Verdict is in

[naughty]

So,

Tell what you think.....

Naughty

 

[mindseye]

Unsurprising -- the prosecution did a terrible job. They did a lot of character assassination ("Look, he has a briefcase full of porn") but not much in the way of presenting actual evidence.

If only our voters were as critical as our juries.

 

[prepstudinsc]

I still can't figure out why anyone would let their children spend the night at his ranch. The parents are guilty of stupidity. I do believe that MJ is guilty, the prosecution just did a poor job.

 

[Pecker]

The verdict was "not guilty."

It wasn't "innocent."

 

[naughty]

LOL!

This is going to be interesting....


Naughty

 

[warmsunshine]

Originally posted by Pecker@Jun 13 2005, 10:23 PM
The verdict was "not guilty."

It wasn't "innocent."

[post=320262]Quoted post[/post]​

I don't think that says much as ALL verdicts of this type in this country are classified as "not guilty" or "guilty". There's no such thing as a finding of "innocent" in ANY verdicts.

 

[Dr Rock]

great, now fast-forward 5 years to the next accusation

 

[db03]

A certain member owes me $10!!

I think he was gulity all along, but he has been exonerated so leave it at that.

 

[warmsunshine]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@Jun 13 2005, 10:52 PM
great, now fast-forward 5 years to the next accusation

[post=320271]Quoted post[/post]​

Might not even have to wait that long, Tom Sneddon, the DA said in response to a question that he wouldn't hesistate to file charges tomorrow if someone came forward to his office with a complaint.

He also had some offhand remark about trials not lasting this long in the South. I'm sure some oblique reference to the fact that they usually just like to convict them there (hanged them in earlier times).

 

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@Jun 13 2005, 05:52 PM
great, now fast-forward 5 years to the next accusation

[post=320271]Quoted post[/post]​

I doubt it -- Tom Sneddon didn't prove his case, but he's helped accelerate Jackson's impending bankruptcy. Jackson's no longer the King of Pop, and he won't be able to hold on to his amusement park -- so his ability to 'entice' kids to spend the night will be diminished; furthermore, he's going to be under greatly increased media scrutiny in the future, so his ability to 'get away' with anything will be diminished as well.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Originally posted by naughty@Jun 13 2005, 09:41 PM
So,

Tell what you think.....

Naughty

[post=320245]Quoted post[/post]​

Yah, and OJ was not guilty either.

SG

 

[D_Martin van Burden]

Heh. My five o'clock client had cell phone in hand ready to hear the verdict. I thought he might actually get caught; of course, I didn't keep up with the trial. By the time my seven o'clock family rolled in, we killed about 15 minutes talking about the verdict.

Guilty or not, that man has done little to keep himself clear and out of the media spotlight for his antics, that dangling baby thing and all. Regardless of his guilt or innocence, the man could use a bit of counseling... mm-hmm. I feel for him because his ostracization has spun madly out of control and there's just no looking at the guy without perked eyebrows. He did some killer music back when, but genius like that always covers up some deep, dark, crazy shit.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Of course, I think he should have been convicted if he did it. But my scarce attention to the trial left me with the impression that he acted seriously creepy around children, but the only testimony was from very dubious individuals. Makes you wonder if a case like this can ever be resolved properly.

My biggest wish was that it would be the outcome that would drastically reduce the mention of his name in the media. Somehow I doubt that happened.

 

[major_7]

I guess I can put my Jackson Victory Tour worn-once concert t-shirt up on eBay now....

 

[jonb]

Oh, he touched a couple boys, but he's famous. He can't go to jail.

 

[mindseye]

Originally posted by jonb@Jun 13 2005, 11:25 PM
Oh, he touched a couple boys, but he's famous. He can't go to jail.

[post=320365]Quoted post[/post]​

Yeah? Ask Martha Stewart.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by mindseye+Jun 13 2005, 08:33 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mindseye &#064; Jun 13 2005, 08:33 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-jonb@Jun 13 2005, 11:25 PM
Oh, he touched a couple boys, but he&#39;s famous. He can&#39;t go to jail.

[post=320365]Quoted post[/post]​

Yeah? Ask Martha Stewart.

[post=320367]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Five months in Club Fed ain&#39;t jail.

 

[mindseye]

Originally posted by jonb@Jun 13 2005, 11:43 PM
Five months in Club Fed ain&#39;t jail.

[post=320372]Quoted post[/post]​

For a white-collar peccadillo that would&#39;ve been worth &#036;40,000. So, one month for every &#036;8,000 of fraud.

Compare this to the less well-known Andrew Fastow, who was sentenced to ten years for defrauding his company out of sixty billion dollars, or a mere . . . 42 seconds for every &#036;8,000 of fraud.

And that&#39;s still 42 seconds more than Ken Lay has served.

 

[absinthium]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@Jun 13 2005, 06:52 PM
great, now fast-forward 5 years to the next accusation

[post=320271]Quoted post[/post]​

Fast forward to the next grab bag full of children and their parents that have to live with this, that somehow find the courage to come forward, and, of course, get shot down...

Ah, America, breathe it in&#33;

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by prepstudinsc@Jun 13 2005, 09:56 PM
I still can&#39;t figure out why anyone would let their children spend the night at his ranch. The parents are guilty of stupidity.

[post=320251]Quoted post[/post]​

Who wants to take bets that there are still people who will send their children to stay with him?