Michael Jackson?
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,767
Likes: 1
From: soopasoak dat hoe.
Originally Posted by s2000qtee,Jun 13 2005, 03:55 PM
Be careful with that AV, Beaney.....Michael Jackson might see it and take you up on that offer 
Mine is exit only thank you very much 
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 65,827
Likes: 2
From: FCUK
Originally Posted by jedwards,Jun 14 2005, 05:18 AM
Not guilty of conspiracy (1), lewd act (2) or lewd act (3) or lewd act (4) or lewd act (5) or attempt to commit lewd act (6) or administering an intoxicant to commit a felony (7) or administering an intoxicant to commit a felony (8) or administering an intoxicant to commit a felony or administering an intoxicant to commit a felony (9) or administering an intoxicant to commit a felony (10)
Nothing
Nothing
IMHO and from the little I know of the case, I think it was correct that he was found not guilty on the evidence given. That, however, does not mean that I don't think he is a certifiable nutcase who needs to be locked up to protect the innocent (and not so innocent!!).
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 10,963
Likes: 0
From: N to the Y to the C
Originally Posted by tokyo_james,Jun 13 2005, 08:23 PM
My take is that this is all down to the fact that the prosecution witnesses' evidence couldn't be trusted due to their background and previous acts.
IMHO and from the little I know of the case, I think it was correct that he was found not guilty on the evidence given. That, however, does not mean that I don't think he is a certifiable nutcase who needs to be locked up to protect the innocent (and not so innocent!!).
IMHO and from the little I know of the case, I think it was correct that he was found not guilty on the evidence given. That, however, does not mean that I don't think he is a certifiable nutcase who needs to be locked up to protect the innocent (and not so innocent!!).