Jackson Cleared

Discuss?
I'm somewhat speechless.

I'm not surprised - all those money grabbers....

Gonna go and listen to some of his stuff before I go to bed :-)

Can't argue with the jury....

He is weired though...........

It's disgusting. It just shows what you can get away with if you are a celebrity. A sad day.

quote:

Originally posted by Naimed-In-NY:
It's disgusting. It just shows what you can get away with if you are a celebrity. A sad day.

It's worse than this.
There will never again be a President of the United States who is not, or is not beholden to, a billionaire. That is not democracy.

There will never be a billionaire and/or celebrity who cannot get acquitted of a crime where legal expertise is a defining factor. That is not justice.

America is broken. And it's breaking the rest of the world. God help us all.

quote:

There will never be a billionaire and/or celebrity who cannot get acquitted of a crime where legal expertise is a defining factor. That is not justice.

Nothing new under the sun.

Liberace, Geoffrey Archer, et al...

Bob

quote:

Originally posted by long-time-dead:
... but would you let him babysit your child ?

Discuss.

The question ought to be:

"....but would you let your child spend the night at a single man's house?"

quote:

Originally posted by bob mccluckie:

quote:

There will never be a billionaire and/or celebrity who cannot get acquitted of a crime where legal expertise is a defining factor. That is not justice.

Nothing new under the sun.

Liberace, Geoffrey Archer, et al...

Bob

But of course, in the long run Archer did not get away and was sentenced to four years for perjury.

As for Jackson, innocent until proven guilty and, in my admittedly inexpert, opinion there was very little evidence, and certainly not beyond any kind of reasonable doubt. The jury clearly agreed. While it's clear that Jackson is a very weird individual, that, fortunately, in itself is no crime. He also laid himself open to this kind of allegation; but, again, stupidity isn't a crime either. That's not to say I condone the way he's behaved, or that, had I any children I'd want them spending time with him: I don't and I wouldn't. However, that again doesn't mean he was guilty.


regards,

Tam

I'm not surprised or disgusted by the decision given that the prosecution didn't produce any actual evidence that Jackson was guilty of anything other than being rather strange.

He's certainly not someone I'd leave my kids with, but I've yet to see any evidence of him being a child molester.

He's a naive, strange man, needs psychiatric help and mixes with some unpleasant people. I'm not sure he's done much more than that.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve G:
I'm not surprised or disgusted by the decision given that the prosecution didn't produce any actual evidence that Jackson was guilty of anything other than being rather strange.

He's certainly not someone I'd leave my kids with, but I've yet to see any evidence of him being a child molester.

Evidence in such cases can consist entirely of testimony by the complainant. Had the complaint no merit it would not have made it past the grand jury process.

Michael Jackson was not part of any Establishment, and I've not seen any part of his case in the press other than those who, for whatever reason, ganged up on him for whatever they could get out of his, er, debt.

I'll never know for sure whether he was innocent or not. Smoke without fire definitely springs to mind, but for the sake of true justice I'm actually quite relieved at the result. Weird he is, but guilty as charged? If in doubt, innocent is the best verdict.

Witch hunts are always ugly.

quote:

Evidence in such cases can consist entirely of testimony by the complainant. Had the complaint no merit it would not have made it past the grand jury process.

Legal systems vary. I don't know if this is the case in the US. It certainly isn't the case in Scotland where corroborative evidence is essential.

quote:

He's a naive, strange man, needs psychiatric help and mixes with some unpleasant people. I'm not sure he's done much more than that.

That Tom, is a pretty fair summation as far as I'm concerned.

I do not of course condone what MJ is alleged to have done with minors, but this is clearly one damaged individual.

His was effectively cheated out of his own natural childhood by parents who drove him hard (with physical abuse?) from a young age.

You've gotta be pretty screwed up to want to seriously alter what was effectively a perfect body and appearance.

It is a sad fact of life that often, those extraordinary individuals who bring joy to millions of ordinary folk, are essentially ill at ease in their own skin (literally in this case!)

John.

A few years ago I showed my younger son the Thriller CD and when he saw the extremely handsome black man on the cover he asked "Who's that?". I replied "That was Michael Jackson when he was still black."
There are so many folk round him who need to be taken to task. Surely the surgeons who distorted his face like that should be held accountable. Was there nobody with any common sense in his employ to tell him that no, it's not a beautiful experience for a 40 year old man to share a bed with a teenage boy?
As I'm writing this I'm starting to think that perhaps he is in fact a perv.

quote:

Originally posted by TomK:

quote:

Evidence in such cases can consist entirely of testimony by the complainant. Had the complaint no merit it would not have made it past the grand jury process.

Legal systems vary. I don't know if this is the case in the US. It certainly isn't the case in Scotland where corroborative evidence is essential.

That's a good point. I am basing my statement on that which obtains in my own jurisdiction.

In New Zealand though, if there is a complaint that tends to corroborate that also forms the substance of a separate charge then there are grounds to apply to have the two charges tried in severance - meaning that entirely separate trials take place for each complainant.

Evidence:
Jackson said, twice, on film (which no-one has claimed was faked): "Sharing your bed with someone is the most natural thing in the whole world".

Fair enough, but when the two people concerned are a forty year old man and someone else's thirteen year old boy, only an American jury could regard that as in any way natural. Bollocks. Weirdness is no excuse for being a kiddie-fiddler.

As he said it he was stroking the plaintiff in this case, who had clearly not yet completely recovered from cancer.

Anecdotal evidence:
He paid the last person who alleged this millions of dollars not to take him to court. This payment was not kept secret therefore disallowing the 'publicity not ruining the career argument.'

Evidence: (admittedly as reported by the press):
A child said Jackson molested him. This is enough usually in the UK if the child concerned convinces a court/jury (in this case it was the child's mother who ‘let him down’).
This allegation was corroborated by several of Jackson's staff, even if some of the ex-staff had an axe to grind.

I wasn't in the Jury, I wasn't at the trial, those of you above who are defending him may be right. Perhaps. Maybe he is just a cuddly weirdo - although even that alone has probably authored extreme levels of psychosis in some of his ‘friends’ - but an American legal system that leads to the jury of a superstar conducting a press conference. A press conference for Christ’s sake, after acquitting him, is a shit legal system. A shit legal system that has patently not secured justice in this case.

If they got the result right, then it was just some fluky co-incidence. They were going to find him innocent, because they wanted to or because they didn’t want to be seen to find him guilty.

The reason that the jury found him not guilty was because they did not believe the complainant or his mother, and there was no other evidence of Jacksons guilt of any of the offences he was charged with.

People "blaming" Jackson being freed on the American justice system obviously haven't been paying any attention to the case presented. Had this case even got to court in the UK I'd have been quite surprised as quite clearly there was not enough evidence on which to convict.

Anyone that honestly thinks that Jackson should have been convicted based on the case presented is quite clearly an idiot, and an idiot I hope never takes their own place on a jury.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve G:
Anyone that honestly thinks that Jackson should have been convicted based on the case presented is quite clearly an idiot, and an idiot I hope never takes their own place on a jury.

The case was thin at best. Everybody involved has behaved disgracefully (from all accounts) and in the end probably all got what they deserved. What punishment do the parents now get for using their child as a blunt instrument? Or in America, is losing punishment enough?

I remember last year I was buying taps (of all things) when a member of staff who had been out for jury service came into the shop to tell her colleagues (in a booming tone that was impossible to ignore) how it had all gone. ‘I could tell he was guilty just by looking at him.. Thanks to me we’ll all sleep safer tonight. People like that shouldn’t be allowed to walk our streets… and so on…’ Enough said. They’re everywhere and I only pray I never end up at the mercy of people like that.

Cheers

Harry

I've heard many a time from people that know jurors that they "decided he was guilty and that was that...". Perhaps; perhaps not - but the point is whether an accused could be unlucky enough to get an entire jury of such narrow-minded fools who won't recognise the gravity of their responsibilities at the appropriate time. On that theme I must say that I am very suspicious of the ability of a majority verdict system to consistently deliver justice. Unanimous = verdict/not unanimous = mistrial - seems to me to be the only proper demonstration of the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".

If there was any doubt that the Tories are now truly scraping the bottom of the barrel, it is dispelled by the news that the blithering Julian Brazier, MP for Canterbury, has been appointed shadow minister for transport. This is in very questionable taste since Brazier does indeed have some knowledge of transport. In August 2001, near his family holiday home in Siena, he killed an Italian motorcyclist.

Brazier admitted that he was driving on the wrong side of the road - "every English driver's nightmare" - when he hit 42-year old Carlo Civitelli while rounding a sharp bend. In mitigation he pointed out that it was a hot afternoon and he had just driven 1,200 miles from England: "Suddenly finding yourself on the wrong side of the road is so easy to do." Scant consolation for the family of Civitelli, whose wife had died of cancer three years earlier and whose baby had been aborted because of her illness.

Brazier, a law'n order fanatic, did not end up serving time in an Italian jail for manslaughter, as some of his constituents had expected and hoped. On the advice of his lawyer, he didn't even attend the court hearing. He was given a four-month suspended sentence and banned from driving in Italy for six months.

(Private Eye, issue 1134)


Fritz Von Well that's allright then innit

Ah yes. The old driving offence chestnut. Knock someone’s brains out with bare hands or blunt object and prepare to spend some time banged up for it. Do it with a car, even pissed out of your brains and it’s frequently a different matter altogether. Sweeping generalisation I know – but perception is a fag paper removed from fact – ask any journalist!

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
On that theme I must say that I am very suspicious of the ability of a majority verdict system to consistently deliver justice. Unanimous = verdict/not unanimous = mistrial - seems to me to be the only proper demonstration of the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Here in Scotland we have an interim finding of "Not proven" which can be used in such cases - it's not without it's own controversy though.

What a jury usually means by a "not proven" verdict is - "we think you're a nasty piece of work and probably did what you're accused of, however it hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt so we're going to let you go - for now". In the English system they'd have to bring in a "not guilty" verdict when in fact that might well not be what they believe.

I understand that a verdict of not proven is available in some jurisdictions in the United States as well. It is discussed here every few years. I would consider it a very dubious addition to the system in New Zealand.

To my reckoning, when the State acts on behalf of (alleged) victims of crime it must adhere to the burden that it sets itself - that the burden of proof rests upon the State; that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused - and in all cases must find for one or the other ie: the complainant or the accused. I don't believe in in-betweens.

It's long past the time that the "justice system" was honest and made three possible verdicts available to a jury.

a) Not guilty.

b) Guilty.

c) An open verdict by reason of wealth and/or celebrity status.

Only my humble opinion, but I thought his behaviour at the beginning of the trial was far too suggestive of the continuing arrogance of a very rich man. One who already knows "they" can't possibly get a conviction provided he paid enough for his lawyers. Now that justice has been seen to be done the public can either punish him by not buying his material. Or he can go back to celebrity status and play with his genitals on stage as often as he likes.

quote:

Originally posted by Nime:

who already knows "they" can't possibly get a conviction provided he paid enough for his lawyers.

Don't forget that the State has almost unlimited resources to bring to bear on the investigation and prosecution of accused people. Something like 70 cops searched the Neverland property. It's easy to say that a reasonable fee buys reasonable doubt but the system is normally heavily weighted in favour of the prosecution.

I can think of one murder case in New Zealand in which, after the second mistrial, the prosecution flew in a blood splatter expert from the US at a cost of 35,000 NZ Dollars for the third trial. That's expenditure on a large scale to secure a single witness for the prosecution.