quote:

---

Jackson, who climbed to fame with the Jackson 5

---

What an awkward sentence. I think it's the word climbed that bothers me.
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
True, it doesn’t matter one way or another.
Other then there might be riots if he’s found guilty!
 

---

Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
 
Oh great. More riots. Please, people can't be this dumb.

On second thought...
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Given that the last time there were riots in LA over a court case was because of flagrant police brutality being found not-guilty...I think not.
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Yahoo has free streaming!!!

http://www.yahoo.com/

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/entertainment/michael_jackson

They're showing the cars rolling to the court.

Ok, this is to much.
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Not sure they'll make it by 4:30...
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Dooooouuughhh.............

Reading of the jury's decisions expected at approx 4:45 PM ET...
 

---

Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
 
While that's true, race definitely played a role. There was a feeling that the judicial system, in this supposedly enlightened and fair age, was still perpetuating racism in so obviously a flagrant manner. A charge difficult to deny.

Since then, however, things have changed somewhat. Rodney King and OJ seem to be linked. OJ was acquited, in my opinion, because the jurors believed the LAPD WAS CAPABLE of framing him, rather than that the LAPD reasonably was thought to have done so IN THIS CASE.

Now, when any celebrity, especially a member of a minority (though does MJ really count as a minority member? ) is on trial, there are defenders who automatically trot out the old charge of systemic racism and links to Rodney Kind and OJ- whether it is appropriate or not. When one factors in the love people have for this man's music, that is only excacerbated. I remember a Chappelle skit where Dave was a character witness. To every question, he answered, "the man made Thriller." In real life, DL Hugely (I think that's his name) kept answering, "I don't care what you say. Your mother. It's Michael Jackson, man!"

Not saying he's guilty or innocent. I haven't cared to follow the trial.

But this could be ugly.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

I remember a Chappelle skit where Dave was a character witness. To every question, he answered, "the man made Thriller."

---

Except for the question, "Would you let your son sleep over at Michael Jackson's house?" To which he answered, "Helllll no."
 

---

Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
 
yeah. that was good.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
I haven't quite figured out the "fans" that stand outside the courthouse for days at a time to show support for Jackson.

I mean -- don't they have a life or anything? A job to go to? something to do?

FG
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
wonders how many of them are paid to be there
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
With our welfare system anyone can be a fan! Pursuit of happiness, right?
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Make up your mind!!!

Reading of the jury's decisions expected at approx 5:00 PM ET...
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
Anybody else listening to NPR's "Keeping Busy Waiting for the MJ Verdict"?
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
oops. I thought it was a live feed. Oh well.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Nice one Jay; way to fold in some unrelated issue with this spectacle.

-Bok
 

---

Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
 
This is looking even worse. If he is found guilty (which I doubt) then I think *some* rioting will occur.

There are no black people on the jury (except for one alternate).

The perception that will be noted is that no matter how famous, powerful, influential a black man becomes, the "man" can and will tear him down when it feels like it...

no matter how much of a crock that reasoning is.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
To a certain degree, isn't the composition of the jury the fault of Jackson? His lawyer was involved in the jury selection process.
 

---

Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
 
Like that matters to Joe Commonman in the street who is already predisposed to view the police and judicial system with skepticism (rightly or wrongly.)
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I hate highly televised cases like this. This is why I totally ignored the Laci Peterson thing, and all other cases like it. People form their own uninformed opinions "oh he did it, we know he did it." "He knows he did it, he's lying."

I hate that, people don't know, I don't know, no one really knows except the person who actually did it.
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Not guilty on all counts
 

---

Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
 
I wonder when the civil suits will be filed.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
I'm not surprised.
 

---

Posted by Lady Eruve (Member # 6883) on :
 
I think something is very wrong with that decision. When that many people speak out against a guy that creepy, something isn't right. I don't think he's innocent.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
I'm not either.
 

---

Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
 
I just won lunch at the office by betting he'd get no jail time.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
*hands Jay a Tylenol for his upcoming headache*
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Money wins again.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
At the same time though, where is the hard proof that it isn't anything more than people trying to make some money off a creepy celebrity? He looks weak, thus making him a soft target to wring some money out of.

I don't think that makes him seem any guiltier than he already seems be being such a creepy guy.

Edit to add: Anothing thing I dislike is the automatic assumption that he is guilty because he is rich, and he only won because he has money.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Thing is, we don't know. We really don't. He's creepy, he loves hanging around children, and he acts very, very strange. That's not a basis for conviction without evidence, and should never become so.

Apparently there was enough doubt to acquit. Doesn't mean he didn't do what he was accused of, doesn't mean he did. But if you're going to speak against the man, please find a more substantial reason than "he's creepy."
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I don't understand how he could have been found guilty. The case against him was ridiculously sketchy.
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
The prosecution's case sucked. He could be guilty. We don't know... there's not enough real, compelling evidence.

I find the parents guilty for letting their kids hang out with him. What were they thinking??
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
One thing I don't understand... I thought it was pretty clear that he had given alcohol to minors... why wasn't he found guilty on the lesser offense parts?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
There was direct testimony from the victim. That's not sketchy. It might not be credible, but the events of the crime were clearly laid out.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I meant sketchy as in not having been, from what little I had heard, proved very well, not as in the facts weren't layed out. Pardon.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I guess the lesson is if you want to molest children, pick children with dishonest parents.

Edit: I just realized that could be taken as a slam at you, Storm. It's not meant as one - I'm not sure i wouldn't have voted to acquit. But if the kid was molested, then it's his parents' fault that Michael got away with it.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by advice for robots:
*baits breath*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon Boy:

Is it just me, or do other people have a hard time even thinking of Michael Jackson as black? He doesn't have dark skin, he doesn't have the facial features or hair, he doesn't talk like he's black. . . . When people mention how race might be an issue, I have to remind myself that Jackson is actually black underneath.

---

quote:

---

The multimedia website opens solemnly with the word "Innocent" displayed in black and white as triumphal orchestral music plays.
Then an image of a hand flashing the "V" for victory sign pops up, before dissolving into a montage of photos of Jackson and fans as the phrases "vindication", "victory" and "The truth runs marathons", scroll across the screen.

A pop chorus swells as the images move and the site shows a series of significant dates, including the birth of US civil rights leader Martin Luther King jnr; the fall of the Berlin Wall, which is associated with the end of communism; and the release of South African dissident, later to become president, Nelson Mandela from his apartheid prison.

"Remember this date, for it is a part of HIStory," says the site, http://mjjsource.com, which the 46-year-old singer set up to provide information during his trial.

---

Story.
 

---

Posted by TheDisgruntledPostman (Member # 7200) on :
 
i can't wait to watch late night tonight
 

---

Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
 
Exploding Monkey made me laugh.

That is all.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I'm so pleased to see you posting, Mega.
 

---

Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
 

 

---

Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
 
I have strong feelings about this case, so I tried to follow it as closely as possible throught the means availible to me.

My original thoughts we're that based on the mom, Jacko would get off, but when the judge introduced the California Pattern of intent allowing the jury to hear about his past settlements with past families to end their allegations of molestation.

I thought that would sink him.

There is a very, very obvious pattern here, Jacko says he loves children, has slept with HUNDREDS of BOYS and ZERO little girls (or big girls from what we know.)

I would have tossed him in jail.

What set him free?

The mom was flakey and an oppourtunist.

...But here is my deal with that, NO SANE MOTHER IS GOING TO LET HER BOY BE WITH JACKO UNDER THESE CONDITIONS.

Yes. I know the mom was crazy and a liar, but this is the ONLY type of mother Jacko could prey on, anyone with a shred of sanity would not ever ever ever let their boy sleep in a bed with Jacko.

End of Story.

So this woman being a fruit cake didn't bother me that much, that's how it'd have to be.

So now he's innocent.

*Sigh*

Every time the American words Justice and Freedom they will have less meaing than they do today.

Justice for sale.

THOR
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silverblue Sun:

There is a very, very obvious pattern here, Jacko says he loves children, has slept with HUNDREDS of BOYS and ZERO little girls (or big girls from what we know.)

---

quote:

---

So now he's innocent.

---

No. He's not guilty. Huge difference.
 

---

Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
 
I prefer say he is rich...
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
Is there any reason to expect him to stop his behavior? Child molesters don't just stop because they're afraid they're going to get caught.

I honestly think that Jackson doesn't believe he is guilty of child molestation. I think he's a sick man with severe psychological problems, and probably sees his activities as child-to-child exploration and expirementation.

No mother should have allowed her child to spend so much time with him at the ranch or anywhere--but unfortunately for some children, his fame overshadowed everything else. Wow! Someone famous wants to do special things with MY son. How lucky we are! And then she turns a blind eye to the strange things she sees--oh, he's just a child at heart. Uh huh.

In my opinion, the DA jumped the gun here. They should have waited for a more credible victim...created a sting operation... SOMETHING better than what they did. Now if they prosecute for another child in the future, it would be a major PR mess, "proving" that they have a vendetta.

His looking weird has nothing to do with it--his own comments about sleeping with children, etc., are enough to cast large amounts of suspicion on him for me.

-Katarain
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Is it really so odd to think that some people might enjoy sleeping with children in general in the same way that some people might enjoy sleeping with cats or dogs in general (like me)?
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
Yes... I think it is. Odd. About the children. Not about cats or dogs.



-Katarain
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Can you elaborate? I am really curious what people's answers are to my question.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
Yes, it really is weird. He has his own kids, and if he enjoys snuggling in bed with kids so much, then he should snuggle with them. He has an unhealthy fixation with children, particularly other people's.
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
Well, I assume by sleeping in general, you mean that they derive some sort of pleasure or comfort from sleeping next to or alongside a child who is not their own. When I say pleasure, I don't necessarily mean sexual. Is that a fair assessment?

I don't see sleeping with children to be parellel to sleeping with dogs or cats. I find it odd because I want to know why does this person get enjoyment from sleeping next to a child? What is the child's presence providing to them? I can't think of an answer to that question that doesn't creep me out. Also, what is it about this person that they get enjoyment/comfort from sleeping next to a child? Is it the calming presence? Well... okay, but why not get a cat? Another thing... what effect does it have on the child to fall asleep next to this non-parent/grandparent adult? Do they feel comfortable? A few times when I was growing up I had my "Belly Alarm" go off in situations that made me nervous to be around grown-ups. I imagine that many children have that same alarm--should they be subjected to that possibility just because said adult enjoys sleeping next to children? And finally, what guarantee is there that this person is NOT a predator? And considering that child molestation is a very real danger, what sort of adult would seek permission anyway to sleep with children? An adult should be able to curb their desire, as innocent as it may be, simply because it looks bad and it is asking a parent to forego natural impulses to not allow adults to sleep with their children, and to trust this other adult--and that his desire to sleep with children is somehow innocuous.

So yeah... I think it's odd and suspicious.

-Katarain
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Thank you for your elaboration.

Please note that I am not defending Jackson specifically. I am more just exploring the idea in general.
 

---

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
 
I understood that. So I tried to go from an "innocent" I like to sleep with kids standpoint.

I happen to find fat babies completely adorable--with their chubby little arms and legs. I always wanna hold them and squeeze them. But I don't. Cause they're not my kids or nephews. I also don't wanna seem like a weirdo.

So, what's YOUR reaction? I wanna hear more exploring from you on the idea.

-Katarain
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

I happen to find fat babies completely adorable--with their chubby little arms and legs. I always wanna hold them and squeeze them. But I don't. Cause they're not my kids or nephews. I also don't wanna seem like a weirdo.

---

quote:

---

That last sentence alone pretty much sums up what I and others are seeing as a result of all this goddamn pedophilia hysteria

---

We have a case where a grown man, between the ages of 35 to 45, has slept with and shared his own personal bed with hundreds of BOYS, age ten and under.

I do four things in my bed: sleep, read, cuddling/kissing/physical romance, and masturbate.

What is it about Jacko's bed and bedroom that makes him adore sleeping with boys sooo much?

Who ELSE in America would be allowed to get away with this?

He paid off two different families who accused him of the same thing.

This was a tragedy and a crime.

The 3 Laws Never to Be Broken that ALL of civilization must always ALWAYS agree on are:

1) Murder
2) Rape
3) Child Molestation

This was another bad and sad day for America.

T
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
It would be a far sadder day if we violated our basic civil and human right to a fair trial.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Funny thing Thor...the rules for even those three have varied widely , even among the most famous civilizations in the history of the world.



Hi Icky!!!
 

---

Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
 

quote:

---

It would be a far sadder day if we violated our basic civil and human right to a fair trial.

---