Michael Jackson Trial Result

[Young Drachma]

Well, at least no one can claim that it was racism. I mean, there weren't any black people on the jury.

[Galaxy]

Chances of a civil suit?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Well, at least no one can claim that it was racism. I mean, there weren't any black people on the jury.

Nor were there any in the defense chair.

[Raiders Army]

Not guilty does not equal innocent.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Southern California should be banish from the US.

It'll fall into the ocean soon enough.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Not guilty does not equal innocent.

It does to the eyes of the media and law.

[sterlingice]

I officially hate all of you people watching this crap on tv because I'm guessing it will pre-empt Jeopardy. Idiots.

SI

[Karlifornia]

LOL! Go Michael! Pajama Party at Neverland tonight. The Franzia will be flowing! (invitation only extended to hairless adolescents)

[stkelly52]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

this should make any kid who was sexually assaulted by a superstar really want to seek legal action.

I always hear people say things like this when alledged sexual offenders are found not guilty, and I think that it is a load of crap. Should we as a socity discard all of the evidence so that the next victim will feel comfortable coming forward? Mind you I didn't hear much of the trial, but what did come out made it sound less than certain that Jackson was guilty.

[Easy Mac]

Jeopardy isn't on for 2 hours silly.

And some Conservative talk radio guy was yelling at the top of his lungs after the verdict was read, somehow indicting liberals in the process. Got to love these guys. Good show otherwise though. I rarely agree, but he makes me laugh, and we have similar non-political interests.

[Galaxy]

Chances of Jacko jumpin on the roof of the SUV?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Jeopardy isn't on for 2 hours silly.

Jeopardy is on at 4:30 here

SI

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Not guilty does not equal innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty. He wasn't proven guilty, so = innocent.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Jeopardy isn't on for 2 hours silly.

And some Conservative talk radio guy was yelling at the top of his lungs after the verdict was read, somehow indicting liberals in the process. Got to love these guys. Good show otherwise though. I rarely agree, but he makes me laugh, and we have similar non-political interests.

When all else fails blame the liberals!

[Tigercat]

If he did it or not, given the evidence and arguements put forth, this seems to be the right verdict. If the kid was molested or not, he needs not go past his mom for someone to blame for the situation hes in.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

this should make any kid who was sexually assaulted by a superstar really want to seek legal action.

How many kids are sexually assaulted by superstars? Seems like a narrow demographic to be overly concerned about. I think the better lesson is that if you are a parent and use questionable judgement in allowing your child to consort with someone whom you think is harming them, you better make sure you don't try to scam any other celebrities or JC Penney.


I see some TV talking heads are already blasting the DA, which I don't think is entirely fair. Say what you will about this guy being a wacko, but given the history of the family making the accusations in this case and that no one else apparently backed up the story, how can you be surprised?

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by George W Bush

Innocent until proven guilty. He wasn't proven guilty, so = innocent.

I'm still amazed people don't get that...

[Blackadar]

Not guilty =/= innocent. It means that they had a reasonable doubt as to whether you were guilty or not. It's not the same thing.

I think he's a freak and he's probably guilty of some of this shit somewhere. But from the cursory reporting I saw on this, I'd probably have a hard time convicting him. The kid and his family's motivations and background were enough for reasonable doubt.

[Joe Canadian]

For the love of god folks... you can't just "think" someone is guilty and lock them up. You have to prove it, and in a case where there is no physical evidence and you're relying on witness' testimony... those people need credibility. In this case they had ZERO. So the end result is a verdict of Not Guilty.

This is how the justice system is supposed to work, isn't it?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

For the love of god folks... you can't just "think" someone is guilty and lock them up. You have to prove it, and in a case where there is no physical evidence and you're relying on witness' testimony... those people need credibility. In this case they had ZERO. So the end result is a verdict of Not Guilty.

This is how the justice system is supposed to work, isn't it?

Nope, for some folks..the media convicting you is enough.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

For the love of god folks... you can't just "think" someone is guilty and lock them up. You have to prove it, and in a case where there is no physical evidence and you're relying on witness' testimony... those people need credibility. In this case they had ZERO. So the end result is a verdict of Not Guilty.

This is how the justice system is supposed to work, isn't it?

But he has a funny nose! He must be guilty!

What a banner year for news: that runaway bride, michael jackson trial, and life support girl in florida. If not for the pope dying, it'd be a "stupid news" sweep.

SI

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Nope, for some folks..the media convicting you is enough.

I'm gonna tape Nancy Grace tonight on Headline News... her head is going to explode!!!!! I can't wait!!!!

[SFL Cat]

I guess the DA wasn't allowed to play the interview with Jackson where he admitted he slept in bed with kids. Hell, maybe I'll go next door and ask my neighbor if his 11 and 13 year-old kids can come over to my house tonight and sleep in my bed with me. Michael Jackson does it, and since he was acquited of all charges, that means its AOK.

As far as I'm concerned, Michael Jackson just joined Robert Blake in the O.J. Simpson Club.

[SFL Cat]

dola -- also sad to see that no one napalmed all the "Wacko Jacko" fans outside the courthouse. These are people that have no business reproducing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

dola -- also sad to see that no one napalmed all the "Wacko Jacko" fans outside the courthouse. These are people that have no business reproducing.

Amen. First one to go should be "the dove lady".

[st.cronin]

I thought it was hilarious that there were anti-war and anti-abortion rallies going on outside the court. I mean, huh? Did you guys grab the wrong signs or something?

[Galaxy]

What shocks me is that lesser charges of alcohol, ect. were not guilty. I could see questions about the particular molesation, but jeez.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I guess the DA wasn't allowed to play the interview with Jackson where he admitted he slept in bed with kids. Hell, maybe I'll go next door and ask my neighbor if his 11 and 13 year-old kids can come over to my house tonight and sleep in my bed with me. Michael Jackson does it, and since he was acquited of all charges, that means its AOK.

As far as I'm concerned, Michael Jackson just joined Robert Blake in the O.J. Simpson Club.

This has been said about 50 Million times... sleeping in the same room, or bed with children may be considered weird by most people, but it does not make you a child molester... it just makes you a very irresponsible and weird person. And that right there is all they proved in this case... they had testimony from reliable people that he's done this... what they didn't prove was the conspiracy, and molestation charges.

If the DA had of charged him with 1st Degree Weirdness, or 2nd Degree Bed Sleeping... then the jury would have easily come back with a conviction. Too bad those things aren't illegal.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

What shocks me is that lesser charges of alcohol, ect. were not guilty. I could see questions about the particular molesation, but jeez.

The way the charge reads, I can see why they found him not guilty on the alcohol charge. He wasn't charged with administering alcohol to a minor. According to the news report, he was charged with:

Four counts of administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the commision of felony child molestation.

Under that wording, if he wasn't guilty of the molestation, he wouldn't be guilty of the alcohol administration.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

What shocks me is that lesser charges of alcohol, ect. were not guilty. I could see questions about the particular molesation, but jeez.

That's my main gripe about it. But I guess the jurors felt that they had to vote all or none.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by rjolley

The way the charge reads, I can see why they found him not guilty on the alcohol charge. He wasn't charged with administering alcohol to a minor. According to the news report, he was charged with:


Under that wording, if he wasn't guilty of the molestation, he wouldn't be guilty of the alcohol administration.

Can you post all the charges relating to alcohol?

[rjolley]

This is all I've seen as far as the charges:

The Charges

• Jackson was charged with molesting an underage cancer patient and giving him alcohol, specifically:
  • Four counts of committing a lewd act upon a child;
  • One count of attempting to commit a lewd act upon a child;
  • Four counts of administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the commision of felony child molestation;
  • And one count of conspiring to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.
• Jackson pleaded not guilty. The defense maintained the child's mother was attempting to get money from the singer by making the charges.
• Jackson was found not guilty on all counts.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by rjolley

This is all I've seen as far as the charges:

The Charges

• Jackson was charged with molesting an underage cancer patient and giving him alcohol, specifically:
  • Four counts of committing a lewd act upon a child;
  • One count of attempting to commit a lewd act upon a child;
  • Four counts of administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the commision of felony child molestation;
  • And one count of conspiring to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.
• Jackson pleaded not guilty. The defense maintained the child's mother was attempting to get money from the singer by making the charges.
• Jackson was found not guilty on all counts.

I know the general charges, but was wondering what the four specific charges in regards of administering the alcohol were.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I know the general charges, but was wondering what the four specific charges in regards of administering the alcohol were.

From what I read there, it is not four different charges, it is the same charge four times. Four COUNTS.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

dola -- also sad to see that no one napalmed all the "Wacko Jacko" fans outside the courthouse. These are people that have no business reproducing.

I wonder why al-Qaeda hasn't tried it yet--the carnival circus atmosphere plus heavy media coverage seemingly makes gatherings surrounding high-profile legal cases/police investigations a pretty attractive target.

I do suspect that you would be outraged, not happy, if muslim extremists were the ones who prevented those "Wacko Jacko" fans from reproducing...

[RPI-Fan]

This was just an example of how big of a difference there is between an elite defense attorney and some journeyman ho-hum prosecutor.

Meserau (sp?) litigated the shit out of the prosecution in this case.

That said, I still do not feel strongly either way whether I think Michael Jackson is guilty or innocent.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by rjolley

Under that wording, if he wasn't guilty of the molestation, he wouldn't be guilty of the alcohol administration.

Apparently there was a lesser charge tucked in there, so they could have found him guilty on the alcohol but not the molestation.

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Apparently there was a lesser charge tucked in there, so they could have found him guilty on the alcohol but not the molestation.

Yes, this is totally correct.

In the press conference with the jury, the dumbass reporters failed to even ask the jury why no conviction on the misdemeanor alcohol charges.

[Galaxy]

Speaking of the press conference, I found some of the statements made by the jurors alittle odd, such as, "What mother in her right mind would allow this to happen?"

[RPI-Fan]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Speaking of the press conference, I found some of the statements made by the jurors alittle odd, such as, "What mother in her right mind would allow this to happen?"

I agree.

The PC does demonstrate just how inept the prosecution was. Not once did they say, "The mother didn't get abused, the child did..."

[Rizon]

Ham on, ham on, ham on whole wheat, all right.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

For the love of god folks... you can't just "think" someone is guilty and lock them up. You have to prove it, and in a case where there is no physical evidence and you're relying on witness' testimony... those people need credibility. In this case they had ZERO. So the end result is a verdict of Not Guilty.

This is how the justice system is supposed to work, isn't it?

Zero? The kid being able to describe MJ's penis sounds like some evidence. The fingerprints on the sexually explicit material of both Michael and the kid seem to be a little more. Not sure how that equates to ZERO.

Was the kid put in harms way by the parents, more than likely. Should the kid have to pay for that? No.

[EagleFan]

For those who feel that he did not do anything wrong. Plan a night at his house for your kids and then let us know how you feel about the situation.

[ShaqFu]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Zero? The kid being able to describe MJ's penis sounds like some evidence.

What penis?

Seriously, a penis isn't a fingerprint. Your penis and my penis could look the same. And, did they whip Michael's penis out in court for comparison?

The fingerprints on the sexually explicit material of both Michael and the kid seem to be a little more.

It's not hard for cops to take the pornos from the house, hand them to the kid to get his grubby fingerprints on and use that as evidence.

Also, a child's fingerprints on a porno magazine doesn't necessarily mean that Jackson shared them with the boy. Growing up, I would visit friends and we would find the stacks of dirty magazines, without dad knowing.

A 12-13 year-old boy is going through puberty and when I was at that age, I wanted to know what was in those dirty magazines. I wanted to know what a naked woman looked like and was especially curious about the area down below.

[HomerJSimpson]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

For the love of god folks... you can't just "think" someone is guilty and lock them up. You have to prove it, and in a case where there is no physical evidence and you're relying on witness' testimony... those people need credibility. In this case they had ZERO. So the end result is a verdict of Not Guilty.

This is how the justice system is supposed to work, isn't it?

You're right (except about zero evidence. There was some evidence, but not to the level to convict according to the jury). Once more, think about what the forman has said. He said he thought Jackson was guilty of molesting at least two children in the past, but that wasn't the current charges. THAT is a good juror. Past guilt of crimes does not equal current guilt of crimes.

I personally feel confident that Jackson has committed molestation. That is an opinion. Courts must convict on facts, though, not opinion or speculation. Sadly, it seems in this country, too many lower income defendants get convicted on opinion, and only the rich can afford the attorneys that can allow them to have a some what fair trial.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

Sadly, it seems in this country, too many lower income defendants get convicted on opinion, and only the rich can afford the attorneys that can allow them to have a some what fair trial.

What's truly sad is the people who love to point out "the justice system is broken" don't do it when the poor man is railroaded and the system actually fails to work. No, they cry this when the person who can afford a fair trial actually gets one and the system does work.

[Castlerock]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

For those who feel that he did not do anything wrong. Plan a night at his house for your kids and then let us know how you feel about the situation.

I don't think that most people feel he did nothing wrong. They may even think that he probably IS guilty of child molestation (at least at some point). But the state has a very high standard before they can take away someone's liberty. They have to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt". The standard is not "would I let my child spend the night at his house".

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by ShaqFu

It's not hard for cops to take the pornos from the house, hand them to the kid to get his grubby fingerprints on and use that as evidence.

If you follow that logic, then is there any circumstance where any defendant could be convicted of anything?

Pretty much any bit of physical evidence could be altered in som way by malicious police or prosecutors, right? It's at least possible. So, if you accept the notion that a photograph with two sets of prints is not evidence of anything because the police could have deliberately manufactured the prints... then you presumably have to toss out almost anything entered into evidence that has been in police hands.

If there's a specific reason to suggest that the police manufactured evidence, you make that case by showing statements of actions of the police to support that theory. You hear testimony about who had custody of the evidence, and how it was kept and maintained. But you don't just dismiss everything in every case because there could have theoretically been a police conspiracy. Otherwise, the state would be unable to present a meaningful case against any offender.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by George W Bush

Innocent until proven guilty. He wasn't proven guilty, so = innocent.

I believe you're mixing things up a little. IIRC, in order for the jury to decide on a not guilty verdict, there is at least some reasonable doubt as to whether a crime was committed. That is based upon your first sentence above, innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, because he was not guilty on all counts that meant there was reasonable doubt, not that he is innocent.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Zero? The kid being able to describe MJ's penis sounds like some evidence.

Did you see Chappelle's show?

Was the kid put in harms way by the parents, more than likely. Should the kid have to pay for that? No.

Well if Jackson did actually mollest this kid, then the kid has alread paid for it... it's a question of wether future kids should pay. But again there was no way that they could convict him under these circumstances.

Originally Posted by EagleFan

For those who feel that he did not do anything wrong. Plan a night at his house for your kids and then let us know how you feel about the situation.

I'm assuming I fall under this... what I'm saying is that Jackson shouldn't have been convicted in this case. I believe that he has mollested kids in the past, I have my doubts about this case, but he very may well have done it... HOWEVER, just because I think & everyone else think he's a child abuser, doesn't mean we can throw him in jail on a hunch. You need reliable evidence & testimony to convict someone... in this court case that was given.

But I love how everyone asks... would you let your kids spend a night at his house. Of course not, he's a grown man... I wouldn't let my future children stay over to any adults house if it were the adult that asked it.

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

You're right (except about zero evidence. There was some evidence, but not to the level to convict according to the jury).

Yes, that's what I was getting at... the no physical evidence was a bit of an exageration.

I personally feel confident that Jackson has committed molestation. That is an opinion. Courts must convict on facts, though, not opinion or speculation. Sadly, it seems in this country, too many lower income defendants get convicted on opinion, and only the rich can afford the attorneys that can allow them to have a some what fair trial.

B-I-N-G-O!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We have a winner!!!!!!