THE ORIGINAL & LARGEST MILLIONAIRE DATING SINCE 2001

MJ acquitted! Message Board

  • View author's info Posted on Jun 16, 2005 at 06:49 AM


    I am sure the first two are guilty but I always had my doubts about Michael Jackson so until it is proven and there is no doubt that he did molest those children, then I am all for him being found innocent. I think the parents of those young boys are the ones who should be interrogated and their parenting skills questioned. Why allow their children to stay overnight among a bunch of strangers in a setting that MIGHT be conducive to molestation etc...
  • 10Comments

  • View author's info Posted on Jun 28, 2005 at 11:41 PM



    earnit22 write:
    Yes,I agree with you NYCHICK..I beleived from the begining that the witness's were not very credable,and the prosicution didn't have very good evidence to proceed. The childs mother was a nightmare,but one thing the prosicution was a success on was damaging Michaels career..Thats not going to get better overnigh,and that entire family got to be really strong to make a comback..I'm sure they will,but that civil suite,may haunt that for a few years,so the faster the Jackson family gets moving,the better chances of a successful come back...

    well earnit22 and six feet also kep in mind that it is the same boy what iam thinking and so are yall why they did not arrest the boy also, that's what they should do the next time,. take he was on a roll till they crucefied him for sleeping with his 13 year old cousin and married her, i heard that in those days that was common, to marry young at that age and jerry lee was only 21 years old at the time. which his carear was shattered because of it.
  • View author's info Posted on Jun 26, 2005 at 02:00 AM



    sixfeetwtc write:
    California - the only place on the planet where an ex-pro-football player/actor is acquitted of killing his wife amd her friend, an actor is acquitted of killing his wife and soliciting another party to do so, a 'pop-star' is acquitted of child-molestation, and a bodybuilder/actor becomes governor. I think I'll move there - just think of what I could achieve!
    sixfeet it is the way the justice system is, people with money can afford the best attorney's whie others rot in jail for the same crime. imean come on we have a president with a dwi record usa george bush.
  • View author's info Posted on Jun 24, 2005 at 09:33 PM


    Yes,I agree with you NYCHICK..I beleived from the begining that the witness's were not very credable,and the prosicution didn't have very good evidence to proceed. The childs mother was a nightmare,but one thing the prosicution was a success on was damaging Michaels career..Thats not going to get better overnigh,and that entire family got to be really strong to make a comback..I'm sure they will,but that civil suite,may haunt that for a few years,so the faster the Jackson family gets moving,the better chances of a successful come back...
  • View author's info Posted on Jun 18, 2005 at 06:23 PM



    LOOKATME2 write:

    I think the parents should get time for letting thier children spend time at his house. Overnight? You've got to be kidding..



    Absolutely! That's what I said too in my post. The parents are just as guilty for allowing their children to spend such a long time with him under such "unusual" circumstances. But I'm still not convinced he molested them. He is eccentric though and doesn't have all his dogs on a leash - that's for sure. I feel kinda sorry for him actually.
  • View author's info Posted on Jun 17, 2005 at 03:37 PM



    SpeedDallas write:
    Big difference between being "found" not guilty by a jury and being innocent. Reasonable doubt is difficult to overcome for a reason. Doesn't mean MJ never molested, doesn't even mean he didn't molest this particular child in question, certainly doesn't mean he is innocent, just that reasonable doubt in the opinion of the jurors was present. That's all.



    Not to mention, if you have enough money you can "buy" reasonable doubt.
  • View author's info Posted on Jun 16, 2005 at 06:59 PM


    Big difference between being "found" not guilty by a jury and being innocent. Reasonable doubt is difficult to overcome for a reason. Doesn't mean MJ never molested, doesn't even mean he didn't molest this particular child in question, certainly doesn't mean he is innocent, just that reasonable doubt in the opinion of the jurors was present. That's all.
  • View author's info Posted on Jun 16, 2005 at 06:37 PM


    Prosecutor has been on jacksons tail for ages- however i believe he failed to provide any evidence directly linking michael- magazines yes could be anyones. Jacksons attorney was an Ace- the mother should have never taken the stand = do i think hes innocent yes= however i think he is a man in need of help for sure/ . Sneeden should have been better prepared since hes been on his case since 1993
  • View author's info Posted on Jun 16, 2005 at 06:24 PM


    Well the jury said he is not guilty, his handwriting says he is. I tend to believe what his handwriting says.
  • View author's info Posted on Jun 16, 2005 at 03:24 PM



    sixfeetwtc write:
    California - the only place on the planet where an ex-pro-football player/actor is acquitted of killing his wife amd her friend, an actor is acquitted of killing his wife and soliciting another party to do so, a 'pop-star' is acquitted of child-molestation, and a bodybuilder/actor becomes governor. I think I'll move there - just think of what I could achieve!



    I think the parents should get time for letting thier children spend time at his house. Overnight? You've got to be kidding..
  • View author's info Posted on Jun 16, 2005 at 07:28 AM


    Personally I think JM RB and OJ were all guity. I am not so sure about Scott Peterson though. I am not indicting the justice system or trial by jury. They are imperfect but work most of the time. I can't help but think money has a lot to do with mounting a great defense. I would not want to be a wittness in any of these high profile cases where the defendent has so much money that they can hire teams of investigators to go back, scrutinize and dig up as much dirt as possible on the past lives of the wittnesses as they can. I doubt that there is a one of us that has never done something they are ashamed of or would want that incident to be aired in public when they testify regardless of how long ago it happened.