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

[evulish]

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.

[Ryan Albright]

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

[xzvrw2]

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?