Michael Jacoson won????

dreaming_mouse wrote:I'm personally sick of the whole thing, if this was a "normal" person they wouldn't get as much coverage. He shouldn't have really let the little kids sleep with him anyway and now it doesn't matter whether or not he was guilty. He was found innocent and if people complain it's just kind of pointless since nothing was changed. His career might be tarnished but probably only a little, he still has his fans who will remain loyal and in a few years this will have died down.

If he was a normal person, ya think these parents would have brought their kids to him? No, no they would not.

But why is a celebrity any different to a normal person? Just because he's famous he's more trustworthy...?

The reason this is getting so much coverage is because this is somewhat an unusual event. Many people are molested, raped, killed, kidnapped, and etc. every day. Why don't they get coverage? Because, frankly, no one really cares about all their cases after awhile. Sure, it's sad, but, as a whole, people don't like reading about the same things over and over. Michael Jackson is a very well-known star, and people would want to know what happens to him. The media is only trying to get people to watch them, and cases like these draw people in, so why not cover it?

Anyway, to Michael Jackson. I thought he would be guilty, but I don't know all the facts and such. Were you there in court with him, watching and observing everything? The jurors were, and they made their choice because of what they saw through the evidence that was given. I'm pretty sure they didn't choose whatever they felt like just because they felt like it.

Honestly, it's hard to have an opinion when 1) I know next to nothing about Jacko other than what the media says, 2) I've never been to Neverland, don't know anyone who has, etc. 3) I wasn't anywhere near him at any time that anyone has accused him of anything.

So, all that I can accuse him of is looking and sounding really, really weird. Not enough to convict him, I'd say.

And for the record, I never like Michael Jackson even before this whole thing happened, so my opinion is my own!

No one is ever going to know for sure, it's no good people saying "Well I think he's guilty" or "He's innocent" because the only people who know are MJ himself and the witnesses. I've never really being bothered by him he's just another celebrity to me, no one special yet millions think he is...meh.

I just don't like how everyone has made this into a huge deal. I mean, yeah, he does some ecentric stuff, but doesn't everyone? I mean... honestly, besides the fact that people like his music, what makes him so special that so many people get all wrapped up in a court case like this?

Brad, you mean to tell me that if you or I were on trial for the exact same thing with the exact same evidence (just an example, im not insinuating anything) that we wouldn't be found guilty on all 10 counts? Its a kangaroo court, because he's a celebrity, he got off. Plain and simple.

That is exactly what I am saying.

There was not enough evidence for the case against Jackson. It was a case built entirely around inference and innuendo - NOT the American way.

dreaming_mouse wrote:But why is a celebrity any different to a normal person? Just because he's famous he's more trustworthy...?

No. But he's a role model. People look up to him -- well, probably not since to whole plastic surgery thing but anyway -- I think celebreties ought to be on their best behaviour all the time because of that. If they complain about the pressure, then they should have picked different jobs.

That's a tyrannical imposition on celebrities.

If we don't like what celebrities are doing - we change celebrities. We don't require people to change for us.

as a matter of fact, am not concerned on if he is truely innocent or not,the fact remains that his defence
were able to convince the jury that he is innocent.all he has to do now is to rearrange his life and get back on stage.

Actually, the prosecution failed to convince the jury he was guilty. Sorry, I'm pedantic.

Firestarter wrote:Actually, the prosecution failed to convince the jury he was guilty. Sorry, I'm pedantic.

I was sort of listening to the news last night and they said it was a woman who clicked her fingers at the jury. They didn't like that, but it'd be sort of stupid to make a decision so big on something that could be pretty tiny.

I'm so sick of hearing about the Jackson family genitals on the news every day.

Personally, I think Jackson is a sicko who should not be allowed near another child again. But I'm not going to argue with anyone... that's just my opinion.

Well the evidence was laid out in the courtroom and none of us have had to deliberate so closely over the hundreds of testimonies...so we'll have to take their judegement as correct.