It is known as sarcasm.
I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned the very suspicious timeline. We are supposed to believe that this molestation occurred 19 days after the Bashir special that pretty much branded him a pedophile. I find it really hard to swallow (pardon the pun). Who, no matter how deranged commits a crime like this knowing that the whole world is watching his every move. I don’t get it.
Yeah, and for those who aren’t convinced he might not be guilty of this crime, I offer The Michael Jackson Trial for Dummies:
Step 1: Known pedophile and weirdo.
Step 2: Known scam artist with young boy.
Step 3: Profit!
The thing is this – from what we’ve learned from media reports – and certainly that isn’t as extensive as what the jury knew – it seemed like a coin flip to me. I didn’t hear anything that made me think it was a slam dunk. The mitigating facts of the accuser being kind of … let’s say opportunistic … put things squarely in the nebulous zone for me.
It seems that Jackson’s biggest overt crime is being a fucking fruit-cake. But that ain’t illegal.
That all being said, I really didn’t have a dog in this fight. I wouldn’t have cared one way or another which way the verdict went. Although as a mass-media consumer, things would have been a lot more entertaining for me if he was found guilty.
Hell, I was figuring there was going to be a lot of Death Pools scoring a quick 53 points or so.
I’m sorry, but I think that this is a disgusting example of how jurors were so desperate to acquit Michael Jackson that they focused on the wacko mother. She was a nut and a cheat, but I believe that has nothing to do with the fact that the kid was abused-- AND all the other kids, too. When you get right down to it, people often prefer not to believe kids. It’s easier not to. I think he did it, and I always will.
Except that he’s not a “known pedophile”. Firstly-pedophiles are attracted to children, not prepubescent children. There’s a huge gulf between the 2 age groups to a perv. THe more technical term escapes me at the moment.
Secondly-while his actions are beyond fucking odd, we have no PROOF. PROOF. Proof! that he’s done SHIT. Fuck. You people are ridiculous.
He’s fucking weird. He’s attracted to young boys. We’ve never been shown anything substantial that he has anything other than a creepy fondness for these boys. To date, we have 2 complaints from children with parents who are more motivated by greed than anything having to do with concern for their children, and we just can’t say that he’s a known ANYTHING!
I hate defending this perverted punk, but some of you in this thread are being idiots.
Sam
Would you care to amplify this? Seven days of deliberation doesn’t not seem to me to equal desperation. Asking for an extention of time to read the boy’s testimony doesn’t not strike me as desperate, either. I see no evidence of desperation on the jury’s part… Could you enlighten me?
The mother cratered her credibility. How could the jury rely upon any of her testimony after that? The boy was caught lying, too. Even supposing Jackson had done the deed as acused, how would the jury be able to ascertain that, when the accusers had demonstrated that they were unreliable? All the jury knows is that it’s a he said/she said situation, and one side were demonstrated liars. After that, the prosecution had only the flimsiest circumstantial evidence to go upon. How is the jury to act on that?
Huh???
Technical definition issue, I think.
OK you’re upset at the ruling, but please don’t tar Europe with being somehow soft against child molesters.
Yeah. I think the verdict was correct given the guilty-beyond-reasonable-doubt standard of the law, even though I think he’s guilty in fact.
Well, I’m surprised he got off on all charges. But from my limited vantage point, I didn’t think there was enough evidence to convict on the molestation charges.
The jury erred on the side that I would prefer in a case as shaky as this. Yes, MJ looks like alien. Yes, his voice is abnormally high-pitched. Yes, he seems overly enamored with children. Yes, he has gone on international TV and annouced that he shares his bed with children. Yes, there are a multitude of things about him that creep me out.
But that does not count as sufficient evidence to send him to jail. I think the defense didn’t have to break much sweat to cast doubt on the family’s credibility, and in a case of he-said-he-said, credibility is all you have.
Can anyone who thinks this was a slam dunk really say that the checkered past of the plainfiff’s family was immaterial here?
Well, he’s probably a pederast or a hebopheliac or something like that, but we’re picking nits here. Depending on when the kids come under his wing(12-13 is the start of adolescence and the end of being a pedophile). Anyhow, I may be wrong here and I’ll take that part of my bitch with the activity in this thread back.
We still don’t know that he “is” anything based on what has been presented twice now about these incidences. I’m not defending him because of who he is, either. I may have liked “Thriller” when I was 9, but I certainly don’t think he’s worth a shit these days.
Sam
I’m sorry about the Europe crack, but I’ve been angry for months that the BBC and other foreign papers casually identified the accuser, his family, and all the children who testified, even the one who said he was abused starting at seven. Most of the fans on the fan boards are overseas and insist that Michael is more than welcome in Germany, the UK, France, Ireland, Singapore, wherever. I’ve also seen journalists from other countries say that the case wouldn’t even have been bought over there–that a child’s complaint like that would be instantly dismissed because of the mother’s past.
Oh well. Every culture is different.
All I know is that the social workers and sex-crime investigators on other boards are already getting calls from tearful clients, certain that they’ll be too poor/dark/substance-abusing to be believed. They have even more of an uphill battle now.
Shit. Lump me in with the bunch who think a pedophile went free to molest again.
Prediction: attempted assasination within six months
I don’t know what your standard of ‘broke’ is, but while he has debts of upwards of $340 million, Forbes magazine estimates his total holdings at $650 million. He is in a short-term cash crisis, and may have to liquidate his holdings to pay his debts, but he is not anywhere near ‘broke’.
We all know he just got off because he’s white.
For the life of me I just can’t see how people can trot out the “how can you call MJ a molestor, a jury found him not guilty” line. If you think it is more probable than not that he did not molest children, then I cordially disagree with you. If you think the fact that a jury found him not guilty means he didn’t touch kids then you are a bit addled.
First, I do not have to conform to the same standard of proof as a jury. Consider me as the judge in a civil case. I only have to decide that it is more probable than not that MJ is a kid-toucher. I feel that he is more than likely a kid-toucher, and it isn’t really even close. I can use my common sense and my experience with human nature, as well as the evidence I do know about, to decide that he likely molests little boys.
Second, people, as a collective, are morons. California juries have a long and glorious history of moronic behavior. If I was to substitute someone else’s judgement for my own, I can assure I would not choose twelve random Californians to trust to make a good decision. The jury system is a good vehicle for deciding whether someone should go to prison. It does not substitute for an individual’s good judgement or commone sense.
Yes, it couldn’t be a lack of evidence or a piss-poor prosecution. It must be that people from California can’t be trusted to make a decision. Because we all know that OJ, MJ, and Robert Blake are the only cases that have been tried in California in the last few decades.
:wally