Do you believe in Michael Jacksons innocence

Well I do. I m actually really sure of that.

yavis

Hmmm i don t think anybody on ATS believes in that (anymore)....

Originally posted by yavis
Well I do. I m actually really sure of that.

yavis

Look up the thread......called...Is Michael a.....*******(rude words), and you'll see me defending dear Michael...

He's the sweetest, most caring ever, and I believe, and know he was to be proven innocent, there was no question. ^^

I know he is innocent.

Originally posted by QuestForSafety

Originally posted by yavis
Well I do. I m actually really sure of that.

yavis

Look up the thread......called...Is Michael a.....*******(rude words), and you'll see me defending dear Michael...

He's the sweetest, most caring ever, and I believe, and know he was to be proven innocent, there was no question. ^^

I know he is innocent.

I didn t found that topic ....

yavis

Well...

Even some jurors conceded that he "probably molested boys" - it was the lack of evidence which decided the case, not whether he was actually guilty or innocent.

"Later in an interview on "Larry King Live," Hultman said he believes Jackson "probably has molested boys.""

(Hultman was Juror #1)

Linky

I don't think he is innocent of the charges - but I do acknowledge that the prosecution didn't provide enough evidence to support the charges.

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Well...

Even some jurors conceded that he "probably molested boys" - it was the lack of evidence which decided the case, not whether he was actually guilty or innocent.

"Later in an interview on "Larry King Live," Hultman said he believes Jackson "probably has molested boys.""

(Hultman was Juror #1)

Linky

I don't think he is innocent of the charges - but I do acknowledge that the prosecution didn't provide enough evidence to support the charges.

It s really horrible all that they ve done to him in public.
But now the whole world knows that he s innocent.

yavis

Noooo...

Now the whole world knows that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to prove their case.

I do see a subtle difference there...

What could describe innocense better than a grown man that gives kids " Jesus Juice" (wich happened to be alcohol), and calling kids " muy rubbas"... if that doesn describe innocense ..what does ?

"Not guilty" does not necessarily mean innocent. It means not guilty based on the evidence.

That being said, I wouldn't doubt that Jacko is a perv. Even if he isn't, that guy has some serious issues.

As one of the jury members said after the trial -

'right charges, wrong family'

He is a child molester, but he didn't molest those
particular children. They weren't his 'type'.

A grown man that publicly claims "it is ok to sleep with young boys" .......... and some of you think he's bloody well INNOCENT ???

Humans ........... ugh !!

Misfit

I actually believe he's innocent. I don't know it for sure, but I believe it. I could be wrong, of course. And for that reason, I wouldn't leave my kids unattended with him. I think any parent who does should be punished, just for the possible danger.

I am a survivor of repeated child molestation and I have counseled child molesters in prison and I have studied Michael Jackson for years. He is strange, eccentric, different and really kind of 'out there' compared to normal people, but I'm not at all convinced that he's a child molester.


[edit on 10-9-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

It was a non guilty 10 TIMES dam.n 10 TIMESSSSS!!!!! .....what more do you want?! Its not enough for you is it? Even if the people involved where the same crooks from 1993. Even is there was ZERO evidence you still want to believe he is guilty because thats what YOU wanted.

They want him in jail, so they can take the beatles catalogue off him, this is the only way....they cant accuse him of another crime can they? but they know he loves children so why not work that against him? But in the end it didnt work. They'll find some other way to get him.

Oh those Jurors.......there pathetic. Its always people making money out of Michael Jackson isnt it?

Quote "Jackson juror sues to get out of book deal, Ray Hultman now says he was suckered in"

www.santamariatimes.com...

[edit on 12-9-2005 by kiMMii]

please don't mind me lollerskating on in heeegh.

MJ imao is total catholic priest stereotype with an A syndrome

kiimmii, those 10 aqquited counts, may as well be human error, guilty men have gotten off scotch free, it's whether they are found guilty on the evidence put in front of them or not, it's not about innocence, it's about being able to prove MJ is a molestor.

Honestly, I believe he is.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by kiMMii
It was a non guilty 10 TIMES dam.n 10 TIMESSSSS!!!!! .....what more do you want?!

There's a huge and vast gaping difference between being innocent, and being not guilty.

"Not guilty" simply means the prosecution didn't prove their case. It does not, did not, and will not ever mean that the accused is actually innocent. See OJ Simpson for further details.

Even is there was ZERO evidence you still want to believe he is guilty because thats what YOU wanted.

There wasn't zero evidence. Your point is moot.

Is this because the verdict was what YOU wanted?

Originally posted by kiMMii
It was a non guilty 10 TIMES dam.n 10 TIMESSSSS!!!!! .....what more do you want?!

I guess the video cams in his bathrooms were just so he could watch himself later eh?

Misfit

Originally posted by LadyV
I guess the video cams in his bathrooms were just so he could watch himself later eh?

Misfit

In case the sign-off slipped attention, that is my post, bringing up cams.

PC blew up, forgot to logout/in before posting from LadyV's machine, only noticed it after the edit window expired.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Misfit

[edit on 14-9-2005 by Misfit]

His defense was he didn't molest that boy. Not that he never has molested little boys, just not that one. It worked, the people were asked if he molested that boy, if he was guilty of that boy, and he said he wasn't, at least not that boy. It's like taking a serial killer to court on a murder he didn't commit. Yes he has killed dozens, but not that person, he didn't kill that person. The real killer of that person is still out there, so should you convict the serial killer of that murder when he didn't do it letting the real murderer of that person go?

Originally posted by Full Metal
The real killer of that person is still out there, so should you convict the serial killer of that murder when he didn't do it letting the real murderer of that person go?

Nope. That would be a travesty of justice. No matter how many he's killed, it's just not right to knowingly convict him of a crime he didn't commit.

If the DA knows the killer has killed others - he needs to make his case for those victims. That said, if there's enough evidence to charge, there's usually enough evidence to hold without bail until the trial.

(Unless you're the US Government at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, which is an entirely different thread. )