Sonic Boyster said:
Anybody who brings kids into a secret locked room and gives them alcohol needs to be jailed, beginning and end of story.
I agree. Too bad there wasn't enough proof of that.
Bottom line, Sonic, you basically said you were upset that a more credible group of people didn't step up to bat and put this horrible person away, more or less...and attributed his acquittal entirely to the fact that the people who brought him up on the charge were not credible as a source of such information.
If you believe he did it, that's one thing, come out and say that. But being all condescending about it is just lame. Sorry if the guy bothers you--bottom line is it's a free country, and he can **** up his skin and face all he wants, he can have an amusement park in his backyard, and above all else, what he does with people in his bedroom is between him and those people--who, after all, can refuse such an invitation if they wanted to.
After all...who lets their cancer-suffering son live with America's biggest eccentric who also happens to be a complete stranger...and already has made headlines for supposedly abusing children?
If you ask me the kid was bull****ting from day one and that family were just massive con artists. Familiarize yourselves with the case and you'd know that the evidence has been highly subjective, number one...and number two, that the family of this kid has sued several celebrities for several ridiculous reasons, all to no avail.
They took tons of video tapes from the ranch. None of it was what they were looking for--kiddie porn.
Moreover I would just like to say that the thought of Michael Jackson giving a kid alcohol and porno makes no damned sense. Michael Jackson isn't the kind of guy who goes, "I'll get this kid ****ed up then ask him to suck my ****"...
If you ask me, MJ'd be a lot more likely to tell the kid, "I'll build you a wonderful palace made out of the most lovely stained glass, with holographic rainbows and an animatronic recreation of your favorite dinosaur and/or cartoon character...if you touch my happy pipe."
He also didn't react when they called him not guilty on the counts. To me, if he'd done it, and he'd been guilty and gotten away with it, there would have been something; a smile, a gesture, or whatever. Michael's face was reported as remaining blank and calm throughout the reading. To me that says "I am stone cold innocent and I expected nothing but this result."
Of course they were trying to screw him, though. They had the trial in an uber-conservative area where he would be mostly perceived as a huge freak by way of his lifestyle alone; there were no african american jurors, too, I think. Tom Sneddon has been trying to get MJ for years--since even BEFORE that first incident with the first molestation charge.
In response to the fact there were ten charges...that just shows to me all the more that Tom Sneddon and his entourage were hell bent on milking him for all he was worth. He was charged not just for attempting to molest a child or actually molesting a child, but he was charged for each alleged occasion on which it occured--something which I don't think has been done to some others (the priests of the church), for example. At least, not en masse.
Come on people, do you really believe Michael Jackson held the kids' family PRISONER at the ranch for several months?
Also...if you ask me this isn't even comparable to OJ Simpson (who, if anything, got off due to his celebrity as much as his race, if not moreso). OJ was a jealous and abusive husband, notoriously so, and his wife had repeatedly called the police on him. His wife was also murdered alongside another man. He also 'ran' from the cops (I use the term loosely) and his defense's testimony and case sputtered and chugged along on TV in front of us all. The Michael Jackson case, by comparison, was almost entirely subjective in both accusations and evidence.
I'm glad he was found innocent. I know a bit about putting a spin on things, having worked in a newsroom or two...and that documentary that started all this mess reeked of media skulduggery and bull****. Ask the right questions, the editing room does the rest--nuff said.
Either way, the debate is irrelevant. The jury saw the evidence, the jury heard the testimony, and the jury had a relatively short deliberation time considering the volumes of said evidence and testimony. If you ask me it looked like they were pretty damn sure he was innocent.
Either way it is a sin what's been done to his reputation and his career. Some of Justin Timberlake's hit songs should have been Michael Jackson's ('Cry Me a River' for example...In fact I believe Michael produced it. Even so, listening to that album you can practically hear Michael doing it all, anyhow).
It's a ****ing sin what the media does to that man, plain and simple. I myself have come under scrutiny of a handful of ex-friends over the years who follow my every move--even read this forum, sometimes. I can only imagine what this guy must feel like, the hell he must have to live with on a personal daily basis, with the way his lifestyle gets twisted around by the media and scrutinized under a 1000x microscope by 90% of the free world.
Cut the guy a break. If there had been a doubt in the jury's minds...I'm sure he wouldn't have been found completely innocent. Really, that's the bottom line.
/me wonders how that happened
