footballhenry Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Since theirs no poll yet, Im interested in what those here think of the verdict in a POLL format. Personally, i think hes guilty and the verdict irates me, but thats just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 hell no, sick **** got off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 again, you're leaving stuff out. I'd like an option "I think he's been guilty in the past.....but in this specific case......I don't feel so confident" by the way, not trying to pick at details here. But rarely in the real world are things so black or white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footballhenry Posted June 13, 2005 Author Share Posted June 13, 2005 Originally posted by Bufford again, you're leaving stuff out. I'd like an option "I think he's been guilty in the past.....but in this specific case......I don't feel so confident" by the way, not trying to pick at details here. But rarely in the real world are things so black or white. hmm..bufford perhaps you should look at my post, its about THIS case not anything else...i didnt say "is Jackson a child molester?" my question is in reference to the opinion among those here about the verdict for THIS case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Master Jay Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Yes because our law saids a man is innocent until proven guilty. He wasn't by a jury so he's innocent. When a family has lied to sued before how can you believe them? We our biggest hyprocrites on the face of the earth. With our laws then when they dont work the way we think they should we questioned them. There will always be 2nd opinions about every thing from abortions to whose better Montana or Bradshaw it's all opinion. The law of the land is just that the law and it states innocent until proven guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 I don't like to criticize the judicial system and I am not going to with this case. Jackson is a child molester, that I am certain. However, I am not going to question the merits of this particular case. The jurors deliberated and decided he was not guilty on these specific charges. I don’t like it, but it is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 i think hes a perv-- but i think the lady that was going after him was a con Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footballhenry Posted June 13, 2005 Author Share Posted June 13, 2005 just because a jury finds a certain verdict makes it so? so OJ was REALLY innocent?? i mean seriously, a jury can be swindled, manipulated and bought guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Originally posted by footballhenry hmm..bufford perhaps you should look at my post, its about THIS case not anything else...i didnt say "is Jackson a child molester?" my question is in reference to the opinion among those here about the verdict for THIS case then change the choices. It could be a flat "NO" without an opinion on celebrity status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footballhenry Posted June 13, 2005 Author Share Posted June 13, 2005 Originally posted by Bufford then change the choices. It could be a flat "NO" without an opinion on celebrity status. umm, hes a celebrity, to ignore that fact is ignorant in itself. i think you just look for something in my posts to complain about, vote or dont vote. period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danbee Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 I bet no one on that jury would let him baby sit there kids!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Master Jay Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Please dont start with the OJ stuff again? He isn't the first American to get away with murder is he? No he isn't so why single him out? This is why were hyprocrites we cant have it both ways. I dont know Mike and I do believe he likes little boys not this case here was not strong enough to put him in jail. Let it go it was a bad case with a lying family this TIME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footballhenry Posted June 13, 2005 Author Share Posted June 13, 2005 Originally posted by Jay Master Jay Please dont start with the OJ stuff again? He isn't the first American to get away with murder is he? No he isn't so why single him out? This is why were hyprocrites we cant have it both ways. I dont know Mike and I do believe he likes little boys not this case here was not strong enough to put him in jail. Let it go it was a bad case with a lying family this TIME. so since other people have gotten off, its okay that OJ did too?? huh? my point was that celebrities will ALWAYS get the EXTREME benefit of the doubt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 I didn't follow one second of the case, so I have no idea if he was guilty in this case or not. However, My opinion is that he is a sicko freak and ANY parent that would let their child anywhere near him is a sicko freak as well. If there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, then so be it. I'd rather guilty people go free than have innocent people in jail. Just my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APBT Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 I totally agree with the verdict. How many mothers go and get their hair and nails done after their children call rape? How come all this happened when Mr. jackson cut off the money he getting scamed out of? Just money hungry mother going to hell for her sins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APBT Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 Originally posted by Jay Master Jay Please dont start with the OJ stuff again? He isn't the first American to get away with murder is he? No he isn't so why single him out? This is why were hyprocrites we cant have it both ways. I dont know Mike and I do believe he likes little boys not this case here was not strong enough to put him in jail. Let it go it was a bad case with a lying family this TIME. Exactly. The Mississpi burning case is about to resume here shortly. ..........Talk about people getting away with murder we can go back 300+ years on that subject. **Sniff** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 I'm sure the "Dove" lady is at every verdict ... He got off in more ways then one.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 So does this mean we can all go out and solicit children to come sleep with us and not get into trouble???:puke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footballhenry Posted June 14, 2005 Author Share Posted June 14, 2005 Originally posted by APBT I totally agree with the verdict. How many mothers go and get their hair and nails done after their children call rape? How come all this happened when Mr. jackson cut off the money he getting scamed out of? Just money hungry mother going to hell for her sins. heres my problem with this entire case. its not about the mother, its about the BOY! i do agree that the mother is a very sketchy figure but that doesnt mean that the boy wasnt molested. its innane to me that people think its okay that Jackson isnt convicted on the basis of the mothers greed. whats worse? being greedy or molesting children? there have been far too many people (security guards, ex wives, other children,etc.) that have come out against Jackson for him to be totally innocent. In fact the physical evidence (alcohol, boy pornography) was presented. Its just hard to believe that there was no foul play in this case... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 In this particular case, I think there was reasonable doubt. The family was very suspicious- including the accuser. AS for MJ- he is a pediophile- just best on past actions alone. When he settled with that boy 12 years ago- that cinched it for me. Hopefully, the old punk has learned his lesson but something tells me he hasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mufumonk Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 Let all the doubters ignore the fact this kids fingerprints were found on MJ's porn collection...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 I was sure Jackson was guilty but after hearing about the testimony of the kid and his mother. I think this was scam trying to get money from Jackson. I not sure he is a pedo either. He has A LOT of issues with is childhood (basically he never had one) and that has effected his emotional maturity. When he says "I am a big kid" I believe him. I think he has never matured emotionally and this is why he doesn't understand it is inappropriate for him to sleep in the same bed with a kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 Originally posted by Johnny Punani I was sure Jackson was guilty but after hearing about the testimony of the kid and his mother. I think this was scam trying to get money from Jackson. I not sure he is a pedo either. He has A LOT of issues with is childhood (basically he never had one) and that has effected his emotional maturity. When he says "I am a big kid" I believe him. I think he has never matured emotionally and this is why he doesn't understand it is inappropriate for him to sleep in the same bed with a kid. Well that explains why he has art of naked kids in his rooms, along with the actual porn and why the kids' fingerprints and his are on it all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 well, I didn't follow close enough to hear abour fingerprints on porn. But I did just hear some of the jurors say they believe the Mother programmed the kids....and that's a reason why wanted to watch their testimony again. Because something seemed wrong about it. I think he knows what he's doing though Johnny. I mean, the whole world has been telling him this for years. How can he not get it? well......I guess he could totally be blocking off reality. But I don't know. Dude is all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 Originally posted by visionary Well that explains why he has art of naked kids in his rooms, along with the actual porn and why the kids' fingerprints and his are on it all... I never said he wasn't a pedo. I'm just trying to understand why he is behaves this way.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.