0
   

The jackson verdict is FINALLY in

 
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 07:24 am
I have read through all the posts and whether Michael Jackson really did molest a child or not was not proven by the prosecution. It does not matter whether he fits a profile or not, in our legal system you have to be proven guilty within reasonable doubt. I don't think anyone can argue that he is strange and definitely has issues, but it is plain wrong to convict some one unless you have legitimate proof. Unfortunately that may mean that some guilty parties go free, however, it would is terrible to think that you would put some one in jail simply because he fits a profile. He could simply have some serious issues, but has never hurt a child, there has not been evidence yet that has proven more than that fact.

My dad has toys and other things to entice children, but he is not a pedophile. He simply has children over his house because he frequently cares for them.

Ebrown - according to the law in the US - you are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore by saying not guilty, he was not proven guilty so he is innocent.

I also agree with Setanta - if he is a pedophile it will eventually come out.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 07:26 am
material girl
material girl wrote:
I was watching a documentary on the Jacksons the other day.It appears Michaels dad verbally abused his kids and beat them.

Is he gona go on trial?


Makes you wonder if their mother tried to stop it---or if she did, did he beat her up too? The Jackson father is a sadistic tyrant who made a living off his children. No wonder Michael is so weird.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 07:27 am
Has anyone worried about the mom of this child? I think she should be brought up on charges. She uses her child to get money? How sick is that. The poor child has cancer and she abuses this situation and tries to get my celebrities. I can understand having a fund raiser or something, but calling up celebrities? Maybe that is why there was so much animosity against this mom. My understanding is that there were several jurors that are moms. I wonder if this also influenced the jurors. I mean reasonable moms do whatever they can to protect their children. They see this mom using their child for financial purposes, and they instinctively feel she is not credible.

D'artagnan - I think that the mother's greediness made her an unreliable witness. Also she would influence her children to testify against him in a similar vain. The jury then does not believe their testimony and therefore that is the majority of the proof against Jackson. Since the prosecution must prove he is guilty (not the other way around) and the testimony is unreliable there goes the proof against him.
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 07:29 am
I agree with what Squinney said several pages ago.
" i thought he was innocent all along"

On this ONE case, I did too. Embarrassed
the case against him was terrible. HOles in the story, things that the boy said was in his home WASNT, dates wrong, places and people wrong, evidence incorrect and just not consistent with what the boy claimed to be going on.

I think he is a child molester. i DONT THINK he molested this one.
Strange opinion.. yeah.. but.. :

How can you possibly ignore that these types of charges have come against him 2 times before? One public, one more private..
The first charge.. ok.. shame on the family for lying
the second time?
and the 3rd?
WTF? innocent men dont get blamed for the same thing over and over again.
If he was a creep but NOT TOUCHING children and parents just wanted money , WHY would it be the SAME CHARGE, same QUESTIONS in all the same cases over and over again..? If michael is such a push over, why have parents/kids/people not tried to sue him for other things?
Accidents on Neverland Rides? ( because they dont happen)
Animal bites? ( because they dont happen)
Slip and falls on Neverland grounds ( because they dont happen)



Child molestation ( because it happens )


See my point?

And if he truly IS innocent.. I would feel absolutly horrible imagining being in his shoes and how he must feel. I would hope that he could recover from this incident carefully and completely.
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 07:32 am
oh..sorry.

i didnt read the last page of this thread and didnt realize the subject had moved on. Embarrassed


i agree with Link.
This mom should have charges brought against her, her ability to raise her child questioned , and let JACKSONS lawyers charge her.
she will loose
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 07:38 am
It looks like the jury would have been just as happy to convict everyone involved.

Juror No. 1, Raymond Hultman, 62. He told The Associated Press in an interview at his home that he believed Jackson may have molested at least two boys - but not the accuser.

``That's not to say he's an innocent man,'' Hultman said. ``He's just not guilty of the crimes he's been charged with.''

They also had trouble with the prosecution's timeline of events.

Juror No. 10, a 45-year-old woman with one adult child and two teenage sons, discussed the panel's feelings about the 46-year-old pop star sharing his bed with boys.
``What mother in her right mind would allow that to happen? Just freely volunteer your child to sleep with someone. Not so much just Michael Jackson but any person for that matter. That's something that mothers are naturally concerned with,'' the juror said.

The jurors who acquitted Michael Jackson of child molestation had harsh words for the accuser's mother, who made them uncomfortable during her jumbled and volatile testimony.

CNN Link
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 07:41 am
I think too many people get stars in thier eyes when they associate with someone famous.
Parents loose thier ability to see straight and think that nothing will happen and that if they are friends with someone with money, they will get money, gifts etc..
0 Replies
 
Synonymph
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 07:46 am
Quote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Howcome the jurors held a press conference?!

Was it to publicise their forthcoming books about the trial?

One juror said he thought Jackson had probably abused children...

That should boost sales a bit more.

Books? I saw the press conference. The jurors were very inarticulate and are probably borderline illiterate.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 07:53 am
Synonymph
Synonymph wrote: "Books? I saw the press conference. The jurors were very inarticulate and are probably borderline illiterate."

Where did you get that idea? How well would you speak if you were nervous before the cameras of the world's media for the first time?

Jackson's jury comes from a varied educational background: three hold graduate degrees, one has a bachelor's degree, two have community college degrees and six hold high-school diplomas with some or no college experience.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:03 am
Jackson's jury

Jun 14, 2005

Michael Jackson's fate lay in the hands of a jury of eight women and four men.

The diverse group, The process was designed to eliminate those who might be sympathetic to Jackson because of personal ties, or others who may favour prosecutors.

They were asked to divulge personal details such as previous experience of sexual abuse or racial discrimination and quizzed on their knowledge of the singer and charges against him.

Eight were white, three Hispanic and one of Asian origin.

According to sources inside the court at least one juror has already got a book deal.

Here are the jurors' profiles at a glance:

1 - White male, 62. Civil engineer with a graduate degree. Married to a retired baker, he has four grown-up children and lives in Santa Maria. Believes parents can have a great influence over their children and that the media is biased.

2 - Latino male, 63. Has been married for eight years and lived with his partner for 18 years. Has two grown up sons and a graduate degree.A retired school counsellor, he describes himself as a "Western artist" who enjoys bronze casting and horse riding.

3 - White female, 50. Married with no children, she has a university degree and has worked part time as a riding instructor for 33 years. She has never been involved in any form of lawsuit and has no connections to Michael Jackson. Describes Jackson as a "wonderful" entertainer.

4 - White female, 52. Former computer programmer who used to be a math teacher. Has two teenage children and has been married to a university researcher for 21 years. Enjoys Jackson's music.

5 - White female, 79, the oldest juror - a widow who has lived in California her entire life. She has two grown-up children and some college education. Has done jury duty once before and has either a relative or close friend who has been accused of sex abuse. A casual acquaintance who knows Michael Jackson.

6 - White female, 22. A physical therapy aide who works full-time in a nursing home. She is a mother with two young daughters and lives with her boyfriend, who is unemployed. She has never served on a jury before, made any form of compensation claim and has no personal ties to Jackson. She has lived in Santa Barbara County, California, her whole life.

7 - White male, 21. A single student who lives in Santa Maria. He is a wheelchair user and his father has served in the US Air Force. A keen motor sports fan, he wants to be a sports journalist. Visited Jackson's Neverland ranch as a child and said he loves children but believes they have a tendency to lie.

8 - White female, 42. Works full time in special needs education. Married with four children aged between four and 20. Has a relative or close friend who has been accused of sex abuse and two female relatives who have been the victims of abuse, one who was raped when she was 12. Believes everyone should draw their own conclusions from media reports.

9 - Asian female, 39. A senior office specialist for the county government whose first language is Indonesian. Married to a television reporter for eight-and-a-half years. No children.

10 - White female, 45. A supermarket worker who previously sold radio advertising. Her first language is Spanish and she has three children aged between 14 and 26. Described the media as "another form of entertainment".

11 - Latino male, 20. Single with no children, and has a disabled mother. Is a fan of The Simpsons and does not watch television news. Works as an assistant head cashier. His father fought in the Korean war and his sister works for Jackson's doctor and knows the singer.

12 - Latino female, 44. Works for the Department of Social Services and is divorced from a Santa Maria police officer. Has a 21-year-old son and a friend who is a police detective.

Source
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:05 am
Re: Synonymph
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Where did you get that idea? How well would you speak if you were nervous before the cameras of the world's media for the first time?



good point.
These people were deciding the fate of a HUGE american icon.
I would be willing to bet most have never even been in front of a local
news camera. Now here they are, plastered ina WORLD broadcast, world news coverage, and surrounded by thousands of people ( his fans) , bodyguards, cops, etc...

yeah, i would be shaky on my words as well. That had to rock thier little worlds as well.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:09 am
They didn't HAVE to appear on TV! It was their choice.
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:15 am
No. they didnt.
But even before thier TV appearance ( I missed this? ) when thier identities were strongly hidden, they were still surrounded by more people then they have probally seen in thier lives.
A huge star just feet from them in the court room and more body guards then they could count...
yeah, shaky words is probally an understatement.

I know when i see someone famous, my tongue swells up and I just stare like a total dork and cant even function.
I cant imagine what it was like in thier shoes.
0 Replies
 
Zane
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:33 am
OJ Simpson, Robert Blake, Michael Jackson.

Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 08:35 am
so I wonder what is going to happen NEXT time he is charged with this...........
0 Replies
 
Lady J
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 09:08 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
I didn't even know the verdict was due till someone at work went around announcing it.

I tell ya, not watching TV will make your life better!


Amen to that! I JUST got tv about 2 weeks ago after not having it in my life for the past 7 or so years. I don't think I missed a darn thing by not having it. Life was much simpler and to that extent, I will say it was also better.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2005 10:53 am
Yeah Zane - OJ Simpson, Robert Blake, Michael Jackson.

But Martha Stewart got charged! See that comment on Jay Leno last night?
0 Replies
 
Zane
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jun, 2005 09:28 am
Watched a few minutes of Leno then switched over to Letterman to see what he'd say. And this is what Letterman said-- "Michael said he was thankful for the California legal system and a jury of 12 dumbasses."
0 Replies
 
material girl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jun, 2005 09:34 am
There is a tv presenter over here who was quite powerful in the business, I think he owned his own tv company(Johnathan King, also a singer in the 60's) who was convicted for child molestation.
Also Gary Glitter has been on trial for it, I think he was also convicted.Both these men were famous and comparatively rich.

Some people say that rich and famous means they dont go to jail.
These 2examples prov that wrong.Do you think its coz they were tryed in the UK?
0 Replies
 
material girl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jun, 2005 09:55 am
Do you think anyone will dare/be stupid enough to try to take him to court again over this??!!

If he really is guilty then its a sad situation for the genuinely abused kids but he has had 2 long trials.Surely they had time ot get enough evidence together and present their case well.
They are professionals and have had 2 chances to do their job properly!!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/07/2024 at 07:07:50