wendy-cake 0 Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 OK, what do we think? Yeah or ney? Link to post Share on other sites
BagOfCrisps 24 Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 That mugshot is just mad. Link to post Share on other sites
BagOfCrisps 24 Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 But the poor guy is just so misunderstood. He just loves kids and gives his all, or so he says. Let's believe him! Link to post Share on other sites
HeatherLocklearRocks 1 Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 Lock the man (?) up. Link to post Share on other sites
Pedro 0 Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 I think we're all going to here a lot about Jack-o's 'deminished capacity' this time `round the legal stick. What are the chances of a guilty plea? I'm puting my money on the insanity rout this time. I think he's a paedophile...completely unaware of the improperness of the relationships he has with children. Link to post Share on other sites
nori-chan 0 Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 I used to like him. But he's real strange and creepy. Link to post Share on other sites
Siren 0 Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 I doubt his legal team would go for the insanity approach. More likely he would go for the charm offensive - huge PR exercise to round up his fans among the 12 good men and true, show conspiracy, racism etc. After all, there is a history with the prosecution (the name of the chief prosecutor was in the lyrics of one of his songs according to the news). No surprise about the publication of the horrible mugshot and leaking of finding of drug in his home, the effect is of course to show the ugly sides of him in anticipation of the charm offensive. Link to post Share on other sites
egglesby 1 Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 I really hope he doesn't get away with it this time. Link to post Share on other sites
Siren 0 Posted November 22, 2003 Share Posted November 22, 2003 I will check Japanese gaming legislation and see whether we can have a wager (a season lift pass?)? Link to post Share on other sites
nagoid 4 Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Warped perv Link to post Share on other sites
cal 6 Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Stop picking on the poor innocent man. Link to post Share on other sites
LARD 0 Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Sure thing. Innocent until proved guilty hey? Link to post Share on other sites
igloo 3 Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 No. Guilty. Link to post Share on other sites
Siren 0 Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 So we all think that just because the prosecution (if not a certain members thereof) decided to prosecute someone, he/she (especially if he/she is a famous person who appears to be a bit 'strange') must have done something (never mind if he has committed the alleged offence)? That sure is a lot of faith, a fortiori when we have heard absolutely no argument from either side. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Siren, you're understating all the other evidence that's available - including of course MJ's interview with creepy Martin Bashir, and the settlement of earlier charges 'without admission of guilt'. Link to post Share on other sites
BigSausage 0 Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Yes Siren I think you are overlooking about 436,445 things there..... Link to post Share on other sites
Siren 0 Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Ocean/Big, thanks for the pointer re the interview - I admit readily that I have not been following the news up to now (not having particular interest in MJ) and was not aware of what was said in the interview and was merely reacting to the comments made in this forum. I tried a quick search on google but have not been able to find a transcript of the interview. The only reliable fact I can distil from the articles is the admission that he has slept (the word to be given its literal meaning) with some of the children. The circumstances were not clear to me but per se it is of course neither here nor there. My question is: what are the facts? As far as the law of evidence is concerned (and perhaps for a sound reason), past conduct (including a previous conviction) is inadmissible, save in limited circumstances, to show that the accused is guilty of the offence charged. Even if admissible, the evidence only goes to show that the accused has a certain propensity i.e. tendency, to commit a certain crime. It should be clear therefore, that I don't know whether MJ is guilty or not, but merely interested in the reasoning what you should think he is or is not guilty of the crime he is charged with. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 Siren, this a properly constituted kangaroo court, and we all strongly resent your imputation of impropriety. Off with their heads! Link to post Share on other sites
Siren 0 Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 Haha, Your Lordship is indeed sagacious and wise. Good time for the morning break too. Milord, shall we adjourn? Link to post Share on other sites
Siren 0 Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 (If the link is broken go to http://atownassassin.50megs.com/image00115.jpg ) Link to post Share on other sites
oo 1 Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 Good points Siren. I think most people are just taking a look at the situation and using common sense. And the fact that he is obviously guilty Link to post Share on other sites
nagpants 1 Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 Couldn't get the link - what are you trying to show us there? Link to post Share on other sites
JohnJohn 0 Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 2 out of 23 say he is. Thats a pretty overwhelming verdict on him. It must say something, Siren. No? Link to post Share on other sites
Siren 0 Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 The link worked fine during the weekend - someone must have taken the photo off. JJ, the poll result is not in dispute. My question is this (at the risk of sounding like a broken LP): Do you (or anyone of the 21) know any facts which support your view that he is guilty of the offence/crime charged? Not a hunch or prejudice but facts which lead you to believe, beyond reasonable doubt (balance of probabilities is the civil action test), that he has done it. Now, can someone please share with us the facts. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 Siren, you're bringing a higher standard to bear than is required. He will presumably go to court and the evidence will be brought to light. In this SJ kangaroo court though, we're simply being asked what our hunch is. The fact that the law had to be changed because of Jackson's last molestation case, and the fact that he's now being prosecuted under the changed law suggests to me that somebody does indeed have some evidence worth pursuing, and that they did last time too. Added to that is the fact that Jackson likes sleeping with children, clearly has some difficulty knowing where to draw the line between reality and fantasy, probably as a consequence of having been brought up in peculiar circumstances, either by his own admission or quite obviously on the 'face of it'. Does it really require blind prejudice to believe that something is wrong there? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts