?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Such · a · pretty · girl · Happy · in · an · ugly · place


i really can't beleive they found michael jackson not guilty on all…

Recent Entries · Archive · Friends · Profile

* * *
i really can't beleive they found michael jackson not guilty on all 10 counts.
Current Mood:
blank blank
* * *
* * *
[User Picture]
On June 13th, 2005 09:21 pm (UTC), nordlicht commented:
o.O

Now I wonder what went on behind closed doors...
[User Picture]
On June 13th, 2005 09:54 pm (UTC), fuzzdecay replied:
i have.... no idea. i just can't believe that they didn't find him guilty on anythign!
* * *
[User Picture]
On June 13th, 2005 09:21 pm (UTC), lfp6 commented:
Its maily the 'reasonable doubt' that prevented a guilty verdict.

I'm pretty sure there will be a civil case that will get him.

[User Picture]
On June 13th, 2005 09:55 pm (UTC), fuzzdecay replied:
the news keeps saying that there's likely not going to be a civil case.

but, i don't really trust the news...
* * *
[User Picture]
On June 13th, 2005 09:23 pm (UTC), spankydominant commented:
Pay offs. . . gotta be pay offs. . .
[User Picture]
On June 13th, 2005 10:39 pm (UTC), fuzzdecay replied:
maybe they threatened the jury with mj molesting their children if they found him guilty.
[User Picture]
On June 13th, 2005 11:37 pm (UTC), spankydominant replied:
Didn't even think of that one. . but yea, that would have the same effect.
* * *
On June 13th, 2005 09:29 pm (UTC), ex_strawberr101 commented:
i'm actually not surprised - even though i think he did the stuff i just couldnt see him actually going to jail. same thing with the oj case ages ago, you know? i still cant believe martha stuwart went to jail! that was odd, i thought for sure she would too weasel her way out.
[User Picture]
On June 13th, 2005 09:55 pm (UTC), fuzzdecay replied:
if he went to prison, he would have been in the same cellblock as charles manson.
* * *
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
On June 13th, 2005 09:56 pm (UTC), fuzzdecay replied:
this country makes me sick.
* * *
[User Picture]
On June 13th, 2005 09:47 pm (UTC), skankage commented:
oh, i know...especially the alcohol charges. i figured that even if they had acquitted him of all child molestation charges, they'd at least get him for serving alcohol to a minor.
[User Picture]
On June 13th, 2005 09:56 pm (UTC), fuzzdecay replied:
oh i know! i couldn't believe they didn't get him on the alcohol. i was hoping that they would at very least get him on that.
[User Picture]
On June 13th, 2005 11:43 pm (UTC), belindashort replied:
That's what I thought..I thought they had made it pretty clear that alcohol was available to the minors.

* * *
On June 13th, 2005 09:59 pm (UTC), thesoul commented:
it was not "alcohol" per-say. they called it Jesus juice, meaning if you change the wording and add a religious undertone, it makes it all okay!

GO AMERICA!
[User Picture]
On June 13th, 2005 10:38 pm (UTC), fuzzdecay replied:
lmao!

<3 you just succeeded in making me laugh in the middle of my int type final.
* * *
[User Picture]
On June 14th, 2005 12:43 am (UTC), delspf commented:
Ok its not like this just sprung up, hes been a known ( but not "legally" proven kiddie boy fucker ) for the past what? 15yrs?

Yet they find him NOT guilty...love to have see the jury, probably gay 12 yr old asian boys all wearing white gloves they made with a bedazzler and carrying umnberellas around no matter what the weather
[User Picture]
On June 14th, 2005 12:54 am (UTC), fuzzdecay replied:
i haven't seen a reference to a bedazzler in like, 10 years.
* * *
[User Picture]
On June 14th, 2005 03:14 pm (UTC), neo_prodigy commented:
i'm exhibit no surprise
i'll be the first to say that mj is a certifiable weirdo but that in itself isn't a crime.

the problem was that as the case progressed it was became apparent that the evidence against mj was absolutely bogus.

when they raided his ranch last year, the prosecution assured the public that they had solid evidence against the king of pop. i figured if that were true then the media would've known about it prior to the case. when said "smoking gun" was never revealed (or any other evidence for that matter) prior to the trial or even throughout it, i figured mj would be acquitted.

as the case went on it became clear that the arvizo family is probably crazier than mj; they contradicted themselves in their testimony and other evidence; no evidence was ever found during the raid at the neverland ranch; and the prosecutor was an absolute sleaze bag. even the media, who let's be honest has never exactly been fair to mj, reported on the discrepancies of the prosecution and how it was likely the arvizos were solely out for money. in my personal opinion, if the media was willing to admit this, the chances of an objective jury convicting mj were slim to none.

ironically, had he not been famous and had the case not garnered as much public scrutiny, he probably would've been convicted, evidence or not.

a friend of mine made a valid point when he said: "the power of accusation, even unsubstantiated, in child abuse/molestation cases is very strong and has ruined many people’s lives and businesses unfairly, even with full acquittals. yes, children do make false reports—especially when coached by their parents. this is not to say that all or even most cases of abuse are false reports—simply that it is imperative to approach each situation with absolute objectivity."

and in this case, based on the evidence (or lack thereof), i would've acquitted mj (or anyone else) for that matter.

if mj is guilty of doing these things, then he either needs to get psychiatric help (which he needs anyway) and/or be locked behind bars. but as was the case with the family 10 years ago, i think this was about getting money out of jackson.

on a sidenote: i never believed the family who accused mj 10 years ago for this primary reason. it was revealed during the trial (though conveniently never fully covered by the media) that prior to the allegations the father of the boy who mj had allegedly molested had asked jackson for $20 million so he could start a video company. shortly after jackson told him no, the family sued jackson for molestation. note, they never pressed criminal charges, they sued. that always sat wrong with me.

if somebody ever violate my child, money would be the last thing i would ever want from them. their blood on the other hand is another story.
i strongly believe that in this country celebrities do get special treatment and are essentially above the law. p.diddy and robert downey jr. certainly come to mind.

but in this case i think the evidence proved (at least not enough to satisfy reasonable doubt) that jackson either didn't do it or it couldn't be proven.


but that's just my opinion.
[User Picture]
On June 15th, 2005 02:04 pm (UTC), fuzzdecay replied:
i knew he'd get off on the molestation charges, but i believe they made it abundantly clear that he had given children alcohol. i can't believe he didn't even get charged with that.
* * *
[User Picture]
On June 15th, 2005 01:42 am (UTC), belindashort commented:
Hey, here's something you need to see:

http://members.camwhores.com/activity.php
* * *
[User Picture]
On June 16th, 2005 05:33 pm (UTC), overseer200 commented:
That's what you get when you're rich, famous, and able to cause drama that everyone pays attention to, it's really quite sickening
* * *

Previous Entry · Leave a comment · Share · Next Entry