be vaguely latino looking 11-14yr olds?

He'd haver been convicted if he was black.

it was reported that he could, but never proven

ah yes, Macaulay Culkin, the latino 14 year old, I remember him

for the millionth time, I havent said he was definitely and totally innocent, however I have seen nothing that convinces me of his guilt.

making friends with boys I've always interpreted as his attempt to get back his own youth. I think he relates to them. Maybe he cant relate to girls so well. I like hamsters more than children- while that may make me eccentric it doesnt make me a hamophile.

If they cant ind evidence after a surprise swoop on Neverland in his absence, I'd suggest thats because there is none. Or at least, none thats not a circumstantial- ooh man has porn! shocker

The Norks
14-06-2005, 16:54:14
also, the thing that doesnt fit for me is that if you were abusing kids routinely, why oh why would you tell people you were sharing a bed with them?

And if you are paedophile, whyoh why would you only have adult porn? It doesnt add up.

Nills Lagerbaak
14-06-2005, 16:57:09
yeah, it's a story of boy who cried wolf. Perhaps he got mis-tried because of his family's past behaviour. But then MJ's past behaviour was used as evidence, so fair's fair.

Cruddy
14-06-2005, 17:09:55
Originally posted by The Norks
also, the thing that doesnt fit for me is that if you were abusing kids routinely, why oh why would you tell people you were sharing a bed with them?

And if you are paedophile, whyoh why would you only have adult porn? It doesnt add up.

Quite ironic, I heard a radio interview yesteday with a fan that had known Jackson since 1979 (while still with the J5).

Apparently one of the topics of conversation on the phone was masturbation.

Which doesn't prove anything... but it could be seen as a grooming attempt. Pretty lame though.

The Norks
14-06-2005, 17:20:07
that guys been interviewed before and he has some interesting stories, but he contradicts himself a lot.

who knows, maybe one day something conclusive will happen.

Mesereau says he has agreed to stop sharing his bedroom with boys. Thats got to be a good thing.

Lazarus and the Gimp
14-06-2005, 17:37:45
Originally posted by Debaser
That Jordy Chandler guy could apparently graphically and accurately describe Michael Jackson's cock.

"About three inches long when on the slack. Knobbly blue vein on the top. Little hole at the end"

Damn. Jacko must have bummed me too.

Debaser
14-06-2005, 17:54:47
Originally posted by The Norks
it was reported that he could, but never proven

ah yes, Macaulay Culkin, the latino 14 year old, I remember him

The $20,000,000 payoff is pretty good proof I reckon.

And he didn't abuse Macauley Culkin, as Macauley himself said in the trial he though Michael was friends with him because he could relate to his position (child star, not getting on with parents etc...) and though he could help him out/offer him somewhere to go where he could get away from everything and be a kid instead of a *child star*.

The Norks
14-06-2005, 18:10:32
its proof of nothing- there are several possible reasons for settling out of court

I was being sarcastic about Macaulay :rolleyes:

I'm listening to the full juror interview now, and they have tactfully but openly said they suspected Janet Arvizo has taught her boys to lie for gain, and that they couldn't find any conclusive evidence.

protein
14-06-2005, 18:17:39
they also said they suspect michael jackson has abused boys in the past

The Norks
14-06-2005, 18:27:23
well you must have been listening to a different interview than the one I heard then

protein
14-06-2005, 18:28:15
Probably. I was listening to the one on the news.

protein
14-06-2005, 18:31:24
Several jurors who acquitted Michael Jackson on all counts says they believe the pop star possibly molested other boys
http://www.kfmb.com/stories/story.15156.html

Members of the Michael Jackson jury suspect he was a child abuser but say there was no evidence to find him guilty
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/articles/19286435?source=Evening%20Standard&ct=5

The Norks
14-06-2005, 18:52:16
i didnt hear those bits, but still it doesnt actually mean anything- its supposition. It seems based on them saying that if you share a bed with a child you must have sexual intent. I think thats very worrying for most parents.

This whole conversation is based on supposition.

Chris
14-06-2005, 18:52:39
Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
Who cares about guilt or innocence?

He bought an acquittal. End of story. Yep.

Saw the jury, looked like Adam's family rejects, they seemed more concerned with not liking the accuser's mother then a grown man having sleep-overs with minors.

LoD
14-06-2005, 18:57:23
Originally posted by The Norks making friends with boys I've always interpreted as his attempt to get back his own youth. I think he relates to them. Maybe he cant relate to girls so well. I like hamsters more than children- while that may make me eccentric it doesnt make me a hamophile.

Why do I remember you saying something to the effect that you like to play with your hamsters' privates ;)?

protein
14-06-2005, 18:58:13
Originally posted by The Norks
i didnt hear those bits, but still it doesnt actually mean anything- its supposition. It seems based on them saying that if you share a bed with a child you must have sexual intent. I think thats very worrying for most parents.

This whole conversation is based on supposition.
If you share a bed with your own parents that's no bother.

If you build a theme park so you can easily hand pick pretty boys to sleep with, that is wrong. No matter how you want to look at it, it's plain wrong.

Diss
14-06-2005, 20:03:52
Originally posted by protein
If you share a bed with your own parents that's no bother.

If you build a theme park so you can easily hand pick pretty boys to sleep with, that is wrong. No matter how you want to look at it, it's plain wrong.

not if he doesn't do anything sexual

Diss
14-06-2005, 20:06:26
Anyone wonder what color Michael Jackson's cock is?

I wonder if he got his whole body dyed. Wouldn't that dye hurt if it got into his urethra?

I wasn't paying attention to the trial. But did the kid actually describe his cock on the stand?

I want to hear about Michael Jackson's cock.

protein
14-06-2005, 20:07:48
You don't think he needs help? He just picks pretty boys to sleep with, pays off their family and there's nothing wrong with that?

Okay, lets say he built an old people's home and hand picked disabled senile old men to sleep with every night? Would there be something wrong with that?

protein
14-06-2005, 20:09:15
Originally posted by Diss
Anyone wonder what color Michael Jackson's cock is?

I wonder if he got his whole body dyed. Wouldn't that dye hurt if it got into his urethra?

I wasn't paying attention to the trial. But did the kid actually describe his cock on the stand?

I want to hear about Michael Jackson's cock.
I watched every single reconstruction episode of the trial. The cock stuff wasn't in this trial. Photos of his penis were not evidence.

Diss
14-06-2005, 20:20:45
darn :(

The Norks
14-06-2005, 20:46:51
Originally posted by LoD
Why do I remember you saying something to the effect that you like to play with your hamsters' privates ;)?

I wanted to find them not play with them!

speaking of which I have only just found the extra smilies after nearly two years