Not to nitpick, but the guy was found "not guilty", not "innocent". Big
difference!


"Lou" wrote in message
rio.net...
"Ed" wrote in message
. 92.175...

Maybe he'll think twice now, of sleeping in bed with young boys.
Unfortunately, zebras rarely change their stripes. He was "lucky".
He claimed to be innocent the first time too, so how come he paid off?
If I had all that money - I'll be damned if I'd pay off if I was
innocent.


You might, when you consider what he went through in that trial.
Paying
off someone doesn't necessarily mean you are guilty. Pay offs happen all
the time.

Personally, after hearing all the wierd witness testimony and the lying
that went on, I still don't know whether to think he was guilty or not.
On
the other hand, I am certain he is one sick wacko with his head all
screwed
up.


Ed

Oh believe me, I heard some of the bull **** lies told in the process.
Those would have swung my thinking in his favor 100% had it not been for
the previous pay off. I heard what you said and you may be right, but I
still can't help to think that paying off - is the wrong answer - IF one
is innocent. It still gives the image of guilt - as it clearly has not
only in my opinion but many others in this case. That is a shame, he had a
very promising carerr, was good at what he did and now his name forever
tarnished - regardless. Maybe he didn't do it and/or didn't mean harm to
kids, we won't ever know, but his antics sure were a bit hard to follow.
I'm not God, I don't know if he is guilty or not. IF he isn't then I sure
in hell am sorry to see he had to get dragged through that hell and I
wouldn't wish that on any "innocent" person. But, if he did even 1/3 of
what was claimed, then he certainly needs help. Even having been found
innocent, he may want to consider seeking counseling. It may save him from
a future case.

L.

Floyd Sense wrote:

Not to nitpick, but the guy was found "not guilty", not "innocent". Big
difference!


That's not nitpicking, it's fact.

"Dave Holford" wrote in message
...


Floyd Sense wrote:

Not to nitpick, but the guy was found "not guilty", not "innocent". Big
difference!


That's not nitpicking, it's fact.



If it will help clear the air a tad.... one of the jurors said he believed
MJ has molested boys, but in "this" case, the one being tried, there was
enough evidence to let him go - according to the charges they had to deal
with. Doesn't matter.... he is still being painted a molester. HE IS DONE.
His life is finished regardless what he does. The media - right or wrong,
is eating that stuff up. "THEY" don't let anything go. He is fried
regardless how he was found.

L.