OT Mikey = not guilty

On 13 Jun 2005 17:46:18 -0700, "Remco" > wrote:

>Kidd Andersson wrote:
>> Shag wrote:
>> > On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:18:39 -0400, "Joey Tribiani" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>"Shag" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> >>
>> >>>Discuss.
>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Maybe he just really wasn't guilty.
>> > *practices moon-walk*
>> >
>>
>> Maybe, but it takes a serious-ass flake like Wacko Jacko to come up with
>> "Jesus Juice". Personally I think he was guilty as all hell. The fact
>> that he's raising children scares the bujebus outta me. But, that's just
>> my opinion. He'd probably think the same think about me.
>>
>> K.
>
>Yeah, I agree - Not guilty does not mean innocent: it just means that
>they could not convict beyond reasonable doubt.
>Between the junk they found around his house, the jesus juice, etc -
>Where there's smoke there's fire, no?

I guess that depends on what the "etc" was. :-) I didn't follow the
case closely at all. I thought "jesus juice" was some form of alchol.
I have some of that around here, but I don't molest children. Hell,
lots of times I don't even want kids around me. I repeat that I
didn't follow the case and don't know what the "etc" was that was
found at his place. The jurors were exposed to more evidence than any
of us on this forum were, I'd imagine. Do those of you who think
Michael Jackson is guilty believe that the jury was bribed or
threatened or something? Just asking. You never can tell, maybe they
were. I mean hell, they let OJ go just because the blood-soaked
leather gloves shrunk up from the moisture and wouldn't fit well on
his hands anymore. (disclaimer- Yeah, I'm making up details at this
point.)

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:49:58 -0500, "johnboy" >
wrote:

>
>"Tim Rogers" > wrote
>>
>> BTW..........You don't have to be an ign'rnt 'merican like me to be
>> unhappy
>> about whacko-jacko's predilection for little naked boys under the sheets.
>> He
>> will be shunned by the masses now throughout the world.
>
>Hey, you and I can rightfully hate him, but you underestimate how the world
>hates America even more. Jackson will be a multimillionaire until someone
>centerpunches him.
>

I hear Mike Tyson comes pretty cheap these days. *low blow*

> >> Maybe, but it takes a serious-ass flake like Wacko Jacko to come up
with
> >> "Jesus Juice". Personally I think he was guilty as all hell. The fact
> >> that he's raising children scares the bujebus outta me. But, that's
just
> >> my opinion. He'd probably think the same think about me.
> >>
> >> K.
> >
> >Yeah, I agree - Not guilty does not mean innocent: it just means that
> >they could not convict beyond reasonable doubt.
> >Between the junk they found around his house, the jesus juice, etc -
> >Where there's smoke there's fire, no?
>
> I guess that depends on what the "etc" was. :-) I didn't follow the
> case closely at all. I thought "jesus juice" was some form of alchol.
> I have some of that around here, but I don't molest children. Hell,
> lots of times I don't even want kids around me. I repeat that I
> didn't follow the case and don't know what the "etc" was that was
> found at his place. The jurors were exposed to more evidence than any
> of us on this forum were, I'd imagine. Do those of you who think
> Michael Jackson is guilty believe that the jury was bribed or
> threatened or something? Just asking. You never can tell, maybe they
> were. I mean hell, they let OJ go just because the blood-soaked
> leather gloves shrunk up from the moisture and wouldn't fit well on
> his hands anymore. (disclaimer- Yeah, I'm making up details at this
> point.)

I didn't follow it very much either. If is isn't on Comedy Central's "Daily
Show", I usually miss it.
Jon Steward should be in rare form tonight with MJ being acquitted (or maybe
tomorrow, depending on when they tape).

My daughter kept me informed. I think they found child pornography around
and that's all I needed to hear.
I'd be a really bad juror in a case like this as I have absolutely zero
tolerance for people that abuse women and kids, physically, sexually or
otherwise.
(Actually am not crazy about people that abuse men either, come to think of
it -- maybe I'd just be a bad juror, period

That may not be fair but I also would not have dropped my kids off at his
house before all this was made public -- would you?

The way I understood it, the porn they found was not child-porn, just your
regular
adult type porn, and lots of it. However they did find his prints (big
surprise) and
the accuser's prints. They could not prove the prints were put on the porn
at the same
time. Therefore leaving the door open for the argument that the kid
somehow got
into M's porn stash.

Susan S.


"remco" > wrote in message
...
>
> > >> Maybe, but it takes a serious-ass flake like Wacko Jacko to come up
> with
> > >> "Jesus Juice". Personally I think he was guilty as all hell. The fact
> > >> that he's raising children scares the bujebus outta me. But, that's
> just
> > >> my opinion. He'd probably think the same think about me.
> > >>
> > >> K.
> > >
> > >Yeah, I agree - Not guilty does not mean innocent: it just means that
> > >they could not convict beyond reasonable doubt.
> > >Between the junk they found around his house, the jesus juice, etc -
> > >Where there's smoke there's fire, no?
> >
> > I guess that depends on what the "etc" was. :-) I didn't follow the
> > case closely at all. I thought "jesus juice" was some form of alchol.
> > I have some of that around here, but I don't molest children. Hell,
> > lots of times I don't even want kids around me. I repeat that I
> > didn't follow the case and don't know what the "etc" was that was
> > found at his place. The jurors were exposed to more evidence than any
> > of us on this forum were, I'd imagine. Do those of you who think
> > Michael Jackson is guilty believe that the jury was bribed or
> > threatened or something? Just asking. You never can tell, maybe they
> > were. I mean hell, they let OJ go just because the blood-soaked
> > leather gloves shrunk up from the moisture and wouldn't fit well on
> > his hands anymore. (disclaimer- Yeah, I'm making up details at this
> > point.)
>
> I didn't follow it very much either. If is isn't on Comedy Central's
"Daily
> Show", I usually miss it.
> Jon Steward should be in rare form tonight with MJ being acquitted (or
maybe
> tomorrow, depending on when they tape).
>
> My daughter kept me informed. I think they found child pornography around
> and that's all I needed to hear.
> I'd be a really bad juror in a case like this as I have absolutely zero
> tolerance for people that abuse women and kids, physically, sexually or
> otherwise.
> (Actually am not crazy about people that abuse men either, come to think
of
> it -- maybe I'd just be a bad juror, period
>
> That may not be fair but I also would not have dropped my kids off at his
> house before all this was made public -- would you?
>
>

"Remco" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Kidd Andersson wrote:
>> Shag wrote:
>> > On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:18:39 -0400, "Joey Tribiani" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>"Shag" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> >>
>> >>>Discuss.
>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Maybe he just really wasn't guilty.
>> > *practices moon-walk*
>> >
>>
>> Maybe, but it takes a serious-ass flake like Wacko Jacko to come up with
>> "Jesus Juice". Personally I think he was guilty as all hell. The fact
>> that he's raising children scares the bujebus outta me. But, that's just
>> my opinion. He'd probably think the same think about me.
>>
>> K.
>
> Yeah, I agree - Not guilty does not mean innocent: it just means that
> they could not convict beyond reasonable doubt.
> Between the junk they found around his house, the jesus juice, etc -
> Where there's smoke there's fire, no?
>

There's an awful lot of smoke for there not to be some sort of fire going
on. Once again, those crazy California juries either are so blinded by
celebrity or afraid to convict. . . . Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the
Founding Fathers are turning over uneasily in their graves tonight.

Charles of Kankakee

"Shag" > wrote in message


> About it being scary that she's raising a kid? :-)
>

did she write more than that? LOL

"remco" > wrote in message
...
>
>> >> Maybe, but it takes a serious-ass flake like Wacko Jacko to come up
> with
>> >> "Jesus Juice". Personally I think he was guilty as all hell. The fact
>> >> that he's raising children scares the bujebus outta me. But, that's
> just
>> >> my opinion. He'd probably think the same think about me.
>> >>
>> >> K.
>> >
>> >Yeah, I agree - Not guilty does not mean innocent: it just means that
>> >they could not convict beyond reasonable doubt.
>> >Between the junk they found around his house, the jesus juice, etc -
>> >Where there's smoke there's fire, no?
>>
>> I guess that depends on what the "etc" was. :-) I didn't follow the
>> case closely at all. I thought "jesus juice" was some form of alchol.
>> I have some of that around here, but I don't molest children. Hell,
>> lots of times I don't even want kids around me. I repeat that I
>> didn't follow the case and don't know what the "etc" was that was
>> found at his place. The jurors were exposed to more evidence than any
>> of us on this forum were, I'd imagine. Do those of you who think
>> Michael Jackson is guilty believe that the jury was bribed or
>> threatened or something? Just asking. You never can tell, maybe they
>> were. I mean hell, they let OJ go just because the blood-soaked
>> leather gloves shrunk up from the moisture and wouldn't fit well on
>> his hands anymore. (disclaimer- Yeah, I'm making up details at this
>> point.)
>
> I didn't follow it very much either. If is isn't on Comedy Central's
> "Daily
> Show", I usually miss it.
> Jon Steward should be in rare form tonight with MJ being acquitted (or
> maybe
> tomorrow, depending on when they tape).
>
> My daughter kept me informed. I think they found child pornography around
> and that's all I needed to hear.
> I'd be a really bad juror in a case like this as I have absolutely zero
> tolerance for people that abuse women and kids, physically, sexually or
> otherwise.
> (Actually am not crazy about people that abuse men either, come to think
> of
> it -- maybe I'd just be a bad juror, period
>
> That may not be fair but I also would not have dropped my kids off at his
> house before all this was made public -- would you?
>
>

That's what got me so upset about the gays forcing their way into the
leadership of the Boy Scouts. Do you want a guy that likes guys around a
bunch of impressionable young guys? Which way do you go from there to get
to "Mentally Awake and Morally Straight"?

Charles of Kankakee

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:42:44 GMT, Shag >
wrote:

>Discuss.

Any .........and I mean ANY, parent who would let their child stay
with Michael Jackson, without supervision, is likely a driblet too.
( I let Spell check put the word driblet there,.........how fun! I was
trying for derelict and misspelled.)

I believe the accuser and the defendant are both guilty of
wrongdoings. So which was worse? jackin' Jacko for a cool Mil or so,
or Jackin with the kids mind? I believe Jackson is still a child
anyway, so it's similar to a circle jerk if you see things the way I
do. Don;t think it's right, but I can see how he got off.......pun
intended.............LOL




Remove "YOURPANTIES" to reply

MUADIB®

http://www.angelfire.com/retro/sster...IN%20PAGE.html

If A Quiz is Quizical,
What is a test?

> That's what got me so upset about the gays forcing their way into the
> leadership of the Boy Scouts. Do you want a guy that likes guys around a
> bunch of impressionable young guys? Which way do you go from there to get
> to "Mentally Awake and Morally Straight"?
>
> Charles of Kankakee
>

So therefore, following that same line of thinking.....since I like men, and
in a physical way, I shouldn't be allowed to be around boys and men ??

Gay men and women don't actually go around recruiting others or trying to
influence children to "become"gay.

Just my 2 cents,
Susan S.

"Susan S." > wrote in message
news
> The way I understood it, the porn they found was not child-porn, just your
> regular
> adult type porn, and lots of it. However they did find his prints (big
> surprise) and
> the accuser's prints. They could not prove the prints were put on the
porn
> at the same
> time. Therefore leaving the door open for the argument that the kid
> somehow got
> into M's porn stash.
>
> Susan S.
>

I guess that's why they couldn't find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
To think sleeping with little boys is "the most loving thing you can do" is
just beyond weird. He wasn't talking about his own kids here. It isn't very
much of a stretch to think he did something a lot worse. Then hearing about
"Jesus Juice", etc does make me think he's at least five donuts short a
dozen at very best.

But you are right: he's been found not guilty. Perhaps his extreme weirdness
and outrageous behavior convicts him in our mind so maybe he's his own worst
enemy.
I still wouldn't let my kids go over to his house, though - but, since
they've never been invited, that's moot