Michael Jackson

HI MATERIAL GIRL,
GLAD U FEEL THAT WAY. BUT IF MICHAEL LIVED A RIGID LIFE & WAS A BIT LESS QUEER, NO ONE WOULD BELIEVE SUCH FRAME UPS.

THOUGH MICHAEL CANT JUST STOP BEING MICHAEL BUT, I THINK HE SHOULD JUST KNOW THAT U SHOULD TRUST NO ONE IN THIS WICKED WORLD!

Well I am a little suspicious based on a few things...

The whole bit about the kid's last wish wanting to meet Michael Jackson. He was 10. How does he even know who Michael Jackson was (and I stress was because back in the day he was pretty cool)? Second, the jurors said they weren't convinced by the mother of the boy because she snapped her fingers at them. What?

I don't know about this. It is very hard for me to believe the King of Pop has now become the King of Pedophelia but if the glove fits.....

I think he was guilty.

Bella-I saw a bit of news footage re the old juror lady saying'dont you snap yuor fingers at me'.I couldnt believe it either!!Its like the juror took it personnally and decided to get power over her rather than look at the evidence.the juror even winked after she said it to the press.

I dont see any reason why the kid shouldnt know who Michael Jackson is.I knew of him when I was about 7 and I live in a completely different country.

Re: Michael Jackson


What about it?

You cant be suggesting that Martin Bashir did anything wrong? If MJ is so immature as to appear on a TV show and tell the world that he doesn't think that having children in his bed is in anyway wrong then he is seriously out of touch with reality, and I hope that is all that it is.

The alternative is a lot more disturbing, which is that he is a spokesman for a certain paedophile organisation which has infested the USA, who's byword is that there is nothing wrong with loving children.

I personally dont believe that MJ is one of the above but if he is then like them he should be exterminated.

I found it funny when Jacksons version of the documentary went out.Bashirs documentary laid into JAckson in such a negative way.
Jackson had filmed events at the same time showing the things Bashir didnt show, including Bashir saying 'It makes me weep to see how much you care about your kids'.

Im not saying JAckson is innocent but it was good to see both sides and shows how tv can be cut together to show only 1 side of things.

What is Jackson going to do now? Go cold turkey and stop sleeping with young boys? Secretly import experienced boys from overseas, boys who are in the sex trade? Abuse his "own" sons when they reach his targeted age of 10-13? Undergo chemical castration? Surgical castration? Stick to art books and porn? Seek out boyish-looking young women, invest in some realistic strap-ons and have anal sex with the lights out?

The mother was a scam artist. Plain and simple.

Years ago, she claimed that somebody else molested the same boy. Hey, how often, and by how many people, do her kids get molested?

You cannot send somebody to prison because you think they probably did the crime. You can only send them there when it is beyond all reasonable doubt.

When the main piece of evidence is the word of a woman who has tried to extort money by using her kids before, what choice does the jury have? Moreover, the jurors found that different members of the family had conflicting accounts, which made it even harder to convict Jackson, "beyond a reasonable doubt".

I think the jurors think Michael Jackson probably has sex with boys, and would never send their kid or grand kid to go to Neverland. But their job was to decide if the evidence indicates that Jackson molested this boy beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the word of the scam artist mother is main piece of evidence.....

In sex abuse cases the burden of proof is somewhat different, and can include (as it did in the Jackson trial) introduction of prior misconduct evidence. Everyone who's proclaiming "REASONABLE DOUBT!!!" or "Show us the DNA!!!" should do a little reading on sex abuse trial procedure (especially as pertains to California jurisprudence, and particularly in situations of pedophiles like our esteemed Mr. Jackson) to get a more informed perspective.

No, it isn't. It's still reasonable doubt.



The introduction of a certain kind of evidence, as apparently happened here, does not mean the sum total of the evidence allowed need not add up to "beyond a reasonable doubt". It does need to meet that standard.

The standard of proof necessary and what kind of evidence the state or judge might allow in this case are two different things.

Now, if some juries simply are disposed against the defendant in a child sex abuse case, which I am sure has happened, that is another matter. They are supposed to render a guilty verdict only if they are convinced the defendant committed the act beyond a reasonable doubt.








Perhaps you want to do a little reading yourself.






Source

While certain types of evidence might be allowed in sex abuse cases, the evidence must still add up to being "beyond a reasonable doubt".

And you obviously think it's as simple as that.

Well, I don't think determining what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means in this or any other case which has conflicting evidence is all that simple, truth be told.

But reasonable doubt is still the standard.