Michael Jackson Found NOT GUILTY - Page 2 - Eternal Allegiance

Duffyboy · 06-13-2005, 01:55 PM

Oh and one more thing. A whole concuction of lies in court? Over a period of 14 weeks? The last perjury case I remember was Jeffery Archer who told one lie in court and got FOUR years!

What'll happen to Gavin for this one?

Birgerhar · 06-13-2005, 01:57 PM

Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper?

CrAZyBeAuTiFuL4 · 06-13-2005, 02:29 PM

It's a fact? Really? Are you Michael Jaskson? No, and therefore you do not know for a fact anything to do with his innocence.

I hate how people try to dismiss his weird behavior as something totally normal. If Joe Schmo from CityName, Iowa were THAT into children and spent THAT much time with kids...no DOUBT people would accuse him of things. And sadly, he would probably be convicted...but here you have a beyond wealthy king of pop and it's perfectly acceptable for him to be around children all the time. I don't believe that all those people lied about the things he did. I'm not saying I think he's guilty of everything he was accused of but I think he did do some of it. A huge court case would not have come about if there was no evidence to use...that's the way I see it.

I watched MTV when the verdict was being read and John Norris said that the jury was NOT sequestered during this trial which I thought was...insane! It's already tough enough to be on a jury like this considering who the defendant is, but all the media that has been out since this case started? I find it really weird that they weren't held.

Leonida · 06-13-2005, 02:42 PM

I'm glad he was proven innocent, because IMO I think he was. I do though think he is mentally ill and needs some kind of help, but i do not think he is a child molester.

ManSlippers · 06-13-2005, 02:53 PM

Allie, nobody is praising his actions and saying its normal, but if there's no evidence PROVING he DID commit those crimes, he CANNOT be charged. If you have reasonable doubt, you cannot give a guilty verdict. And according to the jurors, there was not any evidence PROVING any of this happened.

CrAZyBeAuTiFuL4 · 06-13-2005, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kizzie
Allie, nobody is praising his actions and saying its normal, but if there's no evidence PROVING he DID commit those crimes, he CANNOT be charged. If you have reasonable doubt, you cannot give a guilty verdict. And according to the jurors, there was not any evidence PROVING any of this happened.

I'm not saying I think he should have been sent to prision and I'm aware that they have to have reasonable evidence to convict him. But just as people all along were like, "OMG, I know he's innocent! I believe he is!" I believe he's guilty. I think he was careful with whatever it was he did and...okay yeah, I don't want to get into this because I don't want it to turn into a full out fight. So lets just leave it at I think he's guilty to some extent.

Lemons · 06-13-2005, 03:42 PM

Whatever duffyboy says, goes. Allie, I think you're wrong. FACT.

Duffyboy · 06-13-2005, 04:47 PM

Well now even the prosecutror has accepted the verdict.

The guy is innocent. No doubt about it whatsoever. Nothing can change it and we must move on and stop accusing him of this stuff.

Quote:

Whatever Duffyboy says goes.

Absolutley!

Lemons · 06-13-2005, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Duffyboy
Absolutley!

Lenghthen · 06-13-2005, 05:56 PM

I love everyone who thinks he's innocent, knows for a FACT that he is. That just makes me giggle.