Micheal jackson

**anto eile** · 14/06/2005, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Frank Blue

Never knew that. More problems coming his way as you said:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/inde...n-finances.xml

Fox News reports that the Bank of America has sold Jackson's loans, which total $270 million, to Fortress Investment Group, a New York-based private hedge fund. The collateral for the loans includes Mijac, which owns Jackson's song catalog, and his 50 percent stake in Sony/ATV Music Publishing, which owns the Beatles' catalog.

Jackson's lavish lifestyle, including the Neverland Ranch, and legal expenses have left him with little cash. He has been staying afloat with loans.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/inde...n-finances.xml

hes asset rich however.apparently has $500M worth of assets.including 50% of the rights to 200,000 songs.hes got enough assets to live in luxury for the rest of his life,if he chose to be sensible with his money

**Lionel Ritchie** · 14/06/2005, 2:10 PM

Am neither happy nor annoyed he got off ...sorry -was found innocent.

He's undergone due process and has come out the other end of it with the right to his good name.
I'm a bit alarmed at the number of people I've seen or heard react "he's guilty as sin but bought himself an innocent verdict".

The fact is we have a system and a society that judges it a better thing to set free a person who may be guilty rather than risk punishing someone who may be innocent. I think our society is richer, better, more mature and more decent for the fact we do that.

that's why I don't like to see people effectively "cherry picking" their convictions and aquitals. it happened after OJ Simpson too. For better or worse OJ walked and that has to be respected but wasn't. TV shows that wanted to bring him on after the trial had other scheduled guests cancelling and refusing to appear on the same platform as him which begs the question -what was the point of having a trial at all? -if people are just going to make up their own minds he's guilty and ignore the courts we put in place to decide these things.

I do hope however that maybe the judge told Michael Jackson or told his councel to tell him that if he's ever up before him again on a charge involving being over familiar with other peoples children that a very dim view will be taken of it.

Person who I believe stands most vindicated in all this is Jarvis Cocker -who pointed out after invading a stage during Jacksons "performance" at an awards ceremony that the guy thinks he's Jesus, Santa Claus and Barney all rolled into one and he needed to be brought down a peg or two.

Oh yeah and by the wat Conor74 -Smooth Criminal sucks dokey balls too -(though the donkey was probably a consenting adult rather than a drugged minor

)

**patsh** · 14/06/2005, 3:00 PM

Originally Posted by drummerboy

The first juror to speak to the media after the verdict, said he thought Jackson had molested at least one of the boys but felt the case against him wasn't presented properly.

If this is true, it doesn't say very much for the integrity of the jury.
If at least one of them thought that a crime had been committed against a child, on the evidence presented to them, they had a duty to ensure that they stood up and were counted and made that known.

I accept the verdict, MJ is innocent of all charges, but cannot understand this kind of attitude.
The juror was influenced more by presentation than what he believed????

ANYBODY who in any way interferes with children have lost all rights as a human being and deserve to suffer for it. Unfortunately, I have some small knowledge of children who have been abused in some way, and cannot accept any tolerance of this, while also realising that there are cases which can destroy innocent people, such as almost happened with Dave Jones that football manager.
It beggars belief that this juror acted in this manner.

**Macy** · 14/06/2005, 3:04 PM

As I interpreted it off the radio was that he thought that MJ had molested kids/or a different kid in the past, but didn't believe he had in this case. Probably one of the others that had been called as a Witness - however that didn't prove any of the charges that were brought before the jury.

Not about presentation, but about which kid and what charges. Bad presentation by Drummerboy

**JoeSemi** · 14/06/2005, 3:11 PM

A question that has to be asked following this trial is whether MJ is a capable father? To see his kids dressed as they are in public is inappropriate and can they themselves ever live happily with a father who is undoubtedly messed up? I presume there aren't many people privy to what happens between him and his children and if they are is there much they could do?

**Macy** · 14/06/2005, 3:14 PM

Originally Posted by JoeSemi

A question that has to be asked following this trial is whether MJ is a capable father? To see his kids dressed as they are in public is inappropriate and can they themselves ever live happily with a father who is undoubtedly messed up? I presume there aren't many people privy to what happens between him and his children and if they are is there much they could do?

He was found innocent. Fook knows what people would've wanted done if it had been a guilty verdict on any of the charges!

**Gerrit** · 14/06/2005, 4:14 PM

Originally Posted by shedite

Let's distinguish something here - Micheal Jackson is a weirdo coz he lives in a theme park, got lots of plastic surgery and goes to court in pyjamas - GUILTY!

However, those who heard all the evidence are the only ones who can comment on the statement that Michael Jackson likes little boys - NOT GULTY!

If you allow your 10-year-old boy to saty the night at a 40-year-old man's house, you're crazy! Hence, if you go to court, and look for millions, your sanity and parental skills really are out the window.

- according to Jackson he got 2 plastic surgery operations, the rest would be non-surgical, and his pale skin would be caused by a disease and not by surgery (don't know if I can honestly believe that though

)

- "if a parent sends a kid to a 40 year old man they're crazy" may be very true but is no statement at all that Jackson would be guilty. Unless we believe that guard who claims to have seen him giving head to a minor (and the jury decided that person was not trustworthy at all), we have not even a proof that he slept in the same bed.