Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Right, a slightly risky topic, with the potential for some peoples emotions to get the better of them. What better place than the newly formed enhanced members forum to see how mature we can be. Don't let me down people.....
So the jury came back last night (in my time zone) and gave Jackson a not guilty on all counts. A couple of questions arise from this. Is the jury wrong in your opinion? Do you even care? Will Jackson ever sell another album again? Who are those nutters camped outside the courthouse day and night? Is he broke?
IMHO if the jury came back with a not guilty verdict then he is not guilty. Am I relieved that he is not guilty? No not really as it would not have made one iota of difference to my life, the same would be if the jury came back with a guilty verdict.
What I do believe is that Jackson had a very difficult childhood (from all the reports) and that in his later life he has sort of retreated into a fantasy world to try and recreate the childhood he never had. His problem at the moment is that he is too innocent for his own good.
Anyone else got any feelings about this?
Well I think that's about right to be honest, a pretty good summing up.Originally Posted by chemicalcaveman
Problem with child abuse cases is that they are highly emotional cases. The natural reaction of people is to say "Lock him up and throw away the key". We judge before we know.
As to whether Jackson was guilty or not I don't know. What I do know is this:
The first time Jackson was accused, it was a single boy that made the accusation and then all of a sudden his accusers were crawling out of the woodwork. Everybody had seen something, heard something or been victim to something. Eventually, it was settled out of court for a large amount of money. It was that last fact that lead me to the conclusion that he was innocent. Be honest, if your child had been victim to this kind of behaviour, would you settle for a cash payment in return?
Then, when accused a second time, the same thing happened. One accuser, many more coming from nowhere.
One cannot be blamed for thinking these people are just jumping on the bandwagon.
There is very little conclusive proof that Jackson actually did anything, lets face facts, it's all based on say-so.
What I do think is that Jackson is painfully naive. It's long been known that he has an 'unusual' lifestyle anyway. This guy lauds Peter Pan for goodness sake. He seems locked in childhood beliefs and under those conditions, he probably thinks everything he does truly is innocent.
I do not charge M Jackson with any crime, and I do not presume him innocent either. Given my limited knowledge of the case, I must assume that a jury of mature adults, armed with all the evidence for and against, would come to the correct verdict.
Im of pretty much the same opinion. The guys a moron, but an innocent one.
"It fits like clothes made out of wasps!"
I don't doubt he's guilty, I mean the man's obviously a lunatic. There's something wrong with his head, I think he honestly doesn't see anything wrong with being far too intimate with a child, which is sad in a sick sort of way. As far as him being wrongly aquited..well it's Michael Jackson, did anybody actualy expect him to go to jail? Superstart don't go to jail, only the ones nobody likes. (Martha Stewart >.>)
Thing is, it was a bunch of normal people, just like you and I that aquitted him. These people are members of the public, most likely with children of their own, and they would never have taken this lightly.
If they truly felt he was guilty they would have convicted him because nobody would let a man walk free for these offences, regarless of who he was, unless they had good cause to consider him innocant.
I am a father, theres a good chance many of you are too. And I'll tell you this.... I would send a person down if I considered them guilty, even if I had been his biggest, most ardent fan until that point.
The crime is such that nobody with an ounce of decency in their body, fan or otherwise, would allow this to go unpunished unless they felt there were sufficient evidence to cast doubt over the whole case.
We live in a society that preaches "Innocent until proven guilty" but I can assure you, in cases like this, peoples attitudes are "Guilty until proven innocent". Jackson was assumed guilty but has been judged innocent by people no different to ourselves.
Those jury members will have the same shock and disgust towards the crime as any of us would. I find it absolutely impossible to believe that 12 people with that attitude would find him innocent just because he's a pop star.
Now perhaps the prosecution were weak and perhaps the defence were very good, who knows.
As I previously said, I do not know if he is guilty or not, but I will accept the judgement because if I don't, what is the point in holding trials.
Aside form that, if he truly were innocent, what worse thing could befall him than to be wrongly found guilty. I can't stand his music, so I've no desire for him to be considered innocent, but I would hate myself if I felt I had wrongly accused someone of such a severe crime.
I don't know if you can say he was wrongly aquited Edi. The simple fact of the matter is that the people with the most infomation about the case (the jurors) have made a decision. We have a lot less to go on than the actual jurors, only the often less than reliable word of the news and newspapers. I agree with wolfkin that many of those jurors had families of their own, and if there was even a reasonable doubt that he had commited those crimes he would have been sent down, no matter who he was.
It is of course useful that he is famous and my "celebrities" vouched for his character, but if he was guilty, then no matter who he is he would have been sent down. In fact as I see it as he was cleared of all charges, it makes him even "more" innocent, because there was no iffyness about even the lesser charges of supplying alochol to minors.
Well I have to agree that the dury are the people in the best position to make the decision and that therefore their decision is probably correct. Its what most law systems are based on after all.
I have to say that I am not pleased with the amount of airtime its getting, or has got there are much more important and relevant things that could be on the news, ok the tabloids I expect it of, but not the serious tv news shows and broadsheets usually.
well i've always been believing in michael, hah even though he may be looking pretty odd and stuff.. and act w.e.
i'd say leave him alone.. hes messed up already.. esp his childhood.
leave him be.. hes already going down the drain with his money..
dont hit a man( lol if haters think hes a man) that is lower even lower. thats cold.
even so if he had.. molested the child(rens)
I'd still call the parents of the child GUILTY, for even being such a sick bast$rd for even sending your child to neverland ranch and letting him stay with MJ, while knowing his previous cases.
your just getting it handed to you.
It would have been your own fault, lol even though he may commit a crime.. you are just cheating yourself.. and letting your child.. get manhandled LOL. thats sick.