Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ryan Albright
O,J. Simpson = Innocent
Robert Blake = acquitted of charges
Michael Jackson = Innocent
|
I don't understand... what's the distinction between "acquitted of charges" and "innocent"?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ryan Albright
These First three people are famous, [Scott Peterson] 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.
|
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrToast
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.
|
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.