Michael Jackson ***August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009***

[Blueskies]

Where can I read stuff about them saying they were pressurised, please strangegrey?
I do vaguely remember something about it - but it is a while ago and I can't remember clearly.

Who allegedly pressurised them?

I'd have to go hunting for it Susie, I've really lost alot of my energy to pursue this issue. But the main interview was with 2-4 jurors who went on National TV TWO MONTHS after the acquittal and basically asserted their emphatic belief that Jackson was guiltier than dirt....a belief they held during deliberation. Why the acquittal then?

....obviously, there was pressure from somewhere. One can come up with some theories...


I'll look for it, but for the most part, I've lost my energy to discuss this, most of all here.... I've seen alot of all out hypocrisy here over this weekend that makes this place tremendously ugly. I see people that will yell "RACIST" at the first drop of a hint that someone doesn't like Arnel Pineda singing for Journey......yet they mysteriously lose their moral values when it comes to discussing a pedo-predator, just because he was a singer (and not a garbage man or lawyer)

Granted, I knew all along that those jumping headfirst into battle waving the "you're a racist" flag were hypocrites...I never thought it was nearly as pervasive as it really was here.

It was 2 Jurors...and did you ever stop to think that maybe they were paid to change their tune AFTER the trial ?

and why in the world do you keep hollering someones calling you a racist all the time?? I sure don't see where they are...all I see is you saying they are all the time. Gunbot sure didn't say anything to that end on here at all.
Frank, for real...do you ever have a happy day??

[Don]

Where can I read stuff about them saying they were pressurised, please strangegrey?
I do vaguely remember something about it - but it is a while ago and I can't remember clearly.

Who allegedly pressurised them?

I'd have to go hunting for it Susie, I've really lost alot of my energy to pursue this issue. But the main interview was with 2-4 jurors who went on National TV TWO MONTHS after the acquittal and basically asserted their emphatic belief that Jackson was guiltier than dirt....a belief they held during deliberation. Why the acquittal then?

....obviously, there was pressure from somewhere. One can come up with some theories...


I'll look for it, but for the most part, I've lost my energy to discuss this, most of all here.... I've seen alot of all out hypocrisy here over this weekend that makes this place tremendously ugly. I see people that will yell "RACIST" at the first drop of a hint that someone doesn't like Arnel Pineda singing for Journey......yet they mysteriously lose their moral values when it comes to discussing a pedo-predator, just because he was a singer (and not a garbage man or lawyer)

Granted, I knew all along that those jumping headfirst into battle waving the "you're a racist" flag were hypocrites...I never thought it was nearly as pervasive as it really was here.

I'm not trying to argue with you but my concern is how can 12 people be diswayed so easily? How strong is our justice system, if this can occur everytime a big name celebrity is on trial? I brought up the race factor because this jury pool was the total opposite of the OJ Simpson jury pool. This jury was predominantly women and many of them had children. How can you vote against what you feel to be right? I'm not getting that part through my head.

[SusieP]

If payments or pressure were made, jurors could have been paid to vote either way by people with an interest in the outcome.

One thing we can't argue about is that Michael Jackson's life AND death are full of controversy.

[strangegrey]

it's not, obviously, so we can't say they voted that way to help a brother out. I'm saying how could intimidation be so strong that not even one of counts went through, even the alcohol one. I have been on juries and can't see how someone, let alone 12 people can be that scared to vote their mind.

Well, then explain how these same jurors insisted that they felt this pedo-predator was guilty, while they were sequestered? (and that question isn't directed at you gunbot, just out loud)

It's not a rhetorical question....It's either one or the other...


....but for people to cast down the court decision as the last word, they need to have a reasonable and acceptable reason for these jurors saying what they said.

Im not making this up. They were clear with their assertions.....


....why did they say what they said?

[strangegrey]

It was 2 Jurors...and did you ever stop to think that maybe they were paid to change their tune AFTER the trial ?

and why in the world do you keep hollering someones calling you a racist all the time?? I sure don't see where they are...all I see is you saying they are all the time. Gunbot sure didn't say anything to that end on here at all.
Frank, for real...do you ever have a happy day??

You're kidding, right Phyllis?

To what advantage would a juror be paid to change their tune after the trial? That's like paying someone to remain silent on an affair, AFTER the wife/husband walked out and divorced.


As to the racist issue, you were here when the racism crap exploded....while you weren't party to its ugly outlay, don't lie and say you didn't see it play out here. because it did...And I didn't think I was accusing Gunbot of anything...in fact, I think he was rhetorically asking questions as I was.


Sorry, I'm not sure I follow you with the happy day bullshit...Im having a perfectly happy day. In fact, Im Overjoyed! I revel in the fact that I don't feel the burning need to lie to myself about Jacko's past, simply to cover the pain I would otherwise feel, knowing how many children were violated at Neverland.

[SusieP]

Bugger it.
All I can find is that the jurors felt intimidated by the kid's mother snapping her fingers at them and glaring at them in Court.

I should have paid attention at the time.

My thoughts are that maybe they felt that the witnesses were not credible enough and the evidence they gave was not enough to convict him and that their gut feeling was he was guilty but the evidence given by these people just did not back up their instinct?
So they were angry that they had to give a verdict which went against what they felt to be what happened?

What a mess.

Even if he did not molest the boys, he should never have been alone with any of them after that Chandler situation.
He was naive to say the least.

But as I say, money makes people turn a blind eye to stuff.
But he should not have been alone with children - either to save them from him or to save him from false accusations.

So the parents who allowed their kids to be alone with him should take a look at themselves and the people who did not chaperone him and the children should do the same.
Too late now though.

[strangegrey]

I'm not trying to argue with you.....

Totally understand. Not arguing either...so don't misunderstand me. I just don't think the pressure gets worse after the trial.

The pressure is 100% greater while the trial is going on. No matter what trial, no matter what court system.

I've been a juror as well, and I see the pressure I'm referring to when I'm supposedly doing my civil duty. There's a sensitivity to how the decision will be received, which is presented by the jurors and the court appointed advisers.

That sensitivity need not be there....


So having said that, a court system in southern california that sparked off the Rodney King riots, mysteriously acquits two VERY guilty high profile "black" defendants.....

I'm sorry. Doesn't add up.

[Don]

I'm not trying to argue with you.....

Totally understand. Not arguing either...so don't misunderstand me. I just don't think the pressure gets worse after the trial.

The pressure is 100% greater while the trial is going on. No matter what trial, no matter what court system.

I've been a juror as well, and I see the pressure I'm referring to when I'm supposedly doing my civil duty. There's a sensitivity to how the decision will be received, which is presented by the jurors and the court appointed advisers.

That sensitivity need not be there....


So having said that, a court system in southern california that sparked off the Rodney King riots, mysteriously acquits two VERY guilty high profile "black" defendants.....

I'm sorry. Doesn't add up.

During the OJ trial, I could see the possibilty of certain jurors beating down the other jurors and intimidating them. On this trial, I can't see that happening unless it was an outside source causing it but how do you that with out a monetary payoff to the disenting jurors?

[SusieP]

Hasn't Hollywood always had clean-up guys though?

You know when people like Errol Flynn did nasty stuff, wasn't there always some one to 'make it go away?'
Then as now, perhaps.

[strangegrey]

Bugger it.

I had to remind myself that you're from over in the UK. Great expression!

My thoughts are that maybe they felt that the witnesses were not credible enough and the evidence they gave was not enough to convict him and that their gut feeling was he was guilty but the evidence given by these people just did not back up their instinct?

I personally believe that the prosecution fucked up the case. They had a case and blew it. Plain and simple. Who knows, maybe the LA DA didn't want to spark off another Rodney King either.....regardless, the case was the DA's to lose. Anyone citing People v. Jackson, 2003 as the sole reason for jackson's innocence needs to examine his/her reasons a bit more closely.

I suspect alot has to do with not willing to face the guilt one would feel after considering the children that were molested. Not willing to turn their backs on the creator of this music they hold near and dear, instead of putting their memory of this predator in the right place. It's pretty sad when they absolve someone of such a heinous act, just because he sang a song they liked.

So the parents who allowed their kids to be alone with him should take a look at themselves and the people who did not chaperone him and the children should do the same.
Too late now though.

Ohh, those parents. They deserve similar fate to Jackson's. They were either ignorant of it, which makes them awful parents, or they were privy to it and hoping for a payday, which makes them worse than awful. I'm sure Neverland had it's fair share of gold diggers....

....but people looking for gold went to California in 1848, not because there wasn't gold flowing in the rivers....

[SusieP]

He didn't go to jail but he was punished in a way. I know these 50 dates at the 02 were sold out, but for a while his career did fade.


And as our friends with Faith in a God believe, he will be judged again now he has passed.

[Blueskies]

It was 2 Jurors...and did you ever stop to think that maybe they were paid to change their tune AFTER the trial ?

and why in the world do you keep hollering someones calling you a racist all the time?? I sure don't see where they are...all I see is you saying they are all the time. Gunbot sure didn't say anything to that end on here at all.
Frank, for real...do you ever have a happy day??

You're kidding, right Phyllis?

To what advantage would a juror be paid to change their tune after the trial? That's like paying someone to remain silent on an affair, AFTER the wife/husband walked out and divorced.


As to the racist issue, you were here when the racism crap exploded....while you weren't party to its ugly outlay, don't lie and say you didn't see it play out here. because it did...And I didn't think I was accusing Gunbot of anything...in fact, I think he was rhetorically asking questions as I was.


Sorry, I'm not sure I follow you with the happy day bullshit...Im having a perfectly happy day. In fact, Im Overjoyed! I revel in the fact that I don't feel the burning need to lie to myself about Jacko's past, simply to cover the pain I would otherwise feel, knowing how many children were violated at Neverland.

Frank, they showed the clip of those two jurors for a couple days on CNN...the first clip shows when the jury was interviewed right after the trail and those two jurors comments then where they stated that the only verdict to be reached was a not guilty....it was sometime later that they were interviewed and then changed their tune and said they were really thinking he was guilty all along. Makes me wonder why they changed their tune because they sure looked sincere in their not guilty vote right after the trial.
All jurors unanimous not guilty votes on all counts....it wasn't until some period of time after the trial that 2 changed their minds....my question is why? If they were just honest folks trying to do the right thing then why the heck didn't they vote guilty at the trial where it counted if they felt that way? They were sequestered so it wouldn't have been the easiest thing to get to them then.....pretty easy to get to them after the trial though. If it could have happened to you one way then you certainly have to consider they could have had reasons for their own benefit to change their tune after the fact as well. Maybe it was more likely to get more play out of their roles in the saga and to extend their 15 minutes by changing their tune...it's possible.


Oh....and I never "lied" and said a race issue never played out here in the past....yes it did, and imo there were quite a few things said on this board that were indeed racist. But this is not then so why do you bring it up in this thread when no one was referring to the past and no one was hollering racist now.

and if you are having a happy day, then I'm happy for you...just wish you could show that side of yourself on here sometimes...loosen up and tell a joke, post a good tune you like or at least talk about what music you like...or laugh at something.....you come across as all serious and kinda mad all the time....and I know you can't be that way so it would be nice to see you interact some more in a fun way. Other then Journey who is your favorite singer or group?

[Don]

He didn't go to jail but he was punished in a way. I know these 50 dates at the 02 were sold out, but for a while his career did fade.


And as our friends with Faith in a God believe, he will be judged again now he has passed.

He'll have to take a number it seems. Mr. G.O.D. has to sort through the catholic clergy first, they've got the front of the line sewn up.
God's little helpers were pretty busy doing their own little misdeeds down here on on this piece of dirt we call earth.

[SusieP]

Ohh, those parents. They deserve similar fate to Jackson's. They were either ignorant of it, which makes them awful parents, or they were privy to it and hoping for a payday, which makes them worse than awful. I'm sure Neverland had it's fair share of gold diggers....

....but people looking for gold went to California in 1848, not because there wasn't gold flowing in the rivers....

They say love is blind.
Maybe people who are starstruck are also blind.

The parents were as you say, either ignorant or privy to it..............or blinded by their awe of his star status.


Whichever it was..............yuk.

I have many thoughts on this matter - and one strong thought I have is that if he hadn't been so rich and famous, things would have been very different.
Especially after he dangled that baby over that hotel balcony.

That was just shocking.


Anyway, I'm off now guys.
Enjoyed chatting to you.
xxx

[Jana]

It was 2 Jurors...and did you ever stop to think that maybe they were paid to change their tune AFTER the trial ?

and why in the world do you keep hollering someones calling you a racist all the time?? I sure don't see where they are...all I see is you saying they are all the time. Gunbot sure didn't say anything to that end on here at all.
Frank, for real...do you ever have a happy day??

You're kidding, right Phyllis?

To what advantage would a juror be paid to change their tune after the trial? That's like paying someone to remain silent on an affair, AFTER the wife/husband walked out and divorced.


As to the racist issue, you were here when the racism crap exploded....while you weren't party to its ugly outlay, don't lie and say you didn't see it play out here. because it did...And I didn't think I was accusing Gunbot of anything...in fact, I think he was rhetorically asking questions as I was.


Sorry, I'm not sure I follow you with the happy day bullshit...Im having a perfectly happy day. In fact, Im Overjoyed! I revel in the fact that I don't feel the burning need to lie to myself about Jacko's past, simply to cover the pain I would otherwise feel, knowing how many children were violated at Neverland.

Frank, they showed the clip of those two jurors for a couple days on CNN...the first clip shows when the juror was interviewed right after the trail and those two jurors comments then where they stated that the only verdict to be reached was a not guilty....it was sometime later that they were interviewed and then changed there tune and said they were really thinking he was guilty all along. Makes me wonder why they changed their tune because they sure looked sincere in their not guilty vote right after the trial.
All jurors unanimous not guilty votes on all counts....it wasn't until some period of time after the trial that 2 changed their minds....my question is why? If they were just honest folks trying to do the right thing then why the heck didn't they vote guilty at the trial where it counted if they felt that way? They were sequestered so it wouldn't have been the easiest thing to get to them then.....pretty easy to get to them after the trial though. If it could have happened to you one way then you certainly have to consider they could have had reasons for their own benefit to change their tune after the fact as well. Maybe it was more likely to get more play out of their roles in the sago and to extend their 15 minutes by changing their tune.


Oh....and I never "lied" and said a race issue never played out here in the past....yes it did, and imo there where quite a few things said on this board that were indeed racist. But this is not then so why do you brinng it up in this thread when no one was referring to the past and no one was hollering racist now.

and if you are having a happy day, then I'm happy for you...just wish you could show that side of yourself on here sometimes...loosen up and tell a joke, post a good tune you like or at least talk about what music you like...or laugh at something.....you come across as all serious and kinda mad all the time....and I know you can't be that way so it would be nice to see you interact some more in a fun way. Other then Journey who is your favorite singer or group?

Well, you can feel someone is guilty from some of the evidence, but with reasonable doubt you have to follow the law and should find them not guilty. With the crazy, scamming family of the alleged victim and all the holes poked in their testimony, there was really no verdict to be had but not guilty. But there were probably a couple of jurors that from some of the disturbing evidence, like several books of naked young boys found in his bedroom, etc, that felt he was guilty.

[bluejeangirl76]

You guys are missing the point on this jury thing.

Jurors are not asked to determine guilt or innocence. Jurors are directed to determine whether the prosecution has proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof falls to the prosecution. If they fail to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant commited the crime, you can still vote to aquit regardless of what you feel. All this means is that 12 people agreed that the burden of proof was not sufficiently met, not that 12 people thought he was innocent.

Therefore, if 2 people later stated they believe he was guilty, this doesn't indicate a change of tune. It means they held the personal belief that he was guilty yet agreed there was insuffienct evident to render a guilty verdict.

[Blueskies]

It was 2 Jurors...and did you ever stop to think that maybe they were paid to change their tune AFTER the trial ?

and why in the world do you keep hollering someones calling you a racist all the time?? I sure don't see where they are...all I see is you saying they are all the time. Gunbot sure didn't say anything to that end on here at all.
Frank, for real...do you ever have a happy day??

You're kidding, right Phyllis?

To what advantage would a juror be paid to change their tune after the trial? That's like paying someone to remain silent on an affair, AFTER the wife/husband walked out and divorced.


As to the racist issue, you were here when the racism crap exploded....while you weren't party to its ugly outlay, don't lie and say you didn't see it play out here. because it did...And I didn't think I was accusing Gunbot of anything...in fact, I think he was rhetorically asking questions as I was.


Sorry, I'm not sure I follow you with the happy day bullshit...Im having a perfectly happy day. In fact, Im Overjoyed! I revel in the fact that I don't feel the burning need to lie to myself about Jacko's past, simply to cover the pain I would otherwise feel, knowing how many children were violated at Neverland.

Frank, they showed the clip of those two jurors for a couple days on CNN...the first clip shows when the juror was interviewed right after the trail and those two jurors comments then where they stated that the only verdict to be reached was a not guilty....it was sometime later that they were interviewed and then changed there tune and said they were really thinking he was guilty all along. Makes me wonder why they changed their tune because they sure looked sincere in their not guilty vote right after the trial.
All jurors unanimous not guilty votes on all counts....it wasn't until some period of time after the trial that 2 changed their minds....my question is why? If they were just honest folks trying to do the right thing then why the heck didn't they vote guilty at the trial where it counted if they felt that way? They were sequestered so it wouldn't have been the easiest thing to get to them then.....pretty easy to get to them after the trial though. If it could have happened to you one way then you certainly have to consider they could have had reasons for their own benefit to change their tune after the fact as well. Maybe it was more likely to get more play out of their roles in the sago and to extend their 15 minutes by changing their tune.


Oh....and I never "lied" and said a race issue never played out here in the past....yes it did, and imo there where quite a few things said on this board that were indeed racist. But this is not then so why do you brinng it up in this thread when no one was referring to the past and no one was hollering racist now.

and if you are having a happy day, then I'm happy for you...just wish you could show that side of yourself on here sometimes...loosen up and tell a joke, post a good tune you like or at least talk about what music you like...or laugh at something.....you come across as all serious and kinda mad all the time....and I know you can't be that way so it would be nice to see you interact some more in a fun way. Other then Journey who is your favorite singer or group?

Well, you can feel someone is guilty from some of the evidence, but with reasonable doubt you have to follow the law and should find them not guilty. With the crazy, scamming family of the alleged victim and all the holes poked in their testimony, there was really no verdict to be had but not guilty. But there were probably a couple of jurors that from some of the disturbing evidence, like several books of naked young boys found in his bedroom, etc, that felt he was guilty.

I've been on a jury before. Even if following the letter of the law...if I still believed in my gut that the person was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt in my mind I would have hung the jury..I wouldn't have said not guilty unless I believed it...especially not in a case involving child abuse. Of course I wasn't at this trial to see all the evidence to judge...neither was anyone else here...so we don't know how damaging the evidence was or not. If it was damaging then surely at least one person on the jury would have at least held out longer and argued the evidence....a 30 hour deliberation is not long in such a high profile case....which tells me that the witnesses for the prosecution weren't very believable and the evidence wasn't strong..at least nothing could be made of it to prove pedophilia .

[strangegrey]

Frank, they showed the clip of those two jurors for a couple days on CNN...the first clip shows when the juror was interviewed right after the trail and those two jurors comments then where they stated that the only verdict to be reached was a not guilty....it was sometime later that they were interviewed and then changed there tune and said they were really thinking he was guilty all along. Makes me wonder why they changed their tune because they sure looked sincere in their not guilty vote right after the trial.
All jurors unanimous not guilty votes on all counts....it wasn't until some period of time after the trial that 2 changed their minds....my question is why? If they were just honest folks trying to do the right thing then why the heck didn't they vote guilty at the trial where it counted if they felt that way? They were sequestered so it wouldn't have been the easiest thing to get to them then.....pretty easy to get to them after the trial though. If it could have happened to you one way then you certainly have to consider they could have had reasons for their own benefit to change their tune after the fact as well. Maybe it was more likely to get more play out of their roles in the sago and to extend their 15 minutes by changing their tune.

well, this isn't the mob. I don't think I meant to get the impression across that Alec Baldwin and James Gandolfini were squeezing a juror or two from beyond the sequestering line.

I had this discussion with someone who is near and dear, who is a lawyer...and this person's response was quite telling. "That court was never going to convict Jackson. If they couldn't put away OJ for murder, they're not going to be able to get Jackson." Hind sight is 20/20....but seriously, I believe the pressure was from right within the court room. LA has been paying for Rodney King for almost 20 years now. A high profile African American defendant on trail for something greater than larceny, has far greater chances in LA or elsewhere. It'd make a GREAT thesis for someone doing a dissertation or thesis on reverse racism in the LA court system.

Oh....and I never "lied" and said a race issue never played out here in the past....yes it did, and imo there where quite a few things said on this board that were indeed racist. But this is not then so why do you brinng it up in this thread when no one was referring to the past and no one was hollering racist now.

Yes, I agree with you. *Some* things were racist....however, a *great* deal weren't....and I'm still quite sensitive to the fact that people that invaded this site and systematically attacked people with race baiting or racist accusations....some of those same people are desperate to exonerate Jackson at any cost....I find that dreadfully ironic, that people who were so quick to label someone a racist at any cost, can't accept the possibility that someone like Michael Jackson violated the innocence of small children. The support of jackson's pedo-predator lifestyle is extremely compelling, irrespective of whether an inept DA couldn't nail his child-molesting ass to a jail for the rest of his life....

and if you are having a happy day, then I'm happy for you...just wish you could show that side of yourself on here sometimes...loosen up and tell a joke, post a good tune you like or at least talk about what music you like...or laugh at something.....you come across as all serious and kinda mad all the time....and I know you can't be that way so it would be nice to see you interact some more in a fun way. Other then Journey who is your favorite singer or group?

Phylis, thanks for the words. I originally was going to jump back in and snap at you.....but you're right. Sometimes I come across as brash, offensive or confrontational.

Personally, and this is OT from this thread, I don't particularly like what Journey has done, from a business sense....but still have a love for the music. That's a hard thing to deal with. Still loving the music but hating the despicable pieces of shit that recorded it.....not a fun place to be.

I tend to be a black/white person. i don't like nor respect gray area. I find Journey's treatment of their vocalists over the past several years to be deplorable. Arnel's got what's coming to him too...I wish I could tell you it's going to be happy sailing....but to do that would be naive and well, wrong.

So having said that, coming in here....I tend to put my defenses on high alert and the hair-trigger is ready to go. It's not the right attitude, at all...




Not with standing all of what I've said, I have very deep, personal, strong and emotional hatred of child sex offenders. So this just happens to be a topic I feel tremendously strongly about.

I don't believe Jackson was innocent....at all. I, personally, don't understand how someone can see it otherwise, given the amount of support for such a belief. Regardless, Like I said...I feel very strongly on this issue....I don't think it's a reflection on my level of happiness. It's a shameful act, to violate a child's innocence. Crucifixion is a punishment that's too lenient for sex offenders!

[strangegrey]

You guys are missing the point on this jury thing.

Jurors are not asked to determine guilt or innocence. Jurors are directed to determine whether the prosecution has proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof falls to the prosecution. If they fail to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant commited the crime, you can still vote to aquit regardless of what you feel. All this means is that 12 people agreed that the burden of proof was not sufficiently met, not that 12 people thought he was innocent.

Therefore, if 2 people later stated they believe he was guilty, this doesn't indicate a change of tune. It means they held the personal belief that he was guilty yet agreed there was insuffienct evident to render a guilty verdict.

well, I assume that you're interpreting the mindset of these two jurors...

regardless, you are correct. If a juror doing his/her duty correctly, the burden of proof must still be met. But the INTERPRETATION of whether that burden of proof is very much a cloudy, gray area which can fall plenty of ways...

Perfect example is this very thread. I can present my case of why I believe Jackson's guilty and a certain percentage of people will argue that i didn't make a strong case, merely because of their belief system.



Now having said all of that, I have already gone on record as feeling like the LA DA failed in it's duty to prosecute the case effectively. Does that mean Jackson didn't build Neverland, establish it as fertile hunting grounds, feed children alcohol to make them sexually pliable, while tugging on their religious beliefs in calling it "jesus juice"....and ultimately sexually abuse them? Absolutely NOT.

Jackson's acquittal does NOT prove Jackson did not do the things he did. It only proves that he isn't legally liable for the crimes, within the constraints of the legal system, given the advantages and disadvantages of the prosecutor/defense attorney.


I can go out and rob 100 banks......if I find acquittal on all 100 counts of robbery, does that mean I didn't rob the banks?

[Jana]

This reminds me, I was in a trial once, and the defendant was a local radio personality and TV news anchor at one time. He was charged with molesting two young boys, and two friends also were charged. He groomed a young boy whose mother he knew. The family was poor and husband left, and were enamored that this famous man would take such an interest in the family. The boy began staying over a lot. Pretty soon, after spending a lot of time gaining the boy's affection and confidence, he seduced him, and worse than that, he then shared him, as time went on, with friends. He would tell the young boy to go over to a friend's house to help out with something, drop him off, and what happened was it was a setup, and that older man would molest him. Then he had the boy introduce some of his little friends into the game, which one ultimately told his family. The trial was sad b/c the boy was confused and torn about testifying b/c he really looked up to this male role model who had loved him and didn't want to put him in jail. But some of the evidence was weak and ultimately he got off. What was awful was there so much evidence that wasn't let in for varying reasons that was truly disgusting, that I heard and not the jury. There was the photo of this young boy laying naked on the diving board and all these older men were lounging around the pool looking at him. I can't remember how they explained that away or if the jury saw it. I've always wondered how the children turned out that were molested and how many other children the defendant and his buddies molested.

[strangegrey]

This reminds me, I was in a trial once, and the defendant was a local radio personality and TV news anchor at one time. He was charged with molesting two young boys, and two friends also were charged. He groomed a young boy whose mother he knew. The family was poor and husband left, and were enamored that this famous man would take such an interest in the family. The boy began staying over a lot. Pretty soon, after spending a lot of time gaining the boy's affection and confidence, he seduced him, and worse than that, he then shared him, as time went on, with friends. Then he had the boy introduce some of his little friends into the game, which one ultimately told his family. The trial was sad b/c the boy was confused and torn about testifying b/c he really looked up to this male role model who had loved him and didn't want to put him in jail. But some of the evidence was weak and ultimately he got off. What was awful was there so much evidence that wasn't let in for varying reasons that was truly disgusting, that I heard and not the jury. There was the photo of this young boy laying naked on the diving board and all these older men were lounging around the pool looking at him. I can't remember how they explained that away or if the jury saw it. I've always wondered how the children turned out that were molested and how many other children the defendant and his buddies molested.

This is the issue that really tugs at my conscience with respect to Whacko Jacko....here's a man, who's literally being canonized by the public. People are in the streets, pouring out their tears....every fucking radio station in the world is playing his stuff to the point where you can't hear anything else....every TV station is remembering him for his musical contributions....blah blah blah.


But what goes completely un-recognized are these child victims. Whacko may have truly cared for them (in the demented sicko way he may have), and they might have felt cared for....but that doesn't change the fact that they were damaged, emotionally, maybe physically.


It's truly a shit stain on society, to watch our culture prop this loser up like he was some sort of martyr or hero.....when any other person in any other career/profession/job, would have been outcast from society, thrown in jail to rot, and then tagged under meagan's law, as a menace to society.

Sad....truly sad......

[bluejeangirl76]

I can go out and rob 100 banks......if I find acquittal on all 100 counts of robbery, does that mean I didn't rob the banks?

You're right... aquittal would not mean that you didn't rob the 100 banks. But it doesn't mean that you did either. I just means the jury determined that they weren't given enough information to be able to say beyond a reasonable doubt that you did.

p.s. - I'm not saying Michael was innocent. Whether sexual contact took place or not, I don't know, but I do believe he did not act appropriately, what with having children sleeping over and staying around for extended periods of time. That was certainly questionable and odd.

But I do believe that mother is the one responsible for the verdict. I found her to be shady and I believe she planted the most doubt in the minds of anyone who might have been leaning toward a guilty verdict. In fact I remember at least one juror (maybe more, I'm trying to recall) saying that very thing.

[Blueskies]

Frank, they showed the clip of those two jurors for a couple days on CNN...the first clip shows when the juror was interviewed right after the trail and those two jurors comments then where they stated that the only verdict to be reached was a not guilty....it was sometime later that they were interviewed and then changed there tune and said they were really thinking he was guilty all along. Makes me wonder why they changed their tune because they sure looked sincere in their not guilty vote right after the trial.
All jurors unanimous not guilty votes on all counts....it wasn't until some period of time after the trial that 2 changed their minds....my question is why? If they were just honest folks trying to do the right thing then why the heck didn't they vote guilty at the trial where it counted if they felt that way? They were sequestered so it wouldn't have been the easiest thing to get to them then.....pretty easy to get to them after the trial though. If it could have happened to you one way then you certainly have to consider they could have had reasons for their own benefit to change their tune after the fact as well. Maybe it was more likely to get more play out of their roles in the sago and to extend their 15 minutes by changing their tune.

well, this isn't the mob. I don't think I meant to get the impression across that Alec Baldwin and James Gandolfini were squeezing a juror or two from beyond the sequestering line.

I had this discussion with someone who is near and dear, who is a lawyer...and this person's response was quite telling. "That court was never going to convict Jackson. If they couldn't put away OJ for murder, they're not going to be able to get Jackson." Hind sight is 20/20....but seriously, I believe the pressure was from right within the court room. LA has been paying for Rodney King for almost 20 years now. A high profile African American defendant on trail for something greater than larceny, has far greater chances in LA or elsewhere. It'd make a GREAT thesis for someone doing a dissertation or thesis on reverse racism in the LA court system.

Oh....and I never "lied" and said a race issue never played out here in the past....yes it did, and imo there where quite a few things said on this board that were indeed racist. But this is not then so why do you brinng it up in this thread when no one was referring to the past and no one was hollering racist now.

Yes, I agree with you. *Some* things were racist....however, a *great* deal weren't....and I'm still quite sensitive to the fact that people that invaded this site and systematically attacked people with race baiting or racist accusations....some of those same people are desperate to exonerate Jackson at any cost....I find that dreadfully ironic, that people who were so quick to label someone a racist at any cost, can't accept the possibility that someone like Michael Jackson violated the innocence of small children. The support of jackson's pedo-predator lifestyle is extremely compelling, irrespective of whether an inept DA couldn't nail his child-molesting ass to a jail for the rest of his life....

and if you are having a happy day, then I'm happy for you...just wish you could show that side of yourself on here sometimes...loosen up and tell a joke, post a good tune you like or at least talk about what music you like...or laugh at something.....you come across as all serious and kinda mad all the time....and I know you can't be that way so it would be nice to see you interact some more in a fun way. Other then Journey who is your favorite singer or group?

Phylis, thanks for the words. I originally was going to jump back in and snap at you.....but you're right. Sometimes I come across as brash, offensive or confrontational.

Personally, and this is OT from this thread, I don't particularly like what Journey has done, from a business sense....but still have a love for the music. That's a hard thing to deal with. Still loving the music but hating the despicable pieces of shit that recorded it.....not a fun place to be.

I tend to be a black/white person. i don't like nor respect gray area. I find Journey's treatment of their vocalists over the past several years to be deplorable. Arnel's got what's coming to him too...I wish I could tell you it's going to be happy sailing....but to do that would be naive and well, wrong.

So having said that, coming in here....I tend to put my defenses on high alert and the hair-trigger is ready to go. It's not the right attitude, at all...




Not with standing all of what I've said, I have very deep, personal, strong and emotional hatred of child sex offenders. So this just happens to be a topic I feel tremendously strongly about.

I don't believe Jackson was innocent....at all. I, personally, don't understand how someone can see it otherwise, given the amount of support for such a belief. Regardless, Like I said...I feel very strongly on this issue....I don't think it's a reflection on my level of happiness. It's a shameful act, to violate a child's innocence. Crucifixion is a punishment that's too lenient for sex offenders!

Thanks for a softer response, Frank. It's more understandable where you are coming from.

As far as MJ goes...like I've said before in this thread...I have had reasons to doubt he was guilty of being a pedophile...from interviews and watching his body language and eyes when he talked...to all of what he's said in interviews and songs...to the unbelievability of the accusers, etc....thats just the way I've seen it... you could not have a bigger hatred for sex offenders then I. So, I have looked at the whole thing with a bias starting out....a bias against.. and I have never been "starstruck"..just liked some of the music...so I have looked at everything as fairly as I can without benefit of all the evidence firsthand.. and thats been my gut instinct on this case..he was a tortured soul to be sure but I don't think he was a pedophile....yes, I could be wrong....and something might come out in the future thats proves he was guilty...who knows...but I don't see it the same way you do now.

Hey...you didn't answer my question. What other groups and singers do you like?

[strangegrey]

I can go out and rob 100 banks......if I find acquittal on all 100 counts of robbery, does that mean I didn't rob the banks?

You're right... aquittal would not mean that you didn't rob the 100 banks. But it doesn't mean that you did either. I just means the jury determined that they weren't given enough information to be able to say beyond a reasonable doubt that you did.

Absolutely...so really, in the end, we're left with making our own decisions regarding the evidence we're presented with in society. Sometimes the guilt is clear cut. I'm not sure there are any people out there that feel Bernie Madoff didn't get what he deserved today.


But, again, that crystallizes my point. the outcome of People v. Jackson, 2003, has zero bearing on whether or not someone is right or wrong in believing Jackson molested children. To me, the support for such a belief is so overwhelming, that I can't see how someone absolves this person of guilt. What I see are people who are desperate to self-absolve, just so that it doesn't haunt them when they have to listen to his music.

To me, that's wrong. There are far more important things in life than protecting someone's memory of Billy Jean or Beat It...

[strangegrey]

Hey...you didn't answer my question. What other groups aand singers do you like?

LOL...That's extremely hard to nail down at one given point in time.

I tend to see saw between pop-country and aor rock...and I don't mix the two. So there are times where I want to rock out and listen to:

Journey
Van Halen
Def Leppard
Styx
Night Ranger
Survivor
Dream Theater
JSS
Rush


Then, I literally slam the drawer shut on that CD collection and I put on a cowboy hat and listen to:

Brad Paisley
Kieth Urban
Alan Jackson
Montgomery Gentry
Kenny Chesney
Sugarland
Brooks and Dunn
Garth Brooks
Toby Kieth
etc...





I find the two musical styles very incompatible.....which is why I can't listen to em both at the same time. One is about over polished production, over-distorted guitars, high-ear piercing vocals, metaphoric lyrics, etc. The other is stripped down production, clean guitars, vocals with ranges all over the map, straight forward vocals with little hidden meaning.

It's hard to listen and appreciate both at the same time, so I tend to get into 'moods' and listen to one or the other.


Also, because I don't find the two musical styles compatible at all, I feel tormented when I get the tug from one style, while i'm listening to the other. I actually hate that aspect of it.



As of late, I've been also listening to praise music on SiriusXM "The Message"...

stuff like Lincoln Brewster, Jars of Clay, etc.....


What I like about the praise stuff, is that it seems to bridge the gap nicely between country and aor.....it's a little more rock, but with a little less metaphors in the lyrical message.



Make sense?

[strangegrey]

I can go out and rob 100 banks......if I find acquittal on all 100 counts of robbery, does that mean I didn't rob the banks?

You're right... aquittal would not mean that you didn't rob the 100 banks. But it doesn't mean that you did either. I just means the jury determined that they weren't given enough information to be able to say beyond a reasonable doubt that you did.

Absolutely...so really, in the end, we're left with making our own decisions regarding the evidence we're presented with in society. Sometimes the guilt is clear cut. I'm not sure there are any people out there that feel Bernie Madoff didn't get what he deserved today.


But, again, that crystallizes my point. the outcome of People v. Jackson, 2003, has zero bearing on whether or not someone is right or wrong in believing Jackson molested children. To me, the support for such a belief is so overwhelming, that I can't see how someone absolves this person of guilt. What I see are people who are desperate to self-absolve, just so that it doesn't haunt them when they have to listen to his music.

To me, that's wrong. There are far more important things in life than protecting someone's memory of Billy Jean or Beat It...

btw, let me quote myself in clarifying that this doesn't mean I don't respect someone elses view that he was innocent. Only that in my eyes, I can't see how that person comes to that particular decision....

[Saint John]

Night Ranger
Survivor

Tito and I went to see Survivor Saturday night, but the show was called after about 5 songs because of fucking lightning. He saw Night Ranger the night before and said they were great. I missed that one because of my laziness and stupidity. Survivor was a free fair show. Not sure how much Night Ranger was but it couldn't have been more than $10. Maybe Tito will chime in. Oh wait...

[Rhiannon]

btw, let me quote myself in clarifying that this doesn't mean I don't respect someone elses view that he was innocent. Only that in my eyes, I can't see how that person comes to that particular decision....

With all due respect, Frank... maybe you're also kind of assuming that people who aren't agreeing with you are convinced of his innocence. I've been very clear in this thread about defending my own morality regarding how it disgusts me the way people can talk about someone who lived a sad life and died an equally sad death. Much less anyone who passes. Regarding his legal troubles, well... I don't know that I believe the molestation junk. I'm pretty convinced he gave the kids booze (deplorable) and that his thought pattern and behavior with children was very odd and not normal by any stretch, to say the least. But what I also see is a manchild with dozens of disorders and a personality prone to self-destruction. I don't feel ashamed that I feel sad for his passing... but more so feel sad for his tortured life (self-imposed, but nonetheless). I mean to say, where's the harm in blasting Thriller and remembering "back in the day"? Who does that hurt?

So just because I'm not so eager to send someone to the gallows doesn't make me personally any less entitled to my opinion than you.
And the same goes for everyone else who has commented on the matter. We're allowed our right to choose. Nothing wrong with that at all.

[Blueskies]

Hey...you didn't answer my question. What other groups aand singers do you like?

LOL...That's extremely hard to nail down at one given point in time.

I tend to see saw between pop-country and aor rock...and I don't mix the two. So there are times where I want to rock out and listen to:

Journey
Van Halen
Def Leppard
Styx
Night Ranger
Survivor
Dream Theater
JSS
Rush


Then, I literally slam the drawer shut on that CD collection and I put on a cowboy hat and listen to:

Brad Paisley
Kieth Urban
Alan Jackson
Montgomery Gentry
Kenny Chesney
Sugarland
Brooks and Dunn
Garth Brooks
Toby Kieth
etc...





I find the two musical styles very incompatible.....which is why I can't listen to em both at the same time. One is about over polished production, over-distorted guitars, high-ear piercing vocals, metaphoric lyrics, etc. The other is stripped down production, clean guitars, vocals with ranges all over the map, straight forward vocals with little hidden meaning.

It's hard to listen and appreciate both at the same time, so I tend to get into 'moods' and listen to one or the other.


Also, because I don't find the two musical styles compatible at all, I feel tormented when I get the tug from one style, while i'm listening to the other. I actually hate that aspect of it.



As of late, I've been also listening to praise music on SiriusXM "The Message"...

stuff like Lincoln Brewster, Jars of Clay, etc.....


What I like about the praise stuff, is that it seems to bridge the gap nicely between country and aor.....it's a little more rock, but with a little less metaphors in the lyrical message.



Make sense?

Yes, it does make sense. I like a wide range of music myself...from classical to a little heavy metal and many types between...guess that's why I've never gotten really starstruck on individuals because I don't focus solely on a few artists..I like so many. I don't know why it surprises me a little that you like country....just wouldn't have guessed that for some reason.....maybe because it seems few here like it. I have to say I listen less to country then other types but there is some of it that I like...mainly by song instead of by artist....like in other styles as well...whatever strikes me. I understand what you mean by whatever mood you are in....when I do artwork I mainly listen to instrumentals so there are no words to distract and I can visualize what I want in the music.
Thanks for sharing your music preferences...it's good to get a little more insight to you as a person...to see another facet of you.

[strangegrey]

With all due respect, Frank... maybe you're also kind of assuming that people who aren't agreeing with you are convinced of his innocence. I've been very clear in this thread about defending my own morality regarding how it disgusts me the way people can talk about someone who lived a sad life and died an equally sad death. Much less anyone who passes. Regarding his legal troubles, well... I don't know that I believe the molestation junk. I'm pretty convinced he gave the kids booze (deplorable) and that his thought pattern and behavior with children was very odd and not normal by any stretch, to say the least. But what I also see is a manchild with dozens of disorders and a personality prone to self-destruction. I don't feel ashamed that I feel sad for his passing... but more so feel sad for his tortured life (self-imposed, but nonetheless). I mean to say, where's the harm in blasting Thriller and remembering "back in the day"? Who does that hurt?

So just because I'm not so eager to send someone to the gallows doesn't make me personally any less entitled to my opinion than you.
And the same goes for everyone else who has commented on the matter. We're allowed our right to choose. Nothing wrong with that at all.

You're entitled to your belief. ...but the high-brow comments cast down, which you took part in, damning me and others for not being so quick to forgive this individual....are rather disgraceful, given the fact pattern here. It's clear that we're standing on opposite sides of the fence here. But my view on this person's shameful life in no way is wrong, just because you chose not to accept his actions as a child molester.

While I admit that i can't see how anyone could ignore such a shameful history, given that we're talking about children.....I respect the fact that you chose to ignore it. But don't stand there and call this a morality issue just because I don't see Jackson as a "tortured, sad individual with a boatload of problems beyond his control" and don't feel the need to mourn his death, iconify the individual and piss on the rights/respect of the children he molested.

Respect is a two way street, sister. While I am trying my hardest to allow you your ability to mourn this individual, to protect your feelings about these songs that you feel are more important than these poor children......the fact that I don't see it that way, and feel the martyring and glorifying of Jacko is a huge slap in the face of the children he violated.

My view on this is no less morally valid than yours. Don't presume to act like the morally just character here, because there's more than one way to look at this issue.