Latest on MJJC

Jeffrey Daniel's says he Knows Michael is Innocent

^ Ya I know..

It will get better...... Once Mike comes back the negitive media will not be as powerful.. The crap part of it is that much of the negitive press MJ got was when the media had it's highest peaks in influence and has gotten into peoples mind all ready..

So it can never go away, but it can get watered down.. not as powerfull..
 
KOPV said:
^ Ya I know..

It will get better...... Once Mike comes back the negitive media will not be as powerful.. The crap part of it is that much of the negitive press MJ got was when the media had it's highest peaks in influence and has gotten into peoples mind all ready..

So it can never go away, but it can get watered down.. not as powerfull..
Click to expand...
KOPV, In the middle of the media bashing MJ, I saw people abandoning thier cars and risking their lives crossing a busy highway to go and touch MJ. That was when the media was in slandering him in every which way. He was still getting the love from the people. That is very powerful.

No matter what the media says, when the people see MJ they can't help themselves. They love him. That is enough for me. When his children are old enough to face the public, they are going to be the publics darling. They will fall in love with them as much as they were with MJ.,this will help his popularity too, cause the world will see what lovely children they are and will love him for raising such beautiful children.
 
^ no doubt

the issue is 'seeing MJ'.. the media covers up who MJ is soo much..

But those who get an opportunity to, they will all fall in love with him..

Michael will win more and more people over when he comes out...



PLUS the media will not play the same game this time around.. They had the chance to end this story they created and failed.. Now they will jump on board for the 'comeback kid' story..

They will say what sells.
 
Anyone who is involved with child molestation, it will never go away. Thats just the way it is when it comes to a alledged crime like that. We know MJ is 100% innocent, but as i said, with child molestation, people will always have doubts about MJ or anyone else who was accused of this. If a guy down the street was accused of this twice and he was found innocent, majority of the neighbors would still have doubts.
 
BabeBeMine said:
Anyone who is involved with child molestation, it will never go away. Thats just the way it is when it comes to a alledged crime like that. We know MJ is 100% innocent, but as i said, with child molestation, people will always have doubts about MJ or anyone else who was accused of this. If a guy down the street was accused of this twice and he was found innocent, majority of the neighbors would still have doubts.
Click to expand...
Ummm ..I hear you.. but Roman Polanski was convicted of
statutory rape back in the 70's.... when he won an Oscar a few years ago ..and a very popular actor flew to Switzerland to give him the Oscar.. there was NO mention of his conviction...

IMO..it depends on who you are...

another one is Woody Allen.. he was having an affair with his adopted DAUGHTER when he was married to Mia Farrow.. now he is married to his adopted daughter..

he has released several films in the last couple years and was the Chair for the Venice Film festival one year (not that long ago).. and I never hear the media bring up .. he relationship with his adopted daughter...

again..it depends on who they are.. they (the media ) chooses who
 
^ the fact that the best examples you can come up with are those two relatively benign cases (one being a C-list celeb, the other having no legal and little moral consequences - he wasn't even her stepfather, let alone her father - don't tabloidise it LOL) shows just how vicious such cases on the grandeur of child molestation can be on any well-known celebrity, even if found innocent.

it's not just the media, it's people as well. go to a local barbershop or salon and listen in on conversations. a lot of people thrive on bullshĭt and look for it when it suits their minds.

that's not to say that so many people will still think of him as guilty - i don't know that, actually we don't know much about the subject anyway - but i can bet that such an association will forever be highlighted in the legacy of innocent victims like Michael.
 
all the fans can say 'let's move on' but to everyone else, he's somewhat of an oddity and things don't add up.

so we either complain that no one famous ever defends him OR we complain when someone famous does defend him.
 
props to Jeffrey Daniels for showing MJ the Love. i applaud the real friends who speak there peace. Right on to Brother Daniels.
 
The thing is, the child molesatation allegations are a part of Michael's history, but they aren't a part of who he is, and people should know that. You have to show them and change their perceptions. And when people who are Michael's friends and know him speak up in his defense, it is only a good thing. I wish more people had the guts to do so and weren't so selfish about their own well being and careers to the point where they would write Michael off like they never knew him at all just to save face. And there's plenty of losers like that out there.
 
Datsymay said:
Well in USA and in Britain, Not guilty' Is INNOCENT' Because the law specifies that YOU ARE INNOCENTuntil PROVEN GUILTY. Now Until the law of the land changes, Not guilty, is Innocent. You are a judge, you should know that.
Click to expand...

What you're saying is legally correct. I was not talking about the legal point of view but the factual one. As a judge I fully understand that a person may actually be guilty - as in he or she did the crime - yet be found not guilty because of insufficient evidence. If the evidence is insufficient, the correct verdict is 'not guilty', even if the person is in fact guilty. The result is that it's entirely possible to be found not guilty in the eyes of the law, yet be factually and morally guilty of a crime.

Having said that I must stress that I believe Michael to be innocent in every sense of the word. I'm only saying that most people understand the difference between the legal and the factual and may not be entirely reassured by a not guilty verdict.
 
Last edited:
lmfao, what is this debate about? People who think MJ is innocent should stop talking about the trial, so that way the only people who talk about the trial are the ones who think he's a pedophile? What a great idea.
 
BabeBeMine said:
Anyone who is involved with child molestation, it will never go away. Thats just the way it is when it comes to a alledged crime like that. We know MJ is 100% innocent, but as i said, with child molestation, people will always have doubts about MJ or anyone else who was accused of this. If a guy down the street was accused of this twice and he was found innocent, majority of the neighbors would still have doubts.
Click to expand...
You would be surprised how many men are involved in CM. I know at least 5. It is one of the easiest thing to accuse a man of. Many divorced husbands are accused of such. Yes, if you are not giulty, it does go away, except in the minds of people who want to carryon beliving it. Then you have to ask yourself Why?
 
Last edited:
JudgingNoone said:
What you're saying is legally correct. I was not talking about the legal point of view but the factual one. As a judge I fully understand that a person may actually be guilty - as in he or she did the crime - yet be found not guilty because of insufficient evidence. If the evidence is insufficient, the correct verdict is 'not guilty', even if the person is in fact guilty. The result is that it's entirely possible to be found not guilty in the eyes of the law, yet be factually and morally guilty of a crime.

Having said that I must stress that I believe Michael to be innocent in every sense of the word. I'm only saying that most people understand the difference between the legal and the factual and may not be entirely reassured by a not guilty verdict.
Click to expand...
Well, tough luck. Your way of thinking is dangerous and it suggest that anyone who is accused falsly will have no justice at all. This is the same argument that Nancy grace and Bill O'riley used.
Let us hope that somebody never accuse you of molestation, Cause that is one crime that is difficult to defend in any case. (Don't say it will never happen to you either, cause all someone need is to be jealous of your position and that would be a motive.) And you want to tell the world that some one who went to a trial and had 70 police and 20 million dollars , 100 search and the might of the media and all the other powers that b e thrown against them, and you want to say, Not giulty is not innocent, then to hell with your factual theory. I see people who harbour that type of thinking is dangerous. Sneddon thought like that. That was his intention, that is why he took mj to court even when he had no evidence. I see it working with you. I prefer to stick to the law of the land.
 
Last edited:
I think you are very harsh to Judgingnoone. I think he/she (I don't know, sorry) points out very well the situation as it is. You may not like it, you may feel hurt by it. But it's the truth. You can shut yourself off from that, but that doesn't make it go away, no matter how angry it will get you.

It's so unfair, still it's there. And that's why I stand by the opinion that all we can do is applaud people who come forward and tell about the Michael THEY know. That's why we should inform people about the ridiculous lack of evidence, the spilling of money and resources by Sneddon that didn't get any result. Inform, inform, inform people. Only the right information can change peoples minds. And everyone who wants to listen, I will tell how it really was. And if I change that one persons view, I did a good job. Not wanting to talk about it, only adds to the negative.

Michael was found NOT GUILTY. That's nothing to not talk about. That's something to shout from the rooftops, something to celebrate. It's something to be proud of, not to put away because it's done with. It isn't, so use the information out there to change one persons opinion at a time.
 
Datsymay said:
Well, tough luck. Your way of thinking is dangerous and it suggest that anyone who is accused falsly will have no justice at all. This is the same argument that Nancy grace and Bill O'riley used.
Let us hope that somebody never accuse you of molestation, Cause that is one crime that is difficult to defend in any case. (Don't say it will never happen to you either, cause all someone need is to be jealous of your position and that would be a motive.) And you want to tell the world that some one who went to a trial and had 70 police and 20 million dollars , 100 search and the might of the media and all the other powers that b e thrown against them, and you want to say, Not giulty is not innocent, then to hell with your factual theory. I see people who harbour that type of thinking is dangerous. Sneddon thought like that. That was his intention, that is why he took mj to court even when he had no evidence. I see it working with you. I prefer to stick to the law of the land.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying but it doesn't change the facts. Let me give you an example. I've had plenty of cases where the evidence led me to be maybe 70 % sure that the defendant had committed the crime. Let's say that you need the evidence to create a certainty of 95% in order to convict (it's not possible to say an exact percentage, so this is just for argument's sake). In such cases the right verdict is to find not guilty, which is what I have always done. However, that doesn't mean that I have to be 100 % convinced on a personal level that the person is truly innocent. There is a difference, whether you like it or not. I believe that you could ask any judge out there and get the same response.

Again, I believe that Michael is innocent. However, I have reached that conclusion not only on the not guilty verdict but also on my own studies of the evidence of the case and of trying to understand how it all played out.

Another problem is that many people think that the wrong case was tried, i.e. the Arvizo instead of the Chandler case. I've read numerous comments where people say that he may not have molested Gavin but they think he did something to Chandler. There is no verdict to lean on there so we have to rely on people spreading the facts of that case too. The media certainly hasn't.
 
Last edited:
I must comment...there are very valid points in this thread...

However, in a perfect world everyone would agree with the innocent verdict and move on, unfortunatly, life/society doesn't work that way...

Somewhere, Someplace, Someone has the "concrete" evidence that will change the public opinion about Mr.Jackson..!

Its just a matter of time before they step up to the plate and find what has always been right in front of them.
 
Last edited:
To claim that someone who is 'not giulty' is not innocent is dangerous. it you are accused of a crime that you diod not commit and you go to court to clear your name, it is offnesive for anyone to come at you and say, you are not guilty, but you are not innocent. is a dangerous assumption and it means that the law means nothing.
It is also illogical because if you are innocent when you went in, you should still be innocent when you came out.
T-Mez is a lawyer and he has made it klnown that MJ is innocent.That is the law. I am offended that a lawyer would say otherwise, esp a judge. The only people who I hjave heard saying such thing is Nancy grace and DD and haters. I wull not accept that. Society is not unchangeable. All you need to do is change your way of thinking.
 
Last edited:
Datsymay said:
To claim that someone who is 'not giulty' is not innocent is dangerous. it you are accused of a crime that you diod not commit and you go to court to clear your name, it is offnesive for anyone to come at you and say, you are not guilty, but you are not innocent. is a dangerous assumption and it means that the law means nothing.
It is also illogical because if you are innocent when you went in, you should still be innocent when you came out.
T-Mez is a lawyer and he has made it klnown that MJ is innocent.That is the law. I am offended that a lawyer would say otherwise, esp a judge. The only people who I hjave heard saying such thing is Nancy grace and DD and haters. I wull not accept that. Society is not unchangeable. All you need to do is change your way of thinking.
Click to expand...

Sorry to disappoint you...Public Opinion Is What It Is...
 
Excellent article. It's nice to see someone who isn't afraid to be honest about their views of Michael in a postive way. Also, I've always enjoyed Shalamar and listen to their greatest hits often. Their lyrics and thoughtful and melodies beautiful. It's good to see JD is still going strong. :)
 
Sdeidjs said:
Sorry to disappoint you...Public Opinion Is What It Is...
Click to expand...
Yes, and public opnion changes. That is why we have general elections and change govt. Public opinion change. We can inform the public or we can misinform the public. That is up to us. Hitler did a pretty damn job with public opinion.
Public opinion was against Mohammed Ali and he lost his heavy weight title because of it. Now he is a hero. Public opnion will only get out what we put in it. Put the right information in, instead of contributing to the wrong information.
 
Last edited:
Hoofmark said:
I think you are very harsh to Judgingnoone. I think he/she (I don't know, sorry) points out very well the situation as it is. You may not like it, you may feel hurt by it. But it's the truth. You can shut yourself off from that, but that doesn't make it go away, no matter how angry it will get you.

It's so unfair, still it's there. And that's why I stand by the opinion that all we can do is applaud people who come forward and tell about the Michael THEY know. That's why we should inform people about the ridiculous lack of evidence, the spilling of money and resources by Sneddon that didn't get any result. Inform, inform, inform people. Only the right information can change peoples minds. And everyone who wants to listen, I will tell how it really was. And if I change that one persons view, I did a good job. Not wanting to talk about it, only adds to the negative.

Michael was found NOT GUILTY. That's nothing to not talk about. That's something to shout from the rooftops, something to celebrate. It's something to be proud of, not to put away because it's done with. It isn't, so use the information out there to change one persons opinion at a time.
Click to expand...

:clapping:

Some people will just argue the point just to argue until they beat you down with their views.
 
You will not please everyone and people who think Michael is guily NEVER liked in the first place. Michael is going to be fine. Look at things now. Thriller 25 is doing just as great as new artists cds, MTV did a tribute to Michael (which was highly rated); tonight, Dancing with the stars are going to do a tribute to Thriller 25, his music is still being played and requested, Prisoners now have fame for doing Thriller; most of today artists are doing Michael's style and being successful, etc. What more proof do fans need to show that the "average" person are not thinking about this old trial mess. Again, you can not let a "few" people make you think that "everyone" is dwelling on those claims.
 
Not even politicians have such influence on the masses, celebs do; sad but true, so when a celebrity or personality comes up and defends Michael, people pay attention and start wondering if they've been wronG all along, SO THIS IS A GOOD THING .
Click to expand...

I believe that as well and I think celebrities who truly know MJ should always come forward and tell people the truth about him. However, the media were the ones that asked Jeffery that question, not the public and not the fans. It has been 35 months and 30 days since the verdict and the only people still giving a damn is the media and the haters. The media created this "image" of MJ being this weirdo and that all started from people like J. Randy Taborelli and Diane Demon among others. The media got together with their buddies in the law enforcement and created these laughable charges on Michael. The media had a goal to ruin this man. Michael did things in the music industry that no other man or woman who has the same race as him would ever dare to do and that angered many people. Someone said on here that the people that hate on MJ always hated on MJ and I agree with that. In some ways, MJ haters are people who:

1. Are fans of Elvis and the Bealtes.

2. People who are closet racists.

3. People who are angry that he is not like them.

4. People who are fans of Janet, Madonna, or Prince and are jealous of Michael's success.

5. People in the media who were "ignored" by MJ.

6. And people who had issues with MJ.

The rest that are left are people who have nothing truly aganist Michael. Those people are either fans or admirers.

MJ did enough interviews and defended himself too much. If people believe the nonsense about him, then that is their problem. The media intenionally never wanted to tell the truth about Michael. I believe that the media knows the real truth about this man but refuse to tell the public because they cannot make money out of the truth. We all know that. MJ has nothing to do with their hate on him. The people that hate him, which includes the media, hate MJ because there is something wrong with them. Michael knew during the 1970s what the media was truly about. He did not trust them when he was younger and often bought along Janet so that she can be a witness to the media's questionable ways. Michael knew that his life was going to change forever and he knew that the media was going to be his main problem.

it's not just the media, it's people as well. go to a local barbershop or salon and listen in on conversations. a lot of people thrive on bullshĭt and look for it when it suits their minds.
Click to expand...

Well, if those people did not believe everything they believe from the media, then they would not be saying what they would say. It is as simple as that. However, I see what you are saying. I would go to the salon and listen to their conversations and most of the people there believe what people say about other people based on what their heard.

Having said that I must stress that I believe Michael to be innocent in every sense of the word. I'm only saying that most people understand the difference between the legal and the factual and may not be entirely reassured by a not guilty verdict
Click to expand...

For some strange reason, I do not believe anything that you stated. I read your posts on here and I just do not believe that you feel that MJ is innocent. You are basing your "opinions" on other people who refused to believe that MJ is fully innocent. There was too much evidence that shows that MJ did not molest or abuse Jordan Chandler or that other fool. Yet, you still keep harping about it. Who cares what a bunch of ignorant people think who hate Michael? And you need to change your name. Everytime I see you on here, you are always JUDGING MICHAEL.

But it's the truth
Click to expand...

The truth according to what exactly? Whatever.

To claim that someone who is 'not giulty' is not innocent is dangerous. it you are accused of a crime that you diod not commit and you go to court to clear your name, it is offnesive for anyone to come at you and say, you are not guilty, but you are not innocent
Click to expand...

I agree with that statement totally. That is why there are trials so that it can "clear" that person from the crime. However, how the media is today with celebrities and high price cases, the media makes the public believe that if celebrities are vindicated, they "pay off" their vindication. The media hate to see someone who they hate be found "not guilty" because they can't make money out of a "not guilty" verdict. That is why the media was flipping out when MJ was found not guilty. The media was angry that money was not going to be made, MJ was still keeping the catalogue and that he is not going anywhere. Dats, you say a lot of things that makes me worry about you, but you hit the nail on this one. Some people are in denial because it is no fun when MJ is not in some drama or scandal. A lot of so called "fans" like to dwell on drama and negativity because they do not see the point of giving props to a true artist such as Michael.

Sorry to disappoint you...Public Opinion Is What It Is...
Click to expand...

Sorry to disappoint you but the public opinion changes and it is not the truth.

It's so unfair, still it's there. And that's why I stand by the opinion that all we can do is applaud people who come forward and tell about the Michael THEY know. That's why we should inform people about the ridiculous lack of evidence, the spilling of money and resources by Sneddon that didn't get any result. Inform, inform, inform people.
Click to expand...

I agree with that as well and I feel that we should all keep telling people the deal. It can't work for everyone but we are activists in a sense and activists keep going to tell the public the truth about certain things. That is what we can do. The media cannot let go of the past because they have realized that they cannot make any more money on what happened to MJ. They have relaized that they have to focus on the future rather than the past and they know that the future looks bright for Michael. I mean, look at the news regarding NL - none of these major media networks are reporting it. We are only knowinga bout this through the Internet. Why do you think that? Because the media cannot make their money through anything positive or truthful regarding MJ. That is a fact. If there was an auction, you best believe CNN will be there covering it with the same fools that were there during the trial. So, I am happy that Jeffery said what he has to say and is still doing his thing. We all read the article, he was asked by the media about MJ and the crap that happened to him years back. Jeffery never even mentioned MJ until he was asked. He coud been like a certain friend and just say soomething like, "I do not know the personal side of MJ" and leave it at that and move on to whatever. However, Jeffery did not do that.

Again, you can not let a "few" people make you think that "everyone" is dwelling on those claims
Click to expand...

Exactly. MJ made his mark and this nonsense about who is the next KOP is garbage because JT and Usher (I love him) will never capture the people they way MJ did.
 
Last edited:
terrell said:
You will not please everyone and people who think Michael is guily NEVER liked in the first place. Michael is going to be fine. Look at things now. Thriller 25 is doing just as great as new artists cds, MTV did a tribute to Michael (which was highly rated); tonight, Dancing with the stars are going to do a tribute to Thriller 25, his music is still being played and requested, Prisoners now have fame for doing Thriller; most of today artists are doing Michael's style and being successful, etc. What more proof do fans need to show that the "average" person are not thinking about this old trial mess. Again, you can not let a "few" people make you think that "everyone" is dwelling on those claims.
Click to expand...
Words of wisdom as usual.:cheers:
 
Last edited:
Sdeidjs said:
However, in a perfect world everyone would agree with the innocent verdict and move on, unfortunatly, life/society doesn't work that way...
Click to expand...
well law doesn't give you any chance. Everyone has to eat that, innocent until proven guilty! As a matter of fact a blooddog was behind Michael which wasn't fed before (allegations no.1) but still couldn't find a damn tiny bit of evidence! what a fool sneddass was :tease:hmmm is he still alive? not that I care too much, but he looked soooo incredible old after the trial... almost dead.

Somewhere, Someplace, Someone has the "concrete" evidence that will change the public opinion about Mr.Jackson..!
Click to expand...
Seriously if we do believe social psychology the attention of a public opinion is most likely to remember two things: 1. always the last what happened (to or with a famous person), 2. positive stuff is more likely and usually remembered better than negative stuff (makes the positivity addicts of this forum happy, doesn't it?! lol)
Without that I want to disappoint you or anyone else... neither concrete evidence nor even 'facts' are really needed.

Its just a matter of time before they step up to the plate and find what has always been right in front of them.
Click to expand...
The matter of time will help Michael to be remembered for the incredible gifts he made to humanity.
Elvis was an obese drug addict not even able to really find the toilet alone (this is not meant as disrespect!!! I love Elvis) when he died. Is that what ppl still know about him? Nope he's still known to be the king of rockn' roll (rightfully or not!).
It's not facts hanging on into ppls memories necessarily.
But if the allegations are mentioned it's important to end the talk with stating clearly that Michael was in trial and found NOT GUILTY OF ANY WRONG DOING because read above.

Sure intelligent thinking ppl striving for the truth could be convinced already now that Michael is as innocent as you and me... but that's about intelligent ppl who are seeking the truth of the matter. It's not how public opinion works in general.
We're all brainwashed... at least partly in those information areas which are non of our interest because information business is only in a very few hands of a very few ppl and we all serve their agenda.

And if Michael will bring out only one successfull project again the whole matter will be even sooner forgotten cuz at least partly the media will kiss his behind again and public opinion doesn't hang on in the past... but even if not... and even if there's still a conspiracy going on with media support.

Michael Jackson is the king of pop. He'll always be. That's what he's positively known for and it will not change even if he should decide today to disappear into the life of a nobody.
 
In response to the posts that think Daniel should leave it all behind: I don't think Daniel was bringing up the fact that Michael was innocent and hence bringing up the case, but in fact a response to the endless distrotions and decided ignorance by the media. That's how i understood it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top