I had a lousy childhood, so i can do ANYTHING i want to now

[mopaul]

sorry michael, that's not a lifetime excuse or free pass. lots of us had lousy childhoods o.k? and we turned out fairly normal.

michael, you had a fantastic childhood, one that i and millions of others would've gladly traded.

dumbass.

[wakeme2008]

1. well

[Horse with no Name]

25. Hey I object to the dead horse!

;)

[Clark2008]

2. Yeah... I don't think I'd be sneering at a gazillion dollars.

Hell, I'd just retire and spend the rest of my time championing Dem causes 24/7.

[woodsprite]

3. If I had millions to spare, the first

thing I'd do is starting buying sets of balls for Dems who have misplaced theirs.

[KlatooBNikto]

4. Wait until he turns Born Again.Then all shall be forgiven.He will be

sleeping with Bush in the Lincoln Bedroom.

[mopaul]

5. a religious conversion would be asthetically appropriate

and although it wouldn't fool me, it would millions of others.

[KlatooBNikto]

6. If he turns into a catholic priest, he will be like a kid in a candy store

[mopaul]

9. the analogy sticks

people automatically look up to priests as super human, and connected to god, same with michael jackson, they're so blinded by his personnae and stardom, they see him as a diety, above human, therefore incapable of evil deeds, and above societal rules.

[BiggJawn]

7. Yeah, my dad didn't buy me a car the second I turned 16...

Guess I can become a Freeway Sniper or Jack the Ripper or something now...

How long before Macauley Culkin is found with HIS hand in somebody's Under-roos? Talk about your fucked-up childhood...

[mopaul]

8. i failed to be accepted on the cheerleading squad!

even cheerleaders get the blues, seriously.

[bigtree]

10. what was he proven to have done wrong?

As for young men sleeping in his bed, three young men testified that nothing improper happened. He shouldn't be vilified for actions that haven't been proven improper or illegal.

As for a free pass, this circus certainly isn't a free pass. His celebrity has allowed folks to attribute all sorts of slander to him without proof. I've known a lot stranger men than Jackson, who by the way, are decent citizens who don't deserve to be knocked down because they are different.

But you go ahead with your crusade to convince everyone that Jackson is a bad man. But. you have no more proof of improprieties and illegalities than the prosecution, who failed to convince a jury of parents with kids that anything illegal occured.
.

[mopaul]

as a diety, he can do NO wrong, in the eyes of the worshipper

[bigtree]

14. I worship life and liberty

I respect due process of law.

[mondo joe]

18. You respect due process? How do you feel about the SCOTUS giving Bush

Florida in the 2000 election?

[bigtree]

20. you call that due process?

[mondo joe]

23. So it's due process when you like the outcome only?

There was all the due process expected and required - a case with ample legal representation before the appropriate body.

The only difference is that you disagree with one judgment and not the other.

I disagree with both.

[bigtree]

26. i don't want to rehash the florida case

and further I don't see much relevance to this one.

Jackson was aquitted of the charges in court. The prosecution can, I suppose appeal the verdict?

The point here is that none of the allegations were proven in a way that allowed the jury to convict. But here you and others are free to re-accuse Jackson and pronounce him guilty. Not much weight in that. It is positively slanderous to carry on as some have here, but I suppose it's their right. I would look to the judgement of that thoughtful jury as to the case presented before I threw around anymore unlitigated charges. That's just me.

I wouldn't give Bush the same benefit of the doubt. That's me also.

[mondo joe]

28. The relevance is this: Do you believe in due proceess, or do you only

claim to when it suits you?

And no the prosecution can NOT appeal the verdict.

[bigtree]

31. prosecution can't huh? then that ends it, except for the civil court.

No I don't only believe in due process when it suits me. I just don't think the Fla. case represented due process. I don't think the supreme court had the authority to meddle with the Fla. court's judgement. I think they acted outside of our constitution. due process would have their decision overturned by congress who failed to intervene.

[mondo joe]

32. Well DUH the prosecution can't appeal. Hello, double jeopardy.

How could the SCOTUS not have the authority? That is their job.

You're confusing DUE PROCESS with outcomes you agree with.

[bigtree]

38. I'm not, they didn't have to take the case

but you are free to say so. See dead horse statement below.

[mondo joe]

40. They didn't HAVE TO but it's their discretion - that's part of due process

just like the jury didn't HAVE to say Not Guilty.

[mondo joe]

11. Right! There are 3 youngsters he DIDN'T sleep with!

And I can name 3 countries GWB didn't start an illegal war with.

[mopaul]

12. there are literally millions of kids michael didn't sleep with

that's not the point. mo paul couldn't have gotten away with that defense.

[bigtree]

13. but he wasn't proven to have done anything illegal with anyone

but that shouldn't matter to folks who have the ability to say anything they want about him without consequence.

Rabble on!

[mondo joe]

15. Whether it was proven or not is a judgment call. You have yours, and

others disagree.

[bigtree]

19. I'm sorry mondo. of course you have a perfect right to your opinion

I'm addressing the forum where these issues comport with the reality of our laws. The jury spoke. The found the charges incredible and unproven. They can say, as one juror did, that they think Jackson is a molester, but they weren't able to prove it from the evidence presented. That's not insignificant. In fact, it far outweighs all of the slanderous comments by those outside of the trial.

[mondo joe]

21. I haven't seen a single post urging a change in our laws or judicial

system, with regard to this case. I have seen a number of posters who disagree with the judgment say so.

[KurtNYC]

29. Perhaps you can explain this photo

At the very least Jackson provided access to alcohol and porn -- the defense witnesses testified to that.

Rijo said the wine incident occurred when an employee brought a bottle to the downstairs area of Jackson's bedroom suite while the singer was in the bathroom. He said the boys took it upstairs and the next time he saw it the cork was removed and some of the wine was gone.

Worse stuff here:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-05-18-jackson-cousin_x.htm

[bigtree]

33. Only in the flimsiest sense of responsibility did he provide access

Those items were Jackson's and perhaps he should have secured them, but it was never proven that he willingly provided these for the kids.

I threw my sons into the air when they were young. They loved it. Not especially safe, but there was no malice involved, just stupid acts. What this photo shows is a human who sometimes does stupid things.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

34. That link says the boys stole the wine and pornography after going through

Jackson's drawers while looking for money to steal. Did you even read the link? Apparently not. You read "wine" "pornography" and "Michael Jackson" and put together some story in your head that was not the story written down. Our system of justice rests on preventing people from making judgements based on what you just did. No matter how odious you find someone, you can't convict them on that. You can only convict based upon the evidence provided.

[KurtNYC]

39. Of course I read the link

Our justice system is flawed when it comes to the extremely wealthy. I wouldn' try to extrapolate much from the trial of ANY rich person and apply it to the Justice system in general.

The link says that MJ's cousin (btw, yet another 12 year-old boy) told MJ what he saw, eg the victim/accuser drinking Jackson's wine and watching Jackson's porn on Jackson TV at Jackson's house. What did jackson do about it? Nothing so there is the crime.

If you say you love children (and really apparently mean only boys 10 to 13) and you let them run around your house then you have a legal obligation to keep them away from porn, guns, alcohol, prescription drugs, etc. 100s of parents have been cited for parties held in their homes where underaged children were drinking alcohol. The same law applies to Jackson regardless of his emotional age.

http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_policy/hot/july03.htm

[bigtree]

16. there's another point to this

the only impropriety that folks can point to Jackson to assert that he is a pedophile, outside of unproven accusations, is the statement that he made that sharing a bed is a loving thing to do. Sharing a bed is not molestation. It doesn't make him a pedophile. It does give folks enough to vilify him with though. Too bad. Hope your past statements don't come back out of context to bite you someday.

[MadHound]

17. So I suppose the words "beyond a reasonable doubt"

Don't mean a thing to you, eh? Hopefully you won't be on a jury if I'm ever on trial.

Look, this wasn't a trial concerning whether or not Jackson is the weirdest dude on the planet, even though the media circus tried to make that the issue. This is a trial about pedophilia and mistreatment of children, in a court of law. When the mother was shown to be a shake down artist, when the victim started changing his story, "beyond a reasonable doubt" went right out the window, as it rightly should have.

Look, you may not like it, but the prosecution was shut down, and had a poor case. The jury, staying within the boundaries of the law, came to the only conclusion it could have, not guilty.

[Misunderestimator]

22. No way on earth would I trade my childhood for his...

and mine was no great shakes.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

36. Money isn't everything

I agree with you.

[progressivebydesign]

24. So.. a new day, and new attacks?

Why has this become a personal crusade for you? How many of these threads have you started? just askin'

[ProfessorGAC]

27. Askin' A Good Question, Too!

I am most disturbed as to how people who didn't actually hear the evidence, didn't have documentation referencing the evidence, never read the depositions in pre-trial testimony, are all 100% sure that the jurors are wrong.

What if. . .the jurors did the right thing? That means a guy who didn't break the law isn't going to jail. Isn't that what people like us should represent?
The Professor

[mopaul]

30. 12

[mr_hat]

35. "You. On the motorcycle!"

[Bethany Rockafella]

37. Mopaul, you have Michael on the brain.

Get rid of it.