For the manslaghter of the king of pop Michael Jackson.

Hands up if you believe it's true?

His lawyer said " “What matters most right now is trying to keep Dr. Murray from taking up a prison cell in this community,”

I understand that this is code for trying to get him allowed to serve his sentence under house arrest, not in jail.

Rich man pays not very good doctor to give him as many drugs as he thinks he needs (not to treat him as a doctor would). Doctor screws up, man dies. Doctor goes to jail, man still dead.

Not the happiest story, and the "Hollywood doctor" syndrome needs investigating on the back of this

Talk about looking for a scapegoat.

His fanatical fans would have you believe Michael would have lived eternally had it not been for this episode.

Lets face it, there was only ever going to be 1 outcome to this trial, but let's also remember, he slept with children. A paedophile in my book. Imagine the circus when Gary Glitter dies...

"Slept with children", no matter how weird, is not a synonym for 'had sex with children'.

In anyone's book.

They were his words, as said to Martin Bashir ims.

He said he had sex with children?

Really?

Or are you thinking he talked in euphemisms?

Only if you invent words in your head that nobody actually says.


[url=http://www.mjshouse.com/stories/living_with_mj_transcript.htmlTranscript of the Bashir interview[/url

So in fact, he actually denied it.

"It's not sexual"

"They were his words, as said to Martin Bashir", and as Live Wired twisted to suit his agenda.

Paying them millions of pounds to keep quiet smells a tad fishy mind.

I know someone who spent time with Michael Jackson at John Reid's estate (Elton John's manager) when going through treatment with Beauchamp Colcough (known as Beechy in celeb circles) in 1993. I've seen a letter from Jackson thanking her for helping him. Apparently he arrived a virtual zombie and made good progress in the few days there.

The people I've met who were there all insist there is no chance Jackson had sexual relations with children. A couple of the people there were uncomfortable with what they were doing bearing in mind the allegations at the time, and they asked him to show them his penis in reference to Jordan Chandler's statement that Jackson was circumcised (he wasn't). From what I understand Jackson never fully mentally matured into an adult and his apparent fascination with children was part and parcel of that. Aside from that, when he was free from drugs and comfortable with his surroundings they said he was a funny, kind man - with a deep voice(!).

I don't know and make no claims either way but it was fascinating hearing some of the stories.

The average bloke would never have got off the charges, thats for sure.

If you've got lashings of cash, why not? I can comprehend such a decision – and we're not talking about someone who was, I suspect, particularly in touch with reality or basic logic. I'd add that I think that it therefore became a way for people to make money – sending their children in to spend the night at Jackson's home and then seeking cash (which tells you something about the parents in question, frankly – and it ain't nice).

The trial was beyond satire, but I remember thinking that the prosecution was up the spout when it emerged, before the trial, that they'd had to beg for additional evidence to be admitted. The evidence in question was the Bashir interview – see above. In other words, something so completely in the public domain as that was now something they needed for their case. Or put another way, they knew they had no serious case to start with.

I am not, before anyone assumes, a Jackson fan. For what it's worth, my own opinion on the case is that he didn't have sex with children, but did, as he himself said, sleep with them. Given his desperate desire to be a child again himself (presumably to experience the childhood he himself was denied by his parents) and his Peter Pan complex, I think it's a feasible explanation.

The families keeping quiet after being paid is equally fishy for mine, but there you go.

I was never convinced tbh. In all those years and with all those kids that stayed with him there were maybe two or three allegations?

If he was some rich fool who thought himself above the law there'd have been other families coming out of the woodwork. You can guarantee that most of those families had conversations with their kids when the first allegations started coming out.

And there you go – Cronus and I basically agreeing on something – albeit from different levels of knowledge/understanding.

Maybe it's Michael magic at work.

As I've mentioned – families sending their children to stay with him, after the first rumours/allegations, stinks for mine.

I don't think anything about it can be known 'for sure' (except by a handful of people). I'm inclined to believe that an innocent man doesn't fork out several million quid to buy the silence of a person making a malicious allegation of child abuse, however.

Dammit.

Altogether now, "Heal the world...."

A female jury member giving an interview afterwards said she voted not guilty because the prosecutor had shifty eyes. Only in America.