TubeNet

First OJ, then Robert Blake, now Jacko.

Well, I guess it really was a jury of his 'piers'... even without the daily llama!!

Well!! Wasn't this whole thing fairly predictable? Just another ungodly waste of taxpayers money.

There was enough reasonable doubt in the "victim's" story, and the Mother's bizarre behavior to drive a truck through. That isn't to say that Michael Jackson isn't a child molestor, just that in this case it wasn't proven.

TubaTinker wrote:Well!! Wasn't this whole thing fairly predictable? Just another ungodly waste of taxpayers money.

If we'd start firing prosecutors who pull this kind of crap, it wouldn't happen as often. The way I see it, either a) Jackson really is innocent and the DA just wanted a show trial to get his name in the paper or b)Jackson is guilty and the DA failed miserably at presenting the evidence. Either of the above is pretty bad lawyering.

Doug "thinking the only people who benefit from a case like this are the cast of SNL"

I'll make this tuba related.

Seems there is a book written by the uncle of the kid in question. Seems that someone listed WindSong Press as the publisher! At first it was funny getting calls from news organizations from all over the world - that lasted a few days. Reality quickly set in that Jackson's attornies had unlimited resources and if they filed suit against me, I'd be out of business in a second. It got to the point that I put a notice on my website that I had nothing to do with the Jackson book then called places such as Amazon to tell them to change the page on the book. I still get calls, last week a news organization from Ireland called.

Someday I'll laugh at the whole thing!

It looks to me like MJ just goes LOOKING for gold-diggers -- which gives me the feeling what he's REALLY looking for are victims whose credibility is so bad they'll never be believed in court.

To be sure, as strongly as I feel that he's probably a pedophile, the only witnesses that really had otherwise damning testimony were utterly lacking in credibility. Unlike the OJ jury, I can't REALLY fault this one for ignoring the evidence.
______________________________
Joe Baker, who notes that, to add insult to injury, the local syndication of "The Simpsons" was pre-empted in favor of the verdict.

Doug@GT wrote:
If we'd start firing prosecutors

Never mind, the DA is elected. Vote him out!

I think the parents are to blame. They have to know that he's not quite right. So lets give him our kid, real great idea.

Doug

Douglas wrote:I think the parents are to blame. They have to know that he's not quite right. So lets give him our kid, real great idea.

Doug

I've gotta agree with this. No kidding!

i'm really surprised that the subject of mental illness was never really touched on through this whole ordeal. Interviews with him going back through the 90s, 80s, and 70s show him emotionally stunted at what seems to be the level of a 10 or 11 year old.. I've known a few people with similar sort of mental illness, though I don't know if there is/what is the name for it.

As one who was on the fence about Michael's guilt/innocence and am willing to accept that not proved guilty=innocent, it all seems to me more sad than creepy. MJ's always been able to afford to be in his own special world slightly alienated from reality. He certainlny looked to be under duress today though, and i'd imagine that this whole ordeal would be enough for him to at least realise he can't be stupid about his eccentricities. If you wanna play house with little kids then fine(I myself enjoyed playing in a tree house with some 6 year olds last week), but if I were you michael I'd only be doing it with a camera crew present from now on!

That case that the prosecution presented was a joke. I don't think he's innocent. But justice is blind so they say. In the end everyone gets what they have coming, whether good or bad.









Ralph

Jackson Won't Share Bed With Kids Again

DUH! You think?

Rick F wrote:Jackson Won't Share Bed With Kids Again

DUH! You think?

I wonder what the line is on Vegas on that one...

I heard the name is being changed to MJ's Abusement Park.

Michael Jackson's lawyer said Tuesday that the pop star is going to be more careful from now on and not let children into his bed anymore because "it makes him vulnerable to false charges."

Wouldn't it be great if he stopped letting kids into his bed because, maybe, perhaps, you know, he doesn't like having children in his bed? Wouldn't that be a fairly good reason not to let children in his bed?

bloke wrote: Thank goodness! Now that this is all cleared up, I can - once again, send my son back over to the Neverland Ranch to sleep over.

Unfortunately, there is probably someone out there who believes this.

Doc wrote: He's either a pedophile, or has the emotional maturity of a 10 year old.

I vote for the emotional maturity of a 10 year old.

Lew wrote:There was enough reasonable doubt in the "victim's" story, and the Mother's bizarre behavior to drive a truck through. That isn't to say that Michael Jackson isn't a child molestor, just that in this case it wasn't proven.

That's how I see it.

If Michael's going to be convicted of anything, it'll have to be another family -- one that doesn't go around bugging celebs & corporations for cash -- that brings up charges.

Whether he did it or not, the prosecution wasn't going to win this case.

On a side note -- I'm hearing that a local band director wants to do a Michael Jackson show on the field this fall. If that's too controversial, then he'll do a Celine Dion show instead. And, no, I'm not making this up!