I agree, no mud-slinging, but just to reiterate.....
The jury did not find Michael Jackson innocent of child molestation charges; they found him not guilty by virtue of reasonable doubt.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Michael Jackson - the verdict is out!!
I've said this before but we should be more concerned that the verdict safeguards the future welfare of children ! The most worrying outcome of this verdict is the potential message it sends to the general public that it's ok for an adult to have a continual stream of young boys sleep in the same room with him alone 
Of course, we need to be very careful about crying wolf here but all involved (accused and guardians) should have been taken to task for putting the the children in the position in the first place.
Of course, we need to be very careful about crying wolf here but all involved (accused and guardians) should have been taken to task for putting the the children in the position in the first place.
Why would any Mother or Father let their children go and stay with a 40 year old man anyway ?
The Mother said she knew they slept in the same bed.......... fgs
Some of the witnesses for the defence said they knew their kids had slept in the same bed as him !!!
HELLO !!!!! ............ these are the people who need locking up !
The Mother said she knew they slept in the same bed.......... fgs
Some of the witnesses for the defence said they knew their kids had slept in the same bed as him !!!
HELLO !!!!! ............ these are the people who need locking up !
Quote by blonde
Why would any Mother or Father let their children go and stay with a 40 year old man anyway ?
The Mother said she knew they slept in the same bed.......... fgs
Some of the witnesses for the defence said they knew their kids had slept in the same bad as him !!!
HELLO !!!!! ............ these are the people who need locking up !
This probably sums up the real core of the argument
not guilty maybe
morally bankcrupt definately
Quote by Mark
good answer mark
I was only trying to show you that specious arguments can come bite you in the arse.
Whats specious ?
Quote by SXBOY
no smoke without fire
hes been in trouble / accused before of same things
So, now if some stranger accused you of ...?
there will always be ...totally irreprehensible bitches who wrongly accuse innocent men of a very nasty crime ..sadly
Let's all shout, "NO SMOKE WITHOUT FIRE!"
You understand what I'm saying?
Agree
Quote by SXBOY
its just too un believable hes done nothing wrong
That's as maybe, but we've got to try to be more careful with the mud we're slinging imo.
Puts mud back on to floor and goes looking for catapult
Sex God
Quote by longhandle8
I've said this before but we should be more concerned that the verdict safeguards the future welfare of children ! The most worrying outcome of this verdict is the potential message it sends to the general public that it's ok for an adult to have a continual stream of young boys sleep in the same room with him alone
i don't think it sends that message at all? most adults know full well that that's completely innapropriate, so i doubt this is gonna cause much change there?
Quote by longhandle8
all involved (accused and guardians) should have been taken to task for putting the the children in the position in the first place.
exactly, and clearly it was the mother's part in this that undid the case to a large extent.
Quote by blonde
Why would any Mother or Father let their children go and stay with a 40 year old man anyway ?
well the answer to that is obviously dollar signs, whether you believe the defence or not?
there's some fairly dubious motives here on all sides, but being intimate with kids does NOT imply paedophilic activity, nor should it. if i fall asleep watching telly with my cousin, should anything be read into that? would a prosecution be brought on that basis? i think not! course, i think it's VERY suspect that MJ should share a bed with a kid, and that said kids' parents would allow it, but that's not evidence of . seems this case was built on that, and that alone, hence the acquittal.
as far as protecting kids goes, the law can only ever protect kids AFTER the fact, by which time it's too late. the predatory paedophiles so beloved of NOTW type scaremongering are fortunately less common than they make out, but there will be an abuser of some kind on pretty much every street in the country, and ultimately only parents can protect those kids.
neil x x x ;)
Sex God
Well said Neil. 
I think the guy has some serious mental issues.. he obviously see's himself as a small child so see's nothing wrong with the whole intimacy with other children. Could be something to do with having no childhood *insert psychological reasoning garble here* but whatever it is doesn't mean to say he was doing anything sexual.
Whatever the outcome had been, there would still be people believing it was wrong. Personally I'm happy to accept the verdict and good luck to him trying to get his arse out of millions of dollars worth of debt!!
I think the guy has some serious mental issues.. he obviously see's himself as a small child so see's nothing wrong with the whole intimacy with other children. Could be something to do with having no childhood *insert psychological reasoning garble here* but whatever it is doesn't mean to say he was doing anything sexual.
Whatever the outcome had been, there would still be people believing it was wrong. Personally I'm happy to accept the verdict and good luck to him trying to get his arse out of millions of dollars worth of debt!!
Let's not forget that this is a man who publicly dangled HIS OWN BABY from a third floor balcony.
There can be no doubt - IMHO - that the closeted lifestyle that MJ has led since he was a small child star has left him incapable of understanding the do's and absolute 'donts' that everyday normal members of society know full well and live by.
If MJ has a mentally retarded age of say a 13 or 14 y/o the fact remains that his ACTUAL age permits him to purchase alcohol et al, and, as kids will.... they'll consume it for the sake of being naughty. I know I had alcohol when I was underage coz we used to sneak in at our parent's parties and steal the stuff!
OK, MJ has been cleared of plying minors with alcohol because of 'reasonable doubt' that he actually did ply them with alcohol for the intention of molestation or any other reason. If MJ does have a mentally retarded age, then to him he was simply being naughty and encouraging his friends to do the same. Obviously, this is all hypothetical as it has not been determined whether MJ is retarded or not, but recent discoveries made in America include a fleet of Rolls Royce's that the singer had forgotten he owned in a airport lock up. Who forgets that they own a fleet of Rollers unless he was never aware of their existence or, he is not of a mental capacity to understand what he is purchasing and for what reason.
The parents are the ones who are most questionable in this whole affair, in my opinion. Bedazzled by bright lights and lots of lavish gifts they have propelled their children into MJ's care and jumped on the first sign of a in the man's wealth. 1993 proved that point succinctly.
But............
MJ has been tried by a jury of his peers and found NOT GUILTY on ALL counts. Now in my book, this means he is INNOCENT as we live in a society whereby ALL citizens are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. Democracy and the Law are exonerated in this case, but there is a lot of work still to do to cleanse the real perverts from our system. I know many people who have been abused as children and they are still suffering now as adults.
One blessing maybe...... Michael Jackson will live the rest of life under a very public microscope. He simply cannot afford to expose himself to this level of scrutiny again.... and his army of advisors etc should be well aware of that but then you would think that they would have learned their lesson from the Chandler case in 1993.
There can be no doubt - IMHO - that the closeted lifestyle that MJ has led since he was a small child star has left him incapable of understanding the do's and absolute 'donts' that everyday normal members of society know full well and live by.
If MJ has a mentally retarded age of say a 13 or 14 y/o the fact remains that his ACTUAL age permits him to purchase alcohol et al, and, as kids will.... they'll consume it for the sake of being naughty. I know I had alcohol when I was underage coz we used to sneak in at our parent's parties and steal the stuff!
OK, MJ has been cleared of plying minors with alcohol because of 'reasonable doubt' that he actually did ply them with alcohol for the intention of molestation or any other reason. If MJ does have a mentally retarded age, then to him he was simply being naughty and encouraging his friends to do the same. Obviously, this is all hypothetical as it has not been determined whether MJ is retarded or not, but recent discoveries made in America include a fleet of Rolls Royce's that the singer had forgotten he owned in a airport lock up. Who forgets that they own a fleet of Rollers unless he was never aware of their existence or, he is not of a mental capacity to understand what he is purchasing and for what reason.
The parents are the ones who are most questionable in this whole affair, in my opinion. Bedazzled by bright lights and lots of lavish gifts they have propelled their children into MJ's care and jumped on the first sign of a in the man's wealth. 1993 proved that point succinctly.
But............
MJ has been tried by a jury of his peers and found NOT GUILTY on ALL counts. Now in my book, this means he is INNOCENT as we live in a society whereby ALL citizens are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. Democracy and the Law are exonerated in this case, but there is a lot of work still to do to cleanse the real perverts from our system. I know many people who have been abused as children and they are still suffering now as adults.
One blessing maybe...... Michael Jackson will live the rest of life under a very public microscope. He simply cannot afford to expose himself to this level of scrutiny again.... and his army of advisors etc should be well aware of that but then you would think that they would have learned their lesson from the Chandler case in 1993.
Sex God
Quote by SXboy
hes been in trouble / accused before of same things
and the accusers family were bought off with 40 million dollars? if it was my kid? well i'd want anyone who abused my kid locked up for life, to make sure it never happened again? a fairly strong parental instinct there i would have thought?
and then of course if i was wanting recompense, in the states i could still sue for 40 million plus once he's in jail and his assets seized?the previous 40 million could provide a pretty strong motivation for yet another dodgy, unsupported prosecution couldn't it? and prosecutor sneddon would jump at the chance of another bite at the cherry. there's been NO evidence whatsoever that MJ has abused this kid. any other case is irrelevant, cos they never came to trial. to call him a pervert and a is libellous, and unfounded. the guy was always vulnerable to this kind of case, given the grey area left by previous UNSUPPORTED AND UNSUBSTANTIATED allegations!
Quote by wishmaster
. . . . . quite a lot of stuff . . . .
exactly!!! :thumbup: ;)
neil x x x ;)
I'm actually quite shocked that people, who have only read about the trial in the press can actually argue the point that MJ is guilty. What narrow and closed minds you must have if you believe everything that some scumbag wretch of an excuse of a person starts to sling around. :shock: :shock:
MJ is, without a shadow of a doubt, an extremely damaged and eccentric person. I know many many eccentric people ( my life is populated with eccentrics). However that does not make him a child abuser or molester.
How any of you can claim to know better than the 12 people who sat through the trial for 4 months and heard every single bit of evidence is totally beyond me.
:censored: :censored: :censored:
MJ is, without a shadow of a doubt, an extremely damaged and eccentric person. I know many many eccentric people ( my life is populated with eccentrics). However that does not make him a child abuser or molester.
How any of you can claim to know better than the 12 people who sat through the trial for 4 months and heard every single bit of evidence is totally beyond me.
:censored: :censored: :censored:
Quote by Jags
How any of you can claim to know better than the 12 people who sat through the trial for 4 months and heard every single bit of evidence is totally beyond me.
:censored: :censored: :censored:
and as i quoted from the news before, one of the jurors actually believes this man is guilty of child molestation - only not in this particular case. Hmmmm!
And at the risk of getting a Jags slap or worse (is there worse?) any chance of my previous question being answered? What WAS so bad about Kinkyluton's post (re:Mike Tyson case) that the mods felt the need to ban him without explanation, never mind the fact that another member is still on this site having publicly attacked him on this Forum???
...... Marya .. probably disappearing to Room 101 as we speak.
Quote by Marya
How any of you can claim to know better than the 12 people who sat through the trial for 4 months and heard every single bit of evidence is totally beyond me.
:censored: :censored: :censored:
and as i quoted from the news before, one of the jurors actually believes this man is guilty of child molestation - only not in this particular case. Hmmmm!
And at the risk of getting a Jags slap or worse (is there worse?) any chance of my previous question being answered? What WAS so bad about Kinkyluton's post (re:Mike Tyson case) that the mods felt the need to ban him without explanation, never mind the fact that another member is still on this site having publicly attacked him on this Forum???
...... Marya .. probably disappearing to Room 101 as we speak.
Nope - Kinkyluton has been told why he's been banned and it's not appropriate to discuss in the open forum. It's a matter between Kinky and Mark and nothing to do with anyone else at all.
As for MJ - he was found not guilty of all the 10 charges put before the court. What else he may have done was not subject to trial. But I do have to repeat my outright horror at some of the comments left here. Stinks of lynch mob attitude and I really don't want any part of it.
:censored:
Quote by Jags
Nope - Kinkyluton has been told why he's been banned and it's not appropriate to discuss in the open forum. It's a matter between Kinky and Mark and nothing to do with anyone else at all.
As for MJ - he was found not guilty of all the 10 charges put before the court. What else he may have done was not subject to trial. But I do have to repeat my outright horror at some of the comments left here. Stinks of lynch mob attitude and I really don't want any part of it.
:censored:
I say lynch him and the rest like him!
I'm not coming back to this thread after this. He was not found innocent. He was found not guilty without reasonable doubt.
Makes no diffs to me how bloody eccentric he is. What he did, and those around who turned a blind eye, was wrong.
Sex God
Quote by Libra+Love
He was not found innocent. He was found not guilty without reasonable doubt.
The purpose of a trial is not to establish innocence. Innocence is presumed. The purpose of a trial is to establish guilt, which must be proven. It was not proven. In the absence of proof of guilt, the presumption of innocence remains, so the jury doesn't have to find him innocent because he is innocent by definition unless anyone can prove otherwise.
Makes no diffs to me how bloody eccentric he is. What he did, and those around who turned a blind eye, was wrong.
The evidence against him was inconsistent, illogical, and badly rehearsed. No honest jury could have convicted him on the strength of it.
I'm amazed by the presumption of guilt that has been expressed by many people before the case even came to trial. What did any of those who condemned him from the beginning know except what they read in the newspapers?
Tabloids/newpapers...sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong, sometimes it's pure sensationalism and sometimes they can't go near it for the costs in legal damages. But you'll trust them your footie scores, match break downs and team character assassinations etc. What's with that? Selective tabloid crap reading?
I watched that Neverland interview. Anyone got it? Watch that kid's body language. I'm no expert, I do however recognised that behaviour.
I watched that Neverland interview. Anyone got it? Watch that kid's body language. I'm no expert, I do however recognised that behaviour.
My two penneth for what it's worth ....
MJ is definitely an eccentric, over the last twenty years the media have printed all sorts of amazing stories about him to the point that no one knows what to believe any more. They have labelled him a wierdo and in this day and age wierdo means one thing ...
We have heard of two counts where this man has allegedly abused minors, but what about all those he has bought joy too? OK the man is misguided in his innocence and socially inept, practically infantile but the media have always blown out of proportion his activities.
Add that to chancers who see an opportunity to take the man for his millions and it has turned into this farce of a trial. The "payoff" however many years ago has always left me uncomfortable ... not because I saw it as a hush up but any parent who suspects their child of being abused and accepts money instead of justice leaves me sick to my stomach. If MJ did abuse that boy and paid up, then the parents of that boy should be prosecuted for not stopping him with a court case then ... instead they possibly "allowed him to move to his next victim" sick sick sick. A child's (any child's) protection is surely worth more than money?
I have no idea if he abused those boys or not, I have no idea if he is innocent or not. i do know though that the parents of those children are at least morally responsible for endangering their children, there is no way on this earth I would agree to leave my child alone with anyone who wasn't family and even then it depends on who it is. They were blinded by his money to allow it at the time, and then saw the chance to make after it.
I just hope the man learns from his "mistakes" and retreats to recover. I do feel sorry for all the children he has helped in the past and those who may now lose out.
C x
MJ is definitely an eccentric, over the last twenty years the media have printed all sorts of amazing stories about him to the point that no one knows what to believe any more. They have labelled him a wierdo and in this day and age wierdo means one thing ...
We have heard of two counts where this man has allegedly abused minors, but what about all those he has bought joy too? OK the man is misguided in his innocence and socially inept, practically infantile but the media have always blown out of proportion his activities.
Add that to chancers who see an opportunity to take the man for his millions and it has turned into this farce of a trial. The "payoff" however many years ago has always left me uncomfortable ... not because I saw it as a hush up but any parent who suspects their child of being abused and accepts money instead of justice leaves me sick to my stomach. If MJ did abuse that boy and paid up, then the parents of that boy should be prosecuted for not stopping him with a court case then ... instead they possibly "allowed him to move to his next victim" sick sick sick. A child's (any child's) protection is surely worth more than money?
I have no idea if he abused those boys or not, I have no idea if he is innocent or not. i do know though that the parents of those children are at least morally responsible for endangering their children, there is no way on this earth I would agree to leave my child alone with anyone who wasn't family and even then it depends on who it is. They were blinded by his money to allow it at the time, and then saw the chance to make after it.
I just hope the man learns from his "mistakes" and retreats to recover. I do feel sorry for all the children he has helped in the past and those who may now lose out.
C x
I started off not really giving a fig on this debate, I even posted a mickey take of a poll, which rightly got deleted on sight. The whole MJ trial thing has passed me by on the TV and the news as I am not that interested.
What does interest me though is the way people have reverted back to some kind of Sun/ NoTW mentality when discussing this.
Yes we have our own opinions, and I guess it is an emotive issue as it involves kids. No one on here is FOR the abuse of children in any shape or form, obviously.
But as crap and obnoxious as I find everything surrounding Michael Jackson and his weird life, his god-awful music and the cult of celebrity surrounding him, I can't help but think... if he lived on a council estate and had been found not guilty by trial on the charges he faced, some people on here would be the very ones not letting him return to his life. They would be exacting mob-justice on him.
Innocent means innocent. And as someone who once stood up in a court of law and was found innocent (on charges of attempting to assault, incitement to and actual assault of policemen plus other charges), I know what that means when you are labeled a thug in a national newspapers. I know none of the cops in the court house believed I was innocent and would have happily sorted me out. I know when it was on the news, people would have sat there and said "i got off".... but i was innocent of what I was accused of. I don't trust the justice system to work every single time.... but it is better than living in fear of retribution and far fairer than some of the sentiments expressed here....
What does interest me though is the way people have reverted back to some kind of Sun/ NoTW mentality when discussing this.
Yes we have our own opinions, and I guess it is an emotive issue as it involves kids. No one on here is FOR the abuse of children in any shape or form, obviously.
But as crap and obnoxious as I find everything surrounding Michael Jackson and his weird life, his god-awful music and the cult of celebrity surrounding him, I can't help but think... if he lived on a council estate and had been found not guilty by trial on the charges he faced, some people on here would be the very ones not letting him return to his life. They would be exacting mob-justice on him.
Innocent means innocent. And as someone who once stood up in a court of law and was found innocent (on charges of attempting to assault, incitement to and actual assault of policemen plus other charges), I know what that means when you are labeled a thug in a national newspapers. I know none of the cops in the court house believed I was innocent and would have happily sorted me out. I know when it was on the news, people would have sat there and said "i got off".... but i was innocent of what I was accused of. I don't trust the justice system to work every single time.... but it is better than living in fear of retribution and far fairer than some of the sentiments expressed here....
Quote by neilinleeds
I've said this before but we should be more concerned that the verdict safeguards the future welfare of children ! The most worrying outcome of this verdict is the potential message it sends to the general public that it's ok for an adult to have a continual stream of young boys sleep in the same room with him alone
i don't think it sends that message at all? most adults know full well that that's completely innapropriate, so i doubt this is gonna cause much change there?
Not worried about most adults and it's not about Michael Jackson. I'm concerned that a statement should be made that this situation was inappropriate for all concerned, such that any abusers can't quote this case as a precedence in their defence.
I f we agree it's inappropriate, let's make the statement and at least try to reduce the likelihood of this happening again.
Quote by Libra+Love
Tabloids/newpapers...sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong, sometimes it's pure sensationalism and sometimes they can't go near it for the costs in legal damages. But you'll trust them your footie scores, match break downs and team character assassinations etc. What's with that? Selective tabloid crap reading?
I watched that Neverland interview. Anyone got it? Watch that kid's body language. I'm no expert, I do however recognised that behaviour.
Don't read the sports section.
Sex God
Quote by Calista
The "payoff" however many years ago has always left me uncomfortable ... not because I saw it as a hush up but any parent who suspects their child of being abused and accepts money instead of justice leaves me sick to my stomach. If MJ did abuse that boy and paid up, then the parents of that boy should be prosecuted for not stopping him with a court case then ... instead they possibly "allowed him to move to his next victim" sick sick sick. A child's (any child's) protection is surely worth more than money?
I have no idea if he abused those boys or not, I have no idea if he is innocent or not. i do know though that the parents of those children are at least morally responsible for endangering their children, there is no way on this earth I would agree to leave my child alone with anyone who wasn't family and even then it depends on who it is. They were blinded by his money to allow it at the time, and then saw the chance to make after it.
exact-a-fucking-mundo! ;)
i CANNOT imagine any right-minded parent letting a off the hook, no matter how many dollars were waved in their face. even the most mercenary parent knows full well that a guilty verdict at trial opens up the man's coffers. the fact they never went to trial speaks bloody volumes!!!!
OMFG i used the "right-minded" phrase there didn't i? :eeek:
Quote by longhandle8
I'm concerned that a statement should be made that this situation was inappropriate for all concerned, such that any abusers can't quote this case as a precedence in their defence.
a statement about what? that people shouldn't share a bed with kids? well i defy you to call me a cos i have in my time shared a bed with a kid? so has my mum? so has the kids mum? so has the kids dad? now what? what exacty is your point?
believe you me, ANY allegation of child sexual abuse is taken VERY seriously, but previous "precedents" don't come into it. there are many skilled professionals dealing with a sexual abuse allegation, and yep, sometimes they get it wrong, but given that such an allegation is worse than just about anything on the statute books, they make damn sure they know what they're on about in this country. in the MJ case? well, was very much a rush to judgement for lots of reasons completely divorced from child protection / criminal justice?
n x x x ;)
Quote by neilinleeds
I'm concerned that a statement should be made that this situation was inappropriate for all concerned, such that any abusers can't quote this case as a precedence in their defence.
a statement about what? that people shouldn't share a bed with kids? well i defy you to call me a cos i have in my time shared a bed with a kid? so has my mum? so has the kids mum? so has the kids dad? now what? what exacty is your point?
believe you me, ANY allegation of child sexual abuse is taken VERY seriously, but previous "precedents" don't come into it. there are many skilled professionals dealing with a sexual abuse allegation, and yep, sometimes they get it wrong, but given that such an allegation is worse than just about anything on the statute books, they make damn sure they know what they're on about in this country. in the MJ case? well, was very much a rush to judgement for lots of reasons completely divorced from child protection / criminal justice?
n x x x ;)
Come on Neil, my point about sharing a bed was clearly pertaining to the trial and specifically at people who aren't parents or guardians. Your response sounds like you're looking for an argument thats not there
You've already agreed that it was inappropriate behaviour, all I'm saying is let's make a general statement that it is !
My point about precedent was merely that in law, precedence can be quoted as a defence.
Just tryiing to look at the bigger picture that's all since I dont give a toss whether MJ is innocent or not
Sex God
Come on Neil, my point about sharing a bed was clearly pertaining to the trial and specifically at people who aren't parents or guardians. Your response sounds like you're looking for an argument thats not there
not at all. i like to think i don't make trolling arguments?
my point was . . . nothing in this trial, whether they shared a bed or not, or got pissed up together or not, is indicative of ?
sharing a bed is NOT, in any way, shape, or form, grounds for a trial about child sexual abuse?
and again . . . precedent in this case has no influence on future molestation charges anywhere in the world, so this case is completely irrelevant? luckily, they try the evidence on the evidence, and not on the grounds that MJ might have got away with it cos he shared a bed. the legal bods are a bit more clued up than that?? it simply doesn't come into it?
n x x x ;)
Quote by Ice Pie
He was not found innocent. He was found not guilty without reasonable doubt.
The purpose of a trial is not to establish innocence. Innocence is presumed. The purpose of a trial is to establish guilt, which must be proven. It was not proven. In the absence of proof of guilt, the presumption of innocence remains, so the jury doesn't have to find him innocent because he is innocent by definition unless anyone can prove otherwise.
Ice Pie is correct here - innocent until proven guilty and he was found not guilty. In Scotland there is a third verdict which is 'not proven'. In many ways that is the worst verdict because what it means (in reality and theory) is that the jury believe that the defendant is guilty but the evidence wasn't rigorous or sufficient enough to bring in a guilty verdict. The person is then damned by that verdict.
However, MJ WAS found not guilty and so not guilty he shall remain, cleared of all charges.. Like it or not, that's the way it is. The lynch mob mentality shown in this thread saddens me greatly, someone mentioned the word 'bigotry' and it's so apt.
:cry:
Quote by neilinleeds
Come on Neil, my point about sharing a bed was clearly pertaining to the trial and specifically at people who aren't parents or guardians. Your response sounds like you're looking for an argument thats not there
not at all. i like to think i don't make trolling arguments?
my point was . . . nothing in this trial, whether they shared a bed or not, or got pissed up together or not, is indicative of ?
sharing a bed is NOT, in any way, shape, or form, grounds for a trial about child sexual abuse?
and again . . . precedent in this case has no influence on future molestation charges anywhere in the world, so this case is completely irrelevant? luckily, they try the evidence on the evidence, and not on the grounds that MJ might have got away with it cos he shared a bed. the legal bods are a bit more clued up than that?? it simply doesn't come into it?
n x x x ;)
I never suggested sharing a bed was abuse so you can discuss that elsewhere. We did agree it was inappropriate behaviour so I still feel it's important to educate people accordingly that's all.
Once again, I dont care what he "got away with" , we agreed such behaviour was inappropriate, yet the verdict and the message is everything's "appropriate".
Obviously cases are determined on specific evidence, but precedent does have an influence since it's based upon previously correct decisions. Unless previous decisions are incorrrect of course
Anyway, as i've said I dont have any axe with this case, just like to think we've learnt from it
Sex God
Quote by Jags
He was not found innocent. He was found not guilty without reasonable doubt.
The purpose of a trial is not to establish innocence. Innocence is presumed. The purpose of a trial is to establish guilt, which must be proven. It was not proven. In the absence of proof of guilt, the presumption of innocence remains, so the jury doesn't have to find him innocent because he is innocent by definition unless anyone can prove otherwise.
Ice Pie is correct here - innocent until proven guilty and he was found not guilty. In Scotland there is a third verdict which is 'not proven'. In many ways that is the worst verdict because what it means (in reality and theory) is that the jury believe that the defendant is guilty but the evidence wasn't rigorous or sufficient enough to bring in a guilty verdict. The person is then damned by that verdict.
However, MJ WAS found not guilty and so not guilty he shall remain, cleared of all charges.. Like it or not, that's the way it is. The lynch mob mentality shown in this thread saddens me greatly, someone mentioned the word 'bigotry' and it's so apt.
:cry:
here here.....
i am shocked about the way that a lot of people have gone on in regards to this subject and as jags and ice pie said... innocent until proven guilty... and people seem to have forgotten that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution, remember that if the juror in anyway in doubt then they must accquit, if the prosection cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt then you must find them not guilty..... just remember how accustaions have ruined peoples lives and careers.... a certain former this morning presenter springs to mind....
so what in fact you are saying is that the jury... 8 women, 4 men.... 8 of them were parents... didn't take everything into consideration... i think you are doing them people a disservice....
i found it interesting that when they interviewed the jury afterward then all said that they didn't believe the mothers story, why go to an agent and a publicist before you got to the police??..... and the children
i am sure that if MJ wasn't bankrupt they would go after him in a civil lawsuit...but if he has no money what would be the point.......be interesting to see what the next move is..
sean xxxxxxxx
I can't believe that because some don't agree here we suddenly get classed as bigotted
So I'll just agree to disagree.....
JURORS 'VERY TROUBLED'
The criminal case against Jackson was sparked by a February 2003 television documentary in which the singer was shown holding hands with his accuser and defending his practice of sharing a bed with young boys.
"I have a problem with Michael Jackson's behavior. And all I can say at this point is that I hope he recognizes that this is a serious problem," said juror Hultman.
But Hultman said his personal opinion "doesn't make (Jackson) guilty of the charges that were presented in this case, and that's where we had to make our decision."
Jury foreman Paul Rodriguez said jurors were "very troubled" that Jackson, by his own admission, had overnight sleepovers with children.
Asked by nationally syndicated radio host Howard Stern whether anyone on the jury had wanted to convict Jackson, juror Eleanor Cook said, "a lot of us wanted to, but we couldn't."
P.S. ANYONE touches my kids you can forget about court mate. And yes, I'll do the time when I'm done! And that's the only beef I have with the mum in this case. She saw dollar signs instead of justice.
So I'll just agree to disagree.....
JURORS 'VERY TROUBLED'
The criminal case against Jackson was sparked by a February 2003 television documentary in which the singer was shown holding hands with his accuser and defending his practice of sharing a bed with young boys.
"I have a problem with Michael Jackson's behavior. And all I can say at this point is that I hope he recognizes that this is a serious problem," said juror Hultman.
But Hultman said his personal opinion "doesn't make (Jackson) guilty of the charges that were presented in this case, and that's where we had to make our decision."
Jury foreman Paul Rodriguez said jurors were "very troubled" that Jackson, by his own admission, had overnight sleepovers with children.
Asked by nationally syndicated radio host Howard Stern whether anyone on the jury had wanted to convict Jackson, juror Eleanor Cook said, "a lot of us wanted to, but we couldn't."
P.S. ANYONE touches my kids you can forget about court mate. And yes, I'll do the time when I'm done! And that's the only beef I have with the mum in this case. She saw dollar signs instead of justice.
Quote by SXBOY
I
Asked by nationally syndicated radio host Howard Stern whether anyone on the jury had wanted to convict Jackson, juror Eleanor Cook said, "a lot of us wanted to, but we couldn't."
very very worrying !!!
THAT means that given the evidence presented to them they COULDN'T convict. A just jury. If the evidence doesn't stand up then the prosecution fails. Simple.
:doh: :doh: :doh:
