Good ol' Jacko got off.

[White trash]

Yup, not a single guilty verdict.

I need that fuckers lawyer........

[Quasievil]

http://www.cnn.com/

[bugjuice]

just watched it on the box meself..
his lawyer is the one to get WT... or OJ's if Jacksons' one is a bit busy now.

[bugjuice]

ahhh quasi double posted..
yeah, his should do for ya. Either him or OJs'..

[White trash]

http://www.cnn.com/

3 minutes too late baldy.

I scooped ya!

[vifferman]

:whocares: He's still a sad excuse for a human bean. :weird:

[vifferman]

:whocares: He's still a sad excuse for a human bean. :weird:

[White trash]

:whocares: He's still a sad excuse for a human bean. :weird:

Fucken am not!

"Know me before you judge me...."

[bear]

What a joke! Money buys justice in the good old USA!

[placidfemme]

What a joke! Money buys justice in the good old USA!

It certainly does... even though he already owes millions in debts... money still talks

[Zed]

Apparently Hollywood's making a movie about it called "Jacko: Above The Law". :nono: jk

If the judge & jury found him 'not-guilty' then so be it. :mellow:

[Lou Girardin]

In the grand tradition of OJ, Wacko Jacko is an innocent freak.
Amerika, the best justice system money can buy.
It seems that the only reason the jury took so long is that they had add credibilty to the stories they'll sell. "We endured hell for Michael"

[Motu]

His money problems are over - he'll counter sue for defamation and whatever else his lawyers think up.

[NC]

What a joke! Money buys justice in the good old USA!
Like OJ Simpsons blood soaked leather gloves that "didn't fit"...

[placidfemme]

His money problems are over - he'll counter sue for defamation and whatever else his lawyers think up.

That is true.... so now he is going to be rich again :argh:

[Quasievil]

3 minutes too late baldy.

I scooped ya!

Surprised you werent implicated in the trial ya pervy prick:motu:

[MSTRS]

Now we wait for the Civil case to be brought against him. People with agendas don't accept defeat.

[Paul in NZ]

eeerrmmm.... Hang on a minute....

I don't like Mr Jackson as a person or think much of his music but I think even less of the 'merkin entertainment industry that has been our main source of 'information' about this trial.

Jacksons defence team did a good job (by all accounts) and poked some very big holes in a pretty dubious (or at worse badly prepared) case bought by the prosecution. The defence team were actually so confident that they streamlined their defence reducing the court time by at least a month! Thats not something you can say about OJ's case...

But when it comes down to it, what do we really know about the case?? Only the juicey tit bits served up by the media whos only interest is to keep our eyes glued to the set or our money coming to purchase the newspapers and magazines.... We didn't get all the boring 'factual' stuff, just the highlights and inuendo. Thats not enough to condem someone over. We have to trust the judge and jury did it's job!

Remember people. The state did not prove their case and Mr Jackson is innocent until PROVEN guilty! A week or so back we had people here beating their chests about Ms Corby predicament in Bali and demonising their justice system! Well this is the other side of that. In Bali a defendant must prove their innocence and in the USA a prosecuter must prove guilt! Which would you prefer to live under???

The system works 99% of the time. Jackson got off because the state did a bad job assembling and presenting his case and because he could afford competent lawyers that could poke big enough holes in it! If you disagree with that, this is your right but have a look at the evidence. Nearly everyone that has had a go at whacko jacko has had another axe to grind or an ulterior motive! In this case, the 'justice' may have worked!

Paul N

ps - The guy is a friggin nutter though and no way would I let one of my kids stay with him! The person I feel most sorry for is the boy at the centre of all this. Bad luck to get parents like his...

[Paul in NZ]

That is true.... so now he is going to be rich again :argh:

I'm not sure he will be able to do that! I'm just guessing but the state will have some protection against that! He can't sue the accuser 'cos they aint got no money!

Hey the guy is a friggin nutter but so what? You don't need to look far to find worse than him!

[Darryboy]

I doubt he'll counter sue for any amount of money. The family that sued him wouldn't have any worthwhile cash anyway. As they were living on handouts due to the expenses of one of the kids cancer treatments.

I doubt the jury was paid out for this one. The defense was very strong and don't you have to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

-edit-
I take too long to type.

Paul summed it up quite nicely I think

[Lou Girardin]

Jacksons defence team did a good job (by all accounts) and poked some very big holes in a pretty dubious (or at worse badly prepared) case bought by the prosecution. The defence team were actually so confident that they streamlined their defence reducing the court time by at least a month! Thats not something you can say about OJ's case...
...

They 'streamlined' their case because the Judge would not allow a stream of purely character witnesses. Otherwise you would have seen dozens of "Michael is a great guy" witnesses.

[Biff]

I listened to the verdict live on radio this AM, and I couldn't believe how 'excited' I was when the verdict for all 10 counts, including the lesser charges were read out.

What amazes me is that when I eventually got into the office all the ladies here were adamant that the jury was wrong and that he is "definitely" guilty! Placing my sarcastic hat on I quipped that I hadn't realised that all of the ladies in my office had been off for three months and sat on the jury, listening to all of the evidence and being privileged enough to have the judge explain to them the technicalities behind each charge laid against him.

So many people are happy to judge people, especially media stars, based simply on junk journalism, prejudices, chit chat and rumours. Sure the guy is two cakes short of a picnic, as would most people had they had the upbringing he had.

IMHO and from what I've seen and heard of the trial (I'm sad, I watched the trial re-enactments and court transcripts most evenings on the E channel) this guy is nutty and has had a whole lot of people take advantage of his mental disposition, status and wealth.

I for one wish him all the best for the future and hope he manages to surround himself with people that genuinely care for him and are not out to make a quick buck for themselves.

[zadok]

It was an obvious result, that I have been tipping for ages; not that I think he's totally innocent mind you.
I wonder when the next pyjama party will be? :weird:

[ManDownUnder]

Apparently Hollywood's making a movie about it called "Jacko: Above The Law". :nono: jk

If the judge & jury found him 'not-guilty' then so be it. :mellow:

Yup - I'm with you. I don't know all the facts and I daren't presume to know more than the jury. If that's waht happened - let's accept it.

I still think he's a little stuffed up in a number of areas - but that's grounds for sympathy, not harrasment.
MDU

[MrMelon]

Good ol' Jacko got off.

Isn't that the reason he was on trial in the first place? :weird:

[Lou Girardin]

Yup - I'm with you. I don't know all the facts and I daren't presume to know more than the jury. If that's waht happened - let's accept it.

I still think he's a little stuffed up in a number of areas - but that's grounds for sympathy, not harrasment.
MDU

Unless he IS guilty and continues to prey on kids.
Almost anyone else would now be heading to jail.

[ManDownUnder]

Unless he IS guilty and continues to prey on kids.
Almost anyone else would now be heading to jail.

To clarify - if he did it, then I say cut his nuts off...
Actually I should have said - find out WHY he did it, and address that. If he's stuffed in the head - help the poor guy. If he's only doing what he think's is normal, educate him, and if it's an excess of Testoterone... well there are a number of cures to that too.

But to clarify my point... I am not qualified to determine that and I'll proclaim my ignorance (and my associated right to remain neutral on it) till the cows come home.

He has been through "due process" and come out of it proclaimed innocent. I'll accept that simply because I'm not privy to anything allowing argue for or against.

I like these nice comfortable fences

MDU

[manuboy]

I'd be stoked the jury found Wacko innocent of all 10 counts. Imagine the cost to the taxpayer if it went the other way. You'd have to build the prick his own prison - a self contained isolation cell wouldn't have cut the mustard.

How many cons would have been lining up to give Micheal some of the good stuff?

On the other hand they could just have sent him to G Bay. It has it's own form of justice i hear.

Or maybe he could have gone to one of the other military detention centers - the detainees there dont seem to have any complaints... not since one good ol lass got blamed for all the beatings....

On the plus side at least this shit got more press than Janets tit - so there is still some form of balance....

[White trash]

I'd be stoked the jury found Wacko innocent of all 10 counts. Imagine the cost to the taxpayer if it went the other way. You'd have to build the prick his own prison - a self contained isolation cell wouldn't have cut the mustard.

How many cons would have been lining up to give Micheal some of the good stuff?

On the other hand they could just have sent him to G Bay. It has it's own form of justice i hear.

Or maybe he could have gone to one of the other military detention centers - the detainees there dont seem to have any complaints... not since one good ol lass got blamed for all the beatings....

On the plus side at least this shit got more press than Janets tit - so there is still some form of balance....


And might I be the first to welcome you back.........

Good to have another sick deviant here again. :niceone:

[Paul in NZ]

Unless he IS guilty and continues to prey on kids.
Almost anyone else would now be heading to jail.

You are presuming guilt which in this case may not be true! However, If mr j and his people don't tighten up on his personal life from here on in... He needs new advisors...

I doubt anyone else would not have gone to court because the prosecution would not have been allocated the resources to dredge up some of the bizarre 'evidence' that these guys did... The DA would not have proceded with this case if just 'ordinary' people we involved.

remember that the state assembled a pretty good team as well...

Cheers

[Eurygnomes]

It's not like they could find a 'jury of his peers' though is it? *grin*

Having said that, if they jury found him innocent on all 10 counts, then that does indicate that his defense team did a better job than the prosecutors. That's all it REALLY shows.

But hey, I don't know the bloke, so I'm not about to cast stones of judgement on whether he IS guilty or not. But like someone else said, I wouldn't be having my (nonexistant) kids stay over at his place. Me, on the other hand, did you see that ferris wheel? And apparently there are bumper cars!?!? Come on...lemme have a go...

N (too old, and too female apparently! *wink*)

[idb]

But hey, I don't know the bloke, so I'm not about to cast stones of judgement on whether he IS guilty or not.
I'm of the opinion that the fact that you don't know him means that you can cast judgement on him.
The Michael Jackson (and any celebrity for that matter) we see is only a figment of the (collective) imaginations, agendas, reportings of reporters, lawyers, publicists, critics etc.

They only become real when you meet them.

[sels1]

Isn't that the reason he was on trial in the first place? :weird:

:rofl: might have had a hand in it.... :rofl:

[SPORK]

...And Justice For All

by Metallica



Halls of Justice Painted Green
Money Talking
Power Wolves Beset Your Door
Hear Them Stalking
Soon You'll Please Their Appetite
They Devour
Hammer of Justice Crushes You
Overpower

The Ultimate in Vanity
Exploiting Their Supremacy
I Can't Believe the Things You Say
I Can't Believe
I Can't Believe the Price You Pay
Nothing Can Save You

Justice Is Lost
Justice Is Raped
Justice Is Gone
Pulling Your Strings
Justice Is Done
Seeking No Truth
Winning Is All
Find it So Grim
So True
So Real

[JohnBoy]

no wonder he has had money issues... must be getting exspensive to buy off all those people!

[gav]

Oh well, at least OJ will have a golfing buddy now........ :whocares:

[Indiana_Jones]

Well I'm not surprised he got off, it's just one person's word against another, could go one way or the other. :weird:

But I love michael's lines

"But when you say bed, you think of something sexual, but it's not. We have cookies and it's quite charming..." AHAHAHAHA ahh.. :rofl:

-Indy

[inlinefour]

Like OJ Simpsons blood soaked leather gloves that "didn't fit"...

But only because getting them wet with blood made them shrink...

[inlinefour]

But only because getting them wet with blood made them shrink...

Gotta agree with Paul in NZ and Biff on this one. Anyone who reckons M.J. is guilty with no proof has an attitude problem. I work in a Psychiatric Unit and reckon M.J. ain't far from it. But to make a blanket statement that he is guilty, that just sucks. Althoough he is that bizzare, I can understand people wondering it...

[crap, thought I hit edit, not quote]

[Waylander]

Personally I don't care if he did it or not but to all you who say "if he did lets find out the resons behind it" would you be saying the same thing if he screwedup your ride? Hell no. Doesn'tmatter what drove someone to do shit it only matters if they did it or not. If they did, punish them according to the crime. If not then let them go. That is the real reason for the justice systems in the states being the shit can that they are. Everyone is too concerned about the accused to worry about the victom.

[6Chris6]

Does anyone find it at all strange that MJ was arrested (with plenty of media coverage) and put in handcuffs (WTF!) On the exact same day that our old mate George Dubbleya admitted to there being no weapons of mass detruction (becoming a really annoying cliche) in Iraq.
Strange eh!

[spudchucka]

I think this came down to the credibility of the accuser and in particular his mother.

[Lou Girardin]

Some jury members just didn't like the mother, so found Michael not guilty. Like voting, there may come a time when a minimum IQ will be required for jury members.
Wacko is now equating his aquittal with the freeing of Mandela and the fall of the Berlin wall.
The danger for all his little friends now, is that he'll believe he's untouchable by the law.
And, isn't it strange that his "love" for kids only extends to having boys in his room for sleep-overs.

[NC]

Does anyone find it at all strange that MJ was arrested (with plenty of media coverage) and put in handcuffs (WTF!) On the exact same day that our old mate George Dubbleya admitted to there being no weapons of mass detruction (becoming a really annoying cliche) in Iraq.
Strange eh!
I was working on the theory that MJ was a kiddy fiddler, fuck he's a freak. :oi-grr:

[scumdog]

Yeah, juries are as unpredictable as a "p" junkie, sometimes you just can't fathom their rationale for their decission :weird:

[Hitcher]

Tui wasted no time getting up their new billboard at the Basin Reserve yesterday:

"Not guilty!" (Yeah, right)

[idb]

Gotta agree with Paul in NZ and Biff on this one. Anyone who reckons M.J. is guilty with no proof has an attitude problem. I work in a Psychiatric Unit and reckon M.J. ain't far from it. But to make a blanket statement that he is guilty, that just sucks. Althoough he is that bizzare, I can understand people wondering it...
But my point above was that the Michael Jackson we see is not real.
He is only there for our entertainment to discuss, argue over and judge as we see fit.
I don't think we should be too concerned about being even-handed on this.

[spudchucka]

Some jury members just didn't like the mother, so found Michael not guilty. Like voting, there may come a time when a minimum IQ will be required for jury members.
Wacko is now equating his aquittal with the freeing of Mandela and the fall of the Berlin wall.
The danger for all his little friends now, is that he'll believe he's untouchable by the law.
And, isn't it strange that his "love" for kids only extends to having boys in his room for sleep-overs.
Maybe now he'll be made the the new patron for NAMBLA.

[Biff]

Some jury members just didn't like the mother, so found Michael not guilty.

A jury member said she didn't like the fact she snapped her fingers. No other Jurors have said anything else about liking or not liking her, only that she wasn't credible, contradicted herself, failed to answer the questions put to her when in court and was proven to be untrustworthy..

The boy admitted to his school teacher that nothing happened at MJs and that his mother told him to make these allegations.

In the words of the jury foreman,” There was simply no evidence"

Come off it Lou, as I've just said there was simply no evidence. So your snide allegations are groundless, unless you have something to tell us all. Ever been to Neverland for a sleep over? :whistle:

[idb]

They should have given the trial to Touchdown Productions to televise.
We could have texted in to vote on the credibility of the various witnesses and for the grand final, voted whether to send MJ to prison or not.
'Pop Trial' if you will.

[madboy]

They should have given the trial to Touchdown Productions to televise.
We could have texted in to vote on the credibility of the various witnesses and for the grand final, voted whether to send MJ to prison or not.
'Pop Trial' if you will.Yeah, American Weirdo. The winner gets their legal fees paid, the others get knee pads for the prison block showers.

As has been stated more eloquently by others before me - the guy's a freak, he's got issues. Is he guilty? Who friggin cares.

But has anyone looked at the parents? Not his, the parents of the kids who were allowed to "sleep over". I wouldn't be letting my kids stay in that environment - fiddling or not, I just don't think it's a particularly good idea to expose your child to the possibility, whether real or not. Would any of you parents out there let your pre-pubescent kids stay with a rock star?

[Skyryder]

I think this came down to the credibility of the accuser and in particular his mother.

Absolutly. Just love that word credibility. Seem to remember the 'gloved one' paying mega bucks so that a law suit would not take place. I think Jackson and the mother have a lot in common.


Skyryder

[spudchucka]

Absolutly. Just love that word credibility.
It means a great deal when you are dealing with a jury, regardless of which side you are on.

[Big Dave]

Tui wasted no time getting up their new billboard at the Basin Reserve yesterday:

"Not guilty!" (Yeah, right)

Nice
Always amazes me that there are guys that sit around a table and plan that sort of shit.
I've worked in a few agencies. Mainly making it look good, but have sat in fair few editorial meets too.

Best I got published was for 'Kennard's Hire'. Large Plant and equipment place.

'You don't have to work for Kennard.....'
etc etc

but it got yanked after a short run.
Goal!

You ever see the 'sofa king' one?

[Skyryder]

It means a great deal when you are dealing with a jury, regardless of which side you are on.

With a jury yes it does. If a witness is not credible you simply can not take their word for the truth. However in Jacksons case credibility is a two edged sword. He maintained his innocence in an earlier molestation 'incident' (1994) and pays off his accuser. Now I'm all for innocence until prooven guilty but in Jacksons case I am of the opinion that by paying 15,000000 is tantamount to guilt. In other words is it credible to believe that an innocent man pays of this sum of money?

But let's look at Jacksons credibility a little deeper.

A redacted version of the settlement agreement was prepared in connection with a May 1996 lawsuit brought against Jackson by the child's father, who claimed that the singer breached terms of the 1994 legal agreement during a June 1995 interview on ABC's "Primetime Live." During that chat with Diane Sawyer, Jackson and then-wife Lisa Marie Presley accused the boy of fabricating his tales of sexual abuse. Those televised statements, the father argued, violated a provision of the 1994 agreement guaranteeing that Jackson would not publicly accuse the boy or his parents of "any wrongful conduct whatsoever." As part of the 1996 lawsuit, a California judge ordered that counsel for Presley--who married Jackson in May 1994 and divorced him in January 1996--be provided with the heavily redacted version of the 31-page settlement document. (22 pages).

I have italicised the relevent parts. So here's a man who agrees to a condition as a term of settlement and when it suites him breaks it. Like I said credibility is a two edged sword and Jackson has cut himself with both edges.



Skyryder

[El Dopa]

He has been through "due process" and come out of it proclaimed innocent.
MDU

No, actually he hasn't. He has been through due process and found 'not (proven) guilty'. There's a world of difference between 'not guilty', and 'you're innocent'.

You might be interested to know that scottish law allows a court to return a verdict of 'not proven', which means 'we know you did it, but the prosecution never managed to produce a smoking gun with your fingerprints on it.

Personally, I feel that would have been appropriate for this trial.

[Skyryder]

No, actually he hasn't. He has been through due process and found 'not (proven) guilty'. There's a world of difference between 'not guilty', and 'you're innocent'.

You might be interested to know that scottish law allows a court to return a verdict of 'not proven', which means 'we know you did it, but the prosecution never managed to produce a smoking gun with your fingerprints on it.

Personally, I feel that would have been appropriate for this trial.

You raise an intersting point when you mention Scotish law. The Not Proven verdict can be interperted in two ways.

1 You are guilty and and the prosecution has failed to get a conviction. (This you allude to in the smoking gun)

2 Your defence has failed to gain a not guilty verdict.


In both cases guilt is attached by way on inuendo. While the public may wish to attest Jackson's guilt one way or another I am of the opinion a judicial system should declare guilt or innocence on the evidence placed before it.

The jury have declared that 'the mother ' is not credible and as such can not be believed. I hold that is also equally true for Jackson for reasons stated elswhere in the forum.

In both our's and the American judicial system a not guilty verdict 'is' a statement of innocence.

Skyryder

[Indiana_Jones]

We'll do ye old tests.

He must pick a rod or of the bottom of a cauldron full of boiling water, if it blasters, he is surely guilty.

If failing that. Do the axe test. place his neck on a block, and swing an axe on it, if the axe bounces off, he is surely guilty, but if it goes clean through, he is inoncent :niceone:

-Indy

[Gremlin]

We'll do ye old tests.

He must pick a rod or of the bottom of a cauldron full of boiling water, if it blasters, he is surely guilty.

If failing that. Do the axe test. place his neck on a block, and swing an axe on it, if the axe bounces off, he is surely guilty, but if it goes clean through, he is inoncent :niceone:

-Indy
You forgot the witch test, used for err... WITCHES!

Weights tied to feet, chucked in lake. If you rose, then surely you were a witch, and were promptly burned at the stake. If not a witch, then you would not rise would you?? :no:

[spudchucka]

Like I said credibility is a two edged sword and Jackson has cut himself with both edges.



Skyryder
I agree with you, Jackson is lucky that the prosecution case didn't have much in the way of credible witnesses, thats why it fell over. Jackson's own credibility is of limited value unless he actually gives evidence himself and can be cross examined.

[2_SL0]

I agree with Biff and Paul, but does anyone know if the family can now pursue a
civil case against him, or can we all say $$$$$. I believed thats what happened in 1994, he settled the civil case with a payout purely tobring it all to a quick end, likely to be the cheaper option. Im know MJ fan, but I dont feel he neccessarily did these things. He sure is a nut, just may not be that flavour nut. :weird:

[El Dopa]

In both cases guilt is attached by way on inuendo. While the public may wish to attest Jackson's guilt one way or another I am of the opinion a judicial system should declare guilt or innocence on the evidence placed before it.

The jury have declared that 'the mother ' is not credible and as such can not be believed. I hold that is also equally true for Jackson for reasons stated elswhere in the forum.

In both our's and the American judicial system a not guilty verdict 'is' a statement of innocence.

Skyryder

Good points. I withdraw my earlier comment about his guilt.