Michael Jackson

[xzvrw2]

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?

[Conor Ryan]

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?

[xzvrw2]

There already was. Before this trial. Mike won.

[jonathan lall]

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

Originally Posted by cdr1122334455

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.

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.

Originally Posted by xzvrw2

There already was. Before this trial. Mike won.

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.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

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.

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.

[jonathan lall]

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.

[Madison]

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.

[santosh]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

"Thriller" is still the best music video ever made.

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.

[Cory]

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.

[David Guzman]

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

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Amanda Morrison

I am certainly not one to get involved with political threads, and I won't feign interest in the subject. I wasn't surprised when I heard the verdict today - well, I wouldn't have been surprised either way. I understand that is a cultural icon, and I'm sure (as is now becoming evident) that many people will suspect this is a reason for the verdict.

Is it so hard to believe that a jury of our peers was not biased by the fact that this man had money, albums, and a fan base? The jury deliberated for seven days - isn't that a bit long to say 'Man, I liked Thriller, there's no way this guy is guilty'?

And furthermore,
Is that really so hard to believe? Is it hard to believe that a bride faked her own kidnapping because she was terrified of getting married? People do stupid and silly things, based on their emotions... and sometimes, based on greed. It's happened before, although whether or not it happened here, that's for the grand jury and not myself to decide, although they seem to have discounted the charges for a reason. I have to assume they have discussed all options, and ruled accordingly.

My point? It's not up to one of us to say whether Jackson is guilty or not. That's already been done, and he is cleared of the charges. I don't personally know what happened, and I can't base my reputation on what is published in tabloid magazines. His reputation is tarnished, his life been made into a mockery, and his family matters displayed to public like a soap opera for the last thirty or more years. That hardly seems like a good base for an opinion.

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.

[MrToast]

(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

[Jay H 237]

Originally Posted by Cory

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.

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

[tiffany34990]

Originally Posted by Cory

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

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..

[xzvrw2]

Originally Posted by tiffany34990

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..

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?