Michael Jackson Trial
kill4thrills
Join Date: 2004-06-24 Member: 29506Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2004-06-24 Member: 29506Members, Constellation
in Discussions
some pretty serious and disturbing testimony given by the two teenage boys today <a href='http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/07/jackson.trial/index.html' target='_blank'>http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/07/jack...rial/index.html</a>. apparently even his own defense team was giving MJ some weird looks. can they really convict him based on hearsay evidence alone? anyone know the details of the case and how strong the indictment is? sure they found that he has porno and booze, but every single guy out there does...
Comments
Martha in effect stole some money from stock holders - not sure of the sum, but it wasn't that much in comparison to her whole estate. She could have paid it back several times over (and probably did in court costs) - and still she went to jail. I mean, honestly - this is MARTHA fricking STEWART - the lady made money off of having a clean house!
On the other hand, we have Wacko Jacko - former pop star, former black man who now spends his days in a place called "neverland" with lots of "his children" (other peoples children) having sleep overs. He already paid off one family for molesting their child in the late 90's - and now we have round 2 - this time with more families involved.
I hope our justice system throws the book at him, then puts him in a cage and throws away the key. The amount of circumstantial evidence should be enough to convict. (No, I'm not for convicting people on circumstantial evidence alone - it is more of a figure of speach.)
*edit - use of fricking is not meant as a swear word evasion - I apologize in advance if a mod has to remove it.*
Maybe it's the lack of 'testify' in normal language, but I found this line particularily funny <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->, ' Lordy, lordy! We was grossed out!'
Aside from that, I think some focus needs to be brought to bear on the parents who let their kids stay with Michael in the first place; I mean, if we want pressure on parents for not taking care of their kids in video games, shouldn't we have similar expectations for leaving our kids with accused pedophiles?
Maybe it's just me.
That’s how I feel about Michael Jackson...on a good day.
It's truly astounding how much time the media is willing to devote to this garbage while some of the most important/exciting events in history since the fall of the USSR are occurring.
Yeah, NS 3.0 just came out, but CNN hasn't even mentioned it.
Could he survive jail?
He's a pretty smooth criminal.
/pun
However, there's almost no chance he could ever get through this time. Personally, I think he needs some very intensive therapy from a cell with bars. Michael Jackson or not, he's going to get really screwed up in prison. They don't take kindly to child molestors in the big house.
However, there's almost no chance he could ever get through this time. Personally, I think he needs some very intensive therapy from a cell with bars. Michael Jackson or not, he's going to get really screwed up in prison. They don't take kindly to child molestors in the big house. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
yep, as a recall a convicted pervert priest got beaten to death recently in prison
*cough* she stole $70 million *cough*
Anyway, sorry about the coughing. But M.J. Should go to jail...
Ermh, Michael Jackson.
<a href='http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/08/cnn.jackson.trial/index.html' target='_blank'>http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/08/cnn....rial/index.html</a>
this trial is weirdo1 vs weirdo2
For once I agree with Reasa. I don't think question about this case should be "Does this man need help?" I think it should be "Why is the media covering this trash?". I'm not sure about you, but I don't want to hear about some burned out pop start touching little kids when I turn on the 5 o' clock news. I want to hear about <b>real</b> news.
/activate hippy mode
There is some part of me that thinks that this case and others like it are just ploys to keep the American public from knowing about whats really going on in the world. Quick question who has heard about North Korea in the last week? I sure haven't.
/end hippy mode
Jesus christ I just want to bang my head on a table until it splits open sometimes.
If you're not interested in it in any way, I'd suggest not reading the thread.
Anyway, it seems that the defense laywers have torn into the brother's character. Maybe CWAG's right, and MJ will escape justice. <i>*Shrug*</i>
I was just watching CNN. They had clips from a so called legal analyst (yes, an actual "analyst," in the flesh) who had some oh so insightful things to say:
"Michael Jackson might win... and then he might not."
"The boy didn't look completely relaxed... but then he wasn't nervous either."
Then they called out some legal advisor whose career is about to skyrocket because of this retarded case:
"Can you tell me about the trial?"
"Yes."
It's called ratings. In a sane society with non-retarded media, the details of the trial would remain in the hands of People magazine and Enquirer. The purpose of the news is to keep its viewers in touch with current events that might affect their lives. Michael Jackson being on trial does not affect your life. And it will not. Ever. It's a real life soap opera, and it spells out ratings for the media.
Narrator: Martha Stewart.
Tyler Durden: **** Martha Stewart. Martha's polishing the brass on the Titanic. It's all going down, man. So **** off with your sofa units and Strinne green stripe patterns.
I should start a new religion: FightClubism. Just look at Fight Club (a movie from 1998) and see all that it fortells.
Blowing up buildings, Martha Stewart going down, the explosive properties of the Panther platform (crown vics, towncars, etc) cars as shown in the "this could be modern art" segment.
I was just watching CNN. They had clips from a so called legal analyst (yes, an actual "analyst," in the flesh) who had some oh so insightful things to say: [snip] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that news on TV is annoying, which is the main reason I don't watch it (I stick to the papers). I'm sorry you have to suffer it, but that's the problem with news broadcasts - you can't skip a page.
I was just watching CNN. They had clips from a so called legal analyst (yes, an actual "analyst," in the flesh) who had some oh so insightful things to say: [snip] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that news on TV is annoying, which is the main reason I don't watch it (I stick to the papers). I'm sorry you have to suffer it, but that's the problem with news broadcasts - you can't skip a page. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with you up to a point.
Channel 10's Late night news over here (aus) with Sandra Sully is second to none for proffesional journalism without bullcrap. At least I feel it's better then most of the US news we get here, which tends to beat about the bush endlessly and either brings up constant financial news or launches into a half hour feature with the rest of the news being a several second spiel.
Bit off topic methinks =\
Here in the UK, I've never found a newshow that I can watch without finding some part of it boring, unless there really is a lot of news about. Nornally, I don't give a damn about celebrities, and in Jacko's case, I'm more interested to see whether he'll get off the hook. X and Y broke up? Well,<i> whatever</i>. If that was on the news, I would probably switch off and do something else instead of wait.
It's a matter of convenience. Hell, I usually just go online for my papers now (Daily Telegraph and Guardian). That way, I don't even have to know that Phillapa Space's daughter has had troubles with her hair, or whatever.
That makes it okay? Any different? It just means it's harder for him to speak up, so I would say the accuser is telling the truth.
It's all about control. The media controls the flow of information in the country, and they can direct it any way they want. I'm pretty sure they could cover-up the Second Coming if they really wanted to.
It's all about control. The media controls the flow of information in the country, and they can direct it any way they want. I'm pretty sure they could cover-up the Second Coming if they really wanted to. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can't possibly suggest that. The very idea that someone with vast amounts of power, influence and no accountability beyond profit margins would editorialise news is disgusting.
I refuse to believe it. God bless the free (well, paid for by advertising) press.
Jesus christ I just want to bang my head on a table until it splits open sometimes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
An hour of fox news will cure that right up
What's appalling to me is the amount of time the media devotes to him. I saw on the news the other day footage of him driving down the highway when he was late. Please.
It's all about control. The media controls the flow of information in the country, and they can direct it any way they want. I'm pretty sure they could cover-up the Second Coming if they really wanted to. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can't possibly suggest that. The very idea that someone with vast amounts of power, influence and no accountability beyond profit margins would editorialise news is disgusting.
I refuse to believe it. God bless the free (well, paid for by advertising) press. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't even tell when people on these boards are being sarcastic or not. I think I've lost my touch <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm not even sure how to respond to this other than "please use your head the next time you make any sort of judgement based on someone's appearance."
"LOOKIE THAR THERE'S SOME OF THEM THERE DARKIES! I BETS THEY GONNA SHOOT SOMEONE!"
That comment aside, I really don't know what to believe. My Dad reckons he's probably innocent and the families just want money, my mom reckons he's guilty and should be put away... I don't know. I'm just fairly sure that whatever the outcome of this case is, he's not coming back at all.