Michael Jackson

[HarveytheRabbit]

He needs to go to prison for a long, long time.....................fucking disgusting






http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/07/ja...ial/index.html

[noelle]

Originally Posted by HarveytheRabbit

He needs to go to prison for a long, long time.....................fucking disgusting






http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/07/ja...ial/index.html

what a sick freak!!!

[TALLJOSH]

THATS NASTY!

[prince vlad]

if michael goes down, then his mother needs to be sentenced too. She's just as responsible as mikey

[PolluxRockStar]

why doesn't he just find real faggots to play with?

[Import]

How about you guys back off and wait and see how the rest of the trial goes. I can't stand child molestors but I don't agree with judging someone without due process. Isn't it supposed to be "Innocent until PROVEN guilty"?

Originally Posted by Import

How about you guys back off and wait and see how the rest of the trial goes. I can't stand child molestors but I don't agree with judging someone without due process. Isn't it supposed to be "Innocent until PROVEN guilty"?

I'm with you on that.

I mean everything points to jacko being a sicko

however

he very well might be extremely naive and being exploited by people even sicker than we assume he is

Originally Posted by Import

How about you guys back off and wait and see how the rest of the trial goes. I can't stand child molestors but I don't agree with judging someone without due process. Isn't it supposed to be "Innocent until PROVEN guilty"?

"Proof" is belief.

Rhetorically.....

Do you believe the testimony?

Or, do you require a jury verdict to tell you the testimony was true or not true?

Originally Posted by Dirt

however

he very well might be extremely naive and being exploited by people even sicker than we assume he is

Of what relevance is that to the crime for which he faces trial?

Originally Posted by xiannaix

Of what relevance is that to the crime for which he faces trial?

The accusers have a shady history.

Jay leno turned them down for help and reported them before he went to jackson.

It is possible that they are fabricating the whole thing.

I use to think that Jacko is a total wacko and molestor, but I don't know, people do lie,
they need proof and inconsistent testimonies isn't hard evidence.

[Satchel]

He can't possibly be so stupid as to have another kid in his bed after the first allegations unless he is guilty.

[OMGimSteve]

Jackson was indicted in April by a state grand jury on 10 felony counts for incidents that allegedly occurred in February and March 2003: Four counts of committing a lewd act on a child; one count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion; one count of attempting to commit a lewd act on a child; and four counts of administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the commission of a felony.

Originally Posted by Dirt

The accusers have a shady history.

Jay leno turned them down for help and reported them before he went to jackson.

It is possible that they are fabricating the whole thing.

I use to think that Jacko is a total wacko and molestor, but I don't know, people do lie,
they need proof and inconsistent testimonies isn't hard evidence.

I must have misread your comment. I thought you were saying that MJ had been manipulated by sickos in his past. Not that the alleged victim of MJs alleged crimes was being manipulated.

Originally Posted by Satchel

He can't possibly be so stupid as to have another kid in his bed after the first allegations unless he is guilty.

a pedophile?

a gazillionaire famous and adored pedophile?

Originally Posted by Dirt

The accusers have a shady history.

Jay leno turned them down for help and reported them before he went to jackson.

It is possible that they are fabricating the whole thing.

I use to think that Jacko is a total wacko and molestor, but I don't know, people do lie,
they need proof and inconsistent testimonies isn't hard evidence.

inconsistent testimony (saying X here and contradicting it there) isn't evidence hard or soft (direct or circumstantial) it is impeachmentof the witness' credibility.... it goes to the question I asked above.... "Do you believe the testimony?"