Michael Jackson Not Guilty

Jackson is guilty of being an idiot.

He should have taken precautions after the last case... which I believe he was innocent of because if anyone touched my kids I want them in jail, no amount of money would justify dropping the charges.....

Jackson should have said "no more children in my life", but if he came across ( no jokes) a "sad case" like the boy with cancer then he should have made sure at no time was he alone with the child...cover himself.

On the flip side as we see here everyone has doubts about jackson because the finger pointed and once it points it doesn't matter if he is guilty or innocent, the tar sticks, so why did this mother allow her child to stay over unsupervised?. If jackson had been found guilty I would suggest the mother should also have faced charges of aiding and abetting.

By all accounts this was a conservative jury in a conservative area. They looked at the evidence, nothing else.

OMFG... me and Hank are in agreement?

He was found "Not Guilty", ergo he is innocent unless further evidence appears.

As the Jury was made up of 8 women and 4 men, and 2 of them had been sexually abused as children, i'd say that the fact it wasn't a hung Jury speaks volumes as to the quality of evidence presented.

Everyone knows, and knew then, that he was/is a little strange and "Different" ... that doesn't mean he is the devil incarnate, or that an accusation is the same as proof of any crime.

I'm surprised at you Gepper... would you have burnt witches in the middle ages too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

As the Jury was made up of 8 women and 4 men, and 2 of them had been sexually abused as children, i'd say that the fact it wasn't a hung Jury speaks volumes as to the quality of evidence presented.

---

Precisely.

A jury member was on CNN this morning, who said basically that he personally feels Jackson is guilty ("all those years sleeping with little boys, *something* must have gone on, I don't believe they just sat around and watched movies and ate popcorn"), but the star witness and his mother (infamous "person #80?") were reduced to zero credibility, and the jury had no choice but to acquit of the charges as presented in the case.

Isn't this the second such investigation? More surely to come.

Cheers,
-Noble

Agreed,

They found him not guilty of the charges laid, based on the evidence produced.

It is quite possible that some of these people believed him to be a child molester and found him not guilty.

That's the way it works chaps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Agreed,

They found him not guilty of the charges laid, based on the evidence produced.

It is quite possible that some of these people believed him to be a child molester and found him not guilty.

That's the way it works chaps.

---

I agree. Close the subject in this instance. If any parent in the future allows their children to take part in any of these 'activities', then charge them first. That would give the prosecution a better case if the parents were found guilty of 'neglect.

Hey JPaul, long time no see.

I wonder how much of Jackson's money has to do with it -- 'letting their kids hang out with Michael' might have been permissable in the parental eye in hopes of getting some freebies for the family... (which he was known at times to give).

Think all the parents weren't exactly stupid, but rather greedy?

Looking for reasons to rationally explain stupidity as always,
-Noble

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNobleEU

Hey JPaul, long time no see.

I wonder how much of Jackson's money has to do with it -- 'letting their kids hang out with Michael' might have been permissable in the parental eye in hopes of getting some freebies for the family... (which he was known at times to give).

Think all the parents weren't exactly stupid, but rather greedy?

Looking for reasons to rationally explain stupidity as always,
-Noble

---

Nice to see you old bean, I trust the studies of ancient Aramaic go well.

I tend to agree, the parents may well have subconsciously rationalized the situation with a view to accepting the "freebies" of which you speak.

The human mind can be wonderfully blind when called upon. I am pretty certain that said parents (on a superficial level) actually believed the subconcious rationalizations. However I also suspect that Mr Jackson may also genuinely believe that he did nothing wrong. I personally think he probably did (do something wrong).

The problem is that I believe said offences to be absolute, which creates something of a quandry in my own mind. I see that the actions, in and of themselves are wrong. However I also see him as a product of a seriously dysfunctional upbringing. Which makes everyone here, including him, a victim.

A monochrome World would be nice.

If the asshole don't fit ................ya jurys gotta acquit. :unsure:

the man is wierd, doe to his life. But i dont think he's guilty!
He may have had kids sleep in hes bed but he is so fucked he does`ent se anything sexuel in it!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

I agree. Close the subject in this instance.

---

well, that's the sensible thing, right? but it's still possible that this family may bring a civil lawsuit against MJ for money. despite the mother's claims that she doesn't want "the devil's money." looking at her past, when has she ever NOT wanted money from a celebrity?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061500328.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

He was found "Not Guilty", ergo he is innocent unless further evidence appears.

As the Jury was made up of 8 women and 4 men, and 2 of them had been sexually abused as children, i'd say that the fact it wasn't a hung Jury speaks volumes as to the quality of evidence presented.

---

not only the quality of the evidence, but the quality of the witnesses. when the evidence isn't obviously sufficient, the jury must then rely more on witness testimony which is all about credibility. they brought out witnesses who'd either had criminal pasts, had personal grudges against MJ, had previously sued MJ, had sold info about MJ to tabloids, etc. the prosecutor said he can't choose the victims or "vet" the witnesses, but he certainly can choose his battles, and would've been wise to choose more carefully. he could have abandoned the case upon realizing that he didn't have one. or at the very least he could've used a better strategy, thrown the accuser's mother to the lions instead of portraying her a saint, and tried to salvage the accuser's credibility by disconnecting his character from his mother's.

i've read some post-trial comments from anti-MJ pundits (legal/political types) who'd been calling for conviction all along, and it seems as though they wanted him to be punished in this case for things he might've done in other cases... and they see it as a moral failure on the jury's part to not carry out such punishment against an arrogant libertine who's been "getting away with it" for too long. but he wasn't on trial for things he might've done to other people, he was on trial for what this particular family said he committed against them, and the judge and jury had the apparent wisdom to understand this distinction. in contrast, the pundits lacked the wisdom to distinguish between "innocent" and "innocent in this particular case."

the jury looked at 600+ pieces of evidence, saw nothing very interesting, and looked at the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and decided in essence "oh, YUCK. i wouldn't want these people to come into my home... they'd prolly ransack the place and then claim i molested them. they're unbelievable." which is what the jury's supposed to do: decide on the facts of this particular trial, not settle everyone else's old grudges.


edit: yeah i know, this thread's already worn out. i think that's the last i've got to say on the topic, here.