Micheal Jackson jury renders verdict

[Cylinder]

Verdict will be read at 1:30 Pacific

[R.A.F.]

I was just going to post this...Toseeked, again!!!

[Cylinder]

I'm predicting a conviction, the prior bad act evidence being the tipping point.

[Candy]

What is it? I just turned to Headline News!

I think he is innocent!

[A Thousand Pardons]

Do you mean, that's the way to bet? Are you giving odds?

[Cylinder]

What is it? I just turned to Headline News!

I think he is innocent!

It will be announced at 1:30PT. That's 3:30CT.

[Candy]

Do you mean, that's the way to bet? Are you giving odds?
I believe he is innocent on all counts, except giving alcohol to a minor. I've been watching this, too. :D

[Archer17]

FWIW - I think he's guilty .. but also think he'll be acquitted.

[Humphrey]

I have said this before and ill say it again.

Guilty on the alcohol charge
Not Guilty on the conspiracy charge (which is really, really stupid charge. They showed alot of evidence that the parents willingly stayed there afterwords.)
Guilty on the molestation*.





[*Note: I do not believe he molested the child this time. I think he is innocent. But i do believe he did it in the past, and i believe that the jury feels the same way and are going to convit him for getting off in the past. Its worng, they should not be doing it that way, but thats what ibelieve will happen.]

[Nowhere Man]

Yawn.

Fred

[Humphrey]

Just a note its Guilty or Not guilty in a courtroom. There is no "Innocent". :-)

[Candy]

Just a note its Guilty or Not guilty in a courtroom. There is no "Innocent". :-)
I believe he is NOT GUILTY on all counts, except giving alcohol to a minor. I've been watching this, too. :P

[Candy]

[*Note: I do not believe he molested the child this time. I think he is innocent. But i do believe he did it in the past, and i believe that the jury feels the same way and are going to convit him for getting off in the past. Its worng, they should not be doing it that way, but thats what ibelieve will happen.]
He never did it. He is just weird (from Indiana). Wait, I'm from Indiana. 8-[

[PatKelley]

Guilty, and truly guilty, on molestation. Michael doesn't have good impulse control, as witnessed by his nose, house, and shopping sprees. The boy was probably the only witness, however, with the other siblings coached. One does not go about trumpeting molestation, especially same-sex, and it is small wonder he denied it in public, but will swear to it under oath.

Michael is well and truly messed up, and I think his associates did try and keep the money train running by sequestering the family.

Hope he gets along with Manson. That guy's short, but just about the same level of egomaniac.

[farmerjumperdon]

Regardless of the verdict, I am happy that the guy has been thoroughly exposed for the psychotic mess that he is. It is good that when kids see his wierd and bizarre behaviors they recognize them as coming from a truly disturbed person, and not from someone to emulate.

The woo-woo's who come from around the state, and worse yet from around the country, to cry outside the courtroom for "their Michael" really, really, really, really, really need to get a life of their own instead of living vicariously through some person distorted not just in spirit but through voluntary physical mutilation as well.

I wonder if he has ever in his life been the person he thinks he should be? He's certainly done everything he possibly could to keep from being himself.

[Candy]

Guilty, and truly guilty, on molestation. Michael doesn't have good impulse control, as witnessed by his nose, house, and shopping sprees. The boy was probably the only witness, however, with the other siblings coached. One does not go about trumpeting molestation, especially same-sex, and it is small wonder he denied it in public, but will swear to it under oath.

Michael is well and truly messed up, and I think his associates did try and keep the money train running by sequestering the family.

Hope he gets along with Manson. That guy's short, but just about the same level of egomaniac.
My mom, LOVE HER HERE WITH ME FOR AN ENTIRE WEEK, states that she thinks he is innocent, too.

[Candy]

DID I SAY AN ENTIRE WEEK? :o

[Kristophe]

You mean "not guilty".

[Candy]

You mean "not guilty".
Do you mean NOT GUILTY of child molestation? Yes.

[Candy]

I may be hated from this day on for my personal beliefs, but sorry, I just feel this way. 8-[

[Candy]

I grew up with Michael Jackson. I remember his first song with the Jackson 5. I am so crossing my fingers right now. :o

[Lance]

I may be hated from this day on for my personal beliefs, but sorry, I just feel this way. 8-[

I don't think he's guilty either. I think he has made some very bad choices but I don't think he intentionally caused harm.

[Candy]

I may be hated from this day on for my personal beliefs, but sorry, I just feel this way. 8-[

I don't think he's guilty either. I think he has made some very bad choices but I don't think he intentionally caused harm.
I agree. Dang, will I be on trial next?

[tofu]

I agree. Dang, will I be on trial next?
Do you give 10 year olds alcohol and then take them to bed?

[Humphrey]

I agree. Dang, will I be on trial next?


Yes. I'll get the sock pupet lawyers and judges. You can bring the finger puppet Jury.

[Candy]

I agree. Dang, will I be on trial next?
Do you give 10 year olds alcohol and then take them to bed?
I don't know any 10 year olds.

[Candy]

I agree. Dang, will I be on trial next?


Yes. I'll get the sock pupet lawyers and judges. You can bring the finger puppet Jury.
I'm guilty of exciting teen BABBers.

[01101001]

Reports: Jurors not looking at MJ. Experts say that's not good news.

Judge is reviewing verdict documents prior to announcement by clerk. All eyes on judge.

NOT GUILTY ALL 1-10

[Candy]

NOT GUILTY! \:D/

[Gillianren]

well, it's on CNN right now . . . .

I've been thinking about it, and while heaven knows I'm not a psychiatrist, I think it is entirely possible that the man meets the legal definition of insanity.

how did I come to this conclusion? well, I was really bored and watching True Hollywood Story once (those two necessarily go hand-in-hand), and I found out that he was the one feeding all those weird stories about himself to the Enquirer back in the 80s. he doesn't seem to realize that society believes that what he does is wrong, or even weird, and that is the legal definition of the word. given his family, you couldn't have expected him to be normal.

part of me will always be fond of Michael Jackson--Doug Kearney dressing up as the Glitter Glove when he and my sister were in fourth grade; Colleen Rhemm falling madly in love with him when we were in first grade (same year), and she broke his arm and got fixated, because it was just after he burned his head and so he understood pain, too; the bus driver when I was in kindergarten playing the Thriller album over and over every day on the way to and from school.

and then the music wasn't as good, and then he got weirder and weirder. the plastic surgery. the skin bleaching (if it were natural, it'd be blotchy; I've known people with the medical condition he claims). the chimp. the amusement park. we are watching a sad decline, kids, whether you ever actually liked the music or not.

I also find this as a great example of the American love of circus. I was in LA during the Rodney King trial, during most of the OJ trial. I'd be willing to bet that there's not much else on back home, just as there were no afternoon cartoons during the OJ trial.

someone's got a sign demanding a lie detector test. (because that'll prove something . . . .) there's a lot of religious signs. someone's got a sign claiming "innocent until proven innocent," which is missing something in the logic department, but oh, well. the person next to that sign has a video camera. a lot of people on cell phones; a lot of people with cameras. a lot of people waving at the CNN cameras.

I feel very much as though one of the last little vestiges of my childhood is going away, no matter the verdict. when I was in elementary school, he was an idol. when I was in junior high, he was a has-been. when I was in high school, he was a joke. and now, just about exactly four years after I graduated from college, we'll be finding out if he's a convict.

someone's yelling at the CNN camera, apparently not realizing that it's not getting any sound.

I wonder how many of us are killing time on posts, waiting for a verdict. I wonder how many who aren't won't even read the thread.

this verdict, when it comes, will not change anyone's mind, you know. Candy and her mom, I'm sure, will still think it's wrong if it's guilty, and I (and others, I know) will still think it's wrong if it's not guilty. just as most people I know still think OJ's guilty, just as history still thinks Lizzie Borden's guilty--both were, in their time, acquitted. I know a lot of people who think that Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu-Jamal are not guilty. I think the only people really affected by this verdict will be the people directly connected to the case.

not guilty count one. not guilty count two. not guilty count three. not guilty count four. not guilty count five. not guilty count six. not guilty count seven. not guilty count eight. not guilty count nine. not guilty count ten. and let's see how many other kids come forward . . . .

[Candy]

NOT GUILTY! \:D/
NOT GUILTY! :D

[mickal555]

:o :o
NOOOOO!

[SeanF]

Just a note its Guilty or Not guilty in a courtroom. There is no "Innocent". :-)
Hey, check out this article (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=796&e=1&u=/eo/20050613/en_celeb_eo/16741) on Yahoo News.

Jackson, the former child prodigy who once was the world's biggest-selling music force, and the lifelong curiosity piece who remains the world's most famous pop oddity, was found innocent by jurors in Santa Maria, California, of molesting a teen boy, and essentially of groping a series of young males in the late 1980 and early 1990s.(Emphasis mine)

:D

[Moose]

Huh. A raincloud blocked our satellite signal just as the verdict was being relayed. I had to wait about ten minutes to get the verdict. Go fig.

[R.A.F.]

It's a sure bet that Jackson will now say that this proves that he didn't do anything wrong. I wonder if the prosecution now has of return all of Jackson's "nude boys" books. :roll:

[sarongsong]

Hey, where's Nancy Grace???

[R.A.F.]

Another thought...I wonder how these jurors will feel when he does it again...and make no mistake, he will do this again, he can't help himself.

[Archer17]

Hey, where's Nancy Grace???heh .. I see I'm not the only one that thought of this. She gave me a headache.

[Cylinder]

Another thought...I wonder how these jurors will feel when he does it again...and make no mistake, he will do this again, he can't help himself.

As a matter of law, he did not commit the charged crimes - that's how our system works. That being said, it is unfortunate (as you point out) that other parents will be willing to sell their children's time with this person. As a parent that sickens me.

[Captain Kidd]

A CA state law says that a juror on a high-profile case must wait 45 days before signing a book deal.

Let's all say it together:

Only in California

;)

[Candy]

Hey, where's Nancy Grace???heh .. I see I'm not the only one that thought of this. She gave me a headache.
Thank you!

[gethen]

As I said in another thread, I hope at least this will be the end of the sleepovers at Neverland. Jackson should have figured out that they were a bad idea in the first place and parents should be aware that sleepovers with a 40 year old stranger are not a good idea.

[Moose]

I have to be careful how I phrase this*, but I was recently foreman of a jury in a superficially similar case (minus the circus). The verdict was not guilty. The prosecution was quite simply unable to establish its case after the defense successfully blocked a key witness.

I left the courtroom with a very bad taste in my mouth. As thoroughly unsatisfying as I still find the verdict I had to render, entirely contrary to my instincts, I stand by my decision based on what I'd seen and heard during the trial. Probably guilty is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Given how long the Jackson jury deliberated, even with ten charges involved, I have a feeling this is what happened.

( I can't talk about the deliberations, and I definitely can't talk about specifics because of a publication ban on the identity of the victim. I'm pretty sure I can, however, talk about how I personally feel about the trial now.)

Phil, if you would prefer I retract this, just in case, I'll comply.

[Lurker]

Another thought...I wonder how these jurors will feel when he does it again...and make no mistake, he will do this again, he can't help himself.

As a matter of law, he did not commit the charged crimes - that's how our system works. That being said, it is unfortunate (as you point out) that other parents will be willing to sell their children's time with this person. As a parent that sickens me.
I don't see why you are sickened. He started out with a presumption of innocence. He was tried before a jury of his peers. The prosecution was allowed as much time as it needed to research and present its case with the best resources our tax money could buy. After deliberation, 12 individuals agreed unanimously that the prosecution has not presented enough evidence to overturn the presumption of innocence that the defendant enjoys.

Why the assumption that the man was guilty and got away with a crime??

[SciFi Chick]

Why the assumption that the man was guilty and got away with a crime??

Because there is evidence that could not be presented in court. I am convinced he is guilty. I'm not sure how you think it could be considered innocent for a man his age to have sleepovers of the nature he has.

I mean, there is no law against following your gut instincts and interpreting the evidence differently from the jury. As a parent, I wouldn't let my kids within 100 yards of that man.

It is also okay to be sickened based on what you believe to be true. You must know that guilty people get off as often as innocent ones get convicted.

I agree that the prosecution didn't prove his guilt, but that does not make him innocent.

[Kristophe]

I agree that the prosecution didn't prove his guilt, but that does not make him innocent.

Indeed. "Not Guilty" and "innocent" are two very different things here.

Buuuut, the thing that seems to be sickening Cylinder is not that Jacko wasn't found guilty, but rather that parents are willing to "sell their children's time with this person". I read that to mean that they find it disgusting that a parent would use their children to gain celebrety or money, or possibly even just to "invoke justice" by setting up the man. Using children, especially your own, in any such way is a disgusting act.

[Lurker]

Why the assumption that the man was guilty and got away with a crime??

Because there is evidence that could not be presented in court. I am convinced he is guilty. I'm not sure how you think it could be considered innocent for a man his age to have sleepovers of the nature he has.

I mean, there is no law against following your gut instincts and interpreting the evidence differently from the jury. As a parent, I wouldn't let my kids within 100 yards of that man.

It is also okay to be sickened based on what you believe to be true. You must know that guilty people get off as often as innocent ones get convicted.

I agree that the prosecution didn't prove his guilt, but that does not make him innocent.
I give up... we bring this man to trial and we cannot live with the verdict. I don't understand how people who can be so concerned about the need for strong evidence that is untainted in the world of science are so unwilling to let such rules be applied to human affairs. There are reasons that the evidence was not allowed in court.

If the nature of his sleep overs is not natural, I expect the prosecution to show it to be unnatural. I have a relation with a woman that will keep me from ever holding a top secret clearance in this country again; and yet dispite how it looks we have committed no crime.

There are no laws against believing in tired light theory, zetas, a flat earth or anything else. Of course you are allowed to go with your gut feeling, you are allowed to believe anything you want, we extend this freedom to woo woo's all the time and we extend it to ourselves as well. My only warning is that a great deal of experience shows that believing something is true does not necessarily make it so, the evidence must be sifted carefully and some of it that might prove our most cherished ideas must be thrown out on occasion for a variety of reasons. We live by this as scientists and engineers every day. I find it unfortunate that in this very critical and very human arena it is abandoned.

[Lance]

Well put, Lurker.

[Kristophe]

Right. But we all decide on a personal level whether we feel the the evidence does or does not support a given theory or hypothesis. Sometimes, different conclusions are drawn by different people, especially when the evidence isn't strong either way. The letters "AAGW" keep coming up in this forum over and over again, and the evidence surrounding those letters is debated endlessly world wide.

Just because 12 individuals in California came to a conclusion about what they've seen and heard doesn't mean everyone has to necessarily draw the same conclusions. To say otherwise is an argument from authority.

[SciFi Chick]

Right. But we all decide on a personal level whether we feel the the evidence does or does not support a given theory or hypothesis. Sometimes, different conclusions are drawn by different people, especially when the evidence isn't strong either way. The letters "AAGW" keep coming up in this forum over and over again, and the evidence surrounding those letters is debated endlessly world wide.

Just because 12 individuals in California came to a conclusion about what they've seen and heard doesn't mean everyone has to necessarily draw the same conclusions. To say otherwise is an argument from authority.

Good points Kristophe. And I agree with Lurker's position about standards of evidence, but I don't think we're necessarily doing that by considering Michael Jackson guilty. I've studied the patterns of pedophilia quite a bit, and that is part of what I'm using, along with evidence that I've seen out in L.A. from the last case. Of course, I can't prove the evidence I've seen, which is why I haven't presented it here. I can definitely see how some people would think he's innocent though.

[N C More]

Remember, concluding "not guilty" is not the same thing as saying he definitely didn't do anything...rather that the burden of proof to conclude "guilty" was simply not met.

What I wonder is, how many people will now think it's ok to let their children "sleep over" at Mr. Jackson's house? Hopefully, not any!

[R.A.F.]

The adage "innocent until/unless proven guilty in a court of law" is just that, in a court of law. It has absolutely nothing to do with what the public "perceives".

There's also another adage..."if it walks like a duck..."

[Lance]

Let's not forget the possibility that he is just very weird.

[Lurker]

Let's not forget the possibility that he is just very weird.
Welll this is my point. SciFi Chick has her evidence that she cannot present. I understand that it has an effect on her point of view. I don't believe in evidence that does not see the light of day, too many ideas are put forth that are known to be true because of evidence that no one is allowed to see. Such evidence does not always standup well in the light.

I have a very interesting array of chainmaille in my closet at home, I wonder what some would make of that. I have a friend who has an amazing set of leather whips and leather outfits. According to her estimates her collection is worth 20 to 50 thousand dollars. (I have no idea, I know nothing about the quality or market value of such items) I wonder what someone might make of those? What bothers me most is that none of you know who she is, or anything else about her, but I wonder if some are forming some picture of her on those facts alone.

[Lurker]

The adage "innocent until/unless proven guilty in a court of law" is just that, in a court of law. It has absolutely nothing to do with what the public "perceives".

There's also another adage..."if it walks like a duck..."
I understand that, but this is just the type of logic that does not fly in either science or engineering. I am surprised that it is used to determine the truth of allegations against MJ.

[Captain Kidd]

Why the assumption that the man was guilty and got away with a crime??
Remember OJ Simpson. He was found not guilty on criminal charges and guilty in civil court.

Edit to add:
From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson):
Orenthal James Simpson (born July 9, 1947 in San Francisco, California), publicly known by the initials O.J., and nicknamed The Juice, is a Hall of Fame former college and professional football player and film actor. Simpson is perhaps now most famous for being accused of the 1994 killing of his wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman: he was acquitted in criminal court in 1995 after a lengthy and highly publicized trial, and subsequently found liable for the deaths in civil court.

I have to agree with the others on Jackson. The prosecution did not submit a case that convinced the jury beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did it. And the defense did a good job of supplying wedges for it too. I'm supicious that he did, if not this on then others. But that's a personal feeling. From what the media has shown... I donno. I don't have the evidence for and against that was presented to the jurors and I'm not sure what I'd say. From what I've seen/read I think that I'd probably have to come down on the side of the jury. The family's story just didn't add up.

[Lance]

Why the assumption that the man was guilty and got away with a crime??
Remember OJ Simpson. He was found not guilty on criminal charges and guilty in civil court.

In civil court you only need to have "probably" done it. The standard is "by a preponderance of the evidence", not "beyond reasonable doubt". Which standard would you prefer to be held to if it was you on the line?

[Kristophe]

Just because 12 individuals in California came to a conclusion about what they've seen and heard doesn't mean everyone has to necessarily draw the same conclusions. To say otherwise is an argument from authority.
*cough*

Not chosing sides in the Jacko case -- just get him off my TV -- but no where does it say I have to agree with the jury's interpretation of the evidence.

[Captain Kidd]

See the edit to my above post that I got delayed in adding by a frantic soap hunt. (Don't ask.)

[Lurker]

See the edit to my above post that I got delayed in adding by a frantic soap hunt. (Don't ask.)
I am sooooo not going there!!!!! :o

[Jpax2003]

The prosecution did not submit a case that convinced the jury beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did it.The prosecution only needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not a shadow of a doubt. There is a difference.