|
Post by Eric on Jun 13, 2005 22:07:16 GMT -5
Oh hey, so thanks for wasting jurors' and public officials' time and the public's money for nothing~
|
|
|
Post by OgtraX on Jun 14, 2005 23:19:42 GMT -5
Do you really look at it that way. What if he is innocent. Would it be ok to lock him up because he is a rich guy. If a poor person had been accused for it would it be the same to you. I can't say if he did it or not , but I believe he don't.
Of course he has money to good lawyers and stuff like that but if the opposing party had a good case he would have gone to jail anyway. And if you have paid attention to what was going on in the court room you should know that the mother of the child is a hypocrite and a liar. She commited perjury but won't be charged (? WTF).
That is a more important topic than prejudice against rich people "buying themself out of jail". In some cases they can buy themself out of jail but I hardly think that would work in a child molesting case. Seriously who would let a man walk free for something like that if there had been reliable proof for him doing it.
|
|
midopa
Behind The Logo Team
mecha fetus!
Posts: 857
|
Post by midopa on Jun 14, 2005 23:25:43 GMT -5
What we fail to note, however, is how filthy rich the jurors will get for writing books about their experience as a jurors on the Michael Jackson trial. It changed their lives, full-swing!
|
|
Chris
Junior Member
Heavy Metal Floor Pedaler.
Posts: 148
|
Post by Chris on Jun 14, 2005 23:45:45 GMT -5
If Micheal Jackson was still technically black he could so pass that off as his next album title.
|
|
|
Post by Frost teh Jew on Jun 15, 2005 0:19:05 GMT -5
I believe in some of the accused things he was convicted for, but, to me, its just another piece of history that we dont need.
|
|
Koosh Koosh!
Active Member
Amy Rose is a super cutie.
Posts: 382
|
Post by Koosh Koosh! on Jun 15, 2005 5:49:13 GMT -5
Do you really look at it that way. What if he is innocent. Would it be ok to lock him up because he is a rich guy. If a poor person had been accused for it would it be the same to you. I can't say if he did it or not , but I believe he don't. Right, firstly, we here at the Moogle Cavern tend to speak in English. Not in some mangled deriviative with missing question marks and spaces between our commas. Secondly, yes, I do see this is as a classic case of Jackson back handing someone in power to get what he wants. He's done it before in 1993/4 or whatever, and despite laws being put in place to stop it, I think he's done the same thing again, but more discreetly, and to someone who isn't the prosecution. Thirdly, if you can't know exactly if he did or did not do it, why can't I draw my own opinion? I wasn't following the trial too closely, but when browsing the news, I caught some horrifying interviews with the jury. Apparently, the majority actually thought that Jackson had done it, but voted "not guilty" due to "lack of evidence", which is fair enough... but then some old lady said that she didn't like the way the mother of child POINTED at her, and that, in some way, swayed her vote. Oh, no, hell to the EVIDENCE, let's judge the case on how people act towards you. For fucks sake. Well, he paid them off in 1993, like I said, for exactly the same charges, so it's not unfeasible. Either way, I don't care hugely about this whole thing, I just thought I better clarify my position.
|
|
Ed
Junior Member
why buzz :(
Posts: 146
|
Post by Ed on Jun 15, 2005 16:45:03 GMT -5
Yeah, Tomoyo's Room is 4chan's /b/ all mashed up together.
And of course you like it Neil, you're a weirdo.
|
|
Koosh Koosh!
Active Member
Amy Rose is a super cutie.
Posts: 382
|
Post by Koosh Koosh! on Jun 15, 2005 18:13:13 GMT -5
I'd like to point out that Tomoyo's Room predates 4chan (I think).
So, as usual, 4chan is stealing humour/catchphrases from everywhere (SA, fark etc), and is utter rubbish.
|
|
Ed
Junior Member
why buzz :(
Posts: 146
|
Post by Ed on Jun 15, 2005 18:26:04 GMT -5
I wasn't saying that they were, I'm saying that is what it pretty much is.
|
|
Koosh Koosh!
Active Member
Amy Rose is a super cutie.
Posts: 382
|
Post by Koosh Koosh! on Jun 15, 2005 19:02:28 GMT -5
And I'm saying that's rubbish. What with Tomoyo's Room being quite funny (if in a very macabre fashion, I'll admit), as opposed to a bunch of kids posting goaste edits and shouting "LOL IT'S A TRAP" at each other.
|
|
Seph
Behind The Logo Team
Luigi and Marth for the win.
Posts: 3,390
|
Post by Seph on Jun 15, 2005 19:04:28 GMT -5
Am I the only person in this world who is able to completely ignore /b/?
|
|
|
Post by Housekeeper (loljanitor) Faddy on Jun 15, 2005 19:09:09 GMT -5
Stepping in and inevitably going to cause cancer and chaos by it because I like 4chan...
Jackson doesn't seem like a molester...
Wait. You guys mentioned 4chan for me already. Those guys are definatly primer canidates then he is.
Please link me to this Tomoyo's Room comic. If that's /b/'s incarnation, then /d/ is far worse in comparison. In your eyes. I've become a /d/ junkie, to some degree. It's entertaining to no end.
Please send all flames of 4chan angst and hatred to my e-mail acount to recieve one cookie. Try to un-convert me for 2.
Good lord. Look what 4 years of internet did to me. I'm ready to request a female incarnation of my 16 port switch :p
|
|
Matsrik
Behind The Logo Team
Gnome
Posts: 1,094
|
Post by Matsrik on Jun 15, 2005 19:13:32 GMT -5
COMMODORE-64 TAN
KAWAIIIII ^_______^
torrent plz SAUCE!!?
|
|
|
Post by Housekeeper (loljanitor) Faddy on Jun 15, 2005 19:16:47 GMT -5
You get 5 cookies just for that. Although I don't know where in my stash that she exists. I think there is a Commodore-tan in there, though.
Take your damn cookies and give me some sausage. I'm hungry.
|
|
PC0
Behind The Logo Team
Posts: 189
|
Post by PC0 on Jun 15, 2005 23:18:03 GMT -5
Neil...(AKA Koosh Koosh) just... wow. You really have no idea what you're talking about. I'm sorry, but you don't. You said so yourself that you hadn't followed the trial much. Now, I listen to talk radio, it's something I enjoy and logically, Jackson was a popular topic. As such, I heard every piece of evidence presented in that case and let me tell you something, Jackson may be creepy and but he didn't do anything perverted to that little kid, that much, I am sure of.
Go do some research on the kid's mom, she's been scamming celebrities for years, just look at Leno's testimony. Not only that, but the mom and kid seemed to change the details of their story on a regular basis. The kid looked and sounded like he was lying his ass off once he was cross examined. Seriously the kid freakin' panicked like he'd been trapped or something, if he was telling the truth, he wouldn't acted so offensively. Also, Ann Gabriel was more or less proven to have ulterior motives for her statements made in court.
In fact, there was absolutely no evidence at all, capable of supporting the claims of the prosecution. None, at all. The closest they ever had were finger prints on porn mags, which is hardly a federal crime. Everything else was based on the claims of the mother, who has a REPEATED HISTORY OF TRYING TO SCAM CELEBRITIES! Also, Leno testified that she as a lying BITCH. The kid, couldn't handle questioning without his mother coaching him what to say, so he's obviously full of crap too.
I'm sorry, but there was no case. Michael could of hired a 50 dollar lawyer from a 1-800 commercial and still won that case, because despite how television media tried to make things out, all the evidence presented was completely irrelevant. "OMG HE HAD PORN!", I mean, come on man, what kind of evidence is that? What 40 year old man DOSEN'T have porn? Honestly, I'd have been more suspicious if he DIDN'T have a bit of porn stashed away. (all the porn btw, despite the claims of rumors started by idiots, was heterosexual, legal, non-paedo porn. (except for one piece of gay porn, but hey, maybe he's bi, so what? They were still adults!))
Now, I admit, Jackson is fucked up. He is one seriously messed up dude. He's weird and then some. But frankly, he didn't touch that god damn kid. There is absolutely no reason, what-so-ever to believe that he did.
On a side note neil, I like the avatar. XD
|
|
Koosh Koosh!
Active Member
Amy Rose is a super cutie.
Posts: 382
|
Post by Koosh Koosh! on Jun 16, 2005 6:36:44 GMT -5
Not gonna bother going through every paragraph of that, as I don't have patience or the time to research the whole trial more thoroughly.
I will say, however, that your patronising first paragraph sucks (really, you could have missed the whole thing out about telling me I was wrong 4 times, and still made those points), and that I still think he did it.
I mean, come on, almost the EXACT same case came up a decade ago, and he bought them all off. He's clearly done it before, and it's clearly happened again. You can go nuts with theories about the mother being a con artist or whatever, and maybe she was, but not guilty on ALL COUNTS?
I've read there were like 5 other witnesses to the alcohol to kids stuff, and he still got off. Which is why I'm suspicious. Nothing quite adds up about it. Especially after seeing some of the jury say they DEFINITELY thought he was guilty, despite voting not guilty. It just suggests foul play.
So, yeah. Something not quite right there.
|
|
Hermit
Active Member
For your sake you'd better have a permit.
Posts: 446
|
Post by Hermit on Jun 16, 2005 6:56:55 GMT -5
You can go nuts with theories about the mother being a con artist or whatever, And you can go nuts with theories about Jackson buying off some people who were then able to get him off. Basically, yes, there were other witnesses to these supposed givings of alcohol, mostly from a few of Jackson's staff. But equally there were other witnesses on the staff who said they never saw anything illegal happening, who said the family were never held as prisoners, and so on. In fact, one witness (I belive Jackson's niece), said she'd seen the Arvizo children taking the wine for themselves, and that Jackson didn't know about it. Whether or not he'd molested chidren in the past, this time he hadn't, in both mine and the jury's opinion. If you'd listened more to the various interviews afterwards, one member said something along the lines of "I don't believe he could have young boys in his bed and not be doing something illegal at some point. However, this does not nessecarily make him guilty in this case." The majority of the evidence was either circumstantial, or not solid enough. All too often prosecution evidence was not backed up by thier other witnesses, who'd be talking about different things they'd seen. The prosecution I think had hoped to build this picture of "With all this wierd stuff happening so often, he must be guilty," But it just didn't work. I'd also say that Jackson's celeb witnesses probably did influence the jury, despite their claims they were treating this as any other trial. But I don't see where your idea of illegal backhanders are coming in here. Heck, if he freely had access to that kind of money, I believe he would have paid off this family as he has done with other ones. Not nessecarily becasue he is guilty, but because it means he can avoid this huge amount of bad publicity. But if he had done so, he'd just be faced with more allegations as more families tried to squeeze some cash out of him. At least this way it's unlikely he (Should that be we? ) will have to sit through any more four month trials.
|
|
Sofox
Behind The Logo Team
Yeah, I'm still a jet propelled fox, deal with it
Posts: 1,273
|
Post by Sofox on Jun 16, 2005 7:02:55 GMT -5
Neil, in any sort of debate, argument or discussion, it helps if you actually read whatever it is you are responding to. Otherwise, it puts you at a severe disadvantage in terms of what's going on and diminishes other people's opinions of how valid your points are.
I know this is the internet, there are no rules, and you can say you don't care about the issue. But whenever you post something that contains some of your opinions, you are inheretly showing a desire to let your opinions be known. However, as is with much of the internet, they will inevitably responded to. Replying to any of these responses show you do place value on what you posted, but if you reply to the response without even reading the response, or not giving it full consideration, you are showing you have far more concern for your post and opinion (and defending it) then you have for anyone elses and have little intention of taking anyone elses point of view onboard. If this is what you want to do, well, it's not like there's anything stopping you.
|
|
|
Post by Housekeeper (loljanitor) Faddy on Jun 16, 2005 7:15:25 GMT -5
If Micheal Jackson is really screwed up, which I myself heavily disagree with (Different, yes. 'Screwed up', no.), then what does that make us? Pardon my slight bias in defending people who haven't really harmed people to my knowledge.
And the internet society overall?
Try to sleep tonight thinking about THAT. I know I can't. Too damn creepy.
|
|
|
Post by Andrusi on Jun 16, 2005 9:04:43 GMT -5
If Micheal Jackson is really screwed up, [...] then what does that make us? [...] And the internet society overall? ... ::shudders::
|
|