Michael Jackson Cleared!!!

how can anyone, short of being retarded, not know that getting naked with a child for purposes of getting a hard-on, is WRONG?



Anyway, as I said in the other thread: I can comprehend how there wasn't enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt regarding the child molestation issues. However, I thought the giving alcohol to minors would be well proven. Just another case that proves that if the person being prosecuted is liked more than the victim, the victim loses. If it is the other way round, the victim wins.

OJ Simpson
Robert Blake
Lacy vs. Scott Peterson
Michael Jackson
etc....

Innocent nudity is not wrong, doing it for sexual thrills is, but has it been proven that he did that? That's all I mean about the media spin on it.

I know they can be tricked but I'm just wondering if they gace Jackson a polygraph test, surely that would have helped.

I still don't think there is innocent nudity between a child and a non-relative adult. And even if the adult is a relative, I'd be highly suspicious. Of course there 'is' innocent nudity within families, but that is entirely different. Like you said, it's not to get a hard-on.

What do you mean by proven? No, there is no DNA evidence and no, he was not given a polygraph test. Not sure what the latter would really prove. But, I don't think those tests are given easily - I am only aware of those tests when a murder is involved.

I don't think it has got anything to do with luck. Not the first time when famous and wealthy american wins over not so weathly ones in american court. Money talks

He should be hung, just like every other paedophile!

And don't waste your breath screaming about how paedophilia is a disease and these people should be helped - remember who the REAL victims are and the undeservable trauma inflicted on their lives! Kids commit suicide or grow up with serious psychological issues because of people like this but, oh........it's OK, they didn't do it on purpose - they're ill!

He was guilty as hell but once again, status and money bail a criminal out!

It's insulting and just rubbing it in everyone's faces to claim that this court case has taught Jackson a lot - don't sleep with kiddies! WTF?!?!

And the f**kin' jury who claim, "There was no doubt Jackson abused the children but the evidence brought forward wasn't convincing enough - there was no smoking gun."

What the hell sort of statement is that? If the evidence wasn't convincing enough, how is there "no doubt" he abused children? Once again politics and twisting the words of written law win out over common f**kin' sense!

For all our claims of being 'civilised' nations, I think it's pretty sick to see the state of our legal systems in dealing with severe crimes such as this (esp. in the UK - I've already decided I'm not staying here for too long! A decent, law-abiding citizen, driven out by stupid government initiatives and a p-i-s-s-poor justice system - a country to be proud of.........NOT!)

I didnt hear a shred of evidence to convict him, I thought the case was very poor and shouldnt have even got to court.

Dawn

of course u didn't. neither did judge or jury. ain't it weird what money can do.

blinded my cash, light, whatever and here's the result. Of course it's not wrong to swing ones d!ck around in company of kids. sure thing. just an innocent kind nudity. sure.

the prosecution was not shut up by money, even old allegations were heard in court.....

boys and men are brought up bathing and swinging their dicks around together !

Dawn

it's not that the jury was given money - the jury was starstruck in front of a famous pop star!! If he was Joe Doe, he'd be getting his ass raped right now.

NO! Boys and men are NOT brought up swinging dicks around - for the purpose to get a hard-on! It's sick and anybody trivializing what this guy did is equally sick.

I've not even bothered to read any details on the case because I don't believe it involves me, only the jury should be able to speculate, you've only seen what the media has shown you. Do you know he what he actually did? Were you there watching him?

No-one here is saying it's right to be nude in the company of others simply for sexual kicks but simple nuidty around others, be they relatives or not is not in itself sexual or wrong. Obviously different people have their own opinions on this, but if you perceive innocent nudity as sexual then perhaps you have a problem.