Michael Jackson: Innocent on All Charges?

[belverron]

What did you guys think about the Jackson verdict? I'm happier than I would have been if he'd been found entirely guilty, but I'm not sure why. I wasn't following the trial at all.

I think I expected the jury to at least make a token conviction of supplying alcohol to a person under the age of 21. It'd only have been a misdemeanor, anyway.

Right, anyway, thoughts from someone more informed about the proceedings than I?

[moustache]

Shouldve checked him into a mental institution. Shouldve gotten him on charges of insanity. Micheal thinks he is peter pan.

[tinybear]

It was expected. Parents who send their young children to Neverland Ranch must be gold diggers. The defense exploited this to cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case. It was a legally correct verdict. This is not to say Michael Jackson is innocent though. He was just not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

[Zeebadee]

The prosecution had no case. The accusers were shown to be total dirtbags, the mother was clearly looking for cash, that's why she rented her kid to the weirdo in the first place. She's the one that should have been sent to jail. I tended to think Jackson was guilty, on at least a few of the counts, but I was extremely pleased to finally see a California jury act on the facts presented and not on the hoopla that the media clouded the issues with. The prosecutor should be fired, he had no case right from the beginning, and he should have known that. It's a misuse of his office and authority to prosecute a case when he has to rely on prejudicing the jury in order to have any chance at a conviction.

[Technosoul]

The evidence in the trial domonstrated that the "Jesus Juice" was just a rumor. They interviewd the flight attendant and Jackson had her put the wine in a cola can so that the kids would not know he was drinking wine, so as not to be a bad influence.

He was found not guilty but just like OJ his reputation is ruined, about half the population will always think he did it and got away with it (because he was rich or hired good lawyers). In that case the jury was made up of only 12 people, but the jury outside the courthouse is much larger and that jury has many doubts and those doubts will limit what Jackson can do in the future to make a living.

I predict he will have a lawyer sue the people who brought the now false charges and he might even sue the justice system (if that is possible). Because the trial (as publically demonstrated over the past months) was the cause of medical problems and suffering for him physically.

technosoul.

[moustache]

He is running out of money isnt he? I think he was innocent...But I still think he should get some mental help. wether that be counceling or something else.

[iamhaneef]

Micheal Jackson: innocent on all 10 charges. Just like OJ. Why does this entire Jackson trial remind me of that one chapelle's show with the jury selection? Why cause chapelle is a genius who knew there was reasonable doubt. jk. But either way, reasonable doubt or not, the mother was insane. She pissed off one of the jurors who was hispanic and did not like the mother saying snapping at people and acting like she did was part of her culture

[moustache]

Yea she was snapping her fingers and stuff right? What an idiot, even I wouldve known to at least act right around the jurors. They are deciding if you get a ton of money or not.

Did any one else hear that michaels going back out on tour?

[iamhaneef]

oh, thats just a rumor.

If Micheal wants to shock the world he should start a new album.

[Technosoul]

Well, Jackson owns the copyrights of all the Beatles songs so I doubt if he will run out of money as long as people continue to buy Beatles music. He is not a nutty in business as we might think.

He could even go Disney and turn over Never Never land to a managment group to run and get big tourest bucks from people visiting the ranch and his (former) house. And expand by opening a Never Never Land in Fla and Japan.

His strangeness is part of the act many entertainers manifest for the purpose of making money. Just like KISS dressed up strange to promote their records. Or just like a fast food place might use a clown to sell burgers. But Jackson never had a normal life, even as a small child he was on the road sing songs for the Jackson Five. No doubt stopping at hotels along the tour - and who knows how many of he Jackson Five kids ended up in the same bedroom overnight at those hotels? And no wonder such was not strange for him - sharing a bed is just like "family love" amoung brothers on tour. That is my profile (or my opinion) behind all this.

Technosoul.

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

American justice systems live up to their reputation again, he was always guilty but was never going to be found guilty

A farce probably arranged by some dicky american TV owner to boost ratings

Yawnnnnnnnn

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Seeker_Of_Sins American justice systems live up to their reputation again, he was always guilty but was never going to be found guilty

Yeah, we didn't need any legitimate, convincing evidence, we just knew he was guilty. Is that your idea of the American justice system?

[tinybear]

That's how the system works. The prosecution has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. You can't just say "We all know he's guilty. Lock him up."

[jose]

Quote by: iamhaneef oh, thats just a rumor. If Micheal wants to shock the world he should start a new album.

maybe it´ll be called ¨dont let your son go down on me ¨

[tinybear]

Or, "I'm Innocent".

[Nono]

Michael Jackson: Innocent on All Charges?

Honestly, who the hell cares? Like the OJ trial, it was just another stunt in media masturbation served up for a celebrity-addled populace.
Give us an effing break!

[RickSp]

The title of the post is incorrect. Michael Jackson was found to be innocent of absolutely nothing. He was found to be not-guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The diffeence between the two is vast.

[Gorgo]

Isn't the idea innocent until proven guilty?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Gorgo Isn't the idea innocent until proven guilty?

There is the presumption of innocence, (unless your name is Jose Padilla). The jury's job is not to determine whether the defendent is "innocent" but simply whether the state can prove that he or she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state fails this high standard, the defendent, guilty or innocent. walks. This high standard of proof is one of the best things about our criminal justice system. None of which makes Michael Jackson "innocent". He is just "not guilty".

[Prometheus]

Is MJ related to OJ?