Michael Jackson Verdict

[Number_6]

Just because a person is Not Guilty, doesn't mean that the person is Innocent. What it means is that the prosecution could not prove beyond what the Jury deemed as a reasonable doubt that he did the things that he was accused of. And since all of us in this Country are Innocent until proven Guilty, he is considered to be Innocent as a result since they could not 100% prove his Guilt.

 

[Woody13]

But it is ironic how the same guy got OJ off also....

Gee, I thought Thomas Mesereau, Jr. defended Jackson.

 

[Tara Mae]

Talk about Maturity...

I use to think there was some maturity on this board, but I do wonder now.


The parents were fine with the kid staying at the Ranch as LONG AS THEY WERE PROFITING. The parents did NOT bring this up to the DA. The DA saw the film, then investigated. In fact, the child at first said nothing ever happened.

I think a Tara Mae should go back to school. In America we are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY not the other way around.

A: I am in school, I am a high school senior, and that does not mean I don't know the country into which I am living in, but thanks for setting me straight! Oye vei.
B: Yeah, yeah, "Innocent until proven guilty". But have you ever thought: "Proven innocent, but really guilty"? Ah-ha!
I may be only 17, but please, I am smarter than I act at times. I pay attention to my surroundings, I watch the news...I know what's going on in this world. I'm not one of those bubblehead teens who only cares about the celebrities and fashion and music...trust me, my head would blow if I were that bubbled.
I still stick to my view that he is guilty, despite what the (PAID OFF) jury says.

And what you say above, about the profit, I've not heard that one, and I've watched the trial since day numero uno.
If you find proof...well, I'd like to see it.

Gracias, beunos noches!
Esta un beun noches!

 

[626]

Odd that someone who claims to have never even heard of Michael Jackson until now has been so interested in the trial since day numero uno :hammer:

Odd still that you have what seems like a 100% complete no-way-in-the-world-am-I-wrong stand on this issue about someone you know so little about. Stop and think for a second about how you were not there when these things supposedly took place. So how can you sit there all high and mighty and say so matter-of-factly that this is what happened? I have been watching the news coverage of this all day and the only person who I have heard even suggest the jury was paid off is you. Not the Prosecutor, not the legal experts, not even the media who will do anything for a story, just you. So please stop and consider you may be wrong before you slander an INNOCENT man.

 

[monorail256]

What I don't understand is how you (Tara Mae) didn't even know whom Michael Jackson was until this trial...

Did you ever go to a high school dance or listen to the radio? He's the king of pop for gods sake... Oh well :lol:

Just to throw my two cents in... I've thought since day one that he was innocent. Sure he's a creepy guy and he does some really weird things, but anyone with his celebrity status is a target.. I feel bad for the guy.

He's been such an inspiration to so many artists, I can't imagine what the music industry would be like now without him...

 

[Madison]

A: I am in school, I am a high school senior, and that does not mean I don't know the country into which I am living in, but thanks for setting me straight! Oye vei.

Let me be the first to apologize on behalf of our school system for failing you.

That said, I still have faith in the crazy notion of trial by jury, especially considering the new alternative -- trial by attention-mongering, revenue-driven news agency. I am satisfied with the verdict and am only sad that it won't, in any way, mark a return to the days of 'Thriller'.

 

[prberk]

All that I have to add here is that I happened to be home when the jury came on TV (as a whole -- all of them), right after the trial, and I was very impressed with them. It gave me more confidence in their verdicts. They were asked by the media to come to at least one press conference, and in doing so it helped us to avoid the speculation as to what they were thinking. I suggest watching that (about an hour), or parts of it, if it re-run.

They grappled with everything, but at the end of the day it was the law and the evidence that they relied upon. Some felt that perhaps Michael might act inappropriately with kids, but the evidence for THIS CASE was not there; and mostly the family (and especially the mother) were NOT credible for this jury. She stared at the jury, and on several occasions snapped her fingers at them. When responding to the fact that she had been known to lie in previous cases, she (an hispanic person herself) looked directly at the jury foreman (an hispanic man) and snapped her fingers, telling him "you how our people are," implying that hispanics all lie and cheat. He said that he took offense at that, and that he thought, "No, that's not how we are."

So, in many ways the family's credibility, especially in the fact that they (including the kid) admitted or were found to have lied under oath before (in the JP Penney case), ruined it for the jurors, they said. And the prosecution did not present other credible evidence to prove wrongdoing in THIS case. The info from the 1993 allegations could not be used (as per their instructions) in proving this case; only as informational in proving a pattern. So, according to the law, since they could not prove his innocense beyond a reasonable doubt, they had to acquit him.

And I respect that. They actually did their jobs.

I see this as completely different from the O.J. case, a murder case with a mountain of CASE_SPECIFIC evidence.

Paul

 

[TheOneVader]

Gee, I thought Thomas Mesereau, Jr. defended Jackson.

Yes, you're correct. Especially considering OJ's famous attorney Johnny Cochrane died a month or two ago.

 

[Halfling418]

Wow. How could one not know who Michael was until recently? I'm 19 and have known all the words to his songs since preschool(and was particularly facinated with Thriller, which is also my first exposure to the fabulous Vincent Price)....my siblings ages are 23, 11, and 13, and they all have known who MJ was since they were little.

Somewhat random...but does anybody know the man who was on The View--he had been convinced Michael was guilty until he interviewed him--and then changed his mind? Geez, it's on the tip of my tongue!

 

[Woody13]

Yes, you're correct. Especially considering OJ's famous attorney Johnny Cochrane died a month or two ago.

Thomas Mesereau, Jr. was involved in the Robert Blake case (before Mesereau quit) but I'm not aware that any of O.J. Simpson's famous legal defense team were at all involved in the Jackson defense action.

 

[TheOneVader]

Thomas Mesereau, Jr. was involved in the Robert Blake case (before Mesereau quit) but I'm not aware that any of O.J. Simpson's famous legal defense team were at all involved in the Jackson defense action.

Actually, what I meant was that you were right in that OJ's defense wasn't involved in the Jackson case.

 

[tigger1968]

It was interesting to see over the past several weeks how many legal observers pointed out that the case being brought was very weak. The testimony of the mother also did serious damage to the prosecution's cases as well. In the end, I remain convinced that something inappropriate probably did happen, but there just was not enough evidence to substaniate the charges. I suspect that the prosecution was hoping to capitalize on Jackson's past history, as well as his general state of freakiness to convince the jury. Kudos to them for actually doing their jobs.

I think what was most disturbing about this was the legion of complete nutjobs outside the courtroom every day. Did anyone catch that mess?

At this point, I will be content to let Michael fade into history. His career has been over for years, and as his eccentricities continue to grow, and I suspect that he will descend into madness before it's all over with. I am still convinced that he desperately needs psychiatric help, but I doubt that his inner circle will allow that. I think my biggest fear is that he will do somthing, either consciously or un-consciously, to engineer another media circus type of event, be it another accusation, or dangling another child over a balcony, or whatever. All he has left is the media hype around his life, there is no music career left to speak about. And I'm sure we'll all wearily tune in again the next time. Ultimately I feel nothing but pity for the man.

 

[Tara Mae]

What I don't understand is how you (Tara Mae) didn't even know whom Michael Jackson was until this trial...

Did you ever go to a high school dance or listen to the radio? He's the king of pop for gods sake... Oh well :lol:

Well, yeah, I went to school dances and listened to the radio, and only once or twice did I ever hear anything involving Jackson. The local stations in my city stopped playing any MJ music during the trial...don't know why.
But our dances never once played anything MJ...not ever, i was banned, for some reason.
Now, I never said I didn't know who he WAS...I had heard of him when listening to the "Jackson 5", but I had no clue that that was the same man who was up for trial, in my mind, he didn't look like him at all! lol,

And the reason I watched the trail was to keep up-to-date wih my history teacher's daily newsbits...what can I say, I like to chitter-chatter, and I ended up being the only one to know what was goig on out of 15 people, hence me laughing at this:

Let me be the first to apologize on behalf of our school system for failing you.

Ain't it the truth!

Still don't really know who MJ is, but in my mind, a psycho...that's about all I know about him.
Why he was considered the king of pop has got me, as I've only heard "Thriller" and I didn't like it, lol.
Who is he? How old is he? Didn't he used to be black?

Most kids my age, anywehre from 13 up have only heard his name in the news, not in the music. Sad, eh?

 

[Tara Mae]

Odd that someone who claims to have never even heard of Michael Jackson until now has been so interested in the trial since day numero uno :hammer:

Odd still that you have what seems like a 100% complete no-way-in-the-world-am-I-wrong stand on this issue about someone you know so little about. Stop and think for a second about how you were not there when these things supposedly took place. So how can you sit there all high and mighty and say so matter-of-factly that this is what happened? I have been watching the news coverage of this all day and the only person who I have heard even suggest the jury was paid off is you. Not the Prosecutor, not the legal experts, not even the media who will do anything for a story, just you. So please stop and consider you may be wrong before you slander an INNOCENT man.

You're not allowed to have an opinion here anymore?
Odd, I've been surfing around here since early 2004, and I've seen people voice opinions without getting flamed...I siad it was an opinion and only an opinion, got it?
And I was watching NBC during the trial, and Brokaw brought up the whole "Paid off-money" feature many weeks back, and they brought it up again yesterday, asking the person who was in the courthouse with the feed if they thought that money was involved in this whole trial.
I do not act matter of factly, whatever that means, I only act as if I have a voice and I wish to use it.
I still stick to my original view that he was never innocent, not from day one.
Please do not flame me for my views, it's pointless.

 

[djmatthews]

I am honestly upset that he was presumed innocent.
I'm 17 and in no way a Wack-Jacko fan.
Admitted, I had no clue who Jackson was until this year, and I'm not kidding, it's the trial that's made him famous with teens/young adults my age, sad, eh?
But anyways, I find him guilty, and I know that doesn't matter, but the fact that on all 10 charges and 5 lesser charges, not once was he found guilty, which even the supporters figured at least thrice he would be charged, makes me wonder if money was involved in this verdict/decision.
Was the jury swayed/persuaded?
Hmm...

Tara Mae. I find it odd that you personally find Michael Jackson guilty. Michael Jackson is an innocent man. The fact that you find him guilty just proves how the media can manipulate people into believing something.

The Jury could not be bribed in anyway. It is against the law, and it wouldn't take long for it to be leaked to the media.

Michael Jackson is an innocent man. I hope he now gets on with his life, learns from everything that has happened, sorts out his financial problems and begins to rebuild his career.

 

[TheOneVader]

Tara Mae. I find it odd that you personally find Michael Jackson guilty. Michael Jackson is an innocent man. The fact that you find him guilty just proves how the media can manipulate people into believing something.

The Jury could not be bribed in anyway. It is against the law, and it wouldn't take long for it to be leaked to the media.

Michael Jackson is an innocent man. I hope he now gets on with his life, learns from everything that has happened, sorts out his financial problems and begins to rebuild his career.

Wow, can you say hypocrite? I find it odd that you're so sure he's innocent. How do you know this for a fact? He was never found to be innocent at all, just not guilty. There's a big difference between the two. He might not have done anything, or he might have just gotten away with it. Only he knows for sure, and I can safely say that you don't, so don't pretend to.

 

[daveemtdave]

My wife teaches at a mostly white suburb school....all of these teens knew who Michael Jackson was. To say no one in your age group knows who this man is has no merit.


You challenged me on proving the parents were out for profit: HERE IS YOUR PROOF -

Mother got spa treatments - who paid for it Jackson
Mother got waxed - who paid for it Jackson
Kids got dental work - who paid for it Jackson -
All of them recieved MANY trips FIRST CLASS - who paid for it Jackson
And their attorney was waiting for the guilty verdict, why - to sue for MILLIONS of dollars from who Jackson.

This is profit. And to think, she is being charged with welfare fraud and who paid for that = the Taxpayers.

 

[Tara Mae]

Tara Mae. I find it odd that you personally find Michael Jackson guilty. Michael Jackson is an innocent man. The fact that you find him guilty just proves how the media can manipulate people into believing something.

The Jury could not be bribed in anyway. It is against the law, and it wouldn't take long for it to be leaked to the media.

Michael Jackson is an innocent man. I hope he now gets on with his life, learns from everything that has happened, sorts out his financial problems and begins to rebuild his career.

I's your opinion that he's innocent, and in all honesty, that's all this "innocent" "guilty" thing is. no one knows for sure, only Jackson himself knows. So quit flaming me about it, seriously!
The jury couldn't have been bribed? How would you know that? Just because it wasn't mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen...and just because it's against the law doesn't mean crap. Hanging things from your rearview mirror is illegal, but people do it, smoking or drinking while underage is illegal, but people do it. The law doesn't stop anyone from doing anything. And even if the jury were bribed, there could have been special attempts at keeping it silent...I mean, if you were bribed, wouldn't you keep it quiet as long as possible?
You act as if you're opinion is right...just because you say he is innocent means squat, it's only your view. There are other views in the world, and there are many, most, that are opposite of yours, so don't keep taking it out on me just beacause you're upst that someone doesn't agree with you...your word means nothing, it's only one person's view, and unless others start to join up with you, you can't do anything...an opinion is just that: An opinion.
Yeah, I hope he gets on with his life, too, and grows up, it'd be about time.
Think about this:
If it had been a black man *ironic, but moving on* they would have been convicted almost instantly, but MJ got out, and why? Because he has money.
Now, he'll probably just turn around and sue the accuser's family just to make up for what he has lost in this trial.
We need a thing that does something to our threads to identify that we're only voicing our opinions. Sheesh.

 

[Tara Mae]

My wife teaches at a mostly white suburb school....all of these teens knew who Michael Jackson was. To say no one in your age group knows who this man is has no merit.


You challenged me on proving the parents were out for profit: HERE IS YOUR PROOF -

Mother got spa treatments - who paid for it Jackson
Mother got waxed - who paid for it Jackson
Kids got dental work - who paid for it Jackson -
All of them recieved MANY trips FIRST CLASS - who paid for it Jackson
And their attorney was waiting for the guilty verdict, why - to sue for MILLIONS of dollars from who Jackson.

This is profit. And to think, she is being charged with welfare fraud and who paid for that = the Taxpayers.

How is that proof? That's just your word...for all we know, you could have just amde that up. I see no legal papers or documents as proof, and if you found it online, so what, you can't believe everything you read online, and if you didn't know that, shame on you.
The majority of teens in my state, and heck, the surrounding states, had no clue who he was other than "some oldies pop singer". Just because your wife's children knew it doesn't mean the whole world's children of this age group knows it.
Goodness, quite being such a hypocrite and trying toforce your view on others, as if it were the right one, it's not...actually, it may be, but we will never know who was right and who was wrong, we will never know if he was innocent or guilty. Quit pretending, I'm 17, that doesn't mean I'm an ignorant teen and don't know what's going on around me.
I'm just doing what you're doing: Voicing my views.
Quit pretending like you know what's going on inside Jackson and the family's mind.

 

[The_CEO]

I's your opinion that he's innocent, and in all honesty, that's all this "innocent" "guilty" thing is. no one knows for sure, only Jackson himself knows. So quit flaming me about it, seriously!
The jury couldn't have been bribed? How would you know that? Just because it wasn't mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen...and just because it's against the law doesn't mean crap. Hanging things from your rearview mirror is illegal, but people do it, smoking or drinking while underage is illegal, but people do it. The law doesn't stop anyone from doing anything. And even if the jury were bribed, there could have been special attempts at keeping it silent...I mean, if you were bribed, wouldn't you keep it quiet as long as possible?
You act as if you're opinion is right...just because you say he is innocent means squat, it's only your view. There are other views in the world, and there are many, most, that are opposite of yours, so don't keep taking it out on me just beacause you're upst that someone doesn't agree with you...your word means nothing, it's only one person's view, and unless others start to join up with you, you can't do anything...an opinion is just that: An opinion.
Yeah, I hope he gets on with his life, too, and grows up, it'd be about time.
Think about this:
If it had been a black man *ironic, but moving on* they would have been convicted almost instantly, but MJ got out, and why? Because he has money.
Now, he'll probably just turn around and sue the accuser's family just to make up for what he has lost in this trial.
We need a thing that does something to our threads to identify that we're only voicing our opinions. Sheesh.

Try there was no actual smoking gun evidence to put him away Tara.
Hanging things from your rearview mirror and bribing a juror is a tad bit different...