• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

{Breaking News}Michael Jackson verdict

Is he Guilty  

404 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Am_I_Evil    38
The jury has found him innocent, give the guy a break.

586063618[/snapback]

wrong....

they found him not guilty....

there is a difference....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeCoz    0

uhhh can u explain that? if someone is not guilty they are innocent (i think?)

ever hear the term "Innocent until proven guilty"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doli    566

i would like to know about the not guilty/ innocent also Am_I_Evil

if it innocent until proven guilty and he got not guilty then he is innocent on the charges is it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanManIt    1

I think he means that Jackson wasn't proven guilty, although Am_I_Evil thinks he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cdcase    0
wrong....

they found him not guilty....

there is a difference....

586064579[/snapback]

LOL. Yeah if you listen to any number of after-verdict interviews with the jurors you will quickly realize that many felt very put-off by Jackson's behavior, and went so far as to say that his behavior needed to change and was inapropriate... BUT they couldn't see a clear line of evil behavior that could be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". Therefore they acquitted him, even though personally they felt that we was "not innocent".

Like OJ, most folks know Jackson isn't completely "innocent", even if he was found "not guilty".

I would never let my kids stay with him. This cloud seems to be stuck to him, and after a while one has to think "where's there's smoke, there's fire".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lhnz    0
Why the hell you accept a settlement if some1 molested your kid???

If he indeed molested that kid back in 1993 he would be in JAIL but they took a settlement...what does that tell you?

\/  :sleep:

586060401[/snapback]

It tells me that they didn't really care about justice or that they didn't think they had any evidence that could prove he was guilty...

Thank God he is guilty though - I for one don't like the idea that he has been abusing parents trust and sleeping with children.

It seems like a lot of people here wish that had been the case??!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John S.    359
Fans and loyal subjects identify with an idealised abstract of their beloved and refuse to believe anything which might tarnish their shiny picture.

Our stupid cult of celebrity is at fault, both for creating the monster, and for blinding us to behaviour which would be so obviously sick if it were being displayed by the ordinary man next door.

586060807[/snapback]

that speaks volumes, well- stated (Y)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sean B.    175
It tells me that they didn't really care about justice or that they didn't think they had any evidence that could prove he was guilty...

Thank God he is guilty though - I for one don't like the idea that he has been abusing parents trust and sleeping with children.

It seems like a lot of people here wish that had been the case??!

586064649[/snapback]

They did have evidence, but the jury did not think it was legit. I am astonished at the fact you say he is guilty. The jury found him not guilty on all 10 charges, and he is innocent UNTIL proving guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ataris_kid    0

It must feel good to post that you think he is guilty while sitting in front of your computer, obviously ignoring the fact that these people on the jury were IN THE COURT ROOM listening to the actual case as it happened. Whoever doubts the jury obviously has something against Michael, be it either a dislike for his music or maybe you just think he looks odd. Yeah, that's nice, but keep in mind this jury knows their stuff. They wouldn't have deemed him innocent if they didn't think it was right, especially not on all ten charges. It's not hard to see that these kids, or rather the parents of these kids, are just out to get his money. Welcome to sue-happy America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZZOOzzoo    0

I find it intriguing how some people can be so certain that Michael Jackson is guilty, even after he was proven not guilty by jury who were presented with every possible evidence and proof existing from both side and had chance to carefully go over those evidences.

Are there any reason behind claiming he is guilty other than that he looks and acts a bit weird?

While I'm surprised that he's free of all charges (I thought at least one or two would get him), the fact is that the decision was made by people who obviously know a lot more details about this case than I do, and that I should respect it.

I just hope that Tom Sneddon guy will finally retire and stop trying to hunt down someone whom he barely knows, unless he actually finds some convincing evidence against Michael Jackson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Human.Online    9,221

All the outcome means is that there was not enough evidence to prove that jackson did these things.

It does not mean that he did not do them, only 2 people know that.

I am not saying whether he did or did not. I am just pointing out that we will never know for sure what he did/didn't do. The best we can do is rely upon the word of the jurors (who in my opinion were not 100% reliable - from post verdict interviews).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EzeWong    0
All the outcome means is that there was not enough evidence to prove that jackson did these things.

It does not mean that he did not do them, only 2 people know that.

I am not saying whether he did or did not.  I am just pointing out that we will never know for sure what he did/didn't do.  The best we can do is rely upon the word of the jurors (who in my opinion were not 100% reliable - from post verdict interviews).

586067556[/snapback]

Exactly,

Many people are actually upset because they beleive that the prosectution was too hasty and didn't assemble "Beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence. I 100% agree with them as well. Considering the mother's reputation and his previous testimonies, all of it was a hodgepodge of slightly (yet doubtful) allegations.

Now if Michael was guilty (Although I think he's innocent). He is incapable of being tried a second time.

Sorry if this was repeated but i just have the sort of time to rummage through 12 pages of an assortment of opinions and actual facts... :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Human.Online    9,221

I do feel that the jury rushed, and by their own admissions let personal feeling come into it.

This is why the whole trail should have been a media-free zone, and the deliberations were not long enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sean B.    175
I do feel that the jury rushed, and by their own admissions let personal feeling come into it.

586067599[/snapback]

Well, if they could add there personal feelings in they would. They were given a like 90 something page of instructions all of which I believe had to be signed by all, and if you do add personal feelings in the verdict the judge would have cought it and would have had a mistrial. I beleive they deliberated, what 38 hours I believe? Thatsa hella long time if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sanjay    1
Unbelievable if it was anyone else they would have been found guilty  :no:

586059614[/snapback]

If it was anyone else this case would never have made it to court to begin with. The entire case stinks and should never have been allowed to go this far. What a waste of public money and time for one man's vendetta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sanjay    1
they should of atleast found him guilty of being wierd

586059713[/snapback]

Since when is being wierd a crime? IF it were the case then quite a few people on this board ought to be put away for life too. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sanjay    1
sleeping with young boys isnt illegal ??:xx? sorry but your legal system is f**ked up

- watching fox news at the moment

586059921[/snapback]

And what country did you say you are from? Because, I am sure there is no country where just sleeping with young boys is illegal. Because if it were, then there must be billions of parents, siblings, aunts and uncles that need to be locked up too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zirus    2

by sleeping with, he also meant performing sexual acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigJimSlade    0

There were some jurors that in fact thought he was guilty but they did not believe the mother which raised reasonable doubt in the merits of the case. They had said if it wasnt for the mother they may have chosen guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sanjay    1
There were some jurors that in fact thought he was guilty but they did not believe the mother which raised reasonable doubt in the merits of the case.  They had said if it wasnt for the mother they may have chosen guilty.

586068227[/snapback]

IF ANDS & BUTS, uffff. The fact is he was found NOT GUILTY, get over it guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.