Michael Jackson NOT GUILTY!

[DeFeKt]

If Jesus Christ were tried in our court system he would not be declared innocent either....

also being site admin, don't u think thats a bit in-appropriate to be saying?

 

[lyquidphyre]

In comparison to what?
There are all sorts of other names that prolly could be used there in stead, but Jesus Christ was the one used, mainly because whatever your religion - or lack there of- you at least know the story, and can make some sort of sense out of what was said

If he had said "Hitler" or something, no one would be freaking out about it.

Anyways...

 

[DeFeKt]

I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree.
i'm done.

 

[Fluff]

Should have been done three posts ago or better.....

I agree with liquid, any name could have been used, that's just what he used. It wasn't intended to start a religous debate.

I get frustrated with the system. I have relatives who should be in jail and aren't, but, the system works for the most part. I really have no idea rather he's innocent or guilty. I think the whole thing is tragic and sad on both sides.

 

[greenmaji]

So if we want people to be innocent until proven guilty in this country we would protect the identity of the accused as well as the accuser.

I'm sure we would do just that, if your will to give up just a few of the freedoms our forefathers felt were essential when building this country and writing the bill of rights...

I dont think the forefathers could have fathomed what the media has become.. JMHO though

 

[Toirtis]

He is such a freak....makes me sick.

Thank the gods we still have a society where that is not a crime, eh?

From what I garnered (and to be fair, none of us has heard even half the testimony or seen even 10% of the evidence from either side), Mr. Jackson's behaviour is certainly odd, perhaps even inappropriate at times, but the case offered by the prosecution was spotty and inconsistent, and there was enough (and, appparently, compelling enough) testimony and evidence presented by the defence to create enough reasonable doubt that the jury took less than a week to come to a verdict.

Personally, I think Jackson is certainly strange, emotionally damaged and underdeveloped, and far too attached to other people's children for his own good, but my gut feeling is that he is not a predator, just pitiable.

 

[greenmaji]

He is such a freak....makes me sick.

Thank the gods we still have a society where that is not a crime, eh?

No kidding.. if you had to be normal to stay out of jail.. somtimes the common fokes among us dont stay out of jail for being abnormal by the way.. this would be a very sad place to live. and it is sometimes..

 

[BrianNY]

I'm wondering how many people who haven't spent days in the courtroom have him declared innocent or guilty? I have always understood that most people are going to believe what they want to believe. I care more about whether the system is working rather than if this one man is guilty or not.

Still, after months of the media circus, I have no opinion re the verdict. Perhaps because I'm neither an MJ hater or fan. IMO, because he is soooo weird, because he has so much money, and because of his celebrity status he makes for the perfect victim. I can see where an unscrupulous parent would try and blackmail him. I can see where a DA might advance his career by bringing a case against him. MJ has set himself up to be in that position.

There is a danger in achieving too much fame and fortune. I can see where it might be easy to accept the godlike status that others attribute to them. I can see where someone in MJs position might feel they are above the law, and can do whatever they want.

If I view the verdict without any bias, I conclude that sytem worked. The prosecution simply failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If I have a bias then I'm either elated of appalled by the verdict. Take your pick. Some want to see him as a hero, others a demon. In my mind he is neither.

 

[fishfreek]

I have full faith in our legal system at this point. Only someone whom was in that court room 100% of the time can base an educated decision on his guilt. Something so simple as a body jesture by a witness could have discounted everything the witness said in the minds of the jury. Until you are in the room as an active or inactive participant there is no basis for judgement other than preconceved ideas or opions based upon what you have been told by others.

 

[fishyrican]

I have full faith in our legal system at this point. Only someone whom was in that court room 100% of the time can base an educated decision on his guilt. Something so simple as a body jesture by a witness could have discounted everything the witness said in the minds of the jury. Until you are in the room as an active or inactive participant there is no basis for judgement other than preconceved ideas or opions based upon what you have been told by others.

I agree! Juries are to assess the credibility of a witness by using all they see as well as what they hear. On this end, all we get are a few seconds of facts followed by "in-depth" speculation disguised as investigation and explanatory reporting. Incidentally, that is why appeals courts here in the US hardly ever overturn facts. They merely review how the law was applied to the facts. The appellate judges figure that since the jury had a chance to see witnesses, as well as hear them, they are in a better position to determine credibility.

Here, even the post-verdict jury interviews bear that out. At least one juror has made reference to gestures made by witnesses that influenced their decision, even though those gestures will not appear on any transcript.

We sometimes have a tendency to think that how we perceive an event is exactly how it happened. Thus, if the jury renders a verdict that we disagree with, they must be wrong, because there is no way we are wrong.

The Jackson jury did what they could with what they had. They left that jury room believing they fulfilled their duty. They came out with the decision they felt was dictated by the facts they heard. In this case Jackson walked. In thousands of cases today, jurors will emerge from jury rooms with verdict papers in hand. When the verdicts are read, some will see justice, and some will hate the system. No decision will ever please everybody. But that is not the goal of the system. We live in a flawed world with a flawed legal system. When you consider the alternatives, I'll take our system any day.

 

[cJw]

imo, this just proves that with enough money, you really can get away with just about anything you want in this country.

Regardless of his acquittal, I doubt anyone's children are going to be visiting Neverland anytime soon, so there's that, at least. :|

 

[cJw]

"not guilty," he was not declared "innocent."

If Jesus Christ were tried in our court system he would not be declared innocent either....

Ok, so I didn't read the whole thread before I posted the above. It doesn't relate to this reply, but regardless.

Anyway - I don't understand this comment, other than inciting a debate or making a personal attack. Please help me see how this wasn't such?


Am I missing something obvious here? What would Jesus be tried for?

:edit:

If this gets this thread closed, feel free to delete this post to continue the MJ conversation. (I missed that post first time thru)

:/edit:

 

[fishyrican]

I think what RR meant is that our system does not have the authority to declare anyone, even Jesus Christ, innocent. The best (or worst, depending on your viewpoint) we can hope for is that the jury declare someone "not guilty."

Regardless of his acquittal, I doubt anyone's children are going to be visiting Neverland anytime soon, so there's that, at least.

I only hope you're right. I'm not holding my breath, though.

 

[revhtree]

He used the name of Jesus as a reference. If this were to be offensive I think I would have been offended, I wasnt. What I gathered from the comment is that we all know that Jesus was innocent, yet today in our justice system, he would have been found guilty. At least that's what I got from it.

Anyway back to Jackson..(Grabs hat, does a o360 spin, shouts wooo, and grabs..nevermind)

 

[fishyrican]

Anyway back to Jackson..(Grabs hat, does a o360 spin, shouts wooo, and grabs..nevermind)

 

[Jchillin]

Several facts that are always good to mention:

1. For some reason, American's love to tear down celebrities.
2. Celebrities feel that they are above reproach (see above on how to get even).
3. When a celebrity runs afoul of the law, whether or not the charges could stand up to scrutiny in a court room, the media frenzy makes it extremely difficult to have a "fair" trial for either side (defense and prosecution).
4. We will hear the opinions of experts in the field, who serve no more purpose than to further confuse the issues. These pundits are paid by the networks, no matter what they try to tell us.
5. Jackson was charged with the same thing in 1993. The case never went to criminal court. It went to civil court and an out of court setllement was reached. That was 12 years ago.
6. He was interviewed and admitted that he will sleep with these children.
7. The "label" now being firmly attached...people are still sending their children to Neverland??? Is it because of the "Celebrity" status of Neverland? Would you send your child to the home of someone who is alleged to be a child molester?? In good conscience? Forgive me for saying so, but that is the most frightening part of this whole episode. Anyone who would subject their child to this risk is not putting the child's best interest forward.
8. Pay close attention to the impending civil case. Better still, if you have the 1993 case recorded, just play that. The outcome will be the same.

*We continue with our regularily scheduled MJ discussion.*

 

[lando]

whether you like MJ or not, whether you think he did it or not you need to remember...he was found "not guilty" as opposed to "innocent". No one can be found innocent in our justice system. You are either found guilty or not guilty. It actually really has nothing to do with the fact that he committed a crime or not. It has to do with the prosecution proving the case, that is it. If the prosecution proves the case beyond a shadow of a doubt...guilty. If they fumble around (as in the MJ trial) and can not prove their case...not guilty. The defense did not prove MJ was innocent, that is not their job. The prosecution did not prove he was guilty. That was their job. We all had to rely on pre-conceived notions and little bits of info provided by a bias media to make up our minds. I am sure there was much more going on that we will never know. Out justice system worked as designed. This time in MJ's favor

 

[TankGirl]

You hit the nail on the head, Lando. The actual charges (which were not related to whether he is creepy and weird or not but were related to attempted "kidnapping" and giving a child "an intoxicating agent" among other things) were very difficult to prove.

If he did not have a problem controlling his need be very close to children he would have never permitted another child to enter his home after the first charges 12 years ago - he would not have wanted to go through that again.

Now we will have to see if he continues to invite kids to his house, and if parents continue to allow this 8O

 

[Fluff]

For those of you who haven't read this......
The mother sounds like a real winner.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8209181/?GT1=6657

 

[ClamKnuckle]

Quote:
As far as this case goes, I don't know what evidance was out there during the trial


Quote:
but IMO the guy is guilty of doing inapropriate things to children from things i have read and heard before.


LOL, contradiction in one paragraph....

What i meant was, like a juror came out and said after the trial, was that no matter if the evidance didnt prove that he did it beyond a resonable doubt, IMO he has molested children before, weither he did it to this one or not

Quote:
So if we want people to be innocent until proven guilty in this country we would protect the identity of the accused as well as the accuser.


I'm sure we would do just that, if your will to give up just a few of the freedoms our forefathers felt were essential when building this country and writing the bill of rights...

How is saying "A local Sprinfielf man" instead of "Homer Simpson from 17whatever Evergreen Terrace" giving up an essential freedom in the bill of rights? If everyone is innocent until proven guilty, then Homer in my case is innocent and shouldnt his rights be protected as well? If you feel this is giving up essential freedoms I would love to hear what you think of the patriot act

7. The "label" now being firmly attached...people are still sending their children to Neverland??? Is it because of the "Celebrity" status of Neverland? Would you send your child to the home of someone who is alleged to be a child molester?? In good conscience? Forgive me for saying so, but that is the most frightening part of this whole episode. Anyone who would subject their child to this risk is not putting the child's best interest forward.

I couldn't agree mor ewith that...I coldn't see how a parent could put there child in a situation where there could even be a slight posability that something could happen. But, like after 1993, parents will do it agian. Hopefully, like his lawyers have said, he wont ever leave the door open to speculation about molestation again because he wont put himself, and mainly the children, in that enviornment and in his bedroom