For those "outraged" at his acquital, this video might cheer you up -- "Triumph the Insult Dog" on Conan...

http://download.ifilm.com/qt/portal/2672935_300.mov

Yay! The circus is f***ing over!!

Boo! He's another Robert Blake. Gee, what the hell is with So Cal? Weak prosecutors who feel they are guilty but can't prove it because accusers are con men and women.

What a shock. :rolleyes: After Simpson and Blake, it's pretty clear celebrities can do just about anything in CA.

"That's alright -- this thing's gotta happen every five years or so -- ten years -- helps to get rid of the bad blood".

"That's alright -- this thing's gotta happen every five years or so -- ten years -- helps to get rid of the bad blood". [/b][/quote]Damn.

It never ceases to amaze me how someone who did not listen to 16 weeks of testimony and more than 100 witnesses, and who did not participate in 32 hours of deliberations, and who relied on whatever limited amount of media coverage they got to form their perceptions, could be so sure that the jury made a mistake.

Yeah, I figured he was probably guilty. But not having access to all the information that the jury had, I have to defer to their judgement.

There is no justice for celebrities in this county. I am very disillusioned. You or I would have been in jail ten years ago for this shit.

Well, I hope his career is over. I was looking forward to seeing him lose Neverland. He's so deeply in debt, and I hope it gets worse.

Figures this happens while I'm watching a movie.

I agree we shouldn't judge from what we heard from the media. From what I've heard, I thought he was innocent although I wouldn't go nuts without hearing the whole story. As for his career, he is much more popular outside America and will be able to rebuild the money he lost on this trial, especially if he does the rumored tour in Japan.

I do think he committed acts of child molestation, but the prosecution's case was too weak to prove it. You HAVE to admit that on the surface he fits the profile of a child molestor dead on.

At the very least I think Jackson has some very serious mental problems, but you can't convict a guy for being weird. I DO think it's unfortunate that Jackson won't be forced to receive some counseling, which he so desperately needs. I think these verdicts send a message to Jackson that it's OK to behave the way he has and I think he's likely to continue his inappropriate behavior toward children.

Plaw - Very well said, and exactly what I tell all my "hang him!" friends. (Well, yours was more wordy and winded, but the same idea. )

That's the one thing I do agree on, he does appear to have mental problems at least. Insecurities, probably due to his father and even the Jehovah’s Witness upbringing. But then again, who knows?

i always believed he was not guilty, the mother needed some money and decided to tarnish this guys image more then it already is.

besides you can't dislike billu jean

At the VERY least, I'm not gonna deny that!

All I can do is hope that the jury made the right decision, and, that MJ changes his behavior so that nothing remotely close to this happens again. He should sell that theme park "ranch" and move to more adult quarters, and stop having slumber parties with anyone under 21. Or this will probably happen again....

Hoo boy, another OJ, another Robert Blake. Another prosecutor bites the dust.

At the VERY least, I'm not gonna deny that!

All I can do is hope that the jury made the right decision, and, that MJ changes his behavior so that nothing remotely close to this happens again. He should sell that theme park "ranch" and move to more adult quarters, and stop having slumber parties with anyone under 21. Or this will probably happen again.... [/b][/quote]'Neverland' was reported up for sale a few weeks ago

The O.J. verdict thoroughly stunned me...this one did not. I could whine and bemoan the fact that he was let off 'cause of his billions (and I do believe that his celebrity definitely was a factor). But, quite frankly, the prosecution's witnesses (other than the poor victim himself) blew this one, particularly the kid's weird mother. I still think they should've pushed for a mistrial way back when one of the jurors was overheard making fun of the molested boy, but maybe there wasn't enough evidence to prove that actually happened. At any rate, at least with a mistrial, they could regroup and re-try the bastard. Oh, make no mistake: he may be "not guilty," but he's far from "innocent." Anybody that believes Jack-Off didn't molest that kid and countless others, I got a bridge to sell you. Sadly, though, the prosecution just couldn't prove it.

I suppose that perhaps one day when he tries it again and hopefully his potential victim emascualtes him with a hidden switchblade, maybe the morons will awaken and say, "Gee. Maybe he really is a child molester!" Until then, I'm praying he'll fade into obscurity...or hell.

Just wished I would've been there and had my 12 gauge when that stupid broad released the white doves for the media... There is no justice in this world, but that s.o.b. will have to answer for it in the one to come. At least I can take solace in that...that, and the hope that maybe his superstar career is finally over and he'll just be looked upon as what he truly is: a pedophile punk who was just lucky enough to get off.

Let me weigh in on this a little. Although I agree with PLaw that we were not there, didn't hear all the evidence, I'm gonna form an opinion of what we "do" know.

Now, like I've mentioned, I've been watching the nightly "re-creation" of the trial on tv (not because I'm a big Jackson fan, but rather find interesting)legal proceedings and trials. Granted, you don't hear every piece of testimony, and they are actors playing the part, but the testimony follows the courtroom transcipts with every objection included. That's probably as close as anyone would get to hearing everything.

I do know that the following testimony was given:

1. By Jackson's "former" maid: The victim was staying at Neverland. The maid was picking up the house, and noticed two figures in the shower and a pair of adult and a pair of children's underwear on the floor by the shower door. Well of course the defense says "Could you see who was in the shower." She replies "no the glass was foggy, but she heard Michael and a young voice. "But you didn't see who it was right?",etc. Now, the maid is a "former" maid, who I think was fired, so of course the defense played that to the hilt, claiming she had an axe to grind.

2. The mother of the victim: claims on a plane overseas,her son and Michael were seated in a different section than she was seated. She went to check on her son. She says as she approached their seat, Jackson was licking her son's head all over. Another witness, and I can't remember who testified Jackson did the same thing with another child.

3. A "former" Neverland worker claimed he walked into a game room once and Jackson and McCauley Caulkin were playing pinball or some game. According to the witness, Jackson had Caulkin in front of him, and had his hands down Caulkin's pants. Of course the fact that McCaulkin testified otherwise and this witness was also fired, the defense was able to raise doubts.

What makes me totally vomit is that if I were on the jury, I probably would have to go with a not guilty verdict on molestation. I'd be kicking myself in the ass my whole life, because I think he is guilty. "From what I've seen", I don't think it's so much the defense was so great, as the prosecution so weak. Everyone involved had baggage. Then again, that's the kind of victims the pedophile looks for?

Of course the victim's testimony also was very graphic, but because of his "weird" family and all their baggage, and defense claims that mom coached him and gave him acting lessons, obviously, the jury didn't buy it.

Pedophiles do NOT change (at least not without help and even that I hear it's doubtful). It'll happen again and again right??? We can only hope and pray for these innocent victims. I fear any other victim/s will not come forward because of case.

There's more, but that's all I can think of right now.

TIS

I hate to admit this, but I actually felt bad for him today. I think I saw him for the first time as a scared child. Underneath it all, I think that's what he truly is, just a lost little boy. I hope he is able to get help.

As for the victim, I feel bad for him just for having the horrible parents he does, if for nothing else.

This case, along with OJ, Robert Blake, William Kennedy Smith, and Jayson Williams, helped prove that in this country, those with the money to pay for the best attorneys, get acquitted. Whether they are guilty or not matters little in the equation. When people with no money, ala Rodney King, go to trial with no prominent attorney, justice is usually not served.

Jackson is a sick individual. He obviously has some very deep problems on a mental level. Hopefully this is the last we'll hear about his legal problems, but I'm betting that won't be the case. Because we all know his music career is, and has been, finished.

Funny, I was telling this to my dad today.

I could see that verdict coming Lets hope he learns somthing from this

well after months of posting,i think my job is done,well until next time,hope you enjoyed reading for those who did

Thank God...otherwise half this board would be in front of a judge :p

Thank God...otherwise half this board would be in front of a judge :p [/b][/quote]

Thank God...otherwise half this board would be in front of a judge :p [/b][/quote]

Good one SM!!

I know MJ's first son is Prince, can't think of the 2nd one's name, but did you know his last child is named "Blanket?" Cracks me up.

TIS

Let's remember, though, that the prosecutors have virtually unlimited resources, both financial and investigative, to use when prosecuting someone, and the legal talent that the OJs and Jacksons are able to buy merely serves to level the playing field.

There is some truth to the idea that the rich can get "better justice" than the poor. However it sounds to me like the prosecution had a terrible case, and the jujry was smart enough not to buy the "where there's smoke there's fire." As usual all you "law and order" types are missing the entire point which actually is that the State has the power to do whatever it wants to anyone wven with the thinnest of evidence and usually get away with it. There should be some means to sanction overzealous prosecutors.

Looking at this as a bit of an outsider (i.e. not being an expert on the American justice system), it seems to me that the system worked pretty well here regardless of what we think of the outcome. The accused is innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proof is on the accuser. These are cornerstones of any "civilised" justice system. The prosecution has a fair go at proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Jackson had committed these crimes and the defence had a fair go at saying he didn't. The jury (who heard all the evidence) chose to decide that the evidence presented was not strong enough to convict rather than believe the defence. If this is the case then they made the right decision. Don't blame the jury for the fact that Debbie Rowe led the prosecution up the garden path or for the fact that Arvizo's mother was the least credible witness in the world.