And you, and pretty much most people, are forgetting that he suffers from Vitiligo (or leukoderma), which causes large white patches or streaks on the skin, and makes you very vulnerable to skin cancer. Michael Jackson uses light-coloured makeup to even out the blotchy complexion.

Wow, these egos make baby jesus cry.

You were not on the jury and the only information you got about the trial was second hand information from journalists who may or may not have their own biases. The jury was out in deliberations for 7 days. It's obvious they thought about all the evidence and charges carefully and didn't make a snap judgement.

You know far less than the jury did about the case so stop acting like you know more than them and passing judgement with information you don't have.

Never thought I would say this, but I love you Kieran

You don't know that. You weren't present for the deliberation process. You have no idea what went on behind those doors, same as anyone else here.

I don't know if he is guilty of molestation or not. The guy is such a weirdo that it is impossible to know that without physical evidence.

I think Google wants you gone.

And you don't know that it wasn't. On a high profile case like this, the chances of the jury going, "So who says not guilty just so we can get outta here?" are slim to none. They probably dliberated very carefully, especially considering how long it took them to come to a verdict.

So STFU.

The only point I felt worth quoting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2481467.stm

Heh, over time he seems to get whiter. Look at all the other "enchancements" he has made to himself.

And no, I don't trust when they say a celebrity has X disease. Like the numerous ones with AIDS, they try and push it to be something else.

Visually you can freakin' see he has modified himself with plastic surgery. God knows what else he did. Makeup my arse, that is his real skin. Look at pictures where he has facial hair. Something is rotten in Denmark, and I don't think it is leukoderma.

Exactly.
The jury were, the jury saw all the evidence, physical or otherwise, and they have made their decision, so their opinion is far more informed and educated than yours, or anyone elses. That's sort of the whole point of a jury.

Your honour, the defendant is a weirdo. Prosecution rests.

Yes, he has got whiter, because the vitiligo has gotten worse over time. Usually as a young adult, vitiligo victims develop white patches that spread to larger areas.
When he first had it, he'd cover up the white parts with dark makeup, but once the patches had become too large to do that, he'd cover up the remaining dark patches. This is why in the late 80s he started looking very white very suddenly. He's probably used different makeups across time.

In 1984, he was badly burnt after an accident on the set of a Pepsi ad, and had reconstructive surgery on his head. I think he broke his nose too, and had subsequent surgeries because something went wrong the first time.

Yoshi:



Mort - I assume that last line is in response to me. You're twisting things a bit. MJ is a strange character and for that reason he may do unusual things that would imply something people can use against him. I'm NOT saying he should be prosecuted because he's different.

And you're right about them seeing the evidence and such, however, it only takes one peice of indisputable evidence rather than every last drop of info. to prove something.

One either has the pigment or no pigment. It is binary, not values inbetween. He is gradually getting whiter. As you say it is patches of white. What is with the gradual skin tone change?

He looks fine in 1989; and nose jobs do NOT do that to a broken nose. His cartilage is COMPLETELY OBLITERATED. Not just broken, serious amounts of tissue are MISSING.

Different makeup, when the patches were smaller the makeup could be subtle and had to become more and more drastic as it got worse.

umm, doesn't the family still have appeals. If there was anything wrong with what happened in court, the appeals court may actualy order a re-trial.

also, remember, the things you are mentioning are all circumstantual evidence. eyewitness testimony and circumstantual evidence are not as important as actual physical evidence. witnesses are falible and you could make many different types of accusations on the same circumstantual evidence.

I promised I would not post, but the understanding of the justice system that some people have seems to come from movies they have seen, rather than examples of the system in action.

It's far more probable they were actually debating the case than throwing around paper airplanes and talking about the latest basketball game. Being on a jury is usually not considered a fun thing to do and you usually want to do things as quickly and efficiently as possible. Goofing off doesn't achieve this.

Acquittals aren't subject to judicial review:

"The Court of Appeals thought, not without reason, that the acquittal was based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation. Nevertheless, "[t]he verdict of acquittal was final, and could not be reviewed . . . without putting [the petitioners] twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution." United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 671." -- Fong Foo v. United States

Very true. I was jury foreman a few months ago on a case and I made it a priority for the other jury members to get things done as efficiently as possible.

Of course, but to say it was done obviously carefully and properly is far out of place, especially after one juror admitted to be extremely ticked at the accuser's mother.

Just to comment on what people think about this, a friend of mine set her MSN display name as:
"Just another example of how people with money can get away with anything no matter how much evidence there is"

This kind of attitude is so prevalent. WHAT EVIDENCE? The only evidence was he-said she-said testimony, with no physical proof that I have heard of.

As far as anyone knows for sure, he's just a man who for whatever the heck reason has had children in his bedroom.
I wish people would get off their high-horses and face facts instead of making completely baseless accusations, and railing at a court of law that has found him innocent through due process, instead of guilty by speculation as they have.

Replace "obviously" with "most likely". Problem solved.