Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

He should have gone to jail. I bet he did molest the kid. But he must have a pretty good lawyer. He owes his life to his lawyer now.

_________________

Yeah, considering the averge life for a child molester in prison is 6 months, he would have ended up being shived in the shower.

_________________

You can bet that he did something or not, but from what I understand, the plaintiff and co. were already known as lawsuit-happy types. I'm sure beyond a doubt Michael Jackson did something inappropriate, but as I said earlier, he's obviously quite disturbed and wouldn't know the difference anyway. He should be ordered to have some serious psychological counseling. As for his guilt on molestation charges, let me just say again that I'm glad I wasn't on the jury.

_________________
"There's two kinds of people in this world: me, and everybody else. In that order."
-me
"Like you aren't an easy jab for my witty glivers and put-dubs."
-Stong Buh

I knew from the start that he wouldn't be convicted. I hoped he would be, if only to see his children placed into the care of a sane person, but I knew he wouldn't be. He's too famous. It's OJ Simpson all over again, although this time the decision didn't hinge on the astounding stupidity of the jury, it hung on unreliable testimony.

Still, guilty or not, Michael Jackson needs psychological help, and he needs it bad. Anyone else would have been committed to a mental institution for rehabilitation, but Jackson will head back to his amusement park where he can continue to spiral deeper and deeper into his childlike madness.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

Good grief... a lot of rash comments, with (hopefully) not a lot of thinking involved. If most of you had your way, we would still be living in 15th century Europe. If you are suspected of commiting a crime, we torture you until you confess.

Michael Jackson, strange or not, was tried under the fairest justice system our country can currently manage. It may not always get the right answer (I am not necessarily talking about this trial), but for the most part it does extremely well.

The basic concept is "innocent until proven guilty". From what I am reading here, it seems that more of you think "Guilty when found to have different opinions then me". Was Jackson strange, oh yeah. But did he commit any crimes, I have no idea. I didn't listen to any of the testimony, nor did I read much of the press coverage. I can't make an informed decision. I also think that most of you shouldn't be calling for his head, unless you were one of those jury members who heard everything that was presented for the case.

The one thing that does baffle me is the accuser. Specifically, the accuser's mother. From what little has been told to me, it sounds as if this is not the first major individual/corporation that she has attacked claiming they have hurt her son. I wouldn't be surprised if her actions were a major part of the jury's verdict.

Anyway, before you start posting about how you are going to kill jury members, think about what they went through. They heard all the testimony first hand, they weighed the evidence, and they came up with the verdict that they felt was just.

_________________

I heard on the radio (NPR) this morning that one of the jurors said that he or she believed Jackson had molested young boys, but that the prosecution just hadn't been successful in proving any of the ten charges.

I wouldn't be surprised if this view is held by many of the jurors. The thing is, even if you're absolutely sure somebody committed some crime, you can only prosecute them for specific instances of that crime. You can't put someone in jail for being a robber. You can only put someone in jail for actually robbing a house. Likewise, you can't put Jackson in jail because you know he's a child molester, as this juror believed; you have to be able to prove he molested a particular child at a particular time and that, apparently, is where the prosecution failed.

I'm with Stu on this one. A lot of people are absolutely certain that Michaal Jackson is a child molester. Maybe he is, and maybe the jury missed this one and that would be a terrible thing. But I'm still glad we have juries and even though I have certain doubts about Jackson's innocence, I have no less faith in America's criminal justice system today than I did yesterday.

_________________

i dont really mind- he's a screw'd up dude... he thinks he's peter pan.. he should go to a shrink.

i'm more worried about his health- he's something like 4stone at the moment- that cant be good for a man made from plastic.

_________________

Innocent until proven guilty is a good thing. Trust me on that one.
Anywho, like I said earlier, I have doubts as to whether Jackson molested the kids. I mean, his mind is really weird. He seems to believe he's a child. For him, children in his bed was probably nothing more than a slumber party. Either that, or he's a deranged pervert that irreversibly harmed those kids in ways we don't even want to know about.
The prosecution couldn't prove the latter beyond a reasonable doubt, so the jury returned the only verdict they could.
Personally, I don't think he is a child molester. He is definately VERY weird, though, but like I've said about 20X6 times, weird isn't illegal. He probably needs help.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

If that's the case then why didn't he vote guilty so the verdict would not be unanimous and there would be a mistrial? I think he's covering himself, no one who believes that would willingly give him double joepardy immunity.

If there is a mistrial, Wacko Jacko walks anyways.

_________________

Did you read the rest of IJ's post? I am going to assume that you didn't.



The crimes that he was being charged were different then what you are asking him to be convicted of. He may have done inappropriate things in the past, but that's not what he was being charged with. He was being accused of doing something specific with a specific child. To the jury, there didn't seem to be evidence strong enough to convict him.

I for one am glad that they didn't convict him just because they thought he was a child molester. That's not at all what this country is about.

_________________

Because he didn't believe Jackson was guilty of the charges presented by the prosecution. And if this jury believed that the prosecution had not proved that Jackson was guilty of those specific charges, then there's no reason to believe that a retrial would have any different result, and hanging the jury would be not only dishonest but completely pointless.

And your "double jeopardy immunity" thing is bunk. No, he cannot be tried again for the charges he was acquitted for yesterday. But he can be tried for other charges. He is only immune from being tried for the same crime. If someone else comes forward claiming he molested them, then he can be prosecuted again, because it's a different charge.

_________________

A mistrial means a do over, not a freeing of the defendant.



Not neccesarily, if I were the DA there, I'd certainly fire the prosecution for incompetance. Mistrials won't neccesarily involve the same lawyers, and I hope the prosecuter is out of ob right now, he's a clear moron.



The more not guilty verdicts he gets, the harder it's going to be to try him in the future.

delete this.

Please don't double-post.



I think the opposite is true. The more accusations against him, whether they result in a guilty verdict or not, the worse it reflects on him.

If you met a man who was accused of killing his wife, would finding out that he was acquitted of murdering four previous wives make you more convinced or less convinced of his innocence?

_________________

Sorry, I swear I meant to edt the first one instead. Anyway you do have a point, I do hope you are right and that a defense of, "look how many times they falsely accused him of this" would fail.

A point that my brother (a police officer) made to me yesterday, is that even though it's been said that the plaintiff is "law-suit happy", for lack of a better term, this was a criminal trial and not a law suit, right? And victims only get money in criminal trials for property damage. So...if I'm (or if he's) right, then there goes the money-hungry theory. Unless they [the plaintiffs] were just out for publicity.

Personal opinion - Jackson does need professional help. Do I know if he's a child molestor? No. I sure hope he isn't, since he was acquited. And thank you Stu, for pointing out that everyone deserves fair trial. I should have thought of that.

_________________

I think my mom put it pretty well--it's worrisome that he's been accused of molestation twice, but neither of the families seemed very truthful. She also said that if he's smart, he's not going to let kids sleep in his bed again--that's basically asking for an accusation.

I definitely think that he's a disturbed man, and that he needs help, but I'm not sure if he's a child molester.

_________________

A criminal conviction makes a civil suit over that issue a lot easier to win (although OJ has shown us that it isn't necessary).

Edit: Anyone see the Daily Show's coverage? Totally hillarious. Funnier than a drunken Seethroo. Best part: either A.) Showing EVERY network's "experts" saying he was gonna be convicted. or B.) "Jackson can now get on with his life and find the REAL molester.."

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

lol I saw that on the daily show last night! they are the best! I feel like michael is not currently of this world and needs a lot of help.. he's also in great debt, I think-- legal fees cost him a lot-- life is messed up-- please we're all begging him not to bring in any more kids into his life-- things are just crazy

_________________
Hot!

The Daily Show's coverage

Excellent as usual.

_________________

"The only way to get convicted in Southern California is if you commit the crime in front of the jury. Perhaps getting blood on one of them."

I love Stephen Colbert.

_________________

I don't know whether or not I should be surprised by this. Because i'm not. I just hope that they were right about him not being guilty.

Thank you Jones. Very, very thank you for posting the link! Now my dad gets to watch it, too...

MHG, you're gonna have to fight my friend Jessica for Stephen Colbert..

Senior Child Molesation Expert... That's classic.

Humor... GOOD!

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

What girl wouldn't want a guy like that?!

_________________

Yeah, he now has an up-hill battle to prove he's not weird. These people aren't helping him

_________________
<(* ) THRUSTER DUCK
( << )<~~~ WANTS
O O YOUR SOUL

The fact that he lives on an amusement park and has a kid named Blanket really doesn't help him either. I don't have a problem with him being weird, though. It makes me look semi-normal.

On the news the other night they said he owned part of the Beatles' catalog.. I though he owned ALL of their songs, not part. Either way, if he's in as much financial trouble as they say he is, he may put that baby up for sale. I don't like the Beatles' as much as some people, but if I had the money, I know where it'd be going. Buying the Beatles' rights is like buying gold right before goldfinger sets off the bomb at Fort Knox..

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

hey, what 6 year old kid wouldnt want an amusment park in his bakyard> he bought what we'd buy if we were six years old and we had a heluva lot of money at our disposal, we would all buy an amusment park.
as for blanket, thats not a bad name next to APPLE

_________________