Michael Jackson verdict

F1nut

Originally posted by shack
I wonder if OJ will let Michael play with his balls?

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Damn it Shack daddy, 'bout fell outta my chair.

swerve

I doubt OJ gets into the little boy thing too much....

Toxis

Even though I'm a huge fan, i heard an MJ joke the other day that cracked me up.

What does Michael Jackson like about 25 year old's???




















There's 20 of them.

F1nut

Here's one that's no joke.......

brettw22

What's the difference betwen Michael Jackson and a plastic grocery sack?





















One's made of plastic and dangerous to play with, and the other's used to carry groceries.

danger boy

well since i started this thread.. i thought it was only fair that i show you Michael's latest video release too.

enjoy

Jackson video

Willow

if he plays golf with OJ do you think Michael can tan? does bleached skin tan?

Ron-P

Why did Michael Jackson rush down to the local kids clothing store?












He'd heard that boys pants were half off.

shack

I was playing golf last evening with an attorney friend of mine and he reminded me that being found ""Not Guilty Beyond A Reasonable Doubt" and "Innocent" are two totally different things (and is probably very true in the Jackson case). This guy has a particular specialty but he also handles criminal, civil and business cases. He despises going before a jury in any circumstance, whether or not his client is a plaintiff or defendant. His opinion is they are very unreliable. He talked about a recent case where a panel came back to the judge asking for information on issues that were never brought up in court...but stuff they had seen on tv and the internet.

Anyway...his take on Jackson (this was before we heard the verdict) was that he would get off because the procecutor did a lousy job, brought the case to court will a very weak case with poor and questionable witnesses.

IMO Jackson is a freak...and while not a "proven" pedophile I wouldn't let a child of mine anywhere near him!

Willow

How do you know what you must go to bed in Neverland?


























When the big hand touches the little hand

danger boy

Originally posted by Ron-P
Why did Michael Jackson rush down to the local kids clothing store?













He'd heard that boys pants were half off.

this one still gets me every time.

polkatese

EDIT: double post, Willow beats me to it..

cfrizz

Originally posted by shack
I wonder if OJ will let Michael play with his balls?

I damn near choked on my lunch just now!

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

MacLeod

Whats Michael Jackson's idea of a perfect 10?


Two, 5 year olds.


F1, that picture is brilliant! LMAO!

danger boy

I heard on the news last night that the Beatles cataolg of music is worth around a billion dollars!!

I think MJ sold about half of it.. which amounted to $600 million. and his 1/2 is worth 400 to 500 million.

HOw does one place a value on something like that? Seriously.

shack

Originally posted by danger boy
HOw does one place a value on something like that? Seriously.

$ = Present value of an estimated stream of future income minus the profit expected by the buyer.

It is a pretty basic formula once you estimate the future revenues and determine the expected rate of return.

swerve

Originally posted by danger boy
I heard on the news last night that the Beatles cataolg of music is worth around a billion dollars!!

I think MJ sold about half of it.. which amounted to $600 million. and his 1/2 is worth 400 to 500 million.

HOw does one place a value on something like that? Seriously.

royalties.....

brettw22

Originally posted by danger boy
I heard on the news last night that the Beatles cataolg of music is worth around a billion dollars!!

I think MJ sold about half of it.. which amounted to $600 million. and his 1/2 is worth 400 to 500 million.

He owns about $400 million of the shares (i believe it's $900 mil), and has taken loans against it to the tune of $350 million from what I understood on the news the other night.

swerve

I think he owns half the shares of sony music, yet the beatles catalogue is in his name. either way it goes hand in hand and he will lose it.

danger boy

why doesn't he just sell the rights to the Beatles music? not like he needs the money. I wonder if he owns the rights to his own music or not? I would think he does.. that alone would be worth a mint +

bobman1235

Originally posted by danger boy
why doesn't he just sell the rights to the Beatles music? not like he needs the money. I wonder if he owns the rights to his own music or not? I would think he does.. that alone would be worth a mint +

Now he DOES need the money - latest estimates are he's SEVERAL million in the hole after this legal debacle.

And he's taken out SEVERAL loans with teh rights to the Beatles music as collateral. So he can't just sell it.

Demiurge

If this was anyone else you'd say "Wow, look at that pervert," and his **** would be locked up for the maximum sentence allowed and the booty bandit would be making him his ****.

F1nut

Originally posted by Demiurge
If this was anyone else you'd say "Wow, look at that pervert,"

I think plenty of folks are saying just that because that's what he is.

heiney9

I'm currently serving on a jury. Just got home in fact....Have to go back tomorrow.

It's a tough job. I don't envy any one of those jurors. I mean 7 weeks of testimony and, it all comes down to if the prosecution proved it's case beyond reasonable doubt. We will never know because the media, for the most part, controlled what we saw and heard. Plus we were privy to things outside the realm of evidence that the jury wouldn't/shouldn't be allowed to consider.

I don't know if was guilty or innocent; I just hope our justice system was fair and impartial. That's all you can ask!

H9

exalted512

some more michael jackson links
first, triumph the insult comic dog outside of MJs trial

http://download.ifilm.com/qt/portal/2672935_300.mov

pretty funny...
triumph talking to a MJ impersonator
"can you sing like micheal? do the moonwalk like micheal...now **** to home alone 2 like micheal"

and one of my favorite games, Escape from Neverland Ranch
http://www.zooass.com/games/neverland/neverland.shtml
-Cody

danger boy

Originally posted by heiney9
We will never know because the media, for the most part, controlled what we saw and heard. Plus we were privy to things outside the realm of evidence that the jury wouldn't/shouldn't be allowed to consider.H9

Hey, Hey HEY! Now it's always so easy to blame the media for this and that..

think just for a moment if you can. IT WAS NOT THE MEDIA who kept the trial closed to cameras. it was the judges decision to do so. Blame the judge for you not being able to see the entire trial and make your own decision. Sheeesh!

blame the media.. not even close there buddy.

heiney9

Originally posted by danger boy
Hey, Hey HEY! Now it's always so easy to blame the media for this and that..

think just for a moment if you can. IT WAS NOT THE MEDIA who kept the trial closed to cameras. it was the judges decision to do so. Blame the judge for you not being able to see the entire trial and make your own decision. Sheeesh!

blame the media.. not even close there buddy.

Are you telling me that what every media outlet presented was a completely unbiased report of the events? It's not possible. Each media outlet is going to have it's opinion on what's relevent and what's not. That's just a fact. This is for every single event they cover, not just MJ. That was my only point. I'm not blaming the media, it's just a fact. Yes, camera's would have been much better. And yes the judge said no. The media certainly got to pick & choose what points they thought were relevent, it's called editing. Yes, there is a possibility that even the media were not allowed to see/hear certain things, and that would not be their fault. But to say the media is completely faultless it a bit of a strech, IMO.

H9

danger boy

Everyone has biases... you, me, the media, the President.

But whether the media has a bias this way or that... it did not change or influence the jurys decision to find MJ not guilty.

So what it you have 6 media outlets.. and each one gives a slightly different approach to the MJ trial. That's called freedom of the press. Each media outlet makes it's own decisions on what part of any event they consider to be important. They try very hard to present a fair and balanced report.

I still fail to see where "the media" is to blame for the outcome of the MJ trail.. because as you say.. they media is biased in it's reporting.

heiney9

Originally posted by danger boy
Everyone has biases... you, me, the media, the President.

But whether the media has a bias this way or that... it did not change or influence the jurys decision to find MJ not guilty.

So what it you have 6 media outlets.. and each one gives a slightly different approach to the MJ trial. That's called freedom of the press. Each media outlet makes it's own decisions on what part of any event they consider to be important. They try very hard to present a fair and balanced report.

I still fail to see where "the media" is to blame for the outcome of the MJ trail.. because as you say.. they media is biased in it's reporting.

Wow…..you’re reading WAY too much into my original statement. I never stated or implied that the media was any way at fault for the verdict. My point was that we as outsiders only get to form our opinion based on what is presented in the media. That was my point plain and simple. I also don’t believe I said the media in any way influenced the juror’s in this case.

heiney9

I guess I’m not making myself clear. When I said the media was not completely faultless, I meant towards presenting a biased account to US not the JUROR’S. OUR opinions as OUTSIDERS are swayed by the inherent media bias. In no way did I mean to imply this the same for the juror’s. Maybe that’s where I was unclear?

H9