World of KJ
http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/

Michael Jackson Trial to Start
http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3959		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  dolcevita [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:21 am ]
Post subject:  Michael Jackson Trial to Start
Jackson Trial Starts, With Fanfare and Jury Selection

SANTA MARIA, Calif., Jan. 31 - He arrived early at the courthouse on Monday, dressed in a crisp white outfit and gold armband but without dark glasses. He gave no impromptu dance performance and did not speak. He simply turned toward the cameras and flashed a victory sign...

Thats the Times heading and opening paragraph. This is going to be a sensationalistic pain and a media frenzy work of art. I smell something infinately worse than O.J. :roll:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/natio ... f=login&hp

I am really dissappointed with journalism lately. Or, not lately, in general. It seems to be about the most responsive and idiotic of all the media channels lately. Reality TV might even have more potential.
Author:  Anonymous [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:23 am ]
Post subject: 
You know what? I really miss the Scott Peterson days.

Whatever happened to his crazy ass?
Author:  torrino [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:30 am ]
Post subject: 
What's wrong with those first few sentances, dolce?

Anyways, I don't think it's just newspapers. The news channels will go nuts over this too. Hell, considering local news AND national news often features personal interest stories AND considering everything the Passion went through, I'd say the news coverage will be just as bad.

Unless by journalism you meant magazines, newspapers, and tv. All forms of news, that is...

Sorry ;)
Author:  dolcevita [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:34 am ]
Post subject: 
I did mean all of them torri. News reporting has no sense of memory nor a sense of direction and vision. It just laps up eveything in the present tense so that it can sell day by day. That's exactly why Krem's comments are true, no larger agenda or sense of memory, just sensationalism. And by that I don't mean flowery language, I mean some concept of creating hysteria in the daily routine.

I actually find the weekly magazines and some of the "special" series papers sometimes do much more interesting.
Author:  Maverikk [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:35 am ]
Post subject: 
The biggest trial since the trial of BKB. :razz:
Author:  bABA [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:38 am ]
Post subject: 
Maverikk wrote:
The biggest trial since the trial of BKB. :razz:


most important trial of our time
Author:  Algren [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 6:48 am ]
Post subject: 
He'll go down for it.
Author:  Dr. Lecter [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 10:27 am ]
Post subject: 
Do you guys actually think he's guilty or not? :)
Author:  bABA [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 10:53 am ]
Post subject: 
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Do you guys actually think he's guilty or not? :)


define guilty.
what do you think he did?

I come from a place where its not sooo strange to lie down next to a kid below 12 and even share the bed with them at night (at Michael's age) so i dont consider that very weird .... but i know people here do.

He's done a lot of things that aren't molestation and he says so himself i think. a lot of those things are not accepted in this society but i don't think are criminal offenses. Yet they are coupled up together to show tendencies. To me, they do not.

Did he actually molest those kids? Until I find some clear proof, I'll listen to what Chappelle said: Only he, the kid and God know.
Author:  Dr. Lecter [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:05 am ]
Post subject: 
bABA wrote:
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Do you guys actually think he's guilty or not? :)


define guilty.


Guilty of molesting the kids. By that I don't mean just laying next to them, but actualy fondling them in a not so appropriate way.
Author:  TonyMontana [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:06 am ]
Post subject: 
Clearly Jackson is innocent and is being framed by the man. I hate the man.

But, truthfully, Jackson fits the profile of a pedophile perfectly. I'd bet everything I own on "guilty".
Author:  bABA [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:13 am ]
Post subject: 
TonyMontana wrote:
Clearly Jackson is innocent and is being framed by the man. I hate the man.

But, truthfully, Jackson fits the profile of a pedophile perfectly. I'd bet everything I own on "guilty".


i know you do case research at the station.

whats his profile?
Author:  TonyMontana [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:24 am ]
Post subject: 
bABA wrote:
TonyMontana wrote:
Clearly Jackson is innocent and is being framed by the man. I hate the man.

But, truthfully, Jackson fits the profile of a pedophile perfectly. I'd bet everything I own on "guilty".


i know you do case research at the station.

whats his profile?


The biggest sign of him being a pedophile is that he only appears to identify with a specific age of male child (no females or post-pubescent kids). He also does not appear to have normal adult relationships, and puts himself into positions to be surrounded by kids (Neverland Amusement Park) more than your average middle aged guy. He's single, does not appear to have ever had any realisitic relationships with a female. His actions and activities are very childlike. His home has artwork depicting naked children.

When you take everything together and look at the big picture, it's hard to see how it could add up to anything different.
Author:  bABA [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:27 am ]
Post subject: 
You know .. your first 2 points don't bother me at all.

Wasn't he married once .. no .. twice?

Yes, the last one is disturbing.
Author:  Libs [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:30 am ]
Post subject: 
I'd be a terrible juror, because I have it set in my mind that Jackson is guilty as charged.

The jury selection process is going to take a while, considering how recognizable Jackson is.
Author:  TonyMontana [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:53 am ]
Post subject: 
bABA wrote:
You know .. your first 2 points don't bother me at all.

Wasn't he married once .. no .. twice?

Yes, the last one is disturbing.


The first point wouldn't raise your eyebrow at all? The fact that a middle aged man *only* has meaningful relationships with pre-pubescent boys? I realize you say in your country it was customary for everybody to sleep in the same bed, but I'm willing to bet the adult males you're referring to have meaningful relationships outside pre-pubescent boys. They don't exclude everyone from their bed, but the boys.

Jackson was "married" to Lisa Marie Presley. The marriage was widely speculated to be a sham - more for publicity.

He adopted a child that he reports is his, but I saw the kid on a documentary, and he's snow white. I seriously doubt Jackson is the father - even in a sperm donor type of way. I feel for the kid. Who knows what he's doing to him?

I guess it'd be like if I could adopt a Supermodel. :-k
Author:  bABA [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
TonyMontana wrote:
bABA wrote:
You know .. your first 2 points don't bother me at all.

Wasn't he married once .. no .. twice?

Yes, the last one is disturbing.


The first point wouldn't raise your eyebrow at all? The fact that a middle aged man *only* has meaningful relationships with pre-pubescent boys? I realize you say in your country it was customary for everybody to sleep in the same bed, but I'm willing to bet the adult males you're referring to have meaningful relationships outside pre-pubescent boys. They don't exclude everyone from their bed, but the boys.

Jackson was "married" to Lisa Marie Presley. The marriage was widely speculated to be a sham - more for publicity.

He adopted a child that he reports is his, but I saw the kid on a documentary, and he's snow white. I seriously doubt Jackson is the father - even in a sperm donor type of way. I feel for the kid. Who knows what he's doing to him?

I guess it'd be like if I could adopt a Supermodel. :-k


Hunh? When did i say its customary. I said its not really all that odd.

But i can see people just having meaningful relationships . i find it a bit odd but i dont think its incriminating. I hold intentions of blowing up the world .. doesn't mean i act upon them. Here i doubt people relating to pre-pubescent kids only even have intentions usually of molesting them in some manner. thats really my opinion.
Author:  TonyMontana [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
bABA wrote:
TonyMontana wrote:
bABA wrote:
You know .. your first 2 points don't bother me at all.

Wasn't he married once .. no .. twice?

Yes, the last one is disturbing.


The first point wouldn't raise your eyebrow at all? The fact that a middle aged man *only* has meaningful relationships with pre-pubescent boys? I realize you say in your country it was customary for everybody to sleep in the same bed, but I'm willing to bet the adult males you're referring to have meaningful relationships outside pre-pubescent boys. They don't exclude everyone from their bed, but the boys.

Jackson was "married" to Lisa Marie Presley. The marriage was widely speculated to be a sham - more for publicity.

He adopted a child that he reports is his, but I saw the kid on a documentary, and he's snow white. I seriously doubt Jackson is the father - even in a sperm donor type of way. I feel for the kid. Who knows what he's doing to him?

I guess it'd be like if I could adopt a Supermodel. :-k


Hunh? When did i say its customary. I said its not really all that odd.

But i can see people just having meaningful relationships . i find it a bit odd but i dont think its incriminating. I hold intentions of blowing up the world .. doesn't mean i act upon them. Here i doubt people relating to pre-pubescent kids only even have intentions usually of molesting them in some manner. thats really my opinion.


By "customary" I just meant that it was an acceptable practice.

I would definitely say that if a middle aged man only relates to pre-pubescent boys, that it would warrant a closer look. I can not think of any other reason why a middle aged man would only relate to that specific of a group. If they had a brain disorder in which they were a very young mental age, they would not exclude themselves to only 10-12 year old boys.

I'm not saying that fact alone makes them guilty, but it is definitely highly suspicious. In Jackson's case he has SO many suspicious signs, that I find it's usually wise to trust your gut.
Author:  BJ [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
one Q, do they have any proof at all :?:
Author:  TonyMontana [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 1:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
BJ wrote:
one Q, do they have any proof at all :?:


From what I understand, they have a victim who says Jackson molested him. He also says Jackson gave him wine and showed him porno mags. Upon conducting a search warrant they found the wine as the boy described, and found the porno mags which have both the boys and Jackson's finger prints on them. Prosecutors will allege that Jackson used the wine and mags to loosen up the boy so he could molest him. Supposedly there is more evidence too, but that's the rough edges.
Author:  bABA [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 1:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
TonyMontana wrote:
BJ wrote:
one Q, do they have any proof at all :?:


From what I understand, they have a victim who says Jackson molested him. He also says Jackson gave him wine and showed him porno mags. Upon conducting a search warrant they found the wine as the boy described, and found the porno mags which have both the boys and Jackson's finger prints on them. Prosecutors will allege that Jackson used the wine and mags to loosen up the boy so he could molest him. Supposedly there is more evidence too, but that's the rough edges.


Yea .. thats the type of evidence i'm more interested in.
Author:  Maverikk [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 1:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Do you guys actually think he's guilty or not? :)


The best lawyer in the world couldn't get him off. Well, maybe if he were a child lawyer. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA \:D/
Author:  rusty [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 3:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
Maverikk wrote:
Dr. Lecter wrote:
Do you guys actually think he's guilty or not? :)


The best lawyer in the world couldn't get him off. Well, maybe if he were a child lawyer. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA \:D/


Image
Cheapest joke ever.
Author:  BJ [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 9:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
TonyMontana wrote:
BJ wrote:
one Q, do they have any proof at all :?:


From what I understand, they have a victim who says Jackson molested him. He also says Jackson gave him wine and showed him porno mags. Upon conducting a search warrant they found the wine as the boy described, and found the porno mags which have both the boys and Jackson's finger prints on them. Prosecutors will allege that Jackson used the wine and mags to loosen up the boy so he could molest him. Supposedly there is more evidence too, but that's the rough edges.


ok thanks :cool: looks to me like Mike is extremely guilty :???:
Author:  Spidey [ Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
Michael is guilty and is just giving people hush money to keep quiet!!!
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/