Michael Jackson
 

Conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment, extortion (COUNT 1) Not Guilty
Committing a lewd act on a child under 14

COUNT 2: Molestation incident alleged by accuser Not Guilty
COUNT 3: Molestation incident alleged by accuser Not Guilty
COUNT 4: Molestation incident accuser's brother says he witnessed Not Guilty
COUNT 5: Molestation incident accuser's brother says he witnessed Not Guilty

Attempting to commit a lewd act on a child under 14
COUNT 6: Accuser's allegation Jackson tried to get the boy to *explicit* him. Not Guilty

Administering alcohol to enable child molestation*
COUNT 7: Related to alleged molestation in Count 2 Not Guilty
COUNT 8: Related to alleged molestation in Count 3 Not Guilty
COUNT 9: Related to alleged molestation in Count 4 Not Guilty
COUNT 10: Related to alleged molestation in Count 5 Not Guilty



What do you think?

Re: Michael Jackson
 

Well, as much as I didn't care about the trial while it was in action. From what I've heard on the News Podcasts i've been listening to is the fact that a lot of the Testimonies for the Prosicution were inconsistant. And if you ever watch Law and Order, its the last thing you want to happen to you when your in court. But I'm suprised they didn't have an additional count of serving Alcohol to a Minor, that he almost definetly would be convicted of, but he can probably pay his way in fines out of that one.

Does anyone think there will be a civil suit?

Re: Michael Jackson
 

There already was. Before this trial. Mike won.

Re: Michael Jackson
 

I haven't really been following this, although it is mildly entertaining at Michael's expense.

These are covered in counts 7-10. But I can just hear it now: "Jesus Juice all around, kids. We're celebrating!" I kid, of course.

No there wasn't. And no he didn't. A seperate civil suit was filed on the same grounds in 1993 by a different accuser. Michael settled out of court for an undisclosed amount (believed to be about $25 million). Mr. Jackson's attorney pointed out that this particular accuser (would calling him the flavour of the week be appropriate?) has until the age of 18 "before the clock starts ticking on a civil suit." So I'm inclined to think it's a distinct possibility. It all depends on if that family can take even more shame I'd say.

Re: Michael Jackson
 

Serving alcohol to a person under 21 is a misdemeanour in California; serving an intoxicant to any person in order to assist in a felony (e.g. child molestation) is itself a felony. They likely couldn't charge him with both counts for the same alleged offence, so they elected to pursue the one with the significant penalties attached. The trouble is, the standard of proof is higher for the felony; the State has to show that the alcohol was administered with the intent to commit a felony—if the felony can't be proven, and conspiracy (to commit the felony) can't be proven, it would probably be very difficult to show that the intent to commit a felony existed.

They can't charge him with the misdemeanour now, because he's already been acquitted of the felony.

Re: Michael Jackson
 

Exactly. Good job, little brother.

Going after the 'little fish' misdemeanour offense doesn't serve justice. Just as the DA was criticized for even taking up the case in the first place with the evidence he had, his reponse was that it was the right thing to do. I'm basing this on a press conference on CNN, but think that kind of thinking is sort of his philosophy, and explains his not trying to strategically charge Mike. They cannot try him for both. That's like charging someone for vandalism for the bullet that went through someone's head and hit a door.

Re: Michael Jackson
 

I am simply grateful for the newest onslaught of vintage, 80's Michael Jackson videos on BET and friends.

I don't care what anyone thinks of Michael Jackson, his eccentricity or this trial; "Thriller" is still the best music video ever made.

Re: Michael Jackson
 

Agreed. The man can dance like no other. He is one wierd guy. I think its good that it is finally over and now we don't have to hear any more crap about him after another couple of weeks.

Re: Michael Jackson
 

I wish they had nailed him...C'mon now, does anyone think he didn't do it?

He's said he thinks the most natural thing in the world is to share his bed with a child. That about sealed the deal for me.

Just because they couldn't prove he was guilty doesn't mean he's innocent. Same with OJ.

Re: Michael Jackson
 

I agree with Cory I think he did it, but rich people almost never go to jail. It is hard to belief that the kid was making the whole thing up.

Jus my $0.02

Dave

Re: Michael Jackson
 

Agreed, Amanda. For the most part, I don't think people think that the jury was biased...if anything, I'd think they would have a negative bias. Child molestors are the lowest of the low. I do think it's slightly naive to believe that somehow they managed to pick 12 jury members with absolutely no predisposed bias one way or the other, unless they've been living under a rock in a cave in the desert.

While he wasn't convicted, that certainly doesn't mean he's innocent. Like I said before, all it means is that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reproach that Jackson was guilty of the charges listed. That's what happens when you have a case full of little (or big) holes. the Scott Peterson trial was similar to this. The prosecutor did a bad job in critical areas, and luckily for them, managed to convince the jury anyway.

Re: Michael Jackson
 

(Copying from my livejournal)

Personally, I don't think he was "guilty".

Yes, we all know that Jacko is about as screwed up upstairs as you can get and still be considered legally sane. But I don't believe it's his fault. Emotionally, mentally, everythingly (except musically), he's stuck as a perpetual 13-year-old, or younger. He's a pre-teen stuck in an adult body. In some ways, I wouldn't even call him adolescent. I think he really doesn't know the difference between right and wrong.

He grew up in the spotlight of the Jackson 5, and was always under *intense* pressure from his father to perform exceptionally well. An obsessive father is one thing, but an obsessive and abusive father is another. Thank heaven I can't speak from experience, but I would think that it having someone like Jackson Sr. as a dad would be a pretty damning factor in my intellectual growth.

Think about it. Michael Jackson is obsessed with being a kid. To prove it, he's built himself mini-disneyland over at Neverland Ranch. He was upset when he didn't the part of Peter Pan in some movie. He really believes that crap. Someone like that I have serious doubts over his capacity to judge right from wrong.

So yes, perhaps he did do all the things he was accused of. But I think it was the right thing to let him go.

And another thing, about that woman and her son who were the ones that started all this.... She's so full of crap. Look at her history. Look at all the things people have found out about her. Of the two (Jackson and her), she's the one that should be in jail. Expert con artist, she is. Too bad we actually have a semi-fair legal system in this country, or she might've gotten away with it again.

OK, end rant.

Dave

Re: Michael Jackson
 

Kudos to what MrToast said.. he just saved me a bunch of typing! I'm glad he wasn't charged.. not because I think he's innocent (or guilty for that matter), but that case was so terrible.

Re: Michael Jackson
 

Case in point, even if you believe if he was guilty or not

O,J. Simpson = Innocent
Robert Blake = acquitted of charges
Michael Jackson = Innocent


Scott Peterson = Guilty

These First three people are famous, the last is not. I just personally think that money and fame plays alot into the court room. I personally think there was a biased decision, I mean its Michael Jackson. I do believe that all the evidence of the first three was as substantial as Scott Peterson, I just do believe fame played a biased decision into all these cases.

In my personal opinion i do believe he is guilty as i do believe Robert Blake and O.J. Simpson also are guilty. But like Cory said all the prosecutors in the cases did not prove to the jurors beyond a reasonable doubt they were all guilty

Re: Michael Jackson
 

What if he just didn't do it? No one has ever thought of that before. What if he just didn't do it? Every one just went straight "he did it". What if he just didn't do it?

Re: Michael Jackson
 

Cory brought up an excellent point that I fully agree with and which I have personal experience from being in a jury pool of a high profile case in the state of Connecticut. Let me tell you that it's also very difficult and stressful for the jurors also.
I won't outright name the case but some of you may figure it out on your own (it was even brought back into the spotlight the past few weeks as the court had overturned the original death sentence because the original jury wasn't instructed properly) but it had to do with a person who wanted nothing more than to know what it felt like to kill someone and they even admitted thier guilt and motive to investigators after the crime was committed. The victim was a 13 year old neighbor of the accused who got his skull caved in with a 3 pound sledge hammer. The person has been sent back to death row after the latest verdict.

Unfortunately for me, my jury duty came up at the time they were chosing jurors for the original trial. I wound up having to go back several times as they narrowed the pool down. I had multiple meetings with the attorneys, I even got to meet the accused, plus I had a meeting with the judge who was to oversee the case. One of the follow up times that I went I was brought into one of the rooms by myself and left there to fill out a multiple page questionaire having to do with everything. It wasn't simple "yes" or "no" answers, you had to write a paragraph with your answer and why that's your answer. Basically they wanted to get inside your head and know how you felt and thought about everything. This case at that time was heavily on the news, radio, and in the papers. The tv in the jury room was kept on the Weather Channel for fear that we may see stories about it while we were there. After going back several times they finally let me go but one of the attorneys did mention to me that they had me narrowed down to an alternate and had wanted me there because I was of similar age as the accused (trial by peers). I was very happy to not be on this case.

Hopefully this will enlighten some of you as to what goes on with higher profile cases and the amount of questioning and filtering of jury members that is done before a case goes to court. I will also tell you that it was difficult with the amount of publicity with this case to go in there with absolutely no preconcieved notions about this case. The same would be true for the Jackson case.

Jason

Re: Michael Jackson
 

I think this holds true in certain situations. Whenever a NFL player gets busted for anything, you hardly ever see jail time. You see a fairly insignificant fine, and community service. We all know if one of us were to get caught doing the same thing, the penalty would hold a much more severe consequence.

Re: Michael Jackson
 

This is very true. think about it, rich people dont go to jail (exept martha stewart) go to jail. Plus if thats IF michal went to jail...think hed last? i dont personly i think he would get killed or like mauled. do you guys know people in prison watch tv (news) so if he did go to jail would he last?

Re: Michael Jackson
 

If he was sent to jail he would've been kept away from the general prison population for his safety. Other prisoners would've considered it a "trophy" to injure or kill him especially being a high profile person he is and the crimes he's accused of. Those that would have harmed him have very little or nothing to lose so they would not have thought twice about it before they commited anything.

Re: Michael Jackson
 

I don't know for sure whether he is innocent or guilty, but based on the information that I have heard/seen over the course of the trial I find it hard to believe that he could have done nothing wrong. They found a ton of pretty disgusting evidence (I'm sure you've heard of some of the things, no need to re-state.). Also, just the stuff he does is weird. The guy built a mock Disneyland at his house, a child's dreamworld. Now whether or not, he's stuck in his childhood as someone mentioned, that does not excuse his actions. And yeah, Thriller was a good album, just because someone did something illegal and/or immoral doesn't mean that they don't have talent in another area.

This whole rich/popular people don't go to jail is starting to get on my nerves too. These people are average Americans, that because of their last name, or because they can run faster than some other people, they are automatically excused from jailtime. I don't know the exact numbers, but I sure know that the year(ish) of jail time Martha got is nowhere near the sentence an average joe would get. She made families poor, she should get a little more than a slap on the wrist.


*I don't know the exact numbers, or anything in general, of what I'm talking about. If I'm wrong on something feel free to correct me.*

EDIT: About MJ being kept away from other prisoners if he went:

In prison there's a pecking order, and people who abuse/kill/molest children are at the bottom of it. No doubt if he was put into the general population he would be seriously seriously harmed within a matter of days. I'm sure there are some neighborhoods out of prison where it would be a trophy to harm MJ too, so he doesn't go there. If he doesn't wanna get harmed by prisoners, don't do anything stupid and he won't go to jail. He realized that if he goes to jail he will most likely get hurt. No special treatment.

Re: Michael Jackson
 

i agree with cory...i mean people in this world get paid off and all... it's just all crazy politics and all....and well yeah he is famous so everyone questions that i know because of fan support throughout the years and all..

Re: Michael Jackson
 

But what if he's not guilty. What if he didn't do it? I know i might be sounding a little redundent but I am sticking by my statement. Now I am neutral on this, I really don't care if he is guilty or not guilty. I am just wondering why every one is crucifying him when the 12 people that really mattered in this case think that he didn't do it. I think that we should think the same. But thats why we have free weill, we cant think what we want. But why is every one throwing out the fact that there is a chance that he just didn't do it?

Re: Michael Jackson
 

I completely agree with MrToast up there. I don't think he was 'guilty' at all. He's stuckin a child's body and doesn't really think on terms of sex or sexual acts. Just because he has kids in his own bed does not mean he is committing an illegal sexual act with them.

He had a rough childhood, and he did not get to live life like an 'average' child did; play basketball in the park, run around and cause mischief, have sleepovers, etc. So he's trying to live the life he missed out on through the kids and through his Neverland Ranch.

These mothers are just trying to get money. They think that since he's giving money away to children who are ill and in the hospital, that they can squeeze some more out of him by accusing him of molesting their children. And it seems to me that these kids could have been given the scenarios to tell the judge and jury. The mothers could have planted these things in their head so they can go against Michael Jackson.

It is possible. And I don't think he did any of this.

Re: Michael Jackson
 

Toast and The Fish are Right.

I've come to the conclusion that Jacko is an example of what happens when you don't raise a child right. Look at him, you can't see that he has the same morals as a normal adult. Yes we get the fact that he likes kids, everyone likes kids right? They're too innocent to not like. But the problem that Jackson has is expressing it right. I think he acted too much like a kid and not a mature adult like he should be. But the problem was, no one close to him told him and tried to help him with it. Also I think he has had more than his share of problems with the media in the past and that probably attributes to his bad rap that he gets today.

He's probably a very nice person, just a bit misguided.

Re: Michael Jackson
 

It's a little ridiculous to say that Jackson paid off the jurors. I like to retain some faith in our justice system, regardless of some of it's flaws.

Sure there's a chance he didn't do it. The way he comes off in public doesn't support that sentiment though.

As I've said multiple times in this thread, the jury doesn't think he didn't do it (some may) all they think is that the DA could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did do it.

Re: Michael Jackson
 

I don't understand... what's the distinction between "acquitted of charges" and "innocent"?

Far from it I would say. What substantial evidence was there against MJ that wasn't challenged convincingly? Peterson's trial was extremely circumstantial, but the sheer volume of evidence took down Peterson's defence, because the DA was able to show that their version of events was the only reasonable one that anyone could conceive of. Despite the label "circumstantial," it goes to show that such evidence can be just as important.

To address your second point, that with fame and money comes bias in a celebrity's favour, we need only look at convicted felons Tupac Shakur, Robert Downey Jr., Winona Ryder... Martha Stewart, to see that it works both ways. Despite the endless chequebooks of some accused, DAs will spend a lot of money themselves to take down those they indict. Furthermore, despite his low profile before the trial, Scott Peterson was no pushover in terms of how much money was spent on his defence; getting Mark Geragos should be an indicator of that. So clearly an expensive cream of the crop defence team couldn't get him off in that case.

You say you think he's legally sane, however you contradict yourself in the last sentence. The ability to "know the difference between right and wrong" is the exact criterion to determine legal sanity. You can't have it both ways. I also refute that he is musically adept. I think he can dance as well as -- perhaps even slightly better than -- his backup dancers, but even his voice sounds like a child. He definitely doesn't have any musical ability; I once heard the voice track of Billie Jean. Suffice it to say, it wasn't pretty.

Re: Michael Jackson
 

So according to you, little children are insane? You missed my point. There is a difference with at one time knowing right from wrong and then losing it and never knowing it at all (as I believe is the case with Jackson). The former is insanity. The latter is unfortunate.

And I would say he is musically adept. Listen to the music track of Billie Jean. As one musician speaking of another, I love it. I wish I could compose such grooves like that. I'm a jazz pianist, and I would give my left arm to be able to lay down such riffs as the ones in Billie Jean.

Dave

Re: Michael Jackson
 

Technically all 3 of them were acquitted. Like I've said... acquitted means they couldn't prove he did it. Innocent means that he didn't do it.

One of the jurors from the Robert Blake trial said essentially the same thing. It was something along the lines of "Yes, we found him not guilty of the charges, but I think that was more a failure on the prosecution's part than the fact that he was innocent"

Re: Michael Jackson
 

You are only innocent before the trial. after the trial, you are either guilty or not guilt. Just to clarify it.

Re: Michael Jackson
 

According to me, little children are excluded. I'm just telling you how the law sees things. In fact, the law sees those under 12 as unable to form criminal intent, or mens rea (which is, along with a guilty act, actus reus, what a prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict any crime). Those older than 12 and under 18 are often tried under special conditions. And those who are insane (whether it's acquired or whether they were always insane), can use the insanity plea. Knowing right from wrong is a good criterion, because by definition, it does not preclude conviction of sociopaths. Regardless, MJ could tell. I think you might be using 'insane' and 'too young' interchangeably. Children pick up well before age 12 what is right and what is wrong, but 12 is a somewhat arbitrary number that jurists have chosen as 'too young to form intent'. This has nothing to do with insanity. Even if MJ still were childlike, he is not insane. Furthermore, he is not under 12, and therefore is not a child.

Wait a sec... MJ produced his stuff too? If that's the case, I take it all back.

I'm trying to ascertain what Ryan meant. In that same post he said he believed in the guilt of all three, so what you're saying can't be what he meant, can it?

Re: Michael Jackson
 

And this is, unfortunately, one of the flaws of our legal system. There is no reasonable way a jury's judgement can be scaled for the emotional level of the defendent. I have met eight-year-olds that have a better sense of right and wrong than many people our age. Case in point: Ask a little child if it's ok to take another child's toy. He'll tell you it's not ok. But ask a teen if it's ok to share music or hack into a computer, and he'll be much more vague.

Therefore, it is impossible to judge every person completely fairly, since no one can know exactly his emotional and moral development.

Alas that we are not gods. ;)