theconrodkid
|
| posted on 3/6/05 at 07:50 PM |
|
|
jacko verdict
who cares who wins
pass the pork pies
|
|
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 3/6/05 at 07:52 PM |
|
|
Guilty, but only on a lesser charge (e.g. giving alcohol to minors)
DJ
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 3/6/05 at 07:55 PM |
|
|
American justice is the best money can buy
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
DorsetStrider
|
| posted on 3/6/05 at 08:06 PM |
|
|
I actually think that he's innocent of what he's being charged with.
Although guilty as sin of nieveity and acting inapproprately
Who the f**K tightened this up!
|
|
|
big_wasa
|
| posted on 3/6/05 at 08:20 PM |
|
|
A sad man ,but guilty I doubt it....
As for money I didnt think he had any left
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 3/6/05 at 08:27 PM |
|
|
Jacko has much in common with Charles Saxe-Coburg Gotha (aka Charles Windsor) ---- ie both are more than a little doolally, both come from a
strange disfunctional showbiz family, both surounded by boot licking yes men, both has at least one marriage of convience behind them, both
don't like like british TV reporters, both try and hide thier ethnic origin.
Only difference i can see is Jacko dosen't take great pleasure in killing furry annimals and Charlie boy can't dance.
[Edited on 3/6/05 by britishtrident]
|
|
|
Russ-Turner
|
| posted on 3/6/05 at 09:17 PM |
|
|
Don't worry Wacko...at least your new room mates can't make you pregnant: but they'll give it a fXXXing good go! twat.
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 3/6/05 at 09:40 PM |
|
|
Without being in the courtroom does anyone really know the facts?
Why destroy a person (that could be innocent) on hearsay until proven guilty in a court of law by people who have listened to the facts.
I reserve judgement.
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 3/6/05 at 10:54 PM |
|
|
If i were on the jury, there is no way i would convict.
All of the people giving evidence against him were not indepenent and had money or revenge motives.
I find it strange that so many people on here didnt pick that up the many times it was apparent, and assume that cos hes weird it must stand to reason
he fiddles with kids.
Perhaps he gave alcohol to the kid, but should that give a year in jail?
I dont even recall convincing argument that he did give alcohol.
and why was there no foresnsic evidence at all that jackson had been with a kid. no stains on the sheets, dna on kids, etc.
and HTF can you claim to be held against your will, yet come and go from the house 3 times!!!!!!!!!!!!
are those that voted 'yes' listening to the same news I am?
Where is the one bit of evidence that clinches it - the bit that proves he was in bed with a kid, and touched him, and proves it.
cos i missed that bit
atb
steve
|
|
|
Dusty
|
| posted on 4/6/05 at 12:00 AM |
|
|
I think he lives in another dimension. That he regularily sleeps in the same bed as various small boys is not contested. I have no idea if anything
more than snoring goes on. Try admitting that to your neighbours and you won't even get time to chose the lampost the lynch you from.
|
|
|
liam.mccaffrey
|
| posted on 4/6/05 at 10:27 AM |
|
|
i don't think he did it. He is just a sad guy who has a warped image of what is appropriate. Its not even his fault, he has lived his whole
life in the spotlight and has no idea of real living
Build Blog
Build Photo Album
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 4/6/05 at 12:56 PM |
|
|
it has nothing to do with jackson directly, but watch the film 'finding neverland' starring Johnny Depp. Its about jm barrie, who wrote
about peter pan, the boy who never grew up. It portrays barrie as some asexual human that just wanted to be a kid.
Now, if you had grown up since 6 years old as a part of a band, and never really had time to live a childhood, perhaps jackson sees himself in the
same way, and having kids over for 'sleepovers' is his way of trying to get that childhood he didnt have.
Now, put that in the context of having everyone around you kissing your ass and grovellling to your every need cos you have money, where does he get
the control, the reality, the 'wtf are you doing mike' to tell him right from wrong?
Bit of a co-incidence that, the name of the ranch......
atb
steve
[Edited on 4/6/05 by stephen_gusterson]
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 4/6/05 at 07:35 PM |
|
|
I'm with you Steve - I haven't voted in this poll, as I just don't know - I reckon he's just a sad person with little grip on
reality who's been caught up with some very dodgy people.
As for the alcohol bit - unfortunately, the narrow-minded US states have ruled that giving alchohol to minors is a criminal offence, and I believe
that his defence haven't contested that one very much - allegedly.
David
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 4/6/05 at 10:31 PM |
|
|
My seventeen year old has been given a bottle of beer a couple times a week by me since he was 16.
The idea is that by allowing him to have a beer now and again, it stops the rushing out at 18 and getting pissed out of your brain. Even when he and
his 19 year old were left for a week on their own last month, and I told him he could help himself SENSIBLY from a box of 20 stella, i think 2 beers
got drunk.
On the other hand, my sisters kids of 18 and 19, boy and girl, were not allowed to drink at all by their teetotal mother and dad. The 19 year old son
goes out on the wee a lot and cant remember most saturdays. The (looks like an angel) daughter does the same.
atb
steve
[Edited on 4/6/05 by stephen_gusterson]
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 4/6/05 at 11:15 PM |
|
|
Steve - slightly off subject matter but I agree whole-heartedly with that comment. When are our antiquated "no kids in bars" laws going to
be updated. We have some of the worst alcohol related behaviour in Europe and Europe has the most leniant alcohol laws - go figure, it's not
rocket science. When are our government going to wake up and smell the coffee?
My daughter and son are allowed a small glass of wine occasionally with dinner - at first it was very 'cool' but now it's just
'acceptable'.
Which sparks off another idea...
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 5/6/05 at 11:12 AM |
|
|
Nearly all the prosecution and denfense witnesses have highly suspect motives and can't be relied on, The most daming evidence against Jackson
has actually come from defense witnesses not the prosecution.
Add to this some of Jacksons former bed mates are not telling consistant stories and may well be in denial as to what actually happened or may have
been give something other than alcohol.
What has definitely been established isa pattern that Jackson shared his bed almost every night with a 12 year old male with whom Jackson then
drops his "friendship" them after a year or so and moves on to another very similar looking boy --- always a boy , he also plies 12 year
old boys with drink.
Another major factor against Jackson is the whole Neverland set up -- specialy designed to attract children to Jacksons home. Being involved in
chilldrens activities is very common practice in pedophiles a good example being the Dunblane killer who ran camps for boys.
Also Jackson didn't learn from his last brush with the law on such matters --- this indicates either a complusion or gross arogance or both.
Contrast this with Craig Charles who was maliciously accused of rape but who after his release changed his life style so that was no longer open to
such wrongful allegations.
Considering it all
Is jackson guilty of sodomy ? ---- no
Is he guilty of sexual assault against a minors ? --- yes
Did he ply very young boys with alcohol ? -- yes.
Is he insane --- yes almost certainly
Is he guillty of contempt of court --- yes
Are the parents of the boys guilty of pandering --- yes
Are some members of his staff guilty of pandering --- yes.
The Judge and jury only seem to have two choices 1 year or 20 twenty years personally I think neither serve the interests of Justice 2 to 5 years
would be about right with a life time ban on being alone with minors. He should also serve an additional 2 months for contempt of court. Charges
should be brought against the parents and staff.
[Edited on 5/6/05 by britishtrident]
[Edited on 5/6/05 by britishtrident]
|
|
|
stephen_gusterson
|
| posted on 5/6/05 at 12:05 PM |
|
|
so, trident, we have someone thats gone to all the trouble of a theme part and the like, and has a situation of potentially full control.
parents let the kids sleep with him in his room, he gets em drunk, has all the staff on his pay, and it just goes as far as 'you show me yours
and i will show you mine?'
surely a pedo with all that power and situational control would have sodomised?
or was it just a 'half assed' (sorry, couldnt resist' attempt at being a pedo?
One thing you missed is they are not just 12, every kid ive ever seen on that ranch is BLACK.
Then surely he should have been done for racisism too?
doesnt make sense to me unless (as you say hes nuts) he is trying to be a kid when hes clearly not.
I still havnt seen anyone illustrate the bit of evidence that says yes, thats positive proof.
being weird, nuts, having kids to your theme part ranch (with the parents actually letting them, ffs!) isnt actually evidence that any kid got shagged
or anything like that.
atb
steve
[Edited on 5/6/05 by stephen_gusterson]
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 5/6/05 at 06:44 PM |
|
|
The nurse who was mother (!) of one (+?) of his (?) children is reported to have stated he is impotent, also Jackson victims apear to me nearly all
hispanic.
Lets get this clear the kids Jackson was giving alcohol to were 12 to 13 he was then going to bed with them. By contrast Jonathan King was seducing
boys who were old enough to know what they were getting into.
[Edited on 5/6/05 by britishtrident]
|
|
|
theconrodkid
|
| posted on 13/6/05 at 08:52 PM |
|
|
live verdict in a few mins
who cares who wins
pass the pork pies
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 13/6/05 at 09:19 PM |
|
|
not guilty on all charges didnt expect that...
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 13/6/05 at 09:58 PM |
|
|
ahh - but some of us were dead right were we not 
that was such a crap case. HTF could they charge him with false imprisonment when the family came and went 3 times!
someone (and perhaps the whole lot of em) in the DA's office need a SERIOUS ass kicking for coming up with such a flimsy shyte case and such a
dodgy family of accusers.
atb
steve
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 13/6/05 at 10:28 PM |
|
|
i expected a guilty on the booze charge - they were offered several different charges for each. I guess the 'reasonable doubt' saved him
on the rest, but as you said a while ago, he hadnt seemed to contest the drink charges.
|
|
|
steve_gus
|
| posted on 13/6/05 at 10:43 PM |
|
|
the booze charge evidence was something along the lines of being offered something from a soda can covered up, and called jesus juice.
again, simply hearsay of the accusers - no evidence to prove it.
couple of interesting things on the bbc site.
1. janet arvizo spent 7,000 on meals and shopping during the time she was being held against her will. WTF does she spend when free!
2. that prior to the 2001 case by arvizo against JC penney gards for molesting her during a shoplifting arrest, her kids and herself went to acting
school.
and people persist in thinking its a clear cut case and he got off cos of money.
Its because it was a really crappy case against him.
a complete police search and they couldnt even come up with dna on bedclothes or pyjamas or summat.
at least monica lewinsky had proof!
atb
steve
[Edited on 13/6/05 by steve_gus]
http://www.locostbuilder.co.uk
Just knock off the 's'!
|
|
|
jonbeedle
|
| posted on 13/6/05 at 11:20 PM |
|
|
I'm listening to the news on the radio at this moment and they are discussing the fact that he's been found innocent. I'm amazed at
the amount of people 'phoning in who still believe he's guilty just because he's odd. These people have convicted him in their own
minds based on no evidence and they can't give a single valid reason other than they don't like him. What happened to 'innocent
until proved guilty?' It just proves that these listeners are probably descended from those who used to burn witches! He went to court for
fourteen weeks and was found innocent by a jury made up of members of the public, end of story.
Someone in his position is a target for money grabbing parasites and whatsmore if he had been guilty there would have been evidence of which there was
none!
Mind you there was the OJ Simpson case which probably makes people wary of the US justice system I suppose.
But I never thought Jacko was guilty, just naiive.
Cheers
Jon
[Edited on 13/6/05 by jonbeedle]
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion however stupid!"
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 14/6/05 at 07:20 AM |
|
|
One of the reporters made a comment about his health - he's 5'11" (I thought he was smaller) but 6.5 stones in weight.
That's seriously unhealthy.
DJ
|
|
|
