BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT

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!

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: 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: 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: 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
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,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, 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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,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: 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
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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:53 AM

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

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: dianavan
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 12:59 AM

I can't believe it. Am I 100?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 05:58 PM

That depends on a number of variable factors. Martha Stewart is rich too. There are advantages and disadvantages.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 05:35 PM

So Jackson is lucky to live in a country where "the rules of law and evidence apply"; but if he hadn't been rich, he'd have been locked up without any hanging around, because those same laws don't apply when you aren't rich?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 04:19 PM

Little Hawk;
You're absolutely right in your assesment of why the media and the average American followed the case so intently. He might be a sad case but he is a sad case that brought most of his troubles on himself.
I just hope no more children suffer because of his peccadilloes. Neil

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 03:25 PM

The paintings he had commisioned of him as 'jesus' just about sum it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 03:22 PM

He's a celebrity, there'd be a high-profile case no matter which.
But I do think the main interest was recluse with wonderland estate invites kids in.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 02:59 PM

I agree that diddling kids is wrong. I just don't think that that is why the media and the public were so interested in the trial. ;-) If it had been any one of the thousands of poor and unknown people who diddle kids, who would be interested?

Michael Jackson is a sad case, living out a life that has become a personal and very public tragedy.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 02:38 PM

The court said he was innocent. FIne. that doesn't mean he didn't do it it just meant the jury wasn't sure. We will hear of this again. Ws he on trial in people's minds for being weird and rich as Little Hawk suggests? possibly but let em leave a couple of thoughts here. If he is so innocent Why did he return to having children sleep in his bed after settling out of court the first time? Were I , or any sane person in that situation and innocent as Michael Jackson claims, they would ensure that there were no further incidents to destroy their credibility. I believe the man is a pedophile and will not change his ways even though he says he will
Also had a normal(read non-celebrity or rich) person shown up an hour late for court they would have been in lock up so quickly that the judge would have broke the sound barrier getting them there.
Michael Jackson should than God that he lives in a country where rules of law and evidence apply. he dodged the bullet this time. How long will it be until the sequal to this ugly story raises it's head again? Neil

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 02:09 PM

He can go on being weird and freakish in his mansion for all I care, but diddling kids is just wrong. This story (with different kids) has been going on for at least 15 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 12:38 PM

I disagree. He was on trial in the court of public opinion precisely because he IS different. People consider him to be a freak, and most people are not a bit kind to freaks. Whether he was innocent or guilty (in the legal sense), and to what extent, I cannot say, but I know what he was really on trial for (in most people's minds). Being weird, that's what. Oh, and being rich too.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 11:56 AM

Luckily he was judged by a group of people who had to sit through all the evidence and not by either newspapers out to sell scandal or by the great mob of righteous people who love any opportuniy to vent their hatred towards anyone they see as different.

Lucky for him but perhaps not lucky for everyone else or justice. These people did not have any reservations about judging Janet Arvizo as being 'different'. She did speak to testify and enable the jury to judge on her performance - even though she was not the one on trial.

MJ was the one on trial - not for being 'different' but to establish if he had broken the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 07:40 AM

Even the jury said they could not find him guilty as the prosecution did a crap job.
Perhaps they were bought out!!!! After all it is the USA. Where money talks and you buy a president.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: s6k
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 07:36 AM

bravo robbie wilson

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: RobbieWilson
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 05:59 AM

Performer he may be, but the jury were not swayed by his performance; he didn't take the stand, something to do with the American Constitution or something like that. Anyone who thinks that his appearance or demeanor in court did him any favours is seriously misguided.

Luckily he was judged by a group of people who had to sit through all the evidence and not by either newspapers out to sell scandal or by the great mob of righteous people who love any opportuniy to vent their hatred towards anyone they see as different.

The state put enormous efforts into trying to find dirt and make a case and could not do so. Innocent unless proven guilty, end of story.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 04:28 AM

You're right, but I think that's the problem, in MJ's case he is a professional performer. The court room was just another stage.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 04:13 AM

Probably not - but at least the jury would have been able to judge his performance as they did Janet Arvizo's............

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 03:17 AM

Watching him lie through his teeth to Bashir, would there be any point? Would the oath make a difference to someone who is seriously deluded?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 03:03 AM

If you were the DA and had the chance to cross-examine Michael Jackson at this trial - what questions would you like him to have answered - on oath?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 06:34 PM

Give him a slap?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 06:23 PM

I have only 2 comments:

1. I am also innocent.

2. Who is Michael Jackson?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 03:29 PM

Dont know about him, but i reckon the parents should be jailed either way. They're either lying, or they're pimping out their own children...

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 03:18 PM

I like the expression found innocent for it clearly points (like 'found guilty') to the involvement in that procedure of a human judgement process ('judgement' and 'process' in a general sense) which can be in error.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 03:12 PM

I like the expression found innocent for it clearly points (like 'found guilty') to the involvement in that procedure of a human judgement process ('judgement' and 'process' in a general sense) which can be in error.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Tam the man
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 11:46 AM

a joke

the lady that let the birds fly away remember they were white, well at the start of his triail they were black.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 08:07 AM

Don't we all Eric?...All the best mate. Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Tam the man
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 06:46 AM

If that had happened to anyone else, they would be in Prison now, Michael Jackson is not in prison because he had the best lawyers, Any person that allows their child to go to bed with a stranger is daft, I mean would you allow your child to go to bed with a stranger.

I agree with Joe offer and S6K as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 03:27 AM

Was there really any reasonable doubt about the charge of MJ supplying alcohol to these children? This jury thought there was but it is very difficult from the evidence provided to them - to see how they came to this conclusion.

For the other children present at these 'drinking games' were not even produced as defence witnesses to testify that these games did not take place.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 19 Jun 05 - 03:15 AM

Georgiansilver and s6k I actually agree with you both. I do talk like a pillock sometimes.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Biskit
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 06:35 PM

I really liked Michael Jackson when he was a cute little black kid, Man! that young man used to sing his ass off! Once he turned into the ugly derranged white woman,he lost me from his fan base. what's up with all the crotch grabbin' on Thriller anyway?!?
Peace!(Through Understanding)
Biskit

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 01:53 PM

How many payoff's did he make, is this the work of an innocent man?

A totally innocent person facing charges that could mean spending a lifetime in jail should a jury decided to convict, might very well decide to pay up to avoid the risk. That wouldn't in itself imply anything about actual guilt. After all, there have been numerous cases of people being convicted of things they hadn't done.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: C-flat
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 01:44 PM

Michael Jackson is considering getting back together to reform and relaunch his career. I wonder if he knows where all the bits are?

Seriously weird but everything else is still just conjecture.

That said, he won't ever be baby-sitting round my house!!

C-flat.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 01:30 PM

s6k - You are absolutely right! I am female and slept with grandpa off and on until I was about 12. My choice! I didn't want to sleep alone on the couch. I visited every summer. It was innocent.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 10:51 AM

Eric. I am not defending Michael Jackson here. I am defending anyone who has not been proved to be a paedophile...and it has not been proved that he is. Your word for it is not good enough....you have no right to condemn anyone who has not been found guilty.
I would defend you if someone accused you of something and there was no real evidence to prove you were guilty. None of us knows the truth so we have no right to judge...your opinion is only as valuable as someone wishes to make it....If Michael Jackson reads your contributions to this thread he could sue you for slander.
I don't know if MJ is right or wrong but I do know that slander is against civil law.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: s6k
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 10:44 AM

actually eric, thats not a paedophile, a paedophile is someone who has sexual feelings towards children. im sure theres plenty of fathers / grandfathers etc who may have slept in the same bed as their young child ya know

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 08:32 AM

He'll never have another sell out concert in the UK. He will get paid alot of money for a creepy 'in-depth' interview where he justifies his behaviour and lies again about his surgery. It will do him more damage than good, as the producers waiting for his agreement already know. He will donate the proceeds to a children's charity and life will go on.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 08:22 AM

Georgiansilver, why are you rushing to defend him ?

In my part of Yorkshire we have a name for adult men who take little boys into bed it's PAEDOPHILE, and it's INCURABLE OK.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: s6k
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 08:20 AM

couldnt have said it better myself, Georgiansilver

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 07:52 AM

How can you say such things about Michael. we haven't forgiven you yet for a lifetime of rape, plunder and pillage - and discovering America...

bloody vikings!

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 06:04 AM

So Eric..you have obvious hold of some factual evidence that MJ is guilty...why were you not a witness at his trial....or are you just another who has his own opinion!
Calling someone a paedophile when they have not been convicted of being one is surely slander to say the least.
How do you measure danger to a child? Have we seen any evidence of a child actually being damaged here or are we all so insensed by what we believe has happened due to press flaming? that we believe a child or children have been damaged.
Michael Jackson has been niaive!
In point of fact he may be totally innocent of all the charges and the centre of attack because of his fame..not necessarily getting better treatment because of it.
We will never know the whole truth...but we can play games with it in our own and others minds because we have freedom of speech!
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 05:18 AM

Why are there so many apologists for Michael Jackson out there ?

Are they so impressed with his wealth and celebrity stautus and the glut of rich and famous people rushing to defend him that they can't see, he is and will continue to be a danger to children.

The fact is paedophiles can't be cured.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Jun 05 - 02:56 AM

Of course at the same time "not guilty" means that the jury decided that there was a reasonable doubt, and that there are not enough grounds to justify a guilty verdict - there's nothing inconsistent about deciding that there isn't a strong enough case to convict someone, and believing that they probably did commit the offence with which they were charged. But "probably" just doesn't cut it in matters where life and liberty are involved.

That is OK as far as it goes and in truth - it does not go very far to protect children from abuse. For there will always be reasonable doubt in these sort of cases where the main witness is a young victim and the older perpertrator has most of the legal and other advantages.

For when (as here) the jury members are allowed to explain their thinking afterwards - this probably causes us yet more concerns. This jury seemed relctant to judge the defendent (on the evidence provided) but very willing to judge certain key witnesses (when there was equally reasonable doubt).

Janet Arvizo was not on trial but this jury seemed to have judged and convicted her - mainy it would appear for the crime of 'clicking her fingers at and directly addressing the jury. In a contest which seemed to be one of who was the weirder between her and MJ - at least she was put on the stand and cross-examined. It perhaps would have been more fair and the outcome less unsatisfactory - if MJ had been subject to the same examination?

Perhaps when it is a case of one person's view against another - if the defence are permitted to only try to destroy the credibility of prosecution witnesses - the understanding should be that defendant should also have to take the stand and be cross-examined?

It seems to have escaped this jury's notice that Janet Avizo was not the victim of child abuse and was not even present when this (alegedly) took place. Her young children and MJ however were present.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 08:44 PM

when I were a lad we did have it very tough, and we dreamed of being covered in veils and dangled out of windows.

Philosophically speaking we are all end of line items in a massive clearance sale - possible in the kitchen department. Some of us are worktops, some are sink units and even the lavatory chains and stainless steel breadbins of this world have a place in the scheme of things.

my advice to Mj would be - don't enter into a credit agreement, even if there is nothing to pay until next april.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Cobble
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 08:43 PM

The man is a true GENIUS.

Awww come on a Genius invents finds cures for mankind, you dont know the meaning of the word. HE'S A PERVE, A WEIRDO, and SAD.
How many payoff's did he make, is this the work of an innocent man.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 08:34 PM

"Innocent until proved guilty" means that until you have been found guilty you have to be regarded as innocent; when you have been found not guilty that status is confirmed. No one is ever "found innocent".

Of course at the same time "not guilty" means that the jury decided that there was a reasonable doubt, and that there are not enough grounds to justify a guilty verdict - there's nothing inconsistent about deciding that there isn't a strong enough case to convict someone, and believing that they probably did commit the offence with which they were charged. But "probably" just doesn't cut it in matters where life and liberty are involved.

The alternative would be for juries to find people guilty beacause they have to just think they probably did it, even if there isn't enough evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt. Which is what happens only too often - and there are a lot of innocent people who have experienced that, and spend years in jail as a result.

That jury heard the evidence, every bit of it, and none of us did. They decided that there was a reasonable doubt, in face of all the assumptions about Jackson's guilt put across by the media throughout.

If being weird means you belong in jail, there's an awful lot of people ought to be in jail, and not just in California.
...........................

I noticed where the prosecutor, asked about the length of the trial had taken commented that it would have been a lot quicker "in the South", with an implication, it seemed to me, that down there they know better how to deal with...

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 08:27 PM

Okay...just suppose.

If I were a pre-teen, even if I harbored no reservations about sharing a bed in the hopes I might get some money out of it later...even if I didn't care if I was molested, or maybe I was confused about my sexual identity and invited some advances in an experimental sort of way, just to see; even if I were gay and wanted to be with a man .... .... ...

Michael Jackson would be the last man on my list because the cosmetic surgery has made him one creepy, scary-looking individual. It would frighten the living bejeezus out of me to open my eyes in the morning and see him staring at me.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 06:46 PM

Or is that why she now wants to have more access to them?

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Chip2447
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 06:45 PM

SK6, why don't you go back and read my original post, here I'll make it easy.

Weird, yes. (Seems I'm not the only one that thinks this)

Genius, no. (Ditto)

Guilty of recent charges, I like the not proven thing rather than the not guitly one. (Not proven, doesn't mean not guilty)

Pedophile, probably. (My personal opinion)

Career over, I can only hope. (Obviously I'm not a fan, never have been)

The end of the story, not hardly. (Do you think that the story ends here?)

Likelihood of his children being adversely affected. Enough that I think DFS should remove them from his care. (Again, personal opinion, and again, I'm not the only one that thinks this.)

Yes, it is very amusing, for I can guarentee that you and I don't know each other, but you can't say the same about me knowing Jackson.

Your post is just a weak attempt to cover up what amounts to just simple name calling, and further demonstrates your ignorance concerning situations that you know nothing about.

Chip2447

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 06:31 PM

Perhaps a woman who thinks it is ok for her kids to be draped in veils and dangled from balconies, isn't the best person to decide what is best for her children? You wouldn't find any self respecting professional working with kids endorse that behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: s6k
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 06:07 PM

Liz The Squeak - the mother of the children herself stepped forward and said that she WANTS the children to be with michael, not her.

but the best comment was:

"Sk6 you are entitled to your opinion. You don't know me, or anything about me. You might wish to refrain from showing your ignorance concerning things or people that you know nothing about."

LOL !!!! this is very amusing, because the EXACT same thing could be said about you and Michael Jackson!!!!!!! or have you met the guy ???? LOL !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: gnu
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 04:24 PM

Oh for Jaysus sake. He never queered anyone. Give me a break. $$$'s to do whatever he wanted. Ever queer someone, if he wanted to. It's all just publicity to sell some more tunes.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: DavidHannam
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 02:51 PM

Michael Jackson i think is a seriously disturbed individual. Aside from the allegations, he is a danger to children natural development and also himself by the sounds of things.

As for genius, once again, we are at the argument what constitutes genius. There is probably worth a thread in that debate alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 08:32 AM

Al,So you want to know the DFS connection...well...... Don't you have to wait a year for the first intallment?
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 08:01 AM

In the words of Private Fraser, Och I never doubted you for a minute....

Still no light cast on the DFS connection, and the part played by the leather sofas and footstools in matching colours. Could it be i am looking in the wrong department....?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 06:56 AM

Well said Ted!

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 06:13 AM

Take Britney Spears for example (minds out of the gutter please). She's a global phenomenon, raking in millions, but can she sing?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Stu
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 06:06 AM

Is it true Saddam has asked to be tried in California?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: John O'L
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 06:06 AM

dianavan - "Who else has achieved this?"

Coca Cola & McDonalds. Saturation advertising does the trick every time. The quality of the product doesn't come into it.

Or am I being overly cynical?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 05:28 AM

I never believed for a second that he was guilty.He's just odd.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 05:22 AM

He is like he is because he's spent his whole life surrounded by money grabbing sycophants telling him he can do no wrong.

Innocent ? genius ? get real, no sane adult man takes little boys into his bed without knowing sooner or later someone is going to call him a paedophile, some fucking genius.

I wouldn't let my kids within a million miles of him, the parents who did clearly hade their sights on the pot of gold and ergo are just as guilty as that sick weirdo.

I am not in favour of euthanasia but in his case it would be a kindness


eric

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: fat B****rd
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 03:59 AM

I've never understood how somebody who's made some outstanding (IN THE POP GENRE) music could be so fucked up in other respects.
I totally agree with Allen's last comment. MJ should get serious and dedicated help from people who won't milk him and/or sell their stories.
Just a thought. What would opinions on these pages be if some leading folk/blues/ethnic music personality were accused of such crimes ??
Then again there aren't (m)any musicians in those genres making MJ's kind of money, are there ?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 03:51 AM

that should read he was not found Guilty beyond doubt

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 03:50 AM

O.K., O.K. Michael Jackson not guilty.

As to whether he is a genius, thats also a matter of opinion.

You may not consider him a musical genius but I think he is a very talented individual. And yes.........he certainly can dance! So, if you can dance and sing and make money too, I think it requires a bit of ingenuity. He is a performer with a world following - the king of pop! Who else has achieved this? Not many.

I guess only time will really be able to judge.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 03:50 AM

He was NOT found INNOCENT
He was found not guilty beyond doubt.
A BIG difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 01:59 AM

DFS....there was a sofa involved?

I think the chaise longue did it. the two years free interest was too much of temptation.

Blame it on the boogie...!

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: John O'L
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 01:59 AM

Whether MJ is guilty, not guilty, not proven, or innocent is really of no consequence here, since none of us will ever really know for sure. All we can do is take an educated guess, which is all the jury did.
The relevent thing is he's back on the street. (Or back on the lawn, I suppose.)

BTW, he's no genius. He can dance, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 01:38 AM

Sorry, but any father who dangles a baby over a fifth floor balcony, makes his children wear veils in public, keeps them from their mother (report here ), keeps them from school or nursery (and thus other social contact with children their own ages) and his own ex wife admits lying about his fatherhood (and fathering) abilities and filed for custody/access, (and again, here ) - is not a responsible parent.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 01:21 AM

"If a clam digger pulled the same stunt MJ did by holding his baby over that balcony rail"

IMO, that's when the law should have stepped in. Where the hell was the law? Where?
Kendall is right about that. If it had been someone poor, that person would have faced some serious charges. However, that's the way it is when there's one law for rich people and another for poor people.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 01:06 AM

"Where there is smoke there is usually fire as well."

There is the potential for fire.

But what has that to do with MJ?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Chip2447
Date: 17 Jun 05 - 01:00 AM

Sk6 said...
"someone said his kids should be taken away from him

IDIOT

his own ex wife has said what a great father he is to them"

Since I'm the only one that mentioned that I thought DFS should get involved I must be the idiot that you are referring to.

Click here

This incident was enough for me to want DFS involved. Not to mention prior allegations, payments to accusers and now the recent news. Any or all would warrant a investigation of any normal person.

Where there is smoke there is usually fire as well.

I imagine the IDIOT will be revealed in due course when Jackson gets caught again.

Only an IDIOT or a complete MORON would endanger ANY child by wanting them to stay in Jackson's care without a thorough investigation and proof that it was all a misunderstanding.

Sk6 you are entitled to your opinion. You don't know me, or anything about me. You might wish to refrain from showing your ignorance concerning things or people that you know nothing about.

Chip2447

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 06:46 PM

If a clam digger pulled the same stunt MJ did by holding his baby over that balcony rail, you bet your ass the state would step in!

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Sorcha
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 04:31 PM

At least we won't be subjected to a sentencing phase....

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 04:18 PM

The current, well-publicized thinking is that pedophiles CAN'T stop, yet we think MJ should and, therefore, can. Kinda weird.

I think the whole Neverland experience is a cult, actually. The reality there isn't reality, and it all centers around pleasing this very charismatic person. I think there is a high degree of mind control going on in that atmosphere.

Regarding the argument that MJ's lack of a childhood makes this all OK-- the frequently-repeated "justification" that MJ did not act
as an adult predator, but as a boy whose emotional maturation was stunted by fame-- EVEN IF THAT IS TRUE, he needs to play his sleepover games with other, similarly-stunted 40-ish males-- not pre-teens!

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: s6k
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 03:25 PM

someone said his kids should be taken away from him

IDIOT

his own ex wife has said what a great father he is to them

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson NOT GUILTY
From: GUEST,Allen
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 03:14 PM

He is seriously sick, and I do not for a moment belive his pathetic and unlikely stories, but that is only my opinion. Which last time I checked I was entitled to one. Legally he's been found not guilty, which is rather different.
Perhaps one factor for the case failing is the loathsome mother. Anyway, these cases have been around for 15 years or so, but generaly made to dissapear.
Best thing Jackson could do is check into a facility where they might help him.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: LilyFestre
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 03:05 PM

I agree with Joe Offer's post.
Let's hope that he stays away from kids and parents have enough brains to keep their children away from him.

As for his own children, since he was found NOT GUILTY, there is no reason that his children should be removed. I've seen situations where foster children have accused foster parents of sexual abuse, gone to court and the foster parents have been found to be not guilty. That means it's over...not that I can go in, as a Social Worker, and remove the remaining children. It doesn't work that way.

Jackson is eccentric but that's not a crime.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 02:54 PM

Dianavan told us:

As far as guilty or innocent, the jury is far more able to decide than I am from this great distance.

No, Dianavan, no jury in the United States finds any defendant innocent. If that were their charge, you'd find a whole lot more hung juries and thus mistrials than we do.

When a criminal defendant enters a plea, the plea is "Guilty", "Not Guilty", or "Nolo Contendere". The defendant may think he's "innocent", but for the law's purposes it's one of those three.

"Nolo Contendere" means (allowing for my possibly defective Latin) "I will not contend it." Only in unusual cases does a court allow a defendant to enter a "Nolo Contendere" plea, which does not establish that the defendant actually pleaded guilty, but still allows the court to go ahead and find him guilty. This is occasionally allowed when there are factually related (usually civil)cases which would be prejudiced by allowing the other side to point the finger and say, "SEE? He himself said he was guilty, so I should be able to take that as an admission against interest in this case!"

The job of a US jury is to find "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". In effect, "Not Guilty" means that "The State has not been able to prove legal guilt."

Put another way, "Not Guilty" is a term of art in the legal field, whereas "innocent" is a rather vague and undefined (undefinable?) word in the field of morals, religion, or ethics. Frankly, very few of us are indeed "innocent", though we might be "Not Guilty".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 02:52 PM

I think it has been established that Michael is a very starnge person. It also seems that the children and their parents who flocked to Michael, are equally strange. Whether he molested anyone, turned out to be mostly a matter of opinion.

Whatever that case, one would think that if they had any sense at all, Michael would stay away from children from now on, and parents would keep their children away from Michael.

Michael, after all, is the world's best-known suspected child molester. Any parent who lets his kid near Michael certainly can't say now that they didn't know that.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 02:21 PM

I read that in the US - justice not only has to be done - it has to be seen to be believed.............

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: podman
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 02:11 PM

given the 'quality' of MJ's accusers, I do not think this should have gone to trial. They sounded like the sort of folk who would be sycophants until it stopped paying, whereupon they would become parasites.

I would think that the English persuasion of the Mudcat contingent would have a soft spot for the truly eccentric, although it is probable that MJ is a headcase as well.

Not a good era for justice, fairness, nor judicial nor journalistic prudence.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Rasener
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 02:08 PM

See you tommorrow Mike?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 01:58 PM

And still the ordinary man appoints himself judge and jury....stuff the law...stuff the belief in the possibility that he was innocent all the way through.....as I said in a previous thread on Michael Jackson...We will probably never know if he was innocent or guilty but some of you obviously know!!!!!!!!! Have you had first hand experience or what?
Hope none of you gets an accusation made against you because you will be guilty in the eyes of some even if you are totally innocent....Food for thought eh??
Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Tam the man
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 01:06 PM

You mean in Scotland 'not proven' they don't have that in other courties in the UK just Scotland.

Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Chip2447
Date: 16 Jun 05 - 01:08 AM

Weird, yes.
Genius, no.
Guilty of recent charges, I like the not proven thing rather than the not guitly one.
Pedophile, probably.
Career over, I can only hope.
The end of the story, not hardly.
Likelihood of his children being adversely affected. Enough that I think DFS should remove them from his care.

Chip2447

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: dianavan
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 11:03 PM

I'm not a Michael Jackson fan but I do think he's a genius and seriously wierd, to boot. Being wierd is not a crime last time I checked.

As far as guilty or innocent, the jury is far more able to decide than I am from this great distance. Seems to me they were in a position to determine if the mother of the boy (and indeed the boy himself) were credible witnesses. I think there was ample reason to doubt their integrity.

It makes you wonder why the prosecutor even tried.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST,marks
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 10:53 PM

OJ called him up last night and offered to help him find the real abuser.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: heric
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 10:47 PM

From what I saw of it, which isn't much, the case against MJ was crap, and shouldn't have gone forward that way by a competent prosecution team. How quickly we all forget the California justice of the late eighties and early nineties when several day care providers were prosecuted on the basis of child testimony that was later shown to be pure planted hogwash. Many people's lives were ruined.

In this case, MJ wasn't even alleged to have abused the kid until AFTER the February 6 US airing of the famous documentary, and after damage control procedures had gone into full force and effect. How weird is that?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: wysiwyg
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 10:31 PM

PS, in the USA.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: wysiwyg
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 10:12 PM

"Not Guilty" = "Not Proved Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt," but does NOT equal "Innocent."

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: kendall
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 09:43 PM

You are right, Liz. My point is the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 08:58 PM

I loved the Jay Leno line.................

If you're Martha Stewart, you have to be really pissed. OJ goes free, Robert Blake walks, Michael Jackson get the walk. Martha makes one phone call and.....JAIL!!!

Seriously this one is just another piece of California justice. I think they need to bring in Nancy Grace as a Special Prosecutor..LOL

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 08:31 PM

'Not Proven' is only an acceptable verdict in Scottish law, Kendall.... In the rest of the UK (or Britain) it's still innocent or guilty.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 08:04 PM

Dont know if Jacksons really innocent, perhaps he *is* just trying to find his own childhood , but its a strange world where people are expected to behave like paedophiles.

The jurors comments to the effect that Jackson "probably" abused children although being found innocent says more about our society than it does about Micheal Jackson....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: michaelr
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 08:03 PM

Come off it -- Genius?? He's a deranged has-been purveyor of crappy disco pop.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: s6k
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 07:56 PM

he is a genius, and nobody can deny that.

like or dislike the man, but the music he made was legendary.

good luck to him, especially in the face of people (especially from the UK) who claim he was guilty as hell, yet none of them have ever met the man, or spent 1 minute in the courtroom listening to evidence.
and most have probably never set foot on american soil either

just look at the woman suing... she admitted fraudulently getting $20,000 in a scam in the past. they are all in it for the money.

either way, jackson is a genius, its just a shame that even though he has been found innocent, people will still think they know he is guilty, due soley to what they have read in the newspapers. very sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: michaelr
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 07:53 PM

Jacko, OJ, that washed-up Beretta actor...

What this shows is that if ya wanna commit a crime, come to California! The police can't collect evidence, the DAs can't present it coherently, and the juries won't convict.

Sheesh.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 07:12 PM

The man is a true GENIUS.

What a loss to the world!!! Jail Time!!!

Just think what he could have done with 23 hours a day - to create, create, create - totally unfettered by the bums of little boys.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Phot
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 07:02 PM

Who cares? I can't stand the man, the music, or the hype.

Chris

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: gnu
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 06:58 PM

Wrong... this is the beginning of his comeback. Just watch.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: kendall
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 06:57 PM

In Britain they say "Not proven".

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 06:35 PM

He was found not guilty of that particular offence, but many of the jurors were not convinced of his total innocence.....

Whatever happens, it's doubtful he'll ever have the same sort of audiences as he's managed previously.

LTS

Subject: BS: Michael Jackson INNOCENT
From: s6k
Date: 15 Jun 05 - 06:23 PM

EE-HEE!! CHAMONE!!!! WHOS BAD!!!!