MJ Not Guilty

[Santoro]

It's official, the US justice system doesn't work.

sad sad sad.

[Shape D.]

Well, theres always hope in some psycotic ...........

nevermind, It would get deleted anyways.

[grueinthebox]

Maybe OJ can help him find the "real molesters"...   

[Chris]

It's official, the US justice system doesn't work.

sad sad sad.

I disagree.  I believe he's probably guilty, but probably guilty isn't good enough under our system, as it should be.  In Bali, he'd be in front of a firing squad next week.

[Shape D.]

well, we'll get'em next time.

[Santoro]

We have just swung waaaay too far in the directions of suspect's rights.

[Zero_Hour]

It's official, the US justice system doesn't work.

sad sad sad.

So you heard all the testimony and reviewed all the evidence?
Remember, in a criminal trial you are not found innocent, but Not Guilty - reasonable doubt is all that is required. Apparently the jurors felt there was some.

And yes, I think MJ is a fruitcake. I find it disturbing that he likes to have sleepovers with young children. I find it more disturbing that parents of those children think this is OK. However none of that prooves molestation.

[Chris]

I'm suspecting it's going to end up being like OJ Simpson: they can't find him criminally guilty, but they'll find him civilly liable.

[Santoro]

So you heard all the testimony and reviewed all the evidence?

Obviously not.

[Santoro]

Another thought.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Obviously not.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I stand by my assertion that the system doesn't work.

So what do you propose instead? You think you've got it all figured out.

Which is more likely:
- 20 people (jurors) are apparently so enamoured with stardom that they'd let a child molester go.
- or -
- Case was weak and shouldn't have been brought until there was *solid* evidence.


mrC

[Santoro]

Limit defendant's spending on Lawyers. You may spend no more than 2x what the prosecutor spends.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Limit on spending on Lawyers. You may spend no more than 2x what the prosecutor spends.

[Santoro]

Which is more likely:
- 20 people (jurors) are apparently so enamoured with stardom that they'd let a child molester go.

That's not what I said.

[bionicbadger]

The prosecution was weak. The defence raised reasonable doubts which is all they had to do. I mean come on, the accusers were pretty shady.

Do I think MJ is a nut bar and has some serious problems? Yup.
Do I think he molested little kids? Nope. If he wanted to, he could easily afford go to some 3rd world county and buy a bunch of kids to do whatever he wanted with and there would be little risk of anyone ever knowing.
Do I think the accusers were in in just for the publicity and money? Yup.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

That's not what I said.

[Santoro]

Well we can all disagree an I am OK with that.  I am just kind of tired of seeing celebrities walk.   If the burden on prosecutors is so great that they never stand a chance against wealthy people, I see that as a problem.  And I am convinced that is what happened here and with OJ. 

I am not going to debate it endlessly as I was mostly venting.  It's still a great country.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Big question now is: What will the media distract the nation with now? They certainly don't want to talk about important issues.

[Dartful Dodger]

Big question now is: What will the media distract the nation with now? They certainly don't want to talk about important issues.

Natalee Holloway

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Big question now is: What will the media distract the nation with now? They certainly don't want to talk about important issues.

Natalee Holloway

Exactly!


mrC

[DrewKaree]

While I think we all have some sense of "I think he did it", it's not his job to file the court case and prove it for the family.  The family made the accusation - it's THEIR job to prove that he is guilty of the charges. 

I think you're speaking out of frustration for something that you "just KNOW happened", but put the shoe on YOUR foot.  What if you were the one being accused of these things?  Now, you're prolly saying to yourself right now "I'd never be found guilty, because I'd never do something like that".  That's not the point in this case (or your case, since I asked you to put yourself in his shoes).  The point is that you'd have to raise doubt that the accusations put forth are at least SOMEWHAT in doubt.  That's all Mike's lawyers did - the exact same thing you'd be having to do in this situation.

The difference is that you feel it's glaringly obvious that he all but admitted that he did it, which ISN'T what this case is about. 

Oh, and for the record, OJ was given credibel tips long ago that the real killer is an avid golfer in his area.  His idea is to tell everyone he meets on the links that he forgot his golf glove at home and could he borrow theirs.  When he finds the bloody golf glove, he'll spring into action, closing this case and clearing his good name.

[Chris]

Here's a great quote from MSNBC's Michael Ventre:

Make believe this wasn

[Santoro]

That is indeed a great quote.

[ChadTower]

Money flows where it needs to go.

If that were even slightly true, your whole ideology would be practical.  Money never flows where it needs to go.  Money is like electrons, it goes where there is already some and joins an already large amount.

This really comes down to one thing - this family wasn't credible.  They changed their story multiple times, the mother has a litigious get rich quick history, and the prosecution couldn't convince anyone that they were to be believed.

Most people, including some of the jurors by their own admission, believe he has molested boys... just not this one.

[Stingray]

I don't know whether he did it or not. Pretending for a minute that he did not, I can see that MJ would be a very easy target for get-rich-quick lawsuit types. My instincts tell me he's guilty, but that certainly isn't enough to prosecute. I do very much agree that the rich & famous seem to be able to get away with anything in this country. Meanwhile, I can't talk my way out of a ten MPH over the limit speeding ticket.

-S

[ChadTower]

Money can get you out of anything in this world.  That's a sad but demonstrable truth.

[fredster]

I think that there are a lot of people that would love to cash in on MJ.

MJ is beyond strange in my book.  I don't know if he's guilty, but there's a lot of smoke there for no fire. 

The family that put up the charges were just as strange as MJ.  The woman had a history of ripping people off.  Mj was a great target.

What freaks me out is the "fans".  Maybe we should just make some kind of internment camp at Neverland for MJ and his fans?  I dunno.

[jbox]

I do very much agree that the rich & famous seem to be able to get away with anything in this country. Meanwhile, I can't talk my way out of a ten MPH over the limit speeding ticket.

Just so we're clear here, which is more annoying: that someone "gets away with it"; or is it that the someone isn't you?   

[Stingray]

I do very much agree that the rich & famous seem to be able to get away with anything in this country. Meanwhile, I can't talk my way out of a ten MPH over the limit speeding ticket.

Just so we're clear here, which is more annoying: that someone "gets away with it"; or is it that the someone isn't you?   

Well obviously if somebody is "getting away with it" that somebody might as well be me.

-S

[ChadTower]

MJ is beyond strange in my book.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I heard someone in the news mention this, I've thought about it, and I have to say that a strong counter-argument to the idea that the outcome of this trial would have been different if it was "John Q. Public" as a defendant, is the notion that the burden of proof should be higher for high profile characters.

Face it, we live in a disgustingly litigious society and celebrities are a very enticing target. Just by their public exposure alone, the number of potential "enemies" would be exponentially greater than that of "John Q. Public."

I guess, maybe murder trials should have a standard burden of proof, but in any other case (especially those that involve monetary settlements)...I can see the logic of having a little bit more protection in higher stakes trials.

On second thought, maybe this is where the high-powered defense attorneys come into play...maybe they already offset the "standard" burden of proof since they can litigate more effectively than the state. Hmmm.....


Just thinking out loud...
mrC

[RayB]

I applaud you all for the intelligent content of this thread.

[ChadTower]

On second thought, maybe this is where the high-powered defense attorneys come into play...maybe they already offset the "standard" burden of proof since they can litigate more effectively than the state. Hmmm.....

That's the better thought.  There is a reason the woman holding the scales of justice has a blindfold on.  The court system is supposed to be blind to any attribute of the accused not directly relevant to the charges.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I feel bad for the guy, really.  If you think about it, the only true peers he has are people like the British royalty.  He was world famous from the very beginnings of his memory.  He has no concept of societal rules, of ever having been a child, of any sense of reality.

Not that I really want to explore this in great detail (*Yuck*), but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that MJ doesn't participate in sexual activity *at all*. That he's repulsed by it and/or uncomfortable with it altogether.

I think he's so sexually/emotionally underdeveloped, he can only identify with children because they don't intimidate him and/or ply for sex. It's twisted and sad, but it's possible.

I've read through Andy Warhol's diaries, for example, and he was absolutely disgusted by the idea of sex.

mrC

[Stingray]

Not that I really want to explore this in great detail (*Yuck*), but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that MJ doesn't participate in sexual activity *at all*. That he's repulsed by it and/or uncomfortable with it altogether.

 

This is something I have suspected as well, but who knows? The guy has more issues than National Geographic.

-S

[ChadTower]

I think he's so sexually/emotionally underdeveloped, he can only identify with children because they don't intimidate him and/or ply for sex. It's twisted and sad, but it's possible.

I'm betting your partially right, but it could be because children are the only ones not directly after his money.  I'd bet he has so many emotional scars from people using him to get something material that he lives vicariously through the eyes of the kids that see the setup he's built at his ranch.  The kids would only see it as a great place to have pure fun, anyone older than that would start calculating dollars the second they were in the door.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I'd bet he has so many emotional scars from people using him to get something material that he lives vicariously through the eyes of the kids that see the setup he's built at his ranch.  The kids would only see it as a great place to have pure fun, anyone older than that would start calculating dollars the second they were in the door.

I'm sure that's part of it as well. But I definitely think Michael sexual development was adversely effected when, as it has been reported before, his brother's (Jackson 5) consistently hooked up with female fans, right in front of him. Remember, Michael was only about 7-9yrs old at the time...and flooded with propositions. Pretty damaging exposure, I'd think.

He was also abused, possibly sexually abused....so all this stuff definitely plays into his "wacko" behavior.

mrC

[Santoro]

All of that is well and good.  Poor Michael, sad childhood, stunted emotional growth, etc...  BUT none of that is an excuse for anyone else in the courts, and it shouldn't be for him.   I don't think it is relevant to his guilt or innocence.

I'll bet that part of the tack his team took was to play up his pathetic-ness in order to help explain away his abberant behavior.

[Stingray]

I don't think anyone (at least anyone in this discussion) is trying to in any way justify MJ's behavior, only trying to explain what might be at the root of it.

-S

[markb]

If ANYONE on this website admitted to sharing a bed with a 12 year old   'friend' on countless ocassions we'd be inside for a very long time. How on Earth does he get away with an admission like that?

[ChadTower]

He didn't get away with it, he has had a DA trying to put him away for years.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I'll bet that part of the tack his team took was to play up his pathetic-ness in order to help explain away his abberant behavior.

It sure was. But it wasn't what the jurors based their decisions on. As it shouldn't have been...


mrC

[markb]

He was found innocent therefore he got away with it.

The precedent has been set, sharing a bed with 12 year olds is legal.
To me it may be legally alright but it is morally wrong and I just found the whole case to be exetremly disturbing.

[ChadTower]

The precedent has been set, sharing a bed with 12 year olds is legal.

That's not a precedent, as he wasn't charged with sharing a bed with 12 year olds nor are there any laws against sharing a bed with 12 year olds.

It is wrong but not illegal.  Law and morality are not the same.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

If ANYONE on this website admitted to sharing a bed with a 12 year old   'friend' on countless ocassions we'd be inside for a very long time. How on Earth does he get away with an admission like that?

Easy. No one, to date, has been able to prove any wrong-doing. As I mentioned earlier...as irregular, unusual, unseemly, and immoral you may think it is, sharing a bed with a 12 year old is not a crime. It's gross and creepy....but unless a credible witness can come forward, or some solid evidence of molestation can be found, MJ is innocent until proven guilty. I know that pisses a lot of people off, but hey, that's life.

It's times like this I'm glad we have a jury system and a seperation of church (morality) and state (rule of law). I'm speaking well beyond *this* particular case too. I have no idea if Jackson is guilty or innocent, but I'm willing to accept the jury's conclusion.


mrC

[markb]

If ANYONE on this website admitted to sharing a bed with a 12 year old   'friend' on countless ocassions we'd be inside for a very long time. How on Earth does he get away with an admission like that?

Easy. No one, to date, has been able to prove any wrong-doing. As I mentioned earlier...as irregular, unusual, unseemly, and immoral you may think it is, sharing a bed with a 12 year old is not a crime. It's gross and creepy....but unless a credible witness can come forward, or some solid evidence of molestation can be found, MJ is innocent until proven guilty. I know that pisses a lot of people off, but hey, that's life.

It's times like this I'm glad we have a jury system and a seperation of church (morality) and state (rule of law). I'm speaking well beyond *this* particular case too. I have no idea if Jackson is guilty or innocent, but I'm willing to accept the jury's conclusion.


mrC

In principle I agree however if you or I were to admit to sharing a bed with a 12 year old we'd be lucky to get out of town alive.

[missioncontrol]

I don't agree with MJ's views and I think he's a freak, but that doesn't mean I should think he's guilty. I wasn't a juror and I was only given the information the media wanted me to hear. The jury heard it all and if they feel there is resonable doubt then that's what there is..........

And I have to accept that........

[ChadTower]

In principle I agree however if you or I were to admit to sharing a bed with a 12 year old we'd be lucky to get out of town alive.

That is true but has nothing to do with law or the charges against him.

[Dexter]

Whether he was guilty or not, the DA chose to go ahead with the case when the family had already sued fradulently in a different case and the accusor admitted to previously lying under oath. This, plus the fact that the mother was a nut job, leads me to the conclusion that any half decent defense team could have proved reasonable doubt.

Was the DA ever realistically going to secure a conviction?

[ChadTower]

Probably not, but he has been trying to get Jackson for years and this was the best shot he's had so far.

It certainly wasn't a well prosecuted case.

[markb]

Probably not, but he has been trying to get Jackson for years and this was the best shot he's had so far.

It certainly wasn't a well prosecuted case.

Is it right that the defendant can get whoever they wan't to defend them while the prosecution must go with the local District Attorney?

If so isn't that like putting the New York Yankees up against a local softball team?

Excuse the ignorance if this is incorrect.

[Santoro]

That's how I believe it works.  Sadly.

[Dartful Dodger]

Is it right that the defendant can get whoever they wan't to defend them while the prosecution must go with the local District Attorney?

If so isn't that like putting the New York Yankees up against a local softball team?

It's all relevant; the local softball team can wait until they have what they need to win.

The 1927 New York Yankees is regarded as the best of all time.

[DrewKaree]

 

http://www.czabe.com/daily/

Whacko Jacko Beats The Rap

Now that Michael Jackson has sent hack prosecutor Tom Sneddon back to working cases of vagrants caught sleeping on the beach in Santa Barbara, I think it is reasonable to conclude the following lessons from the trial.

1. Money always wins. Okay, "usually wins..."

2. Black people CAN get a fair trial in America (although please refer to #1).

3. Martha Stewart went to jail and Eric Pederson is going to the electric chair, because it LOOKED like each one was guilty. OJ and Jacko are free, even though we know Jackson DID sleep with boys, and a civil trial DID say OJ was "responsible" for the deaths of Ron and Nicole.

4. Okay, Robert Blake looked dicey, but I guess that's one for "my side"...

5. If Ken Lay and Phil Spectre beat the rap, then we've REALLY got a problem.

Posted by czabe at 05:49 AM

[Santoro]

2. Black people CAN get a fair trial in America

I'm confused what does this have to do with the case being discussed?

[Dartful Dodger]

I think it is reasonable to conclude the following lessons from the trial.

I've concluded one lesson from those trials:

California's legal system sux!

[DrewKaree]

June 17, 2005
SADDAM REQUESTS JACKSON'S JURY

Asks Accuser's Mom to Testify Against Him

Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein startled the international legal community today by requesting that the jury in the Michael Jackson child molestation trial be empanelled to sit in judgment of him when his trial gets underway in Baghdad.

The Iraqi dictator made the extraordinary request in a special hearing today, telling the judge in his case, "There is no jury in the world better qualified to hear my case than those twelve people who just let Michael Jackson walk."

In addition to requesting the Jackson jury, Saddam also requested that the mother of Mr. Jackson's accuser be called upon to testify against him in his trial.

The Iraqi madman, who had been gloomy and depressed in recent months, reportedly "perked up" when the Jackson verdict was announced earlier this week, sources inside his prison said.

"When the verdict was read and it was not guilty on all counts, Saddam practically jumped out of his chair," one source said.  "He was like, 'I've got to get that jury - they're awesome!'"

While international human rights groups scrambled to examine the legal and ethical issues involved in bringing the entire Jackson jury to Iraq, a spokesperson for the jury said that the twelve men and women might not be willing to make the journey from Santa Maria, California to Baghdad.

"These are twelve very busy people," said the spokesperson, Stacy DeLone.  "They all have book and movie deals - plus, Milosevic asked first."

Elsewhere, coach Phil Jackson called his return to the Los Angeles Lakers "a story of redemption, reconciliation, and 10 million dollars a year."

[Tiger-Heli]

Not that I really want to explore this in great detail (*Yuck*), but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that MJ doesn't participate in sexual activity *at all*. That he's repulsed by it and/or uncomfortable with it altogether.

Evidently, he participated in it enough to father two children with his ex-wife.

[ChadTower]

Evidently, he participated in it enough to father two children with his ex-wife.

You don't have to have had sex to father children.

[Tiger-Heli]

Evidently, he participated in it enough to father two children with his ex-wife.

You don't have to have had sex to father children.

EWWWWWWWWWWWW!  Ummn, good point.

[fredster]

That he's repulsed by it and/or uncomfortable with it altogether.

Oh please.  He's repulsed with WOMEN maybe.

[DrewKaree]

Not that I really want to explore this in great detail (*Yuck*), but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that MJ doesn't participate in sexual activity *at all*. That he's repulsed by it and/or uncomfortable with it altogether.

Evidently, he participated in it enough to father two children with his ex-wife.

I never heard if he married that specimen cup, and I KNOW I never heard about him divorcing it!