Wacko did not do nuffing against person 80 Wacko did not do nuffing against person 80
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Posts 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1

    MisterGoof

    Guest

    MisterGoof

    Default Wacko did not do nuffing against person 80

    Hmmm,

    I think a civil action to follow. Remember OJ

  2. #2

    AtW

    Guest

    AtW

    Default no chance

    Expected verdict -- the prosecution's case was so weak its not even funny. In OJs there were dead bodies, in this case everyone is alive and no signs of rape whatsoever.

    Now I expect a few lawsuits from him over baseless accusations, the trial apparently cost him at least 10 mil bucks -- this ought to be paid back to him.

  3. #3

    DimPrawn

    Guest

    DimPrawn

    Default Re: no chance

    Difference is OJ is black.

  4. #4

    dazza12

    Guest

    dazza12

    Default Re: no chance

    I think he'll at least wipe the smile off of the DA's face by suing the state or DA's office.

    Isn't he the same guy that's been trying to stitch Jacko up all along? He was the one behind the Jordy Chandler case wasn't he?

  5. #5

    AtW

    Guest

    AtW

    Default yeah

    > Isn't he the same guy that's been trying to stitch Jacko up all along?

    Yeah -- I am sure he is going to lose his job now, even though in the USA these posts are electable by local people. Jacko is clearly a Whacko, but that's not illegal. He is also broken financially, but from the case it always seemed to me that he was anything but molestor.

  6. #6

    xoggoth

    Guest

    xoggoth

    Default Re: yeah

    Isnt it funny how lots of people like us who would never have had any time for Jackson or his music have suddenly started liking him since all these accusations started?

    Maybe it's a backlash against all the stupid hysteria there is about child abuse. For centuries it was not even illegal, then for decades nobody believed it happened, and now we see it round every corner and parents aren't even allowed to film their kid's sports days, lest somebody might wack off over a fuzzy picture of little Johny in his white sports shorts. Ain't human nature idiotic?

  7. #7

    SupremeSpod

    Guest

    SupremeSpod

    Default Re: yeah

    Just because the Jury found him "Not Guilty" it doesn't mean he didn't do it!

    Spod.

  8. #8

    EddieC

    Guest

    EddieC

    Default Re: yeah

    Well I'd be guilty of some of the charges he faced. The ones about supplying an intoxicating liquid to a minor.

    All my kids have tried wine and beer before they were 5. Only tiny sips mind you, I wouldn't want to waste good alcohol on them.

  9. #9

    WageSlave1

    Guest

    WageSlave1

    Default Re: yeah

    centuries it was not even illegal, then for decades nobody believed it happened, and now we see it round every corner and parents aren't even allowed to film their kid's sports days
    Excellent point. Chris Morris highlighted the insane hysteria brilliantly in his Brass Eye special a few years back. However, there is a difference between the loony left on a misguided crusade and what Jackson did. I'm not talking about the allegations. Only two people in the world know for sure whether Jackson abused the boy, but we do know that Jackson has an obsession with sleeping with boys. Whether it's entirely platonic or not, that's weird and completely inappropriate. Jackson's behaviour courted trouble.

    The fact that Jackson was found not guilty doesn't prove anything. America is very reluctant to send its celebrities to jail, unless they have a certain reputation (Martha Stewart is the exception).

    Personally I don't have any sympathy for Jackson. He is a grown man (a father of two), who has allegedly squandered a vast fortune, consistently acted inappropriately with children to the detriment of his career, finances and reputation, despite countless warnings and 'close escapes'. If, at the age of 46, he wants to act like a little boy, that's his right and it's his life, but he doesn't deserve sympathy. There are far more deserving cases in the world.

  10. #10

    OwlHoot

    Guest

    OwlHoot

    Default Re: yeah

    > Maybe it's a backlash against all the stupid hysteria there is about child abuse. For centuries it was not even illegal

    Well "Carnal knowledge of an infant under the age of seven" was a capital offence in England until the 1840s.

    You're pretty much right though, because I think that law was only introduced in the 18th century (when the idea got about that raping infants would cure syphilis).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •