Good ol' Jacko got off.

[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?

[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

-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

-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??

[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.