BS: Jacko is innocent?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 11:44 AM

So he just plead to be let free so he "look for the real criminals!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 07:23 AM

I find it hard to see him as completely innocent - but if he is convicted, it will be on the basis of some very tainted evidence.

Perhaps you could explain why this evidence is thought to be 'tainted' and what exactly it is 'tainted' by?
Under these circumstances - could you expect it be any other way?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Crystal
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 06:56 AM

I'm not convinced of his innocence and I definatly think he should have some serious phsyciatric help, but in this particular case the evidence is probably too shaky to convict him.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Hrothgar
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 06:29 AM

I find it hard to see him as completely innocent - but if he is convicted, it will be on the basis of some very tainted evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 03:12 AM

Scotland has the right idea... three verdicts: Guilty, Not Guilty, Not Proven. Leaves the door open for further investigation.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jun 05 - 02:04 AM

The jury have to find 'beyond any reasonable doubt' that Jacko is guilty of these charges. It is more than possible that they will not be able to do this.

Whether such an outcome will mean that he is innocent - will still be questionable by many - given the evidence.

And if the jury do find him guilty of all these charges (which I doubt) - there will still be many who will consider him to be innocent - whatever the evidence.

Well Bubbles and Liz Taylor - anyway...............

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Once Famous
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 08:18 PM

Leadfingers, I have served in jurys. The lawyers who select jurys and have the right to reject people on a jury are generally experts in character evaluation. They are trained to be so.

The likelihood of a jury consisting of 12 closet pedophiles or 12 bible belters is virtually nil. On might sneak through, but that's about it.

Jurys are generally made of of very everyday people.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 08:04 PM

But this is another 100th !!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 08:04 PM

Its in the lap of the Gods -(and the jury)

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 02:09 PM

I think the make up of the jury may not be that important.

Given a jury of 12 closet paedophiles, would they:
A) find him guilty, to protect their own images, and because they recognise the signs.
B) free him thinking "there but for the grace of God go I" ?

Given a jury of 12 Bible Belt elders, would they:
A) find him guilty of a heinous crime, and call upon the courts to hand down the heaviest sentence possible
B) free him thinking it is God's territory, "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay", says the Lord." (Romans 12: 19-21)?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Once Famous
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 12:29 PM

And what proof do you have that they are not? Looks like he is getting a fair as trial as possilbe.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 10:41 AM

I think he got what the English call eccentric, and what the Yanks call weird. Doubt that he did anything criminal. Looked like easy pickings to some parasites. Now that they've been through the legal mills they probably have convinced themselves their stories are true.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 05:14 AM

Innocent until proved guilty.....then he may just melt away

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST,The Shambles
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 05:13 AM

I bet he gets off the heavier charge, but gets done for giving alcohol to a minor....

It may depend on the order the jury take in dealing with the charges. If they decide first that he did involve the children in 'drinking games' etc. It could be that the jury will view the 'heavier' charges in this light?

For there seems little doubt about this for it is interesting that the defence did not produce the other children - said to be present during these 'drinking games' - to testfy that these did not take place.

Do you think that there being more female than male jury members is helpful to MJ - or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST,Liz the Squeak
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 04:59 AM

I can't help remembering a comment from Joan Rivers.... (although I may be putting two comments together, it was a long time ago)

"He was so much nicer when he was a black boy... now he looks like a white woman and bitchier than me!"

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 04:56 AM

Come on Liz, having a face like Jacko's is nothing to sneeze at.
Literally.
He had a great voice - probably still has.
He has been a great performer.
He made a bundle.
He should have left it at that, open a boutique or something and not go all "Howard Hughes".
If he went on stage today, he would fill a stadium - but that would be similar to the blue rinses going to Vegas to see Elvis at the end of his career. Not for what he is, but for what he was (or from sick fascination).
He should be treated like an ordinary mortal, I think we all agree on that. But we also agree that the chances are that he will not. This is an unfair world after all, and the US legal system has shown in the past that it is not immune to celebrity adoration.

I wish (against any reality, probably) that such acts as he is being accused of had not taken place. Not because I want Jacko to be proved innocent (I no longer give a monkey's for the weirdo), but only because I would like a better world than the one the prosecution depicts.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 04:55 AM

Another trial analyst, defense attorney Ivan Golde, said he was surprised prosecutors would bring a case against Jackson based on testimony from such flawed witnesses.
"The D.A. wanted to get Michael Jackson, so he went along with this witness who's got all this baggage," Golde said.

This opinion is interesting. But in just about every case of child abuse (or indeed rape) the victims - usually in a situation where it is one person's word against another - the main prosecution witnesses are always flawed. And the only defence used - is usually to attempt to discredit these witnesses - based on these flaws.

The defence also had the main witness for the defence - Michael Jackson - who was equally flawed - but they did not dare placing him on the stand and risk the type of cross-examination that they subjected the child in this case to.

Not so sure about anyone 'getting MJ but the DA surely has a responsibilty to at least try to protect the children of their district? Even when those (like the parents) fail in this. Whatever the outcome - the fact that a court and a jury can hear the evidence and decide - must be better than (possibly) placing yet more children at risk. Especially as the 'buying-off' of MJ's last (long time sleep-in) accuser - resulted in the law being changed.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST,Liz the Squeak
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 04:40 AM

Or threw up.....

I bet he gets off the heavier charge, but gets done for giving alcohol to a minor.... He should then quietly disappear for a while.

A long while....

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 05 Jun 05 - 01:25 AM

I haven't watched any of the trail or news about it, just have read the newspapers and heard occasional radio stories. Haven't seen the ponytail affectation you mention. I must say that these days Michael Jackson looks like something the cat dragged in.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 09:42 PM

hhmmmmmmmm........so he's had plastic surgery to make his genitalia shaped like vegetables?

wot's so weird about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Dave'sWife
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 09:33 PM

Trial analyst Ann Bremner, a former prosecutor, was at a loss when asked if Jackson or the mother came off looking stranger to jurors.

"Boy," she said. "That's a contest."


and she should talk....

what is UP with that lady's hair????   Ann Bremner wears the wackiest ponytail-type hair I have ever seen. She takes one of those old 70s style catch-clip barretes and wears it VERITICALLY, draping the ponytail over her shoulder. In addition to that, she has these shoulder length pieces of hair she wear loosely in that 'just-rolled-out-bed' type toussle so popular today.

I'm inclined to think that her verticial pony-tail thingie is actually a hairpiece she hasn't quite mastered, but I could be wrong. I have a clip-on pony-tail and if I wore side-ways it would approximate her crazy hairdo.

Next time she's on the screen, check out that hair! Fereeekeee!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 06:27 PM

Who really gives a shit? He deserves to go to jail for murdering music anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 03:42 PM

Jackson Jury May Be Deciding Who's Weirder
June 04, 2005

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - The jury deliberating the fate of Michael Jackson may have to decide who's weirder: Jackson or the mother of his accuser. Much of Jackson's defense came down to trying to prove the mother was the winner of the strange contest - even though Jackson's eccentricities long ago earned him the tabloid tag "Wacko Jacko." His 2003 admission that he shared his bed with children - non-sexually, he explained - didn't do much to mitigate that notion.

His lawyers tried to make their client look sympathetic by portraying the mother of his accuser as more out of touch with social norms than he is.

Was his hobby of spending weeks with children creepier than her habit of sucking up to celebrities? Was his insistence that there was nothing wrong with letting children in his bed odder than her habit of saying near-strangers were like family?

Trial analyst Ann Bremner, a former prosecutor, was at a loss when asked if Jackson or the mother came off looking stranger to jurors.

"Boy," she said. "That's a contest."

The 46-year-old singer is charged with molesting a 13-year-old boy in February or March 2003. . .

link to rest of the story.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: The Shambles
Date: 04 Jun 05 - 02:27 PM

Well the jury is out.

The defence summing-up was running a very thin line I thought.

In essence it was that this eleven - year-old child's innocence was an act designed only to entrap the real innocence of a mega-rich forty-five year-old man. A poor generous and trusting soul - whose only wish was to provide other young children with the childhood that he never had - along with gifts of money and expensive watches. Along with alchohol, pornography and the need to share sleeping arrangements.

Perhaps I am being cynical? Perhaps the jury will be also - perhaps they will not.

I can't help but think back to the TV documentary that started all this - where the child involved was invited by BY MJ to Neverland to re-inforce Michael Jackson's delusion and imply that he was able to heal children.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 26 May 05 - 06:47 PM

I AM INNOcent, man! Totally flipping innocente! I am, like, soooo majorly and totally innocent that it's a cryin' shame cos I w2as just tryin' to, like, prepare for a WORLD FLIPPIN' BEER SHOERTAGE, EH?   And blood in the streets, man! You think I'm jokin'? I'm not, eh? You take away the beer and you are gonna see total flipping mayhem in North Ontario. The law of the flippin' jungle, man!

I am a public bennyfacter and should be seen as a flippin' her0.

Anyways, I think I will have GOOD news in just a few days.

The suspense is incredible, eh? what will it be?

- Marriage to Shania Twain?

- Marriage to the luvly Officer Dana of the OPP?

- Me elected mayor of Blind River?

- A patented way to make 1000 galleons of beer out of a pint?

- Or????????????????????

You'll just have to flippin' WAIT AND SEE! HA! HA! HA!

- BDiBR

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: gnu
Date: 26 May 05 - 06:34 PM

But, Shane stole beer, not spirits.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 26 May 05 - 05:06 PM

Hooray for Clint...but he was justified was he not?   Or was he?
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 05 - 04:57 PM

Yep. Not that I'm saying they were innocent of burning down Josey's house and killing his family...no. I'm just saying that in a much deeper sense than that, everyone is innocent. It's a spiritual statement, not a legal opinion. (smile)

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: heric
Date: 26 May 05 - 03:43 PM

and those guys who burned down Josey Wale's house and killed his family?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: gnu
Date: 26 May 05 - 03:05 PM

Shane too?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 05 - 02:59 PM

Everybody is innocent.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: The Shambles
Date: 26 May 05 - 10:57 AM

Is it MJ's right to be weird that is defended - or his right to be mega-rich and powerful as a result?

I was a bit concerned to see that LA has a special social work dept that deals with claims of abuse against people with a 'high-profile'. Which is a polite way of saying - those with lots of money and clout.

This lady called to court from this department - asked Gavin Avizo (in front of his mother) if MJ had abused him and when he said no - she concluded that this was the truth..........

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 May 05 - 01:40 PM

Jacko is innocent!

It is everyone else who appears to be guilty - of something.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: The Shambles
Date: 25 May 05 - 01:20 PM

Lack of power and money i.e. real childhood innocence - is not a crime either. The events surrounding this trial may lead some to think otherwise.

As far and I am concerned - you can be as weird as you like - as long as you follow the law and your weirdness affects only you. You can be as weird and as rich as you wish as long as this affects only you. Howard Hughes managed this - in his later years.

Going on TV and telling millions of viewers that the teenage boy you are holding hands with is sharing your bed - is perhaps allowing your weirdness to overlook the effect your weirdness may have on this teenage boy. We will all have our personal judgements on this - but we will have to wait and see if from the evidence provided - this jury consider this weirdness has resulted in a crime....

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: robomatic
Date: 25 May 05 - 06:48 AM

Guest cowperson (25 May 05 - 02:12 AM):
I don't believe Mr. Jackson is on trial for anything you have mentioned in your post. Weirdness is not a crime, although you might wish to make it so.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 25 May 05 - 03:23 AM

He has the audacity to show up for court 20 minutes late, dressed like Captain Crunch... He needs to go to jail for contempt of court for starters...

That might get his black-ass into Banana Republic to get himself a halfway appropriate suit...

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 May 05 - 02:12 AM

I think it's possible and even probable that MJ is innocent of everything except being weird.

Other people (less rich) who are equally weird - tend not to have their weirdness used (and accepted) as excuse - when their weirdness places their children and others at risk.

Following incidents such as the 'balcony scene' - the ability of other weird people (as parents) to protect children from this weirdness would be rightly brought into question by the authorities set-up to protect children. It does not appear to have been the case with MJ.

Whether we consider Michael Jackson to be weird or not - is not really the issue - it is whether the law of the land applies equally to the effects that one's weirdness has on others (especially children).

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Kaleea
Date: 24 May 05 - 11:47 PM

jacko who?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: robomatic
Date: 24 May 05 - 11:42 PM

I think it's possible and even probable that MJ is innocent of everything except being weird.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 May 05 - 05:23 PM

We wish to make it known that the 'infant' in question was wishing to take advantage of Michael Jackson and in fact had a long history of previous attempts to do this with other rich and famous personalities.

So our client was entirely innocent of risking the 'infant's' life by dangling it over the balcony in question as the 'infant' was part of a plot to discredit Mr Jackson and the 'infant' had it coming.....

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: kendall
Date: 24 May 05 - 01:27 PM

In response to the act of MJ holding "his" infant over that railing, I would quote the late great Red Skelton:

"If I wasn't making a living, they would put me away."

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 May 05 - 09:21 PM

yeh lets see him try any of that stuff on with the vikings!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Peace
Date: 23 May 05 - 12:19 PM

"If michael had any sense he would piss off now in his private jet. Perhaps they would have him in Iceland with Bobby fischer."

But that would mean he's near Skarpi.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 May 05 - 12:09 PM

Planet Hull possibly.....difficult to explain if you've never visited thst quarter, but a place of extremes.

We English value it highly.... it has produced The Watersons Folk Group, The Hull Truck Theatre Company, most of the poetry of Philip Larkin and a lot of fish.

But I can understand how it might throw a complete outsider...stick with it, theres a certain brutality in the sense of humour - often directed at oneself - that I think you would understand

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Big Phil
Date: 23 May 05 - 10:30 AM

Why did Jacko allegedly give the other young lad 20 million dollars to keep quiet. A tad sinister methinks

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 23 May 05 - 09:09 AM

Thanks d (and others) - glad I'm not the only one who sees it that way. I really do question those people's motives in placing their kids in the 'care' of a stranger (and that's what it amounted to). Maybe because of his fame they felt they 'knew him well', maybe it's something more to do with wishing to share in his wealth, maybe it's something more sinister? Whatever, it certainly wasn't the act of a sane person.
S:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: Once Famous
Date: 23 May 05 - 07:46 AM

weelittledrummer, English sense of humor? Isn't that found on a different planet?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 May 05 - 07:45 AM

Anyone in US know what sentence he coud expect to get if found guilty? Is it likely to be custodial in that state?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 May 05 - 07:36 AM

It has to be first established if this was the case. The trial may establish this - if the verdict is guilty.

However, even if the verdict is not guilty - lessons will have to be learned and steps will have to be taken to ensure that all the children involved - are not being placed at risk by their parents.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacko is innocent?
From: mindblaster
Date: 23 May 05 - 04:51 AM

Are the parents going to be prosecuted for pimping? Don't tell me they were unaware that the pervert was shagging their kids.