ossobuco wrote:Not being an attorney, I don't understand the difference between legally innocent and not guilty. One is innocent until proven guilty, no?
I agree with intrepid that his problems extend to improper association, and I don't know that he is a pedophile, whatever my hunch.
It didn't occur to me, though, that jurors might have splendid new cars. Boy, I hope such corruption is not operating, and rather doubt it. I think the case didn't need that element to be decided the way it was.
I made the comment about new cars with tongue in cheek. However, I would totally rule it out. It is unlikely, but possible.
I have not spoken about this issue thus far because, if not for the fact that he's never heard of me and has no idea who I am, Michael Jackson could be a good friend of mine. He thinks he is twelve and he is a genius. I occasionally act like I am twelve and I have come very close to passing a Mensa test or two.
Neither of us is guilty of any crime.
Joe(why do you think he named it Neverland?)Nation
Come 'on Joe, most average people can pass that Mensa test.
I'm 12 going on 70. Failed every test I've ever taken. That's not true. I passed my driver's license renewal test last week.
Oh, that's horrible! How awful! I'm in shock!
They are letting you drive!!!
Joe(See what I mean?)Nation
According to DMV, I'll be receiving my 'new' license in a couple of weeks.
FYI, although some think seniors are involved in more accidents than any other age group, that information is wrong. Seniors suffer injuries in accidents more than any other age group. The youngsters between 16 and 18 are the worst drivers. I haven't had a ticket in over a decade or more. Doesn't mean I drive better - I just never got caught.
Looks like its time for a Comeback Album!
Any suggestions for Titles?
Do you think anyone will buy his music now?
Even though he "won" this case, will his life be forever changed in that much of the public will now scorn him, won't buy his music even if its good, and will he have to "downgrade" his lifestyle (ie live on perhaps 5 million per year instead of 100 million per year--to pick a number)?
em, If his music is good, people will still buy. His popularity outside the US is still pretty strong. The US is a toss-up, but most people will buy his music depending on whether they were fans in the past.
As I said early on, I regard him as guilty, but can abide the jury's decision. One thing I am pretty certain of. There will be future accusations and another trial or two, 'cause the man doesn't seem capable of change.
EB,
I agree. And the problem with people of that level of celebrity is once things start going haywire and they start going in bizarre self-destructive directions, no one close enough to them seems to have the power or inclination to tell them: "No. Dude do not do this crap. You are losing it. Straighten up or you are going to die or end up in prison."
People like this I can think of off top of my head: Elvis Presley, Mike Tyson, Saddam Hussein, Michael Jackson, Hitler.
I mean no one close enough to them seems to be willing to slap them in the face and say "snap out of it."
Pedophilia is supposedly very difficult to "cure," some say you are never cured.
Whether the guy is guilty or not, he definitely has mental issues. Too bad it couldn't have been caught like 25 years ago.
Another sad part is, if he keeps going down:
The world will lose one of the most unique performers out there.
Aside from these troubles, he is unquestionably one of the most talented and original performing artists we have. Just a natural.
I loved him as a kid and young man, viewing him as something of a saint. It pains me to have to have such a changed perception, where I would see him jailed or confined in an institution.
IMO the parents should now stand trial. If anyone is guilty it is they for allowing their child to associate with the gloved one who has a spotted history in his association with young boys.
Regarding whether M.J's music will sell. Probably as well and maybe even better than before.
As for M.J. being guilty as charged, probably. However was the prosecution able to prove it? NO. not to the satisfacrion of the jurors. He is in the eyes of the law at least not guilty.
The Forbes piece on this is interesting.
link
Quote:While a prosecutor can't pick and choose every time in alleged sex crimes--although when someone is murdered, for instance, there should be a strong urge to bring a case--there is ample discretion, which state statistics demonstrate. Over the last ten years, the number of felony arrests per 100,000 people in Santa Barbara County has fallen from 1,636 in 1994 to 925 in 2003, the last year for which statistics are available. Most categories of crime--violent offenses, property offenses, drug offenses--track the overall trend.
But the numbers of felony arrests for sex offenses, including lewd or lascivious conduct--the main charge against Jackson--jumped up and down with a logic of their own. In 1999, there were 94 charges; in 2000, there were 116, even as the overall crime rate held fairly steady.
Then in 2003, as the county was ginning up its investigation of Jackson, the number of felony sex offense arrests fell almost by half (from 110 in 2002 to just 60).
All this suggests that Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon had a choice, despite his denials. "We don't select victims of crimes, and we don't select the family. We try to make a conscientious decision and go forward," Sneddon said after the verdict was announced, adding his refusal to apologize.
But can anyone imagine a case like this going forward if Jackson were not the defendant?
Jackson, of course, is an exception to every rule. But his alleged victim had denied the abuse publicly and privately, to both a teacher and a social worker. While witnesses may at times change their stories, district attorneys don't have to proceed with a trial were the evidence is weak. They can select their victims often enough.
They can also select the charges, and Sneddon chose to allege a vast conspiracy, turning the trial into more of circus than it would have been without those charges.
Much has been said about California district attorneys' losing streaks in celebrity trials. There was O.J., then Robert Blake, now Jackson. That's three, so it's a trend.
But there may be something to this trend. When the defendant is prominent, the calculus is changed on both sides. Jackson could not plead guilty to even a lesser charge. The district attorney probably wouldn't allow himself to accept such a plea, even if offered. Jackson, too, could pay millions for his defense despite his heavy debts: The entertainer is a partner with Sony (nyse: SNE - news - people ) in a music publishing business, which owns more than 300,000 songs and generates as much as $75 million a year in income for him. Suddenly, the unfair advantages for both sides start to even out.
Oozing from all this weirdness comes the type of trial enshrined in the American ideal.
Going forward with this case when it was so wobbly seems more than a bit stupid.
The energy and time that could have gone into other, more solid cases ... what a shame.
A lesser known person would be in prison on the same evidence.
Just imagine it for a moment. The creepy 46 year old man who builds a splendid amusement park, sleeps with young boys (usually boys who fit the same physical description, even), makes alcohol and porn available to them, and shuns women and girls while simultaneously proclaiming that he is not gay.
I guess some people just wants to be judge, jury and executioner.
People are entitled to their opinions, yes? If everyone agreed on everything, all argument would be moot and all questions rhetorical.
Opinions on a2k are challenged all the time; even mine.
The guy is a total klusterf--k. I just hope he moves out of California and the U.S. so we don't have to deal with prosecuting him again.
Seems that way, and I am not on a defense team, but the prosecution not only didn't have the goods, it was lame almost beyond belief. It is hard for me to construct that he is some kind of a pure prince, indeed I can barely fathom that possibility.
I can more easily fathom that he has, er, shallow monitors and good help.
But I don't know.
More important to me is the burden of proof in a trial by jury, and innocence until proven guilty. It is the basis of our system, from my side of the system.
Way too many people have been slung to the guilty side with slippery indices.
I am actually, as I think about it, happy there is some segment of pause in the maw. We need proof in cases not just for one case, but because we all could be part of a case.
Justice for all is the idea beyond this trial.
