Page 1 of SO, will Jacko get off, views before his excuses start

The prosecution have finish their case,

Jacko`s lot now starts the reasons why he was never their, as he was in space at the time, it was a body double, he`s really Dracula, Diana Ross, has been dead for tax reasons this year, was cross his heart never anywhere near the little bug*er....
.
So do you think he`ll get off....


I gonna kill that firefox spellchecker, and enjoy doing it.

This item was edited on Thursday, 5th May 2005, 09:35

I think I will listen to the defense before making my mind up.

mmm chocolate

I wont. Ive got a tenner with my brother that if found guilty he will top himself. My brother reckons he will go on the run. So im keeping my fingers crossed.

In any case, ive been watching the `reconstructions` on sky and I have to say, if I was a Juror, jacko would be half way to going to a PYITA prison by now. The defenses main tactic seemed to be to just try and discredit all the witnesses, but there were so many you cant believe ALL of them had an axe to grind. But it did backfire slightly in the way that the prosecution called so many they inevitably got a few dumbasses who made them look stupid.

And some of the stuff that he did, which is uncontested, is unbelievable. Giving a recovering 12 year old cancer patient who has one kidney alcohol, then telling him not to have a blood test. Looking at porn with blanket in the cot next to him. Encouraging kids to look at porn. All this stuff is uncontested by Jacksons defense team. Im not lawyer, but even if he is found innocent of the charges against him, I would recommend his kids be taken from him and no child be allowed within a mile of him.

But at the end of the day, hes ruined. Hes skint and not even the cranks outside the court room will buy enough records to keep them forclosing on neverland.

I suppose it all depends whether the jury like him really! If they do then he`ll may get off, if not then he probably won`t.

I haven`t seen any of the trial (except for a couple of bits when he said he was poorly) but I don`t think it can possibly be fair because everyone knows him and already has an opinion.

I`m gonna get myself shot for saying this...but I enjoy his music, I haven`t really made my mind up whether I believe him or the kid thats accusing him, but I do think he`s really wierd. I remeber I saw a documentary on TV a little while ago, can`t remember what it was called, and one kid (now a teenager) said that when he was younger his family was friends with michael jackson and his mum said he could have a new bike if he said michael jackson touched him! :o

If he did it, I hope he gets everything thats coming to him...if not, well then I wish him luck, because it doesn`t sound like hes gonna get out of this very easily.

When the first incident with Jordy Chandler came about the californian police department had a whole heap of evidence aginst Jacko that would have put him behind bars for many many years, and then wacko paid out millions to the Chandlers, and the cop leading the investigation was left seething.

____________________________________________________________________________________

The thing is, whether or not he is found innocent (which im sure he will be, this is America, after all), he hasnt exactly covered himself in glory.

As I said, some of the uncontested evidence that the prosecution has presented Is just amazing. And not in a good way. At one point they were going through all his jazz mags and some of them were so dirty they made his mum cry!

Quote:
At one point they were going through all his jazz mags and some of them were so dirty they made his mum cry!



Jacko should have invested in some of these: www.tcbulk.com/scripts/prodview.asp?idproduct=258

Quote:
As I said, some of the uncontested evidence that the prosecution has presented Is just amazing. And not in a good way. At one point they were going through all his jazz mags and some of them were so dirty they made his mum cry!

But being wierd and quite perverted is totally different to being a child molesterer. Was there anything illegal in any of the porn? Was it paedophilic or beastiality or necrophillic?

If not then there is nothing wrong with it...everyone is different and some people like s**t eating and other strange and kinky things. Its the way the world is, you can`t condemn someone for liking wierd or extra specially filthy porn.

However, I see your point that he will carry the stigma of this forever, not just being taken to court again, but with all of the evidence they have bought against him.

This 47 year old man openly admits to sleeping with 9 year old children,add this to all the other evidence and he should be found guilty,trying to excuse this behaviour because he is a pop superstar and he can get famous people to say what a great guy he is and "farther"is totaly wrong,lets hope it does not go the same way as the farce O Jay Simpson case did a few years ago...But as somebody mentioned this is America,but this judge does seem to live in the real world and ain`t taking no s***. :)

I hear Bubbles still walks funny. :)

This item was edited on Thursday, 5th May 2005, 11:22

Quote:
you can`t condemn someone for liking wierd or extra specially filthy porn.

When he likes it in front of his own and other peoples kids, its actually quite hard not to condemn him. Im not condeming him for having porn. Ive had blue material in my house before. But If i went round showing it to the neighbours kids I would quite rightly deserve a kicking. And if I was looking at it in front of my own kids I would expect their mum to take them and never come back. Yeah, its different from being a `Child Molesterer`, but its in the same ball park.

And, yeah, my girlfriend bought me a Jazz mag once. But its really hard to get off on Kenny Ball.