Is Jacko Innocent?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Flying FuManchu said:
The truth...

MICHAEL_JACKSON.sff_CADD107_20050316133307.jpg

Truth? That Jacko has devoted followers?
 
Brother Diamond - I don't think Irvine is trying to convince anyone that Michael Jackson is innocent.
 
Flying FuManchu said:
:madspit:

Obviously this whole Jackson trial is a result of Sony Corp's plot to destroy Michael Jackson.
If that were the defense's best case they could come up with, Jacko would be screwed.

Just because one fan with a stupid haircut has an anti-Sony sign doesn't mean that Sony has anything to do with the case. Does Tom Sneddon work for Sony now?
 
Last edited:
U2Kitten said:
. I also don't think anyone would be stupid enough to file a false claim knowing they'd be the ones in jail if they were found out.


But, U2k, people do, all the time. :shrug:
 
diamond said:


And its not normal to have warning alarms in certain parts of your mansion unless youre not wanting to get caught at something -perhaps in compormising postions w/young boys.

I don't find that a particularly convincing argument, at all.

There are many messed-up celebrities (unfortunately) who are ridiculously paranoid about being stalked/burgled/attacked/murdered by deranged "fans".

Look at poor George Harrison - he was terrified after John Lennon was shot, and went to great lengths to make his house, and in particular, the bedrooms, highly secure. Didn't help him much, as he ended up stabbed by some psycho anyway, but that's not the point.

Robbie Williams - who is, I suspect, an absolute FRUITCAKE- had 24 hour bodyguards for ages. Now he doesn't. He has, however, put an extra security system in to protect himself from fellow nutcases, when he's asleep. He also sleeps with a makeshift blowtotrch, or sometimes a knife, under his pillow.

Oasis' Noel Gallagher had a security system put in which brought down metal bars over all the windows, if any of them were tampered with... he also had a panic room built next to his bedroom, to protect himself and his family in case of intruders. Someone did try and get in, which is when we found about the lengths the Monobrowed One had gone to for the sake of securing the bedrooms in his house.

Personally, I don't find it surprising that these areas of such people's houses have extra security measures in place: when a person is asleep they are at their most vulnerable. So the extra alarms/emergency devices help ease the paranoia, I would imagine.
 
Last edited:
Macfistowannabe said:
Just because one fan with a stupid haircut has an anti-Sony sign doesn't mean that Sony has anything to do with the case.
I forgot to mention the glove he's wearing too. I suppose that makes him even more important.
 
diamond said:



Look Irvine the man is a fruitcake and if you want to be an apologist for him, and talk in legalese -that's your preogative, knock yourself out.


oh for god's sake.

i'm sorry if looking at evidence and holding to the idea that one is innocent until proven guilty is too difficult for you. i have no vested interest in whether or not he is guilty or innocent, i'm just interested in this case from a cultural perspective, and i don't think it's at all an induglence in your poorly choosen word "legalese" to point out that MJ owns the Beatles' catalogue. i'm not a lawyer, have never been to law schoo, though i did once proctor an LSAT. i have no idea what "legalese" is -- all i know about this trial i learned from CNN.

fruitcake? i'll ignore the homophobic root of that insult.

is MJ weird? yes. would i let my 11 year old sleep at his house? never in a million years. do i think he's guilty? i haven't a clue, and wouldn't pretend to know.

you, however, feel quite comfortable in your judgement. so pack up any notions of due process in the legal system and judge away! must feel good.
 
I don't know what to think regarding his guilt. I think it is completely inappropriate for him to be sleeping w/ young boys.



From Defamer- of course this has nothing to do w/ his guilt or innocence but it is a bit strange..


Simpsons creator Sam Simon was on Howard Stern this morning, sharing some very special memories of Michael Jackson’s celebrated appearance on the show, a lovable turn as an animated mental patient with a shaved head.

Sam said he brought the script over to Jackson’s place to see if he’d be interested in doing it and Jackson was. His only reservation was that he wanted more scenes with Bart Simpson, his favorite character on the show. He demanded the script be changed so his character could spend more time with Bart. According to Sam, they changed the script, giving Jackson a scene where he spends the night alone with Bart in his room. Jackson agreed to the change and signed on to do the show. Sam also added that during the voice recording, someone gave Jackson a giant Bart Simpson doll and when he thought no one was looking, Jackson started to kiss the doll.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
I don't know what to think regarding his guilt. I think it is completely inappropriate for him to be sleeping w/ young boys.



From Defamer- of course this has nothing to do w/ his guilt or innocence but it is a bit strange..


Simpsons creator Sam Simon was on Howard Stern this morning, sharing some very special memories of Michael Jackson’s celebrated appearance on the show, a lovable turn as an animated mental patient with a shaved head.

Sam said he brought the script over to Jackson’s place to see if he’d be interested in doing it and Jackson was. His only reservation was that he wanted more scenes with Bart Simpson, his favorite character on the show. He demanded the script be changed so his character could spend more time with Bart. According to Sam, they changed the script, giving Jackson a scene where he spends the night alone with Bart in his room. Jackson agreed to the change and signed on to do the show. Sam also added that during the voice recording, someone gave Jackson a giant Bart Simpson doll and when he thought no one was looking, Jackson started to kiss the doll.

:der: :coocoo:
 
yes, the man is totally crackers. on this everyone agrees.

did he molest this particular boy? let's wait for the verdict.

should he be committed? probably.
 
The question isn't whether or not MJ is a "fruitcake" or whatever. It's whether or not he molested these kids. This hasn't been proved or disproved.
 
sallycinnamon78 said:


But, U2k, people do, all the time. :shrug:

Not against such high profile people, and not so many cases against the same person. You know, back in '93 I thought he was innocent. But the fact that it kept happening made me change my mind. Go back, Jack(o), do it again! :sigh: Like I said I don't think he's vicious about it, but I do think he messes with the boys, but in his mind he only sees it as love and that he's being picked on. He needs help, not jail, IMO.
 
Flying FuManchu said:
The truth...

MICHAEL_JACKSON.sff_CADD107_20050316133307.jpg

For anyone who doesn't know, Jackson once blamed Sony for his bad rep. He and his family claim they wouldn't let a 'black man' be a bigger star than Elvis and the Beatles :rolleyes:

To which I say:

A) "Black man?" he's spent the last 20 years trying desperately to look like a white woman, and now they haul out the old race card when it suits him at the time.

B) What damage was done to his career he did to HIMSELF! It happens. I acted weird in middle school at got beat up. He acted weird in public and got a bad name. Of course the media helped spread the stories, sleeping in the hyperbolic chamber, masks in pubic to avoid germs, scarves on the kids' heads, "Blanket" over the balcony, all the extreme surgeries until he no longer looked human, and all the other stories, but if he hadn't really done these things, there would be no stories, no pics. The media will take stuff like this and run with it on anyone because it sells! But it is ultimately his own fault because he made himself look like weirdo both literally and figuratively. I don't care who he is, how much money he has or what color he is (now or then) NO ONE is to blame for his 'freaky' rep than he himself. Take a look at the man in the mirror! :(

C) No one destroyed his career. He was on top of the world in the mid 80's, he had it and he lost it, on his own. There was no plot. I'm surprised Sony doesn't sue him (and the guy with the sign) for libel and defamation of character :shifty:
 
One might wonder who's more crackers, Britney or MJ. Yes he should "be a man" like her droopy drawered husband is :wink:

Britney's Bad advice for Jacko
By This is London
15 March 2005

Pop superstar Britney Spears has offered some unusual advice to the beleaguered Michael Jackson – he should get drunk and fight someone in a bar.

Britney told US magazine Allure of her sympathy for the megastar singer, currently on trial for charges of child molestation.

But the recently-married Britney believes all Jackson needs to help him sort out his life is a moustache and a beer

She told the magazine, "If he did those things, I feel sorry for him. I feel like he probably feels alone, and he needs some help.

"He needs someone to be like, 'OK, let's buck you up, let's give you a moustache, let's rough you up, let's go to a bar, let's get drunk and be a man.'

"And if he didn't do those things, I feel sorry for him. Either way, he needs to get in a fight."
 
His face was fine until plastic surgery. I think any more attempts on it would rot the face off his body.
 
My thoughts-Michael Jackson has never had a normal life. he has been working since age 5 and world famous since age 11. he is surrounded by people who say yes to him (whose livlihood depend on him) he at the very least could use some counseling.

and on a related note-celebrities do get preferential treatment-the other morning when he was late and ended showing up in his PJs anyone else would have had their ass thrown in jail.
 
Back
Top Bottom