The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Please insert hilarious puns on old Jackson titles here ...

I just watched this on CNN. NOT GUILTY ON ALL CHARGES. WTF. It would have been funny to know he was in jail getting it in the butt. Seriously imagine how that would sound. "Ahhhheeeeehiiiii!"

i guess you could say he beat it. beat it. beat it. beat it.

jack wrote:i guess you could say he beat it. beat it. beat it. beat it.

Bad.

erikb wrote:

jack wrote:i guess you could say he beat it. beat it. beat it. beat it.

Bad.

hahaha

you rock my world

Like there was ever ANY chance he would be convicted. Guilty as hell, rich and famous as hell.

the Jazz wrote:Like there was ever ANY chance he would be convicted. Guilty as hell, rich and famous as hell.

Ah, i just love reasoned debate

Not as rich or as famous as he was. Poorer and infamous I would say.

i hate the fact that very few people seem willing to entertain the notion that maybe he really IS innocent of wrongdoing. i'm not saying that i absolutely believe this is true, but i believe it is a possiblity. and if that's the case, i feel sorry for the guy. i mean he's famous and really weird, so for him to be accused of something which could reasonably have been true (but was not proven to be true in court) he was already deemed guilty by the general public and the media, more or less. and being found not guilty on all counts will probably do very little to dissuade most people of that notion. so even if he didn't actually do anything, for the rest of his life he'll have this hanging around his neck.

agreed. it's a larger possibility than most people seem to give credit for.

From CNN:

During the trial, Jackson's defense team attacked the credibility of Jackson's teenage accuser and his family, particularly the boy's mother.

The jurors, who listened to the mother for more than five days, indicated that they, too, doubted her credibility and were put off by the way she directly addressed jurors and accented her testimony by snapping her fingers.

"I disliked it intensely," said Juror No. 5, a 79-year-old woman from Santa Maria. "I thought, 'Don't snap your fingers at me, lady.' "

Juror No. 10 said "you couldn't help but wonder" whether the mother concocted the charges against Jackson and coached her children to lie, as the defense alleged.

The juror said that as a mother she was also troubled by the fact the accuser's mother allowed her son to sleep alone with Jackson.

"What mother in her right mind would allow that to happen -- just freely volunteer your child to sleep with someone?" she said.

As for the testimony of the boy himself, Rodriguez said jurors were troubled by the fact that the youngster's version of events was inconsistent with testimony offered by other members of his family.

"It was really hard to believe what he was telling us," he said.

Jurors said they also were troubled by the logic of the prosecution's timeline.

I dunno...I'm not convinced that he's capable of the perfect crime. It's too easy to crucify the guy 'cuz he's very eccentric.

to me anyways, a 43 year old man who admits to the world on network television a fondness for sharing his bed with adolescent boys is beyond eccentric. it is just plain wrong. common sense dictates this.

whether he did it or not, michael jackson is a sick and twisted man and needs professional help. he has exhibited a past pattern of behavior that leads reasonable people to conclude, that maybe, just maybe, there might be some truth to the allegations.

i personally think he did it, because he felt he could get away with it due to his power, fame , and money, because he felt nobody would believe the kid and his family, regardless of what a whack job the kids mother is.

He lavishes poor families with money, then begs the mothers to let him sleep in a bed with their children, unsupervised. He admits to all this. That's really all he needs to do for me to think that he's creepy and doing something wrong.

Yes, i don't think anyone can say he's not completely fucking deranged. Look at his face! Look at his face!

But there is a difference between wrong and 20 years in jail illegal. I am not saying he did or didn't do it, just that there is a big difference. Is he Pete Townsend or Gary Glitter?

Also either way he is now screwed. Will he ever make another record? Would anyone bar his nutty hardcore fans dare be seen buying it? He is an artist who regardless of what he has or hasn't done, can never express himself artistically again in an untainted light. That to me is a far worse punishment than 20 years inside.

Michael Jackson has been a late night talk show punchline for pedophilia and child molestation since the 1980s. It's not like the trial made people think about him in a different light or anything. I think your point about accusations being damning is a good one, but Michael's fame-decline began back in the 90's when that first kid said that Michael molested him.

Yes, you're right. I was trying to remember when he last released an album of new material? Funnily enough I don't feel like punching Michael Jackson into google today Maybe in the googles, but not into google.

I also think that his decline hasn't been exclusivelly linked with the kiddy-fiddling thing - but certainly his continuing strangeness in more and more depressing forms is intertwined with it.

j$ wrote: I also think that his decline hasn't been exclusivelly linked with the kiddy-fiddling thing - but certainly his continuing strangeness in more and more depressing forms is intertwined with it.

just a crazy thought but maybe the increasing amount of sucky ass that his music seems to sound like might be related....

The thought of Johnny Cashpoint punching Michael Jackson in the googles just made me laugh so loud the entire office turned and looked at me all at once. Priceless.

Gonna hide under my desk for a few hours now.

Jackson was brought up by a Father who by all accounts is a thug and an unfit parent. He had no childhood in the way that most of us did. He was a cosseted superstar cashcow from an incredibly early age, and he has never known 'normal'. The upshot is that he doesn't think he is a 'man'. He is still a child, and lives his life this way.
I think that he's guilty, but his circumstances mitigate the crime...
As far as his music goes, without any doubt he was the King of 80's pop.
Now public opinion and changing times have de-throned him. Sad.

I don't think 'the means ever justify the end', Kam. There are many people who were abused in their childhood who do not go on to abuse in whatever form.

Dum dum dum! (portentious music interlude)

j$ wrote:I don't think 'the means ever justify the end', Kam. There are many people who were abused in their childhood who do not go on to abuse in whatever form.

I only mentioned his Father's abuse in passing. The point I was trying to make is that Jackson isn't an adult. Though he is in his 40's he is stuck in perpetual adolescence.
I'm sure there is a psychological term for it, and there's enough evidence - Neverland, Plastic Surgery, Bubbles the Monkey, vast expenditure, etc - but If they had played the 'off his rocker' card at the trial it would have killed any hope of a possible career comeback.

and even if he was abused as a child (and i think he probably was), what the hell were his abusive parents doing standing next to him in court? if you want to blame them, you can't be walking into court with them covering your back. i'm sure big joe has plenty of skeletons in his closet, and mama has always just looked the other way. but you can't say michael jackson doesn't have the financial resources to get himself some help if he wanted to, if he actually thought he had a problem, if he actually thought he was doing something wrong.

michael jackson lives in his little pedo-pan fantasy world because he is/was very rich and has the ability to insulate himself at his disposal. he preys on sick children (and by default their usually poor families, that are taxed out with medical bills) because they are easy prey.

and who you gonna believe anyways? the superstar who loves children (maybe too much) or the poor kid trying to grift the rich and famous star again?

i just love that here in france, most headlines read: "Michael Jackson blanchi".

the verb "blanchir" primarily means "to turn pale/make white", though in a juridic sense it also means to be found innocent.

so, yeah, the headlines read "MJ goes white!" as well as "MJ found innocent".

hooray for ambiguity...

the Jazz wrote:Like there was ever ANY chance he would be convicted. Guilty as hell, rich and famous as hell.

Yeah. I mean, we shouldn't even bother to imagine it was because there wasn't a credible case... It's not like trials actually involve facts, argument, and plausible deniability. It's all about celebrity status. And while dicussing it, there's nothing that makes us sound smarter than unreasoned cynicism.
Really, he MIGHT have done it. Or he might have done it another time, and not here. But people are absolutely convinced they can figure it all out with nothing but ten seconds' uneducated consideration. Leave that kind of crap to the media, thanks.

It scares me a little to think that people don't have any problem with this kind of tip-of-the-tongue condemnation. It's like an accusation is enough to prove guilt.

Jackson being a totally insane individual has nothing at all to do with his guilt or innocence. Yeah, folks, he's a wacko. But you have no clue as to whether he actually committed this specific act with that information, and you simply shouldn't pretend that you do. This isn't just aimed at you, Jazz, if you can't tell--I think almost everyone needs to be a little more cautious and objective when making assumptions about serious criminal accusations, even when you're just blabbing about media figures.

Eckscuse any missing eckses, esses and double-yous. I am having to cut and paste them in because my keyboard is fucked, but I just can't let this crap slip by (yes, I have a problem).