Is Michael Jackson guilty as charged?

I really don't care.

The prosecution are either inept, or their case is pretty thin. Certainly what is portrayed in the UK media does not seem terribly convincing.

The man and his world are clearly pretty wierd, but the evidence of abuse seems contradictory at best.

No forensic evidence ever suggested either-or did I miss that?

I still remain to be convinced that he should have custody of his own kids though.

Bruce

that it is a civil and not a criminal trial says a whole lot.

The abuse charges are historical in nature so the suggestion that the allegations lack weight because there is no forensic evidence is specious. These sorts of matters are decided by juries who consider the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution and the defence.

From what has been presented in the media it doesn't look good for Jackson from my point of view. However, I have not had the advantage of witnessing at first hand the demanour of the witnesses to date, their presentation, whether or not they embellish their answers and so forth.

quote:

Originally posted by John Sheridan:
that it is a civil and not a criminal trial says a whole lot.

Huh? The case against Jackson is certainly criminal. He faces jail. Were that particular remedy available in civil cases I think a whole lot more people would sue!

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Huh? The case against Jackson is certainly criminal. He faces jail.

my apologies, shows how much attention I've been paying. That was the last case.

It seems pretty clear currently that the witnesses are extremely flakey and have tried this sort of scam many times. I think MJ might win this.

I don't know if he's guilty or not but I'd be quite surprised if he's convicted on the basis of the evidence mentioned so far.

Oh, come on, the man is a serial child molester, and should be sent down for 20 years or so. Do you not see a pattern of child molestation in his behaviour?

Of course, 5 years away may be enough if his face continues to dissolve at current rates.

G

If any of you have 8 to 12 year old sons, ask yourselves the following question: would you let your son sleep in the same bed as that man, however "innocent" his intention?

If he does get off, I hope that someone cuts his balls off (preferably without the use of anaesthetic).

As may be clear, the man disgusts me!

Graham

from the information available I think it's impossible to tell if he is guilty or not. From the past history of the family making the allegations it does sound plausible that they are just trying to make money out of it.

I read somewhere, and I agree, that the saddest thing about the case is that it is a very serious charge and the whole thing is a media circus. In the states there is a renactment of the trial in the evenings and it is more comical than serious.

Not wishing to go once again down this well stamped upon route, but I was wondering about the 'New Evidence' that' going to be shown to the court before the prosecutions summing up (which is soon) before he gets a chance to actually defend himself at last. Imagers of naked boys was mentioned, now does this rtelate to say 'Playgirl' or a Gay magazine quite legally and openly available in just about every shop across the country. or is this some illegal porn, that has been found out of the blue at Neverfairyfairyland ?


Fritz Von I've alöways maintained that he's innocent of these charges, and still do, but I'm glad the good old hang em high-vigilante brigade have shown their true colours 'Once Again' innit

I wonder just how much faith any of us have in our peers - given that a jury of twelve is made up of them?

Personally, I think that the laws of probability are just on my side and that if twelve adults are drawn from all parts of society and put together in a jury for the purposes of deciding my guilt (or "not guiltyness" because courts don't decide innocence) then one (but not necessarily more) of them will be reasonable. As an aside, I object to the proposal that jury decisions be changed in New Zealand to majority vedicts - rather than unanimous verdicts as we have now.

So the question for me is whether or not I trust an American jury to convict or acquit Michael Jackson properly and fairly. I certainly have no faith in the news media to give me any kind of reliable idea about the man.

Are you mean as there are no blacks on this jury as I mentioned months afore ?


Fritz Von Bring back a flick of the dice, we can't trust bloody lawyers never mind the jury

Is Michael Jackson black? Is child molestation a racial issue? Can only "racially balanced" juries make fair decisions about evidence? What does the average black American have in common with Michael Jackson?

And so on...

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Is Michael Jackson black?

Nope - I think he is a "whiter shade of pale".......

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
What does the average black American have in common with Michael Jackson?

Less money than the average white American ?

The next episode: Michaels lawyers appeal and appeal and appeal.......
When does the movie come out and who will play Michael?

quote:

Originally posted by Lomo:

who will play Michael?

I reckon La Toya is a spitting image of her brother. Same nose even - and that's saying something!

Unhinged freaks like MJ should be locked up ANYWAY; clearly there's a need to keep him away from kids and has been for many years.

I suspect he's been up to all sorts of unsavoury things with minors - trouble is he doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with it.

Bloody freak!

EW

_________________________________________________

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Is Michael Jackson black? Is child molestation a racial issue? Can only "racially balanced" juries make fair decisions about evidence? What does the average black American have in common with Michael Jackson?

And so on...

___________________________________________________
Not anymore, no, evidently, absolutely nothing.

There were black people in the jury for the O.J. Simpson trial - or at least that is my recollection.

So Fritz, why does the racial makeup of the jury in the M. Jackson trial matter?

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
why does the racial makeup of the jury in the M. Jackson trial matter?

They have to be "racially balanced" - presumably due to differing symapthies between white and black jurors for a black defendant. How that can be interpreted for MJ defies imagination though - given that he's neither black nor white, and is only barely recognisable as human after all that surgery! Perhaps they need to add an alien to the jury, just to be fair!!

EW

He just might be guilty