nickleback04 Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 I watched hardly any of the trial coverage, and so missed out on quite a few of the key points, but i watched the verdict on British tv. I was not surprised when he was found not-guilty for all of the charges. Why is he in debt. in my opinion, he has used a lot of bribes did anyone see the crowd? with the woman letting go of the doves? that was harsh, what are the doves gonna do in bakin hot santa maria? but i suppose animal cruelty dosen't belong in this particular post... so, what does everyone else think on this slightly contoversial issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark0ne Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 Both sides are extremely suspect and, from what I could gather, MJ's lawyer did an excellent job of highlighting the questionable past of the family that was prosecuting. Goes to show, if you're filthy liars in the past, it bites you in the arse later too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickleback04 Posted June 17, 2005 Author Share Posted June 17, 2005 i have to agree, the mother came across as 'evil', having taught her kids to lie to get there own way, and twisting the situation to almost suit herself. emphasis on the almost. she was the prosecution's worst nightmare, and the defences best dream come true even now though, who will ever thing of Michael Jackson without assosciating him with 'molesterer' and the like now then, a small joke- where does Michael Jackson pick his nose? out of a catalogue!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark0ne Posted June 17, 2005 Share Posted June 17, 2005 To be honest what sort of parents let their kids go and stay with Micahel Jackson in a place called "Neverland", without even knowing what they're doing? It's like giving your kid to a weirdo and then blaming them fully for what happens... ... To me the whole case was about money. And for that reason I couldn't give a crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted June 18, 2005 Share Posted June 18, 2005 Have you studied the story of the older case brought against him? If you haven't read that first. My view is that whatever happened the parents of the boys involved couldn't have cared less what happened to their sons as long as there was a chance of getting money. This was either because their sons were 'special' to him and he would lavish presents on them or because if that didn't work they could take him to court. Whether he is innocent or guilty does not come into it. However to have continued as he did after the first case settled out of court (MJ paid a lot of money for that) does not count in his favour IMO. Wow! This computer lets me post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagoth v.s fargoth Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 as always i hav 2 say why would they lie? what wud the kid get out of it? wot wud MJ get out of it? money, of course, but think how many fans he has lost since this scandal started. that's quite a few. and plus, i think the evidence of him dangling the baby out the window, then pulling it back in when the cameras got him was proof enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted August 16, 2005 Share Posted August 16, 2005 Could you possibly take the time to write something a little better than this incoherent semi-literate rambling? It's almost painful to read your idea of a good debate post. as always i hav 2 say why would they lie? what wud the kid get out of it Apparently you don't understand the concept of a lawsuit? If he'd been found guilty, the kid/family would have recieved a ton of money. I'm not saying he's lying or not lying, but anyone with half a brain can see the opportunity for profit. ot wud MJ get out of it? money, of course, but think how many fans he has lost since this scandal started. that's quite a few. I don't think anyone with any common sense believes he wanted the trial. So I'm not sure what your point is here.and plus, i think the evidence of him dangling the baby out the window, then pulling it back in when the cameras got him was proof enough for me. So evidence of one wrong act proves an entirely unrelated one? I'm glad you weren't on that jury, since you clearly don't understand how our legal system works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagoth v.s fargoth Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 it still proves he doesn't have much respect for the younger generation, which means he has a means to do it, the motive COULD be that the child didn't like his music, peregrine, this doesn't DEFINITELY prove he did it, but it is purely a possibility. dvf, cut the flaming, (well I have anyway) but thanks for starting to write posts that are easy to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.