<p>"Michael Jackson is not black; he is white. He has a skin disease so he must bleach his skin white unless he wants random white blotches mixed with his black skin."</p>
<p>Thats not true...thats what he says but i remember hearing on the news that there was evidence proving it false.</p>
<p>"Now, ask yourself this...If Mike was sexy, would you believe him to fondle kids in his free time?"</p>
<p>Looks dont matter! anybody can be crazy it doesnt matter what they look like....unless they changed their skin color and grew a new nose of course.</p>
<p>Michael Jackson should be put into prison for the rest of his life...no doubt.</p>
<p>this is why I completely avoided the news about micheal Jackson. Most people base their judgements about him on assumptions and stereotypes and what the media feeds to them. Fact of the matter is I dont know if he was guilty and NEITHER DO YOU. So stop passing judgement about what you dont know</p>
<p>oh please! If any average person tried to get children to sleep with him then hed definitely go to jail. Just the act of having the exact same type of kid sleep with you and be in posession of child porn! Who looks at that stuff out of innocence?!</p>
<p>Child Porn? I don't think so. There was never any report of the pornography confiscated from the Jackson estate being "child porn". Had it been "child porn", it would have been loudly identified as such by the media, not to mention, the prosecution. The pornography confiscated from the Jackson home was regular, raunchy, women degrading porn.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If he wasnt a musical superstar, I GUARANTEE all of you would want him locked up. What kind of sick freak sleeps with children anyway. If hes not guilty, he should at least be in a mental institution. By the way, his music sucks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If he wasn't a musical superstar no one would CARE. It seems to me that bigger effort is taken to "bring down" celebrities because it makes for more interesting news to see a star "fall."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyone going to buy his music now?</p>
<p>Anyone going to avoid buying his music?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If anyone who originally liked his music decided not to buy his music because of what he was accused of and what they think he did is ignorant because that's not what genuine musical taste should be based on.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Interesting how some people think they can reach a better decision than a jury presented with all the evidence with the due process of law.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
this is why I completely avoided the news about micheal Jackson. Most people base their judgements about him on assumptions and stereotypes and what the media feeds to them. Fact of the matter is I dont know if he was guilty and NEITHER DO YOU. So stop passing judgement about what you dont know
<p>Unless you were actually in the courtroom everyday to hear the evidence presented by both sides, it's pretty much impossible for any of us to come to an informed decision. We have to keep in mind that the media has a bias, and may put a different spin on things.</p>
<p>Actually, the media and the public (who follow it, of course) probably knew more about it than the jury did.</p>
<p>Evidence objections, jury causal challenges if the potential juror had heard of MJ's long history of fondling (and preemptory challenges if the defense even thought they might have) etc etc etc.</p>
<p>Michael paid off two different families one for 20$ mil and one for around 5$ mil. This one he thought he could win because the witness was not credible. Also it was child porn as well as reglar porn.</p>
<p>Evidences are inadmissible for a reason. The jury is the most impartial in this case. If the media and the public considers inadmissible evidence, then they are in fact biased.</p>
<p>Evidence can be inadmissable for a wide variety of reasons, but it is often VERY RELEVANT.</p>
<p>EG: The fact that he had sexual encounters with boys and had paid them off so as to not face criminal trial not once, but TWICE in the past isn't admissable in criminal court (I think - I'm no lawyer), but are you really going to tell me that it isn't relevant to the case?</p>
<p>Evidence may be relevant but if they are inadmissible then they still shouldn't be considered. This is why we have jury directions, so they don't consider things they should not. The public should follow these directions as well. This protects citizens from possible illegal actions of the government.</p>
<p>The reason that they don't include past criminal cases sometimes in court is so that the person on trial cannot be falsly imprisoned based on past convictions. They try to make sure that the person gets a fair trial. It is often seen to be unfair that a person can be innocent when it comes to a certain crime, but because of a similar offense(s) in their past they may get charged. Based on past crimes they have a possibility of committing the one in question, even if it is not true.</p>
<p>Just watch the martin bashir video. It shows the boy and he is all over michael. This is the perfect example of a child being controlled by the pedophile that jackson is</p>
<p>I know why past criminal charges are admitted (and I wouldn't like it any other way), but I think they can still be relevant to the discussion.</p>
<p>Plus the prior stuff weren't even criminal charges - he bought off the boys he fondled so he wouldn't have to go to trial. Sexual deviants (pedophiles, drug rapists etc) have a way of repeating their crimes and I would bet any amount of money that JAckson was, in all reality, guilty.</p>
<p>Okay, think about this from a different view point. Maybe in the video, the child is just expressing something else. From what I hear, I think the little by wrote a letter to Michael Jackson or something when he was getting chemotherapy or something, because for some reason MJackson showed up at the hospital for him. From a little kids perspective who is looking up to an idol of his....who happened to visit him in the hospital, you might be happy and gracious towards this man. I could hardly say that it was some kind of pedophile thing...possible....but at least in this instance (the Martin Bashir video) i don't think so.</p>