Politics Is Michael Jackson guilty or not?

[sugababyboo]

This is off topic too, but I find it odd how Latoya recently got surgery to look like Janet :blink:

The man is guilty of something and he needs to stop playing the race card. His strangeness is why the press and the public (not including his rabid fans) treat him the way that they do.

 

[Natalia]

Okay. To the people who are happy he got off. WHAT makes you think he was innocent?

The child pornography in his house?

The fact he has been accused of this before?

I just don't get how people say, "He's innocent", but they have absolutely no evidence to back up their claim. :angry:

If this man wasn't Michael Jackson, and you (or the jury for that matter) were presented with the evidence, would you still let him off? The interviews I saw with the jury afterwards only confirmed my belief they were a bunch of uneducated idiots who based their decisions on emotions rather than fact.

 

[xinli11]

How do you suppose that makes Martha Stewart feel?

OJ gets off,
Blake gets off
Jackson gets off.

Stewart makes one call to his broker, and she gets jail time.

Yes, the joke is from Leno, but I think he makes a fair point.

 

[Jobob]

My mom and I were both saying that he was going to get away with it... and would you look at that... :lol:

It's a sick world, and it's sad how so many people do horrid things and get away with them simply because they're talented. Not in all cases, but most.

 

[noggi16]

If this man wasn't Michael Jackson, and you (or the jury for that matter) were presented with the evidence, would you still let him off? The interviews I saw with the jury afterwards only confirmed my belief they were a bunch of uneducated idiots who based their decisions on emotions rather than fact.

Thats the wonders of a liberal democracy where a jury of 12 good men get to decide a persons fate. Best justice system in the world.

The fact he has been accused of this before?

Which has absolutely no bearing on this case. Those instances, obviously the jury would know about them, but they should never have been brought up in court. He wasn't on trial for had he molested anybody. He was on trial for had he molested Gavin Arvizo, on those occassions. Jamieson said, a pathological liar might tell the truth, a man thats molested may not have molested on this occasion and that is what the question was. He has been found innocent of these charges. Doesn't mean he has or hasn't done it before. But he has been found innocent.

Martha Stewart was the exception...I'll never understand that, except that they needed someone to take the fall.

Maybe because she was actually guilty. She dealt shares knowing what would happen. Thats insider dealing. It is against the law. Just because its white collar doesn't mean its victimless.

 

[peanutbutter]

what??? he got off????? (haven't seen the news lately
lol, this is one messed up world...

 

[freaky]

what??? he got off????? (haven't seen the news lately
lol, this is one messed up world...

[post="1379430"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

I know...
they had special news here 2 at 12:30 AM and i was like "what?"

 

[White_Rabbit]

I think he should've been convicted, but this is NOT because of his look and his appearance (even though it does creep me out).

The man has a room entirely devoted to pictures of half-naked boys--YUCH!

He's stated numerous times that he let them sleep in the same bed.

He has (or had) an alarm that goes off letting him know when someone is approaching the bedroom.

He's guilty. END OF STORY.

 

[Jamison]

Okay. To the people who are happy he got off. WHAT makes you think he was innocent?

The child pornography in his house?

The fact he has been accused of this before?

I just don't get how people say, "He's innocent", but they have absolutely no evidence to back up their claim. :angry:

If this man wasn't Michael Jackson, and you (or the jury for that matter) were presented with the evidence, would you still let him off? The interviews I saw with the jury afterwards only confirmed my belief they were a bunch of uneducated idiots who based their decisions on emotions rather than fact.

[post="1379246"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

I agree! The jurors during their interviews repeatedly said that the mother of the boy lost the case for the prosecution. They said they didn't like her and they didn't like the way she was "looking" at them throughout the trial. That shouldn't have any bearing on the case.

Just because the mother sounds crazy and did try to hit people up for money does not mean Michael Jackson didn't moleste this boy. The jurors should never have taken her behavior in court in account. Nor should they have taken her testimony on the conspiracy charges into account when deciding the molestation charges.

And I do think they were right to bring the past accusations into court.

 

[noggi16]

I agree! The jurors during their interviews repeatedly said that the mother of the boy lost the case for the prosecution. They said they didn't like her and they didn't like the way she was "looking" at them throughout the trial. That shouldn't have any bearing on the case.

Just because the mother sounds crazy and did try to hit people up for money does not mean Michael Jackson didn't moleste this boy. The jurors should never have taken her behavior in court in account. Nor should they have taken her testimony on the conspiracy charges into account when deciding the molestation charges.

And I do think they were right to bring the past accusations into court.

Well then how was the man supposed to defend himself? By saying she is a lovely lady despite the fact she is a known lier, and the fact her daughter lied under oath but I didn't do it. You make allegations against somebody, you have to expect to get examined, there not going to let you ruin there life.

And no because she sounds crazy and tried to hit people up for money does not mean he didn't molest this boy but it does mean she may be lying meaning he may not have done it. And not taking her testimony into account on one charge but taking it on another is ridiculous, they were connected, they were part of the same case.

Ok so if we are allowed to bring past accusations into court, that has to apply across the legal system, so a rape victim can be cross examined on their sexual history. Well that wouldn't be fair, just because she slept around in the past, doesn't mean she didn't say no this time.

Thats why past allegations have no place in court, he was on trial for this crime, a propensity for inappropriatness towards children is not evidence he committed this crime.

And you have to remember criminal convictions operate to beyond resonable doubt. There was obviously enough doubt to allow him to not to be convicted. That is the prosecutions fault for not proving beyond this standard he was gulity.

And to the allegations if this was a normal person, false accusations of child abuse are highly damaging, almost as damaging as child abuse itself. The courts must convict those who are guilty but those who are innocent must leave court without a stain on their character. If you ruined a normal persons life in this manner then there would be outcry. I've seen it happen. In Britian there have been high profile cases of false accusations of people working in care homes for children, and it ruins careers and destroys livelihoods and reputations.

 

[garnergarnish]

The man is clearly not guilty....just as he wasn't guilty 12 years ago. ok so he made a stupid mistake paying off Jordy chandler and that was almost the end of him. Gavuin Arvizo and his family blatently thought the same would happen with them...that they wouldn't have to go to court. Not one of that family had a solid story...full of holes and shot to bits by witnesses. That woman is a wicked manipulative cow who has used her own sons for financial benefit. She is the one who should be in prison. Michael Jackson needs some severe medical help...he is a confused and very sick man, but he is so childlike in his manners that he just thinks that his behaviour is acceptable. I think for once the justice system worked, although that conniving cowbag should be locked away. there piece said.... :lol:

 

[Jamison]

Well then how was the man supposed to defend himself? By saying she is a lovely lady despite the fact she is a known lier, and the fact her daughter lied under oath but I didn't do it. You make allegations against somebody, you have to expect to get examined, there not going to let you ruin there life.

And no because she sounds crazy and tried to hit people up for money does not mean he didn't molest this boy but it does mean she may be lying meaning he may not have done it. And not taking her testimony into account on one charge but taking it on another is ridiculous, they were connected, they were part of the same case.

Ok so if we are allowed to bring past accusations into court, that has to apply across the legal system, so a rape victim can be cross examined on their sexual history. Well that wouldn't be fair, just because she slept around in the past, doesn't mean she didn't say no this time.

Thats why past allegations have no place in court, he was on trial for this crime, a propensity for inappropriatness towards children is not evidence he committed this crime.

And you have to remember criminal convictions operate to beyond resonable doubt. There was obviously enough doubt to allow him to not to be convicted. That is the prosecutions fault for not proving beyond this standard he was gulity.

And to the allegations if this was a normal person, false accusations of child abuse are highly damaging, almost as damaging as child abuse itself. The courts must convict those who are guilty but those who are innocent must leave court without a stain on their character. If you ruined a normal persons life in this manner then there would be outcry. I've seen it happen. In Britian there have been high profile cases of false accusations of people working in care homes for children, and it ruins careers and destroys livelihoods and reputations.

[post="1379644"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

What I'm saying is that the jurors shouldn't have based their decision on the way she was looking at them...which is what a lot of them said helped to factor into their verdict.

Yes the charges were part of the same case, but what she testified to didn't have anything to do with the molestation charges. It was the charge that Michael Jackson conspired to put the mother and father in prison. Had they dropped that charge, then she would never have take the stand. That was a major mistake on the part of the prosecution.

And they do allow a rape victim's sexual history into court at times. They did for the Kobe Bryant accuser.

I knew that he wouldn't be convicted (though I did think he would get convicted on some of the lesser charges like supplying alcohol to a minor), the prosecution didn't have a strong case and made some mistakes. And I understand that the jury couldn't have any doubt in their mind...but that doesn't excuse them from taking the actions of the mother during the trial while she was looking at them into account for their verdict.

 

[White_Rabbit]

Jaimie, I agree with you on the mother thing. A good jury should know to judge the case soley on what it's about. That's why they are so careful about choosing members of the jury.

It's sad, really. I'm scared of Michael Jackson.

 

[sugababyboo]

The mother's behavoir towards the jury did not help her and her son's case at all. If the jury thought that her credibility was questionable then they probably assumed the same for the son. Who the hell snaps their fingers at the jury??? Not even Michael did that and this is the same man that once made devil ears while testifying in court (not this case of course)

 

[noggi16]

What I'm saying is that the jurors shouldn't have based their decision on the way she was looking at them...which is what a lot of them said helped to factor into their verdict.

Yes the charges were part of the same case, but what she testified to didn't have anything to do with the molestation charges. It was the charge that Michael Jackson conspired to put the mother and father in prison. Had they dropped that charge, then she would never have take the stand. That was a major mistake on the part of the prosecution.

And they do allow a rape victim's sexual history into court at times. They did for the Kobe Bryant accuser.

I knew that he wouldn't be convicted (though I did think he would get convicted on some of the lesser charges like supplying alcohol to a minor), the prosecution didn't have a strong case and made some mistakes. And I understand that the jury couldn't have any doubt in their mind...but that doesn't excuse them from taking the actions of the mother during the trial while she was looking at them into account for their verdict.

All I can say is it is damning indictment of the American justice system, this case has been an absolute start from start to finish.

List of things done differently in Britian

Firstly, jury deliberations should be secret. It is contempt of court and an arrestable offence to talk about jury delibration outside of the jury room. They should be secret. And they can take anything into account, people's demonour and actions in the witness box are all part of their testimony.

The prosectution would have got their act together,

No mentions of previous allegations, he'd have been tried for those crimes only.

There would have been NO press coverage. Some of it was prejudicial.

And the last ones probably the most important, people decide from the news, and no matter how much you read about it in the paper or see on the tele, you haven't sat through all the testimoney heard the judges summing up, therefore you cannot judge. I'm a strong advocate for anomity for both accused and accuser in cases of sex crimes. Only when you've been found guilty should your name be splashed all over the papers.

He has been found innocent. Leave him alone.

 

[sugababyboo]

That's the difference between America and Britain, he was tried here in the states and it's been shown that it's different ball game. And, no one is going to leave him alone, especially in celebrity obsessed American. Quite frankly, I know that I'm not the only one that feels this way but Michael doesn't want to be left alone. I've always believed this statement BEFORE this whole trial happened.

The man as much as he doesn't want to admit it, loves attention. For a couple of years he did not release an album yet he remained in the press. He wears attention grabbing masks or disguises and he has made his children wear strange masks too. He says that he does it to protect their privacy when it's obvious that he's doing to get the cameras on him. This is not to mention the baby dangling incident, recruiting Al Sharpton to protest against Columbia records blaming them for his poor album sales and saying they did so because he was black and let's not forget him dancing on top of his SUV before entering the court house when this trial began.

 

[the_alliance]

honestly, i think people only want him locked up cuz he's scary. i'm not sure where i read this but the top 3 things that people fear are:

1. Public Speaking
2. Death
3. Michael Jackson

 

[Jamison]

That's the difference between America and Britain, he was tried here in the states and it's been shown that it's different ball game.  And, no one is going to leave him alone, especially in celebrity obsessed American. Quite frankly, I know that  I'm not the only one that feels this way but Michael doesn't want to be left alone.  I've always believed this statement BEFORE  this whole trial happened.

The man as much as he doesn't want to admit it, loves attention.  For a couple of years he did not release an album yet he remained in the press.  He wears attention grabbing masks or disguises and he has made his children wear strange masks too.  He says that he does it to protect their privacy when it's obvious that he's doing to get the cameras on him.  This is not to mention the baby dangling incident, recruiting Al Sharpton to protest against Columbia records blaming them for his poor album sales and saying they did so because he was black and let's not forget him dancing on top of his SUV before entering the court house when this trial began.

[post="1379973"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Exactly. You can't compare the British and American judicial systems...they are run completely different. And I will not say one way is better than the other...but they certainly aren't comparable.

And Michael relishes in the attention...he loves it. If he didn't put himself out in the open so much, then maybe people would stop.

 

[noggi16]

Exactly. You can't compare the British and American judicial systems...they are run completely different. And I will not say one way is better than the other...but they certainly aren't comparable.

Yes you can, American courts are based on British courts procedually anyway, its a precedential system. These loads of comparison.

 

[pii_lena4ever]

i think he's guilty. i don't know what else to say, as i'm not that familiar with the american or british court system...but i think he's guilty and should be behind bars. but i guess he's too rich for that.