• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Michael Jackson Found NOT GUILTY on all Charges!

Mimi

1st Level Black Feather
Joined
Oct 12, 2001
Messages
8,148
Points
0
No sites obviously have the details posted yet, so there is nothing I can copy and paste here in terms of in-depth news on this issue. They just announced he has been acquitted of all charges though.

I, for one, am relieved, though I know not everyone will agree with me.

Mimi
 
way to be jonny-on-the-spot mimi 🙂

I thought he was guilty, but I was pretty sure the prosecution had totally screwed their case up.
 
*shrugs* On the upside, the King of Pop can still enjoy his tours to Malaysia and Indonesia. They don't even bother with trying him for molesting kids there.
 
If the stories don't fit, you have to acquit!

They should've gotten him in 93! Their case was a lot stronger than this one by a long shot.

I'm hoping he gets some help-but I'm probably hoping against hope. :disgust:
 
I can't say for certain whether I feel he was innocent or guilty. What I will say though is that obviously something happened at some point, or at least that's how I am leaning. Obviously yes the prosecution screwed up their case and the mom was obviously looking for money. I just wanna know what is up with these parents who let their kids go hang with him. There is no way in hell my boys would be sleeping over at his house and I don't care who the hell he is, Michael Jackson or not. I feel sorry for him in a sense though, the guy has lived an unusual life from the getgo. He's almost childlike himself but at some point you gotta go hey this is wrong or if people are setting me up then I need to stop having boys sleep over, etc. which is just going to set himself up for a huge fall. Just my opinion.
 
Now that full stories have been posted, I can add more details to this thread.

Credit: CNN

SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- A California jury exonerated Michael Jackson on Monday of the child molestation, conspiracy and alcohol charges that could have sent him to prison for nearly 20 years.

The jury deliberated about 32 hours throughout the course of seven days before reaching its decision.

The forewoman read the verdicts in a packed courtroom while a large crowd of supporters waited outside the courthouse. Jackson fans cheered, wept and hugged upon hearing the verdicts.

Courtroom observers reported that Jackson dabbed his eyes with a tissue after his acquittal.

Prosecutors had charged the singer with four counts of lewd conduct with a child younger than 14; one count of attempted lewd conduct; four counts of administering alcohol to facilitate child molestation, and one count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment or extortion.

Santa Barbara County District Attorney Thomas Sneddon sat grim-faced during the reading of the verdict and said later that he would accept the decision.

"In 37 years (as a prosecutor), I've never quibbled with a jury's verdict, and I'm not going to start today," Sneddon said.

Asked if the acquittal ends California's prosecution of Jackson, Sneddon replied, "No comment."

A number of Jackson's family members accompanied him to the courthouse to hear the verdict and flanked him as he exited the courthouse as fans cheered.

Jackson did not address the throng before leaving the courthouse in a caravan of black sports utility vehicles.

His lead defense attorney, Thomas Mesereau Jr., told reporters on his way out of the courthouse that "justice was done".

"The man's innocent. He always was," Mesereau said.

CNN's Rusty Dornin reported that before the forewoman read the findings, silence gripped the courtroom. The only sound was that of the judge tearing open the envelope for each count.

Jackson's father, Joe Jackson, stared stiffly with hands clasped as he listened to the verdicts, Dornin said.

Jackson stared starkly at jurors with no visible signs of emotion, she said. Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville previously admonished courtroom observers to restrain themselves at the reading of the verdicts, Dornin reported.

Upon hearing the findings, Jackson's family members reached out to touch one another to support Jackson's mother, Katherine Jackson, Dornin said.

The matriarch sobbed at hearing the first "not guilty."

After the verdicts, the judge read a statement from the jury, Dornin reported. It stated: "We the jury feel the weight of the world's eyes upon us." They asked to return to their "private lives as anonymously as we came."

They later held a news conference, identifying themselves by their juror numbers.

The attorney for Debbie Rowe, one of Jackson's former wives, released a statement from her. "Debbie is overjoyed that the justice system really works, regardless of which side called her to testify at the trial," it read.

Monday's verdicts capped a chain of events that began in February 2003, after the broadcast of "Living With Michael Jackson," an unflattering television documentary by British journalist Martin Bashir.

In the program, Jackson was shown holding hands with the boy now accusing him of child molestation, and he defended as "loving" his practice of letting young boys sleep in his bed.

In November of 2003, California authorities searched Jackson's Neverland Ranch, following molestation allegations against the singer. Jackson was booked on child-molestation charges that month and released on $3 million bail. Formal charges against Jackson were filed in December 2003.

A grand jury indicted the 46-year-old pop star in April 2004 on charges of molesting the boy at the center of the trial, giving him alcohol and conspiring to hold him and his family captive in 2003.

Jackson pleaded not guilty to the charges and did not testify during the trial.

Testimony and closing arguments stretched nearly 14 weeks before the jury got the case.

Prosecutors alleged that, following the broadcast of the Bashir documentary in 2003, Jackson and five associates plotted to control and intimidate the accuser's family to get them to go along with damage-control efforts, including holding them against their will at Neverland. The molestation charges relate to alleged incidents between Jackson and the accuser after the Bashir documentary aired.

Jackson's lawyers, however, consistently portrayed the singer as a naive victim of the accuser's family, who, they claimed, were grifters -- schemers -- with a habit of wheedling money out of the rich and famous.

The Jackson trial was full of salacious testimony, dramatic moments and celebrity defense witnesses.

Among the more than 130 people who testified were former child star Macaulay Culkin. He disputed testimony from earlier witnesses who claimed they saw Jackson behaving inappropriately with him in the early 1990s.

On March 10, the first day Jackson's accuser testified, the pop star arrived late for court as the judge threatened to revoke the singer's $3 million bail. Jackson, claiming he had a back injury severe enough to require a hospital visit, finally came to court in pajamas and slippers, walking gingerly with a bodyguard and his father supporting him.

The accuser, now 15, testified in graphic detail about what he claims were molestations by Jackson on two separate occasions in early 2003. During cross-examination, however, the teenager admitted he told an administrator at his school that nothing happened between him and the singer.

Prosecution witnesses included the accuser's mother, who was on the stand for three days, and a former security guard who testified that he saw Jackson engaged in oral sex with another teenage boy.

That boy received an out-of-court settlement in his family's molestation case against the pop star for an undisclosed amount. Jackson was not charged in that case and denied any wrongdoing.

Testimony in the trial closed with prosecutors showing a police videotape in which the accuser tells detectives the singer gave him wine and masturbated him as many as five times.

Members of the jury came from a pool of 200 people from Santa Barbara County, just north of Los Angeles. The eight-woman, four-man jury ranged in age from 20 to 79, including a 21-year-old male paraplegic who said he once visited Neverland Ranch, where Jackson has a mansion, zoo and small amusement park.
 
One thing he is guilty of, is being a sick twisted freak. i would have loved to see him put away. the mans insane.
 
You know though... I don't often get involved in this controversial stuff, I just don't care enough to argue. But really, why aren't we questioning the parents as to why they let their kids spend the night with a man in his forties??? Am I the only one that thinks that maybe that wasn't the best idea??

Sorry if this has been discussed to exhaustion already, I didn't read much of the earlier threads concerning Jackson.
 
They lost the case when it was Mark Furhman who found the missing sequined glove.
 
what did we learn from all this?????



Hollywood is retarded.


-the metalhead :firedevil
 
Well, personally I am 0 for 4 on California trials...Rodney King, OJ, Scott Peterson and now MJ.

I have asked my wife to PLEASE never let me be tried by a jury of my peers and instead be tried by a jury of people who are educated and have the ability to thing and not go in with any "expectations".

I mean how could they not even find him guilty of providing alcohol to minors?!?! Oh well...its not like he would have been doing hard time anyway.

~ toyou
 
mtlhd666 said:
what did we learn from all this?????



Hollywood is retarded.


-the metalhead :firedevil
What we learned from all this was....if you are famous, have a s@*t load of money, have the right attorney, you can get away with anything, except if your Martha Stewart!
 
Krokus said:
Innocent Innocent Innocent.


Not quite. He was found "not guilty" which means there was not evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt." To be found innocent would be to say that there was no evidence or the evidence proved he did NOT do it.

A subtle difference but a differnece no less.

~ toyou
 
First off, I disagree with anybody who relates this case to OJ. We're not talking about murder here, no where even close to it. All that can be proved is he slept with kids. What's the BFD? Clearly the guy loves kids. I can't say I share this love of kids, but I don't see any harm in it. If the parents are cool with the sleepovers the rest of us have nothing to say about it. This should have never received the amount of media attention it did.

BTW Glenn, we're all innocent until proven guilty. If we're not proven guilty, we're innocent. That's how I read it, anyway.
 
MTP Jeff said:
I thought he was guilty, but I was pretty sure the prosecution had totally screwed their case up.

Ditto.

If he is truly innocent, then I'm glad things came out the way they did. But, frankly, I think the only reason he wasn't convicted was the poor testimony by the accuser's mother throwing doubt on everything else that had been presented. The fact that the woman has serious mental issues and kept changing her own story doesn't negate anything that may have happened to her son.

The one good thing in all of this is that Michael now sees that they are not going to leave him alone just because of who he is. So, that should encourage him to keep his paws/drinks/porn to himself in the future.

ticklkitten said:
why aren't we questioning the parents as to why they let their kids spend the night with a man in his forties??? Am I the only one that thinks that maybe that wasn't the best idea?? .

Agreed. I don't think there'd have been a problem if they hadn't actually been sleeping in the same bed with him or there hadn't been previous accusations. But, give me a fucking break! It's like the parent who's SO is abusing your kids and you allow it to continue. Get them the fuck out of there! In my book, allowing that amounts to child endangerment and neglect. If there's any doubt at all, you keep the kids away....or at the very least supervise things. :sowrong:

Ann
 
Last edited:
drew70 said:
First off, I disagree with anybody who relates this case to OJ. We're not talking about murder here, no where even close to it. All that can be proved is he slept with kids. What's the BFD? Clearly the guy loves kids. I can't say I share this love of kids, but I don't see any harm in it. If the parents are cool with the sleepovers the rest of us have nothing to say about it. This should have never received the amount of media attention it did.

Hey I slept with many wmone and never had sex. I believe it can happen. And I wasn't there so I can't say what happened for sure. It's just the impression that it gives when a 40-something year old man sleeps with little boys. JUST boys. It disturbs me.

BTW Glenn, we're all innocent until proven guilty. If we're not proven guilty, we're innocent. That's how I read it, anyway.

True, very true. I was simply stating the basic legal deifinition. Besides, if we were all innocent until proven guilty they couldn't hold us over for court! :evilha:

~ toyou
 
I don't know what to believe about Michael Jackson, anymore. What I do believe, is that I'm glad it's over (hopefully), for those involved. I sick and tired of hearing about it. Of course, now, we'll probably be bombarded by the mass media's interpretations and rantings over the subject. It's kind of like OJ. It's one of those things that will probably never die. :ranty:
 
ticklkitten said:
You know though... I don't often get involved in this controversial stuff, I just don't care enough to argue. But really, why aren't we questioning the parents as to why they let their kids spend the night with a man in his forties??? Am I the only one that thinks that maybe that wasn't the best idea??

Sorry if this has been discussed to exhaustion already, I didn't read much of the earlier threads concerning Jackson.

I posted in a previous thread that I thought the parents should be charged with contributing to the detriment of a minor and with child endangerment.

Any parent who willingly lets their child SLEEP with MJ, and then wants to turn around and cry foul should have their head examined.
 
toyou444 said:
I mean how could they not even find him guilty of providing alcohol to minors?!?!

~ toyou

T'aint what he was charged with is why. But at least the children of the world are safe from Paula Poundstone.
 
Oddjob0226 said:
T'aint what he was charged with is why. But at least the children of the world are safe from Paula Poundstone.


To quote Sam Kinison: "Good answer. Good answer. I'm gonna be keeping my eye on you."

To whit: He WAS charged with providing a controled subsatnace to minors. A misdemeanor offense. Actually charges 7-10 all were double charges with a possible felony or misdemeanor result. Anywho...he's a free man and claims he won't sleep with young boys anymore so....JESUS JUICE FOR EVERYONE! :rotate:

~ toyou
 
drew70 said:
First off, I disagree with anybody who relates this case to OJ. We're not talking about murder here, no where even close to it. All that can be proved is he slept with kids. What's the BFD? Clearly the guy loves kids. I can't say I share this love of kids, but I don't see any harm in it. If the parents are cool with the sleepovers the rest of us have nothing to say about it. This should have never received the amount of media attention it did.

BTW Glenn, we're all innocent until proven guilty. If we're not proven guilty, we're innocent. That's how I read it, anyway.
Does this mean that you will let your children sleep with a 46 year old man? Because that what you are saying. If anyone molested my child, well I would kill them and I would be on trial for murder. You see no harm in it? You ruin a child mentally and emotionally. There is the harm in it. :ranty:
 
ticklingfeet4fu said:
Does this mean that you will let your children sleep with a 46 year old man? Because that what you are saying. If anyone molested my child, well I would kill them and I would be on trial for murder. You see no harm in it? You ruin a child mentally and emotionally. There is the harm in it. :ranty:

I think Drew's point is (and I would rarely be be bold as to speak for Drew) that the parents ALLOWED this to happen. they thought it was safe and, so far, there is little evidnce to the contrary. Now, with that said, the parents are dolts! And it is up to the individual to decide if child molestation is equivelant to murder. I believe it is...but it was not proven in this case.

~ toyou
 
What's New
11/7/25
The TMF Chat Room is free to all members and always busy!

Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Top