Michael Jackson: Not Guilty on ALL Counts

[Lance]

He's acquitted on all counts.

[mickal555]

:o :o :o :o

[Lance]

He was even cleared of the lesser included misdemeanors.

This was a jury that didn't buy even a single word of the prosecution's case.

<thwack>

[Lurker]

Looks to me like the prosecution didn't prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors... "beyond a reasonable doubt" can be a difficult point to reach.

[Archer17]

Looks to me like the prosecution didn't prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors... "beyond a reasonable doubt" can be a difficult point to reach.My feelings exactly. I'm not surprised. It's one thing to think he's guility, but 'beyond a resonable doubt" goes beyond just a "gut-feeling."

[teddyv]

I'm not surprised. I have not really paid much attention, but from the little I heard the main complainants sounded like damaged goods.

Jackson is still one strange person regardless.

[Lance]

There were options for the jury to give the prosecution a compromise verdict. The jury didn't even convict him of the lessor included misdemeanors.

They believe he did nothing wrong, IMO. The interviews will tell.

[R.A.F.]

Not really a big surprise. Or as one of the court TV anchors put it...

"Not guilty by reason of celebrity".

[Lurker]

There were options for the jury to give the prosecution a compromise verdict. The jury didn't even convict him of the lessor included misdemeanors.

They believe he did nothing wrong, IMO. The interviews will tell.
No I would strongly disagree with this. The jury believes that the prosecution failed to PROVE that he did anything wrong. A juror is suppose to make their mind up based on the evidence presented, NOT based on their own research or gut feeling!!

[Lurker]

Not really a big surprise. Or as one of the court TV anchors put it...

"Not guilty by reason of celebrity".
I hate to say this because I respect you a great deal R.A.F., but I would ask you to show evidence of this. It is possible that the prosecution failed the "reasonable doubt" test. There are many possibilities, but which is true.

[Andrew]

Not really a big surprise. Or as one of the court TV anchors put it...

"Not guilty by reason of celebrity".
Just like Martha Stewart, eh?

[gethen]

Whatever I might think about the jury's decision, I hope that at least one good thing will come out of all this: Michael Jackson will wake up and stop having "sleepovers" with children and parents will stop letting their children "sleepover" at Michael Jackson's house. Whatever Jackson's motivation for those sleepovers, he surely must realize that he was leaving himself wide open for something like this. And no parent in his/her right mind should allow their child to spend the night with a 40 year old stranger, celebrity or not.

[Archer17]

Whatever I might think about the jury's decision, I hope that at least one good thing will come out of all this: Michael Jackson will wake up and stop having "sleepovers" with children and parents will stop letting their children "sleepover" at Michael Jackson's house. Whatever Jackson's motivation for those sleepovers, he surely must realize that he was leaving himself wide open for something like this. And no parent in his/her right mind should allow their child to spend the night with a 40 year old stranger, celebrity or not.Well put gethen. My wife said basically the same thing.

[SciFi Chick]

Not really a big surprise. Or as one of the court TV anchors put it...

"Not guilty by reason of celebrity".
I hate to say this because I respect you a great deal R.A.F., but I would ask you to show evidence of this. It is possible that the prosecution failed the "reasonable doubt" test. There are many possibilities, but which is true.

I know what you mean Lurker. I served on a jury once, and I know as well as I know my own name that the defendant really did abuse his wife, hit her and try to kill her. Unfortunately, the prosecution did not prove it, and though we wrangled about it for days, we couldn't take a chance that our gut feelings should take precedence over actual evidence.

[PatKelley]

Not really a big surprise. Or as one of the court TV anchors put it...

"Not guilty by reason of celebrity".
I hate to say this because I respect you a great deal R.A.F., but I would ask you to show evidence of this. It is possible that the prosecution failed the "reasonable doubt" test. There are many possibilities, but which is true.

Simple. The prosecution was not as well-funded.

[gethen]

As I recall from days spent on a criminal jury, isn't the fact that you don't believe some witness' testimony, defendant or not, reason enough to ignore it? Of course, since Jackson didn't testify, that doesn't come into play here, but if the jury just didn't believe the kid or his mother or brother, is that not reason enough to aquit? Any lawyers out there?

[SciFi Chick]

As I recall from days spent on a criminal jury, isn't the fact that you don't believe some witness' testimony, defendant or not, reason enough to ignore it? Of course, since Jackson didn't testify, that doesn't come into play here, but if the jury just didn't believe the kid or his mother or brother, is that not reason enough to aquit? Any lawyers out there?

I know that when I was a juror, we were told to feel free to compare witness testimonies and consider whether or not we believed them.

[Lurker]

Not really a big surprise. Or as one of the court TV anchors put it...

"Not guilty by reason of celebrity".
I hate to say this because I respect you a great deal R.A.F., but I would ask you to show evidence of this. It is possible that the prosecution failed the "reasonable doubt" test. There are many possibilities, but which is true.

I know what you mean Lurker. I served on a jury once, and I know as well as I know my own name that the defendant really did abuse his wife, hit her and try to kill her. Unfortunately, the prosecution did not prove it, and though we wrangled about it for days, we couldn't take a chance that our gut feelings should take precedence over actual evidence.
I agree SciFi Chick, it's a harsh system, but without it what have you got. There have been too many inmates on death row freed by DNA evidence to make me comfortable.

But then after your experience you already know this. I applaud your courage and conviction. It's not an easy thing to live with, even when you know the failing was the prosecution not you.

[Sam5]

Not really a big surprise. Or as one of the court TV anchors put it...

"Not guilty by reason of celebrity".
Just like Martha Stewart, eh?


That was a money case and an East-Coast case, with a poor jury. West-coasters usually find famous West-coasters not guilty. Especially rock stars, movie stars, and football players. :D :D

[gethen]

That was a money case and an East-Coast case, with a poor jury. West-coasters usually find famous West-coasters not guilty. Especially rock stars, movie stars, and football players.
Wow. Where's the smiley on this one? I doubt the West coast has a monopoly on celebrity worship.

[Lurker]

Not really a big surprise. Or as one of the court TV anchors put it...

"Not guilty by reason of celebrity".
Just like Martha Stewart, eh?


That was a money case and an East-Coast case, with a poor jury. West-coasters usually find famous West-coasters not guilty. Especially rock stars, movie stars, and football players.
This may be true, but the question is, "Is it because the jurors are biased or because the prosecution of these high profile cases in inadequate. Where is the evidence that this man was guilty. Why didn't it convince a jury?

[Moose]

I know what you mean Lurker. I served on a jury once, and I know as well as I know my own name that the defendant really did abuse his wife, hit her and try to kill her. Unfortunately, the prosecution did not prove it, and though we wrangled about it for days, we couldn't take a chance that our gut feelings should take precedence over actual evidence.

I hear you, SciFi Chick.

[SciFi Chick]

That was a money case and an East-Coast case, with a poor jury. West-coasters usually find famous West-coasters not guilty. Especially rock stars, movie stars, and football players.
Wow. Where's the smiley on this one? I doubt the West coast has a monopoly on celebrity worship.

It's a well known fact that Sam5 doesn't like Northeasterners. I guess now he's just lumping the whole east coast together with them. :roll:

[PatKelley]

Not really a big surprise. Or as one of the court TV anchors put it...

"Not guilty by reason of celebrity".
Just like Martha Stewart, eh?


That was a money case and an East-Coast case, with a poor jury. West-coasters usually find famous West-coasters not guilty. Especially rock stars, movie stars, and football players.
This may be true, but the question is, "Is it because the jurors are biased or because the prosecution of these high profile cases in inadequate.

Inadequate compared to the high-priced folks the defense has at their disposal. Talent goes where the money is, so unfortunately we have a lot of wealthy criminals simply get off because all of the talented folks went for money, and the principled just aren't as big a talent pool.

[SciFi Chick]

Inadequate compared to the high-priced folks the defense has at their disposal. Talent goes where the money is, so unfortunately we have a lot of wealthy criminals simply get off because all of the talented folks went for money, and the principled just aren't as big a talent pool.

That's an awfully broad statement, and I have to disagree. Some prosecutors are the most talented attorneys around. However, there's a bit more to it than just talent.

[Lurker]

Not really a big surprise. Or as one of the court TV anchors put it...

"Not guilty by reason of celebrity".
Just like Martha Stewart, eh?


That was a money case and an East-Coast case, with a poor jury. West-coasters usually find famous West-coasters not guilty. Especially rock stars, movie stars, and football players.
This may be true, but the question is, "Is it because the jurors are biased or because the prosecution of these high profile cases in inadequate.



Inadequate compared to the high-priced folks the defense has at their disposal. Talent goes where the money is, so unfortunately we have a lot of wealthy criminals simply get off because all of the talented folks went for money, and the principled just aren't as big a talent pool.
And some very poor, innocent ones that end up with long terms and even on death row. I am open to suggestions. However, there seems to be a presumption that MJ was guilty.

He should be presumed innocent until proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt". Why the presumption that he is guilty and bought his way to acquital??

[Sam5]

That was a money case and an East-Coast case, with a poor jury. West-coasters usually find famous West-coasters not guilty. Especially rock stars, movie stars, and football players.
Wow. Where's the smiley on this one? I doubt the West coast has a monopoly on celebrity worship.

I added a couple to the post. :D :D

Anyway, it just seems to be a trend. I mean, didn’t OJ seem really guilty? And Robert Blake?

But OJ was just too handsome to be found “guilty”, and Blake was such a cute little boy in “Treasure of the Sierra Madre”. Jackson is a symbol of West Coast individualism, i.e. “do your own thing”. :D :D

[PatKelley]

Lurker: There is no real solution unless we make the law profession a service rather than a profitable enterprise, and even then defense attorneys assigned by the courts are the failing in the case of defendants unable to pay. It comes down to money buying justice, rather than reasonable doubt. People can be manipulated, and the jury system is no proof against this manipulation. In the current system, the mediocre rise to public service, and the great and the abysmal end up in the public sector, priced accordingly.

Justice depends upon money.

Edited to add: He has a history of this kind of offense, and has bought himself wholesale out of a previous prosection to the tune of $24 million dollars. The man never even saw the inside of a courtroom before this.

[Sam5]

It's a well known fact that Sam5 doesn't like Northeasterners. I guess now he's just lumping the whole east coast together with them. :roll:

Oh, phooey, it’s just a matter of public record.

I was thinking of Martha Stewart in terms of “lots of money”, and also that rich East-Coast lady that was convicted of cheating on her income tax back in the ‘80s.

Didn’t Woody Allen get off from some charges on the East Coast? I think it has to do with high “movie star” appeal, and most of those types are on the West Coast, not the East Coast. Also, I think East Coast juries tend to be a little poorer than West Coast juries, so I think they will convict “big money celebrities” like Martha Stewart, while West Coast juries will let “movie star” type celebrities go. :D

[Melusine]

Whatever I might think about the jury's decision, I hope that at least one good thing will come out of all this: Michael Jackson will wake up and stop having "sleepovers" with children and parents will stop letting their children "sleepover" at Michael Jackson's house. Whatever Jackson's motivation for those sleepovers, he surely must realize that he was leaving himself wide open for something like this. And no parent in his/her right mind should allow their child to spend the night with a 40 year old stranger, celebrity or not.Well put gethen. My wife said basically the same thing.
One hopes he learned some lesson, but he was sued before and settled out of court, and even after the media attention then, it didn't stop his sleepovers. :roll:

He's got issues, guilty or not guilty, and needs a team of psychotherapists or something. Too, you're right that the parents bear responsibility--after the first time it happened (when he was sued several years ago) and it was all over the papers, parents should have known better.

[Jpax2003]

I agree. It is possible to think someone is guilty but not be able to prove it. That's what happened in the trial in which I was a jurist. It was a minor drug possession case and we susected the MJ was actually his, but the prosecution left too many unanswered questions. We all had questions we wanted to ask but couldn't. The prosecutor was literally tripping over himself. But we also partly nullified ourselves, as most of us figured that even if he did do it we should let him off for other reasons.

[SciFi Chick]

It's a well known fact that Sam5 doesn't like Northeasterners. I guess now he's just lumping the whole east coast together with them. :roll:

Oh, phooey, it’s just a matter of public record.

I was thinking of Martha Stewart in terms of “lots of money”, and also that rich East-Coast lady that was convicted of cheating on her income tax back in the ‘80s.

Didn’t Woody Allen get off from some charges on the East Coast? I think it has to do with high “movie star” appeal, and most of those types are on the West Coast, not the East Coast. Also, I think East Coast juries tend to be a little poorer than West Coast juries, so I think they will convict “big money celebrities” like Martha Stewart, while West Coast juries will let “movie star” type celebrities go. :D

Actually, I have to retract my statement, since it's West Coasters you're against in this case. :lol:

[Jpax2003]

parents should have known better.That was the defense argument. The family knew better and by allowing it set up a possible extortion system.

[Lurker]

Lurker: There is no real solution unless we make the law profession a service rather than a profitable enterprise, and even then defense attorneys assigned by the courts are the failing in the case of defendants unable to pay. It comes down to money buying justice, rather than reasonable doubt. People can be manipulated, and the jury system is no proof against this manipulation. In the current system, the mediocre rise to public service, and the great and the abysmal end up in the public sector, priced accordingly.

Justice depends upon money.
This may be, but it also depends on evidence and the ability to convince 12 people of the defendant's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". Our system of justice is by its very nature tipped in favor of the defendant. The defendant enjoys a presumption of innocence that the prosecution must overcome.

This makes any prosecution problematic, and in a free market those with wealth will enjoy a greater advantage. It is my opinion, however, that our system is stronger because of the advantages given the defendant.

It does, however, bother me that there is a presumption that MJ is guilty and that he bought himself a "not guilty" verdict. I see no evidence that this is the case. From what I have seen, the prosecution did not do a very good job. Perhaps if we want better prosecutors, we should raise taxes and pay them.

[Cylinder]

As I recall from days spent on a criminal jury, isn't the fact that you don't believe some witness' testimony, defendant or not, reason enough to ignore it? Of course, since Jackson didn't testify, that doesn't come into play here, but if the jury just didn't believe the kid or his mother or brother, is that not reason enough to aquit? Any lawyers out there?

Right. A jury is the sole arbitor of the truth and can disregard the entire testimony of a witness or any part that they find that is not credible.

[Doodler]

Weak case, witnesses with credibility issues, and the accuser and mother successfully undermined. I'm not surprised here.

[Melusine]

It's a well known fact that Sam5 doesn't like Northeasterners. I guess now he's just lumping the whole east coast together with them. :roll:

Oh, phooey, it’s just a matter of public record.

I was thinking of Martha Stewart in terms of “lots of money”, and also that rich East-Coast lady that was convicted of cheating on her income tax back in the ‘80s.

Didn’t Woody Allen get off from some charges on the East Coast? I think it has to do with high “movie star” appeal, and most of those types are on the West Coast, not the East Coast. Also, I think East Coast juries tend to be a little poorer than West Coast juries, so I think they will convict “big money celebrities” like Martha Stewart, while West Coast juries will let “movie star” type celebrities go. :D
Sam5, where do you get this stuff?? :roll: :lol: BTW, you are talking about Leona Helmsley. But really, what you're saying sounds like bunk.

Only New Mexico is safe from Sam5's geographic generalizations. :lol:

[Lurker]

Weak case, witnesses with credibility issues, and the accuser and mother successfully undermined. I'm not surprised here.
I would agree.... I don't know that it requires high priced talent to shoot holes in this one. Who made the decision to go forward with this prosecution?? #-o

[The Supreme Canuck]

On an entirely different note...

I'm amazed by all of the attention that celebrity cases get. Can you imagine what we could end up doing if we focused all of that energy on education or something similar?

Just my two cents...

[Staiduk]

On an entirely different note...

I'm amazed by all of the attention that celebrity cases get. Can you imagine what we could end up doing if we focused all of that energy on education or something similar?

Just my two cents...

They get celebrity trials. We get the Liberals. It balances out. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Kristophe]

On an entirely different note...

I'm amazed by all of the attention that celebrity cases get. Can you imagine what we could end up doing if we focused all of that energy on education or something similar?

Just my two cents...

They get celebrity trials. We get the Liberals. It balances out. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Mmm. Harper vs Martin, in a Saskatchewan Street Fight for the title. Live, and only on... CPAC!

[The Supreme Canuck]

Oy. Bloody inquiry! Can't get any other news around here. (I mean, I live in Ottawa!)

:wink:

[Kristophe]

Yeah, that dirty business went away from here a couple weeks ago. We're all ****y at the Tories now, it seems, for trying to force an election. Just wait until C38 comes up for its third reading, though. The East'll be blue again.

[The Supreme Canuck]

What a mess, eh? I'm just tired of the bickering. But, hey, at least I'll get to vote soon enough!

[Kristophe]

For toothpaste, right?

[The Supreme Canuck]

Oh, don't get me started on that commercial. Agh! How vacuous can people get?

"I thought the federal election was a big deal, but this is really important."

Agh! Agh! Agh!

I mean, really...