View Poll Results: What is the outcome of the MJ trial?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Guilty.

    12 37.50%
  • Not guilty.

    20 62.50%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 53 of 53
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by scandalex
    I never felt that MJ was guilty. I see him as a child stuck in a man's body. We all know that Mike is a bit weird, and many of the things the DA said he did came off to me as what children do when their parents arent around.

    If the accusers had some credibility, Mike would have been found guilty.
    Don't you mean he's a man trying to be in a little boys body?
  2.    #42  
    haha....that's bad.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Just goes to show you, rich white guys always go free...
    Don't you mean rich white women?

    http://anomalies-unlimited.com/Jackson.html
    .
  4. #44  
    We should close this thread and this chapter of our lives. Moonwalk
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  5. #45  
    Coincidence??




    The Truth Is Out There
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  6. SL10's Avatar
    Posts
    9 Posts
    #46  
    To be honest here Micheal Jackson is as innocent, as OJ Simpson was. Believe it or not? IMO.
    My so-called Moblog http://papasmurf.textamerica.com Also check out Canada's best little resource site for info on Telus, Rogers, Virgin, Fido. http://www.geckobeach.com
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by SL10
    To be honest here Micheal Jackson is as innocent, as OJ Simpson was. Believe it or not? IMO.
    Nice blanket statement, got anything to back that up with?
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by SL10
    To be honest here Micheal Jackson is as innocent, as OJ Simpson was. Believe it or not? IMO.
    I was wondering how long it would take before OJ would be mentioned. Why didn't you bring up Robert Blake or any number of other unrelated cases?
    Make It Happen!!
    If you don't, who will?
  9. SL10's Avatar
    Posts
    9 Posts
    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Nice blanket statement, got anything to back that up with?
    The thread itself has this info, posts 4, 5, and 6 sum it up nicely. I don't need to elaborate...
    My so-called Moblog http://papasmurf.textamerica.com Also check out Canada's best little resource site for info on Telus, Rogers, Virgin, Fido. http://www.geckobeach.com
  10. SL10's Avatar
    Posts
    9 Posts
    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by treosixoo
    I was wondering how long it would take before OJ would be mentioned. Why didn't you bring up Robert Blake or any number of other unrelated cases?
    Cause, I was relating two separate cases where guilt will still be pondered long after the verdicts; OJ's case was about physical evidence that involved him and he got off cause of improper procedures. Micheal got off cause the family was money hungry and were proven to be liars, but the past cases that Micheal paid off were more of witness (he said, she said) instead of just physical evidence.... So, in other words the subject of guilt will be subjective for a long time.... IMO. Btw, Robert Blake was found not guity, cause he was not guilty that case didn't have the same bearing as OJ or Micheal's cases...
    My so-called Moblog http://papasmurf.textamerica.com Also check out Canada's best little resource site for info on Telus, Rogers, Virgin, Fido. http://www.geckobeach.com
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by SL10
    Cause, I was relating two separate cases where guilt will still be pondered long after the verdicts; OJ's case was about physical evidence that involved him and he got off cause of improper procedures.
    The case went to a jury and he was found NOT GUILTY. There was no improper procedures. A good lawyer discredits what the other side is saying, that's called doing a good job not improper procedures!
    Btw, Robert Blake was found not guity, cause he was not guilty
    Are you an ***** or are you just joking here? You don't know who's guilty or not. The jury makes a decision and that's what we all live with. You kill me, your opinion is that he is NOT GUILTY, but you don't know. OJ was found NOT GUILTY and you don't know (for a fact) if he is or not. Do you totally disrespect the conclusion of jury's when it doesn't fall in line with your opinion?
    Make It Happen!!
    If you don't, who will?
  12. SL10's Avatar
    Posts
    9 Posts
    #52  
    I just stated my opinions here on the subject was all. Right or wrong is subjective at best in any of the given cases mentioned. That is all I will state here.
    My so-called Moblog http://papasmurf.textamerica.com Also check out Canada's best little resource site for info on Telus, Rogers, Virgin, Fido. http://www.geckobeach.com
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by SL10
    The thread itself has this info, posts 4, 5, and 6 sum it up nicely. I don't need to elaborate...
    All of those are pure speculation, none of them have anything remotely like evidence..

    So I'll take that is a no, you don't have anything to back that up.
    as treosixoo said the jury looked at the evidence and found it was not enough to convict him on. That is the way the justice system works in the US..
    And given the fact they have seen the evidence and you haven't I still value their opinion more than yours.
    The fact that jacko is a wacko doesnt automatically mean he is guilty of these crimes... or do you just want a scapegoat?
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions