> "before our system, innocent people were falsly accused. Thus, the founding fathers
> setup this system to prevent that from happening." (This comment really shows a
> high level of ignorance. I'm curious - Do you really believe that our "system"
> prevents false accusations from occuring?)

Your response shows even greater iqnorance - I never said that it prevented false accusations from happening! But any historian will tell you the reasons our system was setup to prevent false accusations from becoming punishable crimes. Before America, the British troops would accuse someone of something and they were arrested and put on trial .... if they were found not guilty, they would get a new jury and redo the trial. Still not guilty? Get another jury! To prevent this from happening, they established "innocent until proven guilty" ... as well as the double-jeopardy rule preventing someone from being put on trial a second time for the same crime. There is nothing iqnorant about my statement - it is historical fact.



> (You seem to have the inside scoop on MJ's sex life. Why is that?)

Because on national TV when a reporter asked the child is anything ever happened in MJ's bed, the child clearly says "well, there was that one time..." at which point Michael cut him off to change the subject. The same tape that triggered his trial in the first place. The jury may not have been swayed by the child's claims because his mother snaps her fingers at them, but that does not mean he is "innocent".

Many jury members have spoken out, saying they believe Michael DID molest children, but the prosecution didn't prove it to them - it is a hard crime to "prove" considering the only two people in the room were Michael and the child, we have no DNA evidence or hidden cameras. In all reality, it would be impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Michael Jackson is one of 1,000 guilty men being set free so we don't prosecute one innocent man. Agree with it or not, it is still better than our original legal system.

I agree with posters that letting your child sleep in ANY man's bed is a stupid thing to do ... but if you feel so passionate about it Randy, why don't you go sleep in Michael's bed with him? Let us know how it goes.

JoeJoe

Lol - guess I struck a nerve.

Randy

JoeJoe,

Please don't pick on Randy's hero. Lest he hop back on his white horse and ride to the defense of poor Michael again. Randy has a certain sense of admiration for Michael. God bless him, maybe he or his child will have that chance to share Michaels bed someday. Don't try and shatter his dream or change his perceptions.

Randy, why are you starting a "whispering campaign" about me and drug use?

Vandy

Yes, rnaviaux, you struck a nerve. The problem is, you don't realize why.

Mark

All right I got knocked off 14 posts for posting my last one.....sry for that everyone

And everybody "knew" that Thomas Dewey would beat FDR. And everybody "knew" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of Mass Destruction. And everybody "knew" that Southeast Asia would fall, one country after another, like dominos, if Viet Nam fell to the Communists. And everybody "knew" that it was okay to put toothpaste in lead tubes back in the 30's. And everybody "knew" that we would win in Viet Nam (in the early days of the war, anyway). And everybody "knew" that Dr. Sam Shepard killed his wife. And everybody "knew" that 20 people convicted of murder or rape in Illinois were guilty until DNA evidence PROVED that they were innocent.

It's amazing just how often the "everybodies" who "knew something" are wrong, isn't it?

Lee Darrow, C.H.

Lee, a few examples do not a case make. Most of your arguments are of the kind that can easily be turned around to go the other direction.

For what its worth, I'm on the side of Townsend's comment.
And, again for what its worth, the funniest comment I've heard spoken about this is:
"Another case of a white guy getting preferential treatment" - June 13 top 10 Letterman

Did they just let him go or was some sort of deal worked out? It's possible, with the heavy court loads these days, they worked out a lesser charge, something he wouldn't have to do time for. I don't know for a fact that this happened, I'm just asking.

Thanks randy, I've snipped the rest of your post because this was the thing that I wanted to talk about.

The "Ronald McDonald" comment was that Mickey d's is trying to make a new image for Ronald that emphasizes fittness and activity. The quote _before_ the one you pasted was that Ronald could run and be active with the kids. Then he made his "clown" comment.

So "running and being active with the kids" is now equated with suspicion of pedophilia? One wonders how this man feels about Big Brothers/Sisters of America.

Bottom line: none of us were IN the Jury box and NONE of us heard all of the testimony nor saw all of the evidence. In a trial, it is the Jury that decides, not the Court of Public Opinion, thank heaven! In this case, the Jury ruled, unanimously, that he was Not Guilty. If nothing else, that proves that the Prosecution failed in its task to prove its case.

And yes, Clarence Darrow IS my cousin (several times removed, I admit, but I am not joking, for once) and I do believe in the jury system. The Prosecution simply did not convince "twelve Good People and True."

Regardless of what else results from this case, the damage done to any future cases of accusations of child abuse cannot be assessed, either. On the one hand, a false accusation can brand an innocent person for life with the name of "child molester" even if it is not true, because of that Court of Public Opinion. On the other hand, an aquitted child molester who HAS committed this most heinous of crimes against an innocent is just as bad an error because a real offender has walked out, unpunished for a very real crime.

The system is not perfect and until it is, such tragedies on both sides of the coin will happen.

My point was that the public is quick to judge without having all of the facts and is often wrong because of it.

My apologies for not making that more clear in the post.

Respectfully,

Lee Darrow, C.H.

I asked him about it, he's as mystified as anyone else as to what happened. He just never got a court date.

Here's what I think...

Michael will have to answer to GOD when he meets HIM one day...

As will we all...

(As I see it... Of course...)

In THAT Court, TRUTH prevails...

Is Michael eccentric?

Yup...

Is he Guilty?

I dunno...

I hope not... For him, the kids and all of humanity's sake...

But that's just one man's opinion...

I kind of think he's a little guilty on some counts of course the jury didn't think so. And yes I do think Michael is an eccentric wierd morron freak. Why? Dangled baby over railing in denial etc. Oh yes He Dyed his skin White. My thoughts.

THIS is why a trial like Jacksons was a joke.


http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/334357p-285609c.html

I dunno...the two guys who are writing books are now saying sensationalistic things. That reflects more on how badly they want to sell books than on the trial I'd think.

If they really thought he was guilty, then they should have voted that way in the jury. The article even mentions all the interviews they gave at the time in which they were saying they just didn't believe the accusers. So ... believe what they said at the time and voted for, or believe what they are saying now in order to sell books?

Or just believe what you are determined to believe anyway, doesn't matter to me.

If I were the accusers' Lawyer I would look into filing a civil lawsuit against Jackson. My first witnesses would be these two jokers.

Any parents gonna write books about how they sent their children to sleep at MJ's place? What were they thinking? Inquiring minds want to know.

$$$$$$$$$$$$
.$$$$$$$$$$.
..$$$$$$$$..
...$$$$$$...
....$$$$....
......$$....
Iven

There is a big difference between NOT GUILTY and INNOCENT.

MJ is one strange cat!
That don't make him a pedophile, though.