BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: dianavan
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 12:59 AM

I can't believe it. Am I 100?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 01:58 AM

I heard that Michael Jackson is to appeal against being found not guilty - he wants to be declared as an innocent.......

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 03:42 AM

And still those people who decided he was guilty from the start will not accept the verdict....I would love to know where some of you feel you have found your hard evidence that he is guilty.....As I have said a couple of times before....we may never know if he is guilty or not....niaive yes but guilty?...question mark?????????.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 08:46 AM

I would love to know where some of you feel you have found your hard evidence that he is guilty.....

The mind boggles (and the eyes water).

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 09:18 AM

McGrath and everyone, The laws are supposed to apply to everyone. The problem as I see it is not in the trial itself but in how someone who isn't rich would have been handled. It is unlikely they would have been out on bail as they wouldn't have been able to afford it. Secondly, if you or I showed up for court an hour late at the very least we would have been fined for contempt of court more likely the local constable would have been bringing us in in handcuffs. Mr. Jackson is able to afford the very best legal defense and he got it. Someone else would have had to rely on a court appointed lawyer and the results might have been different.
Is Michael Jackson guilty? Legally, no. In my opinion, i believe he did what he was accused of but the jury had a reasonable doubt. They made the right choice but We'll hear of this again. Kindest regards, Neil

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: annamill
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 02:13 PM

I have always had this theory about MJ. Let me, first, start out by saying that I have always been a MJ fan. I've loved his music and his dancing since he was a wee one. Now, my theory..

When Michael reached puberty his voice started changing and his family were concerned that he would lose his lovely voice and they would all go by the wayside. So they had him castrated. Much like the famous Castranos" in old Italy where children were castrated to keep their voices in the beautiful choral groups. It was considered a great honor among Italian families to have a child as a member of these groups.

Now, more than anything, neither he, or his family, would want this to be known.

I feel this theory would explain a lot of his actions. He's still a kid. A Eunique(sp). San balls.

It also would explain why his voice never changed.

Love, Annamill

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 06:23 PM

hmmm...Annamill's theory is intriguing. This would have had to have happened before he was eighteen and a legal adult, supposedly, otherwise he might've had other preferences, like one day being able to grow a beard.

The legal implications for Jackson's parents are mind boggling. Talk about child abuse.   

Careful though...some precocious preteen may have thought the same thing, and there may be an entrapment scenario in MJ's future to test the theory. Then we'll have to suffer through this whole rigamaroll again. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 07:47 PM

That was just about the point I was making, Irish Sergeant. The jury judged on the evidence as they saw and heard it, and decided there wasn't enough to convict. That's what juries are supposed to do - but that doesn't happen in too many cases.

Money talks, true enough. It means you can buy what you need - a fair trial, good medical treatment. That's unjust, true enough - but the injustice involved is when poor and vulnerable people aren't able to get those things.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 08:58 PM

I didn't suffer through it. The Michael Jackson trial has barely been on my mind at all in the past six months or however long it's been.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 22 Jun 05 - 02:05 AM

That was just about the point I was making, Irish Sergeant. The jury judged on the evidence as they saw and heard it, and decided there wasn't enough to convict. That's what juries are supposed to do - but that doesn't happen in too many cases.

Sadly - this jury decided that there was not enough evidence to convict Michael Jackson. Like others - I fear that it would have been more than enough evidence to convict anyone else.

Money talks, true enough. It means you can buy what you need - a fair trial, good medical treatment. That's unjust, true enough - but the injustice involved is when poor and vulnerable people aren't able to get those things.

I am left still with the sad feeling that most probably - everything the children said happened to them - did happen. If this is the case - is this verdict really justice or any protection for the real victims in this case?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 22 Jun 05 - 03:50 PM

Aggreed McGrath. By the way, I've been using the music you provided for the lyrisc I wrote (A soldier's lament) and people love it. Stillplayin it around the campfire. Neil

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jun 05 - 06:22 PM

If in fact there wasn't enough evidence to convict Michael Jackson, there wasn't enough evidence to convict anyone else.

If there was enough evidence to convict Michael Jackson, the jury got it wrong. Juries do get things wrong, both ways.

But the jury heard all the evidence and saw all the witnesses, and the rest of us didn't. The fact they came to a unanimous verdict can't just be pushed aside. If it had just been the celebrity factor you'd have expected a hung jury, or a majority verdict (do they have those in the States?)

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 22 Jun 05 - 07:02 PM

But a good, expensive lawyer can help change how much evidence there is, or sow doubt in a jury's mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jun 05 - 07:40 PM

Any good lawyer, expensive or not, is going to try to do that. It's called doing his or her job. It's how the adversarial legal system works, and how it is intended to work.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jun 05 - 07:51 PM

'Try' being the operative word though. Expensive lawyers have a string of successful cases behind them. And the more money and time they have saved their clients, the more they can charge. Results count.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Jun 05 - 07:52 PM

Perhaps in such cases as child abuse and rape - the accused should always take the stand and also be subject to the same treatment that prosecution witness receive under cross-examination?

I am not sure that the jury always know who is on trial.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 04:53 AM

Yes, McGrath, I know that, but someone with money can afford a better lawyer.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 06:10 AM

And it's an unjust system, agreed.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 09:18 AM

Quite. And the prosecution made a pig's breakfast of everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 09:55 AM

If in fact there wasn't enough evidence to convict Michael Jackson, there wasn't enough evidence to convict anyone else.

Therefore, by being able to afford the best lawyer, his case was presented by the best in that field. A poorer person would not have that facility. So regardless of what the jury did or didn't hear, it was the calibre of the lawyer who helped MJ get the decision that he did.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 23 Jun 05 - 11:50 AM

What we are really seeing is how little society actually cares about children. You want to hold your baby over a five-story drop? That's your privilege; it's your kid. If you let go, you could find yourself on probation, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 04:15 AM

And the prosecution made a pig's breakfast of everything.

Perhaps the reasons why you think this this could be explained in a little detail?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 24 Jun 05 - 03:54 PM

McGrath:
In this country there are only two verdicts: guilty or not guilty.
The jury's verdict meant only that there was not enough evidence to convict the stipulation that guilt has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
In fact some of the jurors felt that he was guilty but the evidence wouldn't support that conclusion. Usually all twelve have to vote for conviction or aquittal. As I said they did their job. There have been juries that nullfy the evidence which means they know the person is guilty (Usually) or innocent and decide they like or don't like the defendant and vote accordingly. It isn't supposed to happen but it does and there isn't anything a judge can do usually to prevent it. Thankfully it's a rarity in this country. Have a great weekend all. Irish Sergeant.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST,jOhn
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 09:03 AM

They should chop his balls off, just in case, he looks a bit weird.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 09:20 AM

Folks just love to mix everything up in a mash and make a pronouncement as if they had the answer.

Do I think Jackson did it? Absolutely, and I believe that OJ was guilty. Were it my kid ...... no, wait, it wouldn't be my kid because I would never let them in this situation. If I were going to put Jackson in jail, it would be in a cell with the Mother of the child.

Do I think there is something wrong with our system or is this indicative of not caring about kids? No, and the latter is a ridiculous assertion which has nothing to do with the argument. This is about burden of proof, nothing more. You want to be pissed at someone? It should be the Prosecutor that got so focused on busting Jackson that he made incredibly stupid blunders. Many people get pissed at the system, instead of focusing on the idiot who knew the rules and didn't plan accordingly. As this incompetent now knows, the battle isn't won in the court of public opinion. It is won in the courtroom according to established rules of jurisprudence. He has allowed this one to get away.

To those that think that there should be special changes based on these types of cases, I pose this question. What will you do, if you weaken this system when it is your rights to a fair trial that is jeopardized? What will you do when an overzealous prosecutor of a different political persuasion, or a different set of "traditional values" than you have, comes after you?

I think sometimes that those that think Americans are intellectually shallow have some merit to their arguments. Pains me to say that.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 09:52 AM

You want to be pissed at someone? It should be the Prosecutor that got so focused on busting Jackson that he made incredibly stupid blunders.

Perhaps this office were under pressure to be seen to be doing their job and addressing the perception that if child molesters were rich enough - they could ignore the law?

But what exactly were these blunders?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 11:04 AM

You could start with the basing of the case on a witness whose credibility could be called into question so easily. Go on from there. Virtually every professional observer including those that supported the prosecution, throughout the trial, were dismayed at the methodology used to gather the evidence and present it. As a result, a person that I feel should have been convicted got away.

By all accounts this was an extremely responsible jury. They took their duties very seriously, and approached the arguments and evidence with integrity and intelligence. Several said they believed Jackson guilty, but the burden hadn't been met. Shoddy work.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 12:34 PM

You could start with the basing of the case on a witness whose credibility could be called into question so easily. Go on from there.

You could say that in any case (like rape) where it was the (alleged) attackers word against the victim. In child abuse cases - you could argue that the child's credibility as a witness (i.e. being a child) is one of the main reasons they become victims.

It is certainly the case that it is one of the main reasons these victims do not tend to receive justice - in the rare occasions these abuses reach the courts.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 12:59 PM

The witness I am speaking of is the mother. She has been shown time and again to be a reiver. While that doesn't preclude her from telling the truth, it certainly is not the best strategy when one is trying to convince 12 people of innocence or guilt.

I know there are certain folks here that love to draw others into an argument based on phony predicates. So before this goes in that direction, I want to make this clear. What pisses me off is that this incompetent Prosecutor couldn't win this one. I think it is more about that than Michael Jackson and his team.

You are attempting to draw me into an argument about who the victim is. I know who the victims are, and it pisses me off that someone got away with this.

I have stated my opinion, now it is for others to judge.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: RobbieWilson
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 01:08 PM

You are of course right that the witness was not sufficiently credible to convince the jury; quite adequate to support your prejudice and for people outside the courtroom to be sure of his guilt.

The man was found to be not guilty. Couple that with everyone's legal right; innocent unless found guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Jun 05 - 06:10 PM

I wonder, Mick - if you're sure he was guilty, why? Because he's weird? Because he's overly fond of children?

I'm leaning towards 'did it', but I'm not sure. McCauley Culkin sure seemed credible. If the witness-mother is such a reiver, one wonders what she believed her son was doing with Jackson and why she kept putting them together. One wonders if it wasn't a setup. One wonders if the kid's performance in the video wasn't a setup. One wonders about a prosecutor so dead set to nail Jackson that he came up with such lame evidence, some of it consisting of lies, and lame witnesses.

Again, guilt or innocence, I don't know. I just think this whole trial smacks of something a lot less righteous and worthy than 'justice'.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Jun 05 - 03:16 AM

Perhaps in this case the system can be congratulated on ensuring that the defendant had a fair trial?

But perhaps not congratulated in the system's ability (and duty) to protect children and enforce the legislation in place for this?

It is a balance and I fear that from this case - it looks to be far too easy - especially if you have the money - for the defence to destroy the credibility of prosecution witnesses.

This should not be too difficult for an experienced defence to do to a child witness - under cross-examination. This perhaps is a little one-sided and - in cases like this - perhaps a more equal court contest needs to be introduced? If the defence wish only to discredit any and all prosecution under cross-examination - perhaps the defendent should then also have to be subject to cross-examination?

If that had happened in this case - I suspect the outcome may have been different.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Jun 05 - 04:14 AM

Shambles

You may have a point, "If the defence wish only to discredit any and all prosecution under cross-examination - perhaps the defendent should then also have to be subject to cross-examination?"

Is there a reason why the defendent was not subject to cross-examination? Or was it that the prosecutor chose not to cross-examine?

There must be a procedural rule regarding this obvious advantage to the defendent.

Maybe heric can answer this question.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Jun 05 - 04:45 AM

because if a defendant is presumed innocent, he should not have to defend himself.
he has the right to silence.

It was up to the prosecution to prove the case. This they failed to do. They knew they would be confronted with probably the most impressive defence team in the world, and their case amounted to a testimony from dubious, discredited hustlers.

Whilst this may have been enough to do deprive a teacher of his living, or send any number of public servants to jail - it was never going to work in this case...

not much cause for celebration any way you look at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: The Shambles
Date: 30 Jun 05 - 07:45 AM

because if a defendant is presumed innocent, he should not have to defend himself.

That is OK as far as it goes but we do seem to have reached a point in cases like this - where witnesses have to defend every aspect of their life and and it is OK to imply (and not having to prove) that they are guilty (of something) even when it is not them who are on trial.

If we run out of witnesses who are prepared to subject themselves to this unfairness in court (especially those who have already suffered any attacks or abuse) - is justice ever going to be served?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Jun 05 - 09:29 AM

he has the right to silence.

The defendent has this right but witnesses (or potential witnesses) do not. In fact they can be forced to attend and be in comtempt of court if they do not answer.

I am not suggesting that the right of silence be taken away from all defendents - just that if the defence - in cases where it is one person's word against another - is only to attempt to discredit witnesses under cross-examination - that it is only fair that the defendent is also be subject to this process and under the same rules (or lack of them).

The jury can then equally judge the performance of the witnesses against that of the defendent.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Jun 05 - 09:46 AM

of course they haven't the right to silence - they're witnesses!

that's what they're there for to witness(in this case voluntarily).

the defendant has not chosen to be there

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 30 Jun 05 - 10:44 AM

d'van and a few others: I'm not sure what you are saying. I think they showed extended footage of the famous documentary towards the end, in which Michael received a sideways chance to "testify." But the judge must have told the jurors they were not viewing that material for the "truth" of any statement made by Jackson therein (and not under oath), and on that limitation, the prosecution had no right to cross examine. It's a fine and yet confusing line, to be sure, when you have to listen to someone but not "for the truth of the matter asserted." I'm a little surprised they got that in for other purposes, given that problem, but the judge must have thought it was necessary and reasonably fair. Perhaps it was because the prosecution had shown shorter segments of the same material. (And maybe the prosecutor sought to introduce that as a way to taunt/tempt Michael into testifying.)

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Jun 05 - 11:57 AM

the defendant has not chosen to be there

I am sure that you are not suggesting that the (alleged) victims of rape or child abuse have chosen to be there or chosen to be victims.

It is not at all simple - all I am suggesting is that perhaps different rules do need to be in place in such cases - if justice is seen to be done?

Video evidence and the (young) witnesses not being in the same courtroom - are measures that some countries try.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jun 05 - 01:07 PM

I'd have thought that in this case that famous documentary would have given the members of the jury more of an opportunity on which to base their judgement about Jackson than any amount of testimony in court.

I agree with Shambles in thinking that different rules in cases involving children are appropriate, such as video evidence, might be appropriate. Though I suspect it is likely that that kind of thing might have made no difference in this case.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Jun 05 - 01:29 PM

That last one was me with a crumbled cookie.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 30 Jun 05 - 02:08 PM

As I have said on another thread - although not really a laughing matter - the high-powered defence lawyer subjecting the main young witness to cross-examination - did rather remind me of that Monty Python sketch where John Cleese was having a boxing match with a sweet pig-tailed little girl.

A rather one-sided contest. Especially when one side just has to win on points and the other needs to land a decisive knock-out in order to win - but has little chance of even landing a blow - as they only come up to their opponent's waist...........

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: woodsie
Date: 01 Jul 05 - 11:21 AM

The piece of scum dirt should have it's testicles slowly burnt with fag ends

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jul 05 - 06:42 AM

Interesting fantasies some people have...

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST,Johhny Blaine
Date: 02 Jul 05 - 06:44 AM

Woodsie - there is no need to be like that. Michael is a wonderful person - he never buggered me at all during my stay at nbeverland, when I was 5. He did ask me to suck his helmet and swallow, but there's no harm in that. Leave the poor man alone!