Posted on 06/13/2005 12:36:01 PM PDT by Dog
Just breaking...
You are the voice of reason.
That bizarre painting, was it in his house? I've never seen it before today.
It's in his bedroom ;~D
You write very well.
So . . . what's "questionable"? Any rear shot? The Coppertone girl? A whole genre of art pics should be burned? How about our shots of our kids in the tub? If a prosecutor is going to decide what's "questionable", ANYthing will be.
My bf has had enough MJ TV, and he's watching a movie. I am keeping him abreast of the more interesting and informative replies on this thread.
If there were Playboys and "Debbie Does Dallas" type videos, plus he dated models and other female celebs...I would have a totally different opinion of him. I got about half way through the smoking gun papers and had to quit reading. Picture books and other erotica featuring children is a dead giveaway, but the jury is retarded, starstruck, and didn't like that bum of a mother.
I missed her comments but nothing is going to surprise me about this idiotic group of people that made up this jury...............
Don't they have pictures like painted in the ceilings of Chapels over seas ?
"You have no evidence to base your claim Jackson was guilty..."
Wow! No evidence?! Wonder why there was a trial?
Millions did not use pornography as part of their pedophillic seduction, as Michael Jackson was testified to have done.
"Jackson has admitted to sleeping in the same room as kids but not to molestation."
Jackson admitted to living a life outside of reality and responsibility expected of a 46 year old man. Reports of his sleeping in the same bed with a boy during the duration of his last European tour make his experience quite distinct from "millions" of non-pedophiles also.
"The settlements are not necessarily proof of anything either. This is no more proof of molestation than living next door to an elementary school is."
Your last statement is absurd, and I will let it go, written off as hyperbole, but the settlements ARE proof that Michael does not learn from his experiences. The latest accusations came after influential friends and advisors, Quincy Jones in particular, pleaded with him to change his self-destructive lifestyle.
Instead, Jackson sinks further into his self-created Peter Pan world, where no one can harm him. The MO of the latest accusation matches the earlier ones: he buys young boys by smothering the dysfunctional and irresponsible parent or parents with gifts and largesse.
Did the mother lie? Of course. She is trash, perfect for Jackson's MO. She should have been a co-defendant in the exploitation of her own son.
But, all in all, you are right. Jackson got off because it was easy to do. The jury members are clearly lightweights. I am listening to them describe their verdict as I type this. They were predisposed to let him off the hook. And now he will continue his behaviors, until something tragically goes even more wrong than before.
"Don't they have pictures like painted in the ceilings of Chapels over seas ?"
How many times do I have to say, it wasn't the pictures, by themselves, that makes me feel he's guilty. It's all the pieces of the puzzle that adds up to a molestation, imo.
Can you possibly be this dense? I didn't PULL anything.
Obviously some of MJ's defenders here have not read the first childs statements that lead to the 24 million dollar settlement.
Go to Smoking Gun.com and read it.
I can read and comprehend the English language, a feat you haven't seemed to manage so far in your life.
"So . . . what's "questionable"? Any rear shot? The Coppertone girl? A whole genre of art pics should be burned? How about our shots of our kids in the tub? If a prosecutor is going to decide what's "questionable", ANYthing will be"
The death of common sense always seems to be the straw that broke the camels back. Since everything is ok these days, common sense is thrown right out the window.
LOL
"Well... the long and short of it is that the Prosecutor didn't make a convincing case."
You mean like OJ?
The law aspect of this is interesting to me, bec. I am a lawyer (scary admission there). But lay persons don't always realize the hedge of rules and restrictions that has grown up in criminal trials. Sometimes it seems unfair and counterproductive . . . but the rules really are there to try to keep the innocent from being railroaded. Sometimes that means that the guilty get lucky (or have a better lawyer), but the alternative is something like the French system, which I feel is fundamentally unjust.
In the English system (which is ours as well, generally speaking) the courtroom is like a sports field or a boxing ring, with each side fighting as hard as it can for its case, with the judge there as a referee to see fair play and the jury to score the fight. This means that each side is digging with all its might to find all the evidence that may help its case. That tends in the long run to uncover the truth.
Obviously the system has flaws, because if one side has a much better "fighter" it tilts the odds one way or another. Usually, though, it's the prosecution that has the advantage, with all the machinery and unlimited funds of the State arrayed against the private citizen. So rules have grown up to make the prosecution dot each "i" and cross each "t", to counter the State's advantage. A very wealthy defendant can tip that balance back the other way.
In the French system (and other European systems) on the other hand, the theory is that the judge and BOTH lawyers, the prosecution and the defense, are on a quest for "truth" and all work together to "find the truth". You aren't really represented by your own lawyer in that system, because his first duty is to the truth. Problem is, sometimes everybody thinks they know what the truth is before they really get started, and the result is shoddy investigation and complacent acceptance of the obvious solution (as in the Dreyfus case). So you get more unjust guilty verdicts under that system, while in ours you probably get more unjust acquittals.
Given the choice of imperfect systems, I think ours is better.
It puts things in a ghastly light.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.