Michael Jackson

[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

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Ryan Albright

I just personally think that money and fame plays alot into the court room.

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.

[i_am_Doug]

Originally Posted by 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

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?

[Jay H 237]

Originally Posted by i_am_Doug

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?

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.

[Mike]

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.

[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?

[Dorienne]

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.

[Conor Ryan]

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.

[Cory]

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..

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.

Originally Posted by xzvrw2

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?

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.

[jonathan lall]

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"?

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.

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.

[MrToast]

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

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.

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

[Cory]

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

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

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"

[xzvrw2]

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

[jonathan lall]

Originally Posted by MrToast

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.

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.

Originally Posted by MrToast

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.

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

Originally Posted by Cory

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.

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?