freeflygoddess 0 #1 June 13, 2005 Well so they say he is not guilty...do you feel that the mom should be put in trial for extorion and perhapes child endagerment for letting her sons sleep with a strange man. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lisamariewillbe 1 #2 June 13, 2005 according to a jury of MJs payroll her son didnt sleep with a strange man... It was the state vs MJ, not her vs him.Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflygoddess 0 #3 June 13, 2005 no but the defense was that she was just trying to extort money from him and if the jury felt that it was true, she should be put on trial for conspiracy to commit extortion and fraud as well as for using her sons and coaching them to do so as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #4 June 13, 2005 Yes, I do think so. The jury during the presser really took after the mother, and it would seem that there is fairly clear evidence (at least as clear evidence as that which brought MJ into a court room) that she was out for $$ and used her child/ren to get that. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lisamariewillbe 1 #5 June 13, 2005 yea the defense said that, the defense , defense, defenseSudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflygoddess 0 #6 June 13, 2005 yeah you try typing with one hand whilest a boob monster with two bottom teeth and two top teeth chow down Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lisamariewillbe 1 #7 June 13, 2005 roflmao holy salmon shit, I have no idea what your talking about, but that was funny, I meant its what the defense said, defense being people employed by MJSudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflygoddess 0 #8 June 13, 2005 oh I thought you were comminting on my great spelling and typing....the boob monster is my 7 month old Derek....the reason why I am retired from jumping for now... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #9 June 13, 2005 QuoteWell so they say he is not guilty...do you feel that the mom should be put in trial for extorion and perhapes child endagerment for letting her sons sleep with a strange man. The jury determined that they didn't believe MJ was guilty of the crimes presented, beyond a reasonable doubt. They did not rule on the actions of the mother. I suspect it would be hard to prove, again beyond a reasonable doubt, that she was doing such things. And you can't have both MJ innocent and her guilty of child endangerment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflygoddess 0 #10 June 13, 2005 yeah but she should be found on extortion and child endagerment by means of coaching her children to help her commit extortion and fraud... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lisamariewillbe 1 #11 June 13, 2005 There has not been a civil suit, she has not tried to get money , although I believe she is as guilty as him, I agree with the previous post she can not be guilty for child endangerment if the dumb fucks on the jury found him innocent.... Im going to walk away from these MJ posts for a bit, I am quite defensive when it comes to children and quite emotional about this topic and it is best if I have time to cool down from the decsion those ass wipes made to set another criminal free...Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #12 June 13, 2005 QuoteI agree with the previous post she can not be guilty for child endangerment if the dumb fucks on the jury found him innocent.... Why on earth would you believe that? From a legal sense, whether MJ gets away with it makes no difference whether the mom gets away with it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lisamariewillbe 1 #13 June 13, 2005 How can she be tried for child endangerment when the jury said that he is innocent? That means according to the justice system she to is innocent.Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,154 #14 June 13, 2005 >That means according to the justice system she to is innocent. ??? If you use expose your child to risks to collect money, but you end up not collecting the money, aren't you still guilty of exposing him/her to risks for the purpose of collecting money? (Not saying you would do that, just using an example.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lisamariewillbe 1 #15 June 13, 2005 How do you know she was exposing him to risks for money? Her defence will be, I didnt realize he was a risk, then when I did I reported it, the state pressed charges because they believed my minor childs word as well as my own experience. She did not file for a civil judgement. How can anyone prove she said this because she wanted to collect money? How can anyone prove she used her child as bait? I think she is a low life but hey "thats not illigal" She after all is not the one who felt there was enough evidence to persue a case. The prosacuter (sp) did.Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #16 June 14, 2005 QuoteHow can she be tried for child endangerment when the jury said that he is innocent? MJ's guilt or innocence is not an issue. In fact, lawyers and judges have a word for such evidence - "hearsay." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigra 0 #17 June 14, 2005 Well there you have it. No one can PROVE it. The state won't waste anymore tax dollars on yet another trial they can't win. I firmly believe Michael Jackson is a danger to children and a predator. I also believe that the people who work for him are just as guilty by either helping to procure and secure the children or turning a blind eye to what was going on. And the parents who brought their children to him knowing about previous abuse allegations are also guilty of child endangerment. I believe that the mother in this particular case deliberately used her child as bait. But none of these people will be charged. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Salsa_John 0 #18 June 14, 2005 YES, for fraud (hiding income),lying, poor role model you add to the list. Society is failing to teach the children good core values time to make those who fail accountable "You did what?!?!" MUFF #3722, TDSM #72, Orfun #26, Nachos Rodriguez Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #19 June 14, 2005 Quoteyeah you try typing with one hand whilest a boob monster with two bottom teeth and two top teeth chow down What a fitting statement in a MJ thread Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #20 June 16, 2005 Quoteno but the defense was that she was just trying to extort money from him and if the jury felt that it was true, she should be put on trial for conspiracy to commit extortion and fraud as well as for using her sons and coaching them to do so as well. No, that doesn't necessarily follow. It MAY be true, but don't forget the prosecution believed in her story - and her son's. The fact that a jury didn't buy the story doesn't mean that she was necessarily lying. Also remember that the prosecution has the burden of proving their case. So it really was up to them to investigate what kind of "problems" this woman and her testimony might have before presenting it. I don't think they looked into it very hard. That or they wer just too excited at the prospect of "finally getting" Michael Jackson. And finally, would you really WANT to have such a chilling effect on other parents in other child molesting cases ? I don't know if you have kids or not, I have two. I'd like to believe I could bring a sexual assault charge without worrying about prison if the jury doesn't believe me. There is such a thing as prsecuting for the crime of perjury, but it's seldom used (except for the occasional Prezident of the United States, who lied about getting a little head from a consenting adult...) because it's so hard to prove. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
