"Yeah I saw Larry King last night. I found that comment about Michael never actually sleeping in the same bed with little boys as quite interesting since I saw Michael Jackson, on TV, tell the world that he does in fact sleep in the same bed with children and that it's the most loving, natural thing you can do. " ------------------------------------------------------- I've no idea what actually goes on, but your description of MJ's statement is not correct. MJ specifically said that he gives them the bed, and he sleeps on the floor.

But he also said it was okay for him to sleep with children that are not his own and he said that he has. That is what I watched him say on TV. And you?

mj said when interviewed by ed bradley that he slept with kids in his bed.bradley got him to admit it more than once.one kid slept in bed with him 365 times.what more do people need to quit throwing out the mj slept on the floor argument.

I've no idea what actually goes on, but your description of MJ's statement is not correct. MJ specifically said that he gives them the bed, and he sleeps on the floor. ----------------------------------------------------------- Yes, that's exactly what I recall.

US brits do like to laugh at you over there. ***** It's always good that friends can share a good laugh. I know we Americans have had some lively chuckles about your lords and peers, and the antics of the royal family. Does Camilla really have a tatoo on the inside of her lower lip?

Jude - you are sooooo bad. :)

Thank you!! You doin' okay?

Thank you!! You doin' okay? ################ Hey, my friend. Yes...doing Okay. Thanks for asking. :)

US brits do like to laugh at you over there. ++++ As we do when we hear or see the Brits mangling of the English language. "Very week evidence" = here in the USA a week is seven days. We would have said weak evidence.

As we do when we hear or see the Brits mangling of the English language. "Very week evidence" = here in the USA a week is seven days. We would have said weak evidence ###################### LOL....you are as bad as Jude1516! :)

Hi Mu Mu You say: There are two major crimes here. a) The Arviso mother obviously will stop at nothing to corrupt and manipulate her children. A common theme in many social circles in the states. b) The american legal system has allowed the career of a home grown 'American Dream' to be shattered with arguments,stories and speculation based completely on hear say. I ask: a) How did you arrive at the determination that American parents corrupt and manipulate their children? I'm an American parent. My children are neither corrupt nor manipulated. I am offended by your words. b) How is the American legal system responsible for shattering MJ's career? Wouldn't you say his own behavior had something to do with it? Can I understand from your post that in the UK the determining factor as to whether or not to go to trial is the defendant's celebrity? You also say: I do hope Jackson changes his image and becomes more accessible to the public. It's time to open the door for the benefit of his own sanity. That's the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard! Jackson attempted to become accessible to the public with the Bashir documentary. Look where it got him. If it's his sanity you're concerned about, here's a saner approach: 1) Avoid contact with the media 2) Close the gates to Neverland, and perform careful background checks before letting anyone in. 3) Focus on career opportunities that remain outside of the public arena such as writing a book, writing and producing music, investing, etc.

Making it illegal for any child to sleep with an adult would violate some cultural norms. So people should use their best judgement. But I still resent the suggestion that sharing a bed always has to be sexual. I've had to share my bed with strangers on trips where roommates were assigned. Yes, they were the same gender, but hey that brings us back to square one. My children did the same when they were still minors.

abbyr311, great post. You're right on target. MuMu_Man => "All of the evidence provided by the prosecution was based on hear say" Do you know what the word "hearsay" is? Whether not evidence is factual or not, has nothing to do with whether it is hearsay. Here is the definition: "Hearsay: Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony" (answer.com) Example of hearsay: I testify in court that I heard Sir Isaac Newton saw an apple fall from a tree. Not hearsay: I testify that I personally saw Godzilla fighting Mothra in real life, not in the movies, but outside my home. The first is hearsay, even though it is 100% truthful. It is not admissable in a court of law. The second is not hearsay. It is a completely false and an intentional lie. But, it is not hearsay. Now, in the MJ case, there was ample non-hearsay evidence. It was testimony of what Gavin and Star *claim* to have seen, with their own eyes, and personally experience. Regardless of whether it true, or false, it is *not* hearsay. If you want to call somebody a liar, feel free to do so. But, please don't try to make your arguments look better, by using fancy legal terms, you do not understand. By the way, http://www.mjjsource.com has a mini-history of where the term came from, written by Oxman.

Calg3 wrote: Example of hearsay: I testify in court that I heard Sir Isaac Newton saw an apple fall from a tree. ---------------------------------------------------------- I would say, this is not a good example of hearsay in its true English Legal Definition. If you saw you heard Newton saw an apple fall from a tree, You are stating a well known fact. In that regard your evidence will be accepted. It will not be treated as hearsay. On the otherhand if you said that Lancito7 told you that she heard Nancy Grace say that MJ was seen sleeping with 6 boys at various times over the years. Now that is hearsay and I think that is what Moooo was refering to in his first post. He was pointing out that many of you on this board have found MJ "not innocent" because you have heard what others have said and you would like to believe what others have said. On the otherhand, the Poms would not normally allow media hearsay whilst a high profile trial is underway. The Moo man was making that comparison with America based on his view from over the pond. Now on the otherhand I heard that the Mooo man may well have joined this board to suss out the level of interest in his brand of Pommie milk. Cream is what they like in the mother country, peaches and cream, and with a nice cooppa tee! Now is that hearsay or is that true?

toonu2, you're talking of a hearsay exception. And yes, I was wrong, in that this *exception* might be allowed. But, it's still hearsay. But, it might be hearsay subject to an exception. I should have stated that hearsay can be accepted or rejected. Non-hearsay can be accepted or rejected. That's why so many of Mesereau's briefs complain of "hearsay not subject to any exception". Hearsay is just one of many reasons to reject evidence.

I should have stated that hearsay can be accepted or rejected. Non-hearsay can be accepted or rejected. ---------------------------------------------------------- Calg3, I hear say unto you that you are right.

jude1516 - Yeh I know we have our fair share of weirdo's and our preee is notorious for slaging people down. We don't want you lot to have all of the glory....... CarolLouise - I'll do better next time.... promise.... Abbyr311 - All of the evidence provided by the prosecution was based on hear say. There were no witnesses, recordings, dna or any other physical evidence. The same can be said for the Chandler case (Still don't get why Jordi didn't come back to testify if Jacko has cntinued to abuse boys ?). The whole case was bought about based on what Mother and son Arviso said. Nothing more. The cost ? 1993 the worlds biggest entertaier bar none, 2005 a very tarnished name and bleak professional and maybe personal future. I don't believe this would ever have made it to court in the uk based on the provided evidence. Jackson has to open up to become accepted and understood. Nobody knows him, the only information you, I and every other consumer see's is what we read in the press or see on the six o'clock news. Again based on plenty of media assumption and speculation on both sides of the pond. Because of this, millions buy into the theory that he is a child molestor without any real foundation. It's a bit like GWB and Tony Blair telling us there are wepons of mass distruction in IRAQ - keep telling us and we'll believe it. The Media is an amazingly powerful tool.... Open the door Mike, let people see who you are (weird bits and all - well maybe (?)), you haven't been accessible for 20 years (Since Frank Dileo (?) was manager). As for Bashir ? He's not worked in the uk since the interview was aired and I don't think he'll ever work here again. Jackson wasn't the first celebrity he shafted. No suprise though where he's managed to find employment now though is it ? Maybe you should should keep your faith with your legal system and give Mr Jackson a chance ? I for one think he deserves it.

Abbyr311 - All of the evidence provided by the prosecution was based on hear say. There were no witnesses, recordings, dna or any other physical evidence. The same can be said for the Chandler case (Still don't get why Jordi didn't come back to testify if Jacko has cntinued to abuse boys ?). The whole case was bought about based on what Mother and son Arviso said. Nothing more. The cost ? 1993 the worlds biggest entertaier bar none, 2005 a very tarnished name and bleak professional and maybe personal future. I don't believe this would ever have made it to court in the uk based on the provided evidence. Jackson has to open up to become accepted and understood. ---------------------------------------------------------- Mu Mu: Calg already provided you with a detailed definition of hearsay. I couldn't explain it better myself, so I won't even try. This case involved a victim's direct account (Gavin), an eye-witness (Star), and physical evidence (fingerprints on porn magazines). None of this is hearsay. The accusations may be false, and the physical evidence may be inconclusive, but it isn't hearsay. We can't evaluate the evidence that would have been admitted in the Chandler case, because the case was never tried. It, too, was possibly false. But the case wasn't based on hearsay. There was a direct accusation, and supporting physical evidence. I happen to believe that Michael Jackson is not guilty of these crimes. I also believe that the purpose of the justice system is to determine the truth. When someone claims to have been victimized, it is the responsibility of the police and the District Attorney's office to investigate and prosecute. Unfortunately, as long as man has choice, some men will choose to lie, and that will result in false charges. Celebrate the fact that the system worked, rather than deny the system's right to work. Yes, MJ paid a heavy price for being accused. But you can't blame the justice system; that blame lies solely on the shoulders of the false accuser. Next: who says Jackson wants to be accepted and understood? If he stays private, he stays safe. Hasn't he been through enough? You selfishly want the vicarious pleasure of seeing him bask in victory. But this isn't about what you want. It's about what MJ needs. He needs to heal, he needs to recover, and he needs to rethink whether or not he wants to pursue a career in the public arena. I wouldn't blame him if he chucked it all.

Abby wrote: Next: who says Jackson wants to be accepted and understood? If he stays private, he stays safe. Hasn't he been through enough? You selfishly want the vicarious pleasure of seeing him bask in victory. But this isn't about what you want. It's about what MJ needs. He needs to heal, he needs to recover, and he needs to rethink whether or not he wants to pursue a career in the public arena. I wouldn't blame him if he chucked it all. ---------------------------------------------------------- Good rational stuff from the supermum yet again! Although, I would not be supprised if MJ raises above all of this. MJ had a great team around him. Yes it has been said that he made many mistakes when hiring people over the years. We all do that, get caught with the wrong people. But throughout this trial, you could not but be impressed by his family, his lead attourny, and the investigators in the background. I think MJ has learned a great leason and that he will apply that to the rest of his life. I think we all learn our biggest leasons in life during our 40's. Up until then we thought teenagers were going to love us till we die, up until then we thought that governments spent our tax money wisely, up until then we thought we could bungy jump without fear, up until then we thought we could win the heart of any lovely maid, (actually that part is still true for some)up untill we were in our fourties we tempted fate and dreamed about that OASIS far away. After 40 we descovered that work, wisdom and time is the true currency of wealth. Now that I think is what MJ is now more enlightened with. Lets see what happens, Abby. (can you check my spelling, I've go to go kick a few "leather" balls)

actually, to say that the only winner in the Michael Jackson trial was the lawyer Mr Messerau, is to follow after the same line that the media has been trumping. I hardly think that Mr Messerau was the only one to win. Michael won, because he was innocent, and proven to be innocent of the accusations made by the Arviso family. Also, truth was the winner on the day. Because for every lie that Gavin Arviso told, a witness or witnesses were able to stand up and dispute what he claimed to be true. In fact, the prosecution were SYSTEMATICALLY DEMOLISHED FOR EVERY SINGLE CHARGE THAT WAS LEVELLED AT MICHAEL JACKSON. The only thing that couldn't be proven, was that Gavin Arviso was not physically molested, because it is HIS WORD, against Michael's word. Up until the trial, Gavin's case was looking pretty strong, but as the trial progressed, witnesses came forth, from school, from social services, from everywhere...proving him to be a liar, and his mother a liar. When you have that many people proving that you are a liar, then obviously the outcome can only be that you are a liar, and that the person you are accusing is innocent. Which is what the jury decided, based on the evidence. Michael was never guilty, as Messerau said, he has always been innocent. The liars on the day, got their just desserts. I don't hear the prosecution calling for a retrial, do you?