Michael Jackson: Not Guilty

[tbonekkt]

My opinion: If OJ wasn't convicted, there was no way Michael Jackson would be. :D

Anyone else care to share their opinion?

[omatic]

Hide your kids.

Well, the boys, anyway.

[SilentSpic]

It pays to be white.

[David Byrnes]

Personally, I'm kinda ambivilant about it. I've been following the trial more out of morbid curiosity than anything else. But really, I'm not surprised. The law states that if there's ANY doubt, he must be found innocent.

[pk698]

Wish I'm a celebrity so I can commit crime w/o being thrown in jail.

[YvetteKuhns]

My opinion: If OJ wasn't convicted, there was no way Michael Jackson would be.

I said the same thing. There was a poll on our local news station that asked if you thought he would be found guilty. Of course, I didn't think he would be. That is really sad. There were witnesses and evidence including Michael Jackson admitting to sleeping with the children. The parents accepted hush money and they should be in trouble for pimping out their kids. Shame on all of them.

Why were there so many celebrity character "witnesses" that are useless to the case? If you were going to commit a crime, would you invite your friends to watch? Hmm..... :rolleyes: The police even had videotapes.

This is a sad day. I had to see the news reporting my uncle's fatal accident where he fell asleep while driving and hit a large truck head-on. Then I saw the Michael Jackson verdict. And we were trying to eat dinner. :(

[YvetteKuhns]

The law states that if there's ANY doubt, he must be found innocent.

Who would have ANY doubt? A 47 or 48 year old man must know that sleeping with other people's children (under 18 years of age) is wrong. This grown man dances around and says "hee hee" while he holds his privates in public. He shows all the signs of a child molester by making friends with children and gaining their trust.

My son Mark was enraged by the news coverage. He is very friendly, but we teach him to be cautious. Mark knows that if anyone tries to see or touch his body, he must tell someone he knows and trusts immediately. It may be a family member or teacher that he tells. Hopefully, we can make something good from all this by making everyone more aware of the dangers our children face.

[coldhead]

Yes its so Off The Wall
You Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' here!
I guess he's got to live with the Man In The Mirror. Given the History/Ghosts and Remember The Time In The Closet
For some the case has been a Thriller.
He's a Smooth Criminal.

My opinion: If OJ wasn't convicted, there was no way Michael Jackson would be.
Anyone else care to share their opinion?
You Are Not Alone, They Don't Care About Us
Hide your kids.
Well, the boys, anyway.

Including Ben, Rockin' Robin, Billie Jean & all the P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)'s
It pays to be white.
There'd be Blood On The Dancefloor now, Black Or White Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough...
I guess he'll have to Beat It now.


I think I've got tooo much time on my hands.

[Metro]

Figured that would be the outcome but I think it was the wrong verdict. :(

[Richard Adams]

A presenter summed what this case was based upon - Reasonable doubt. Like stated, reasonable doubt became the extra force that only one side had, Jacko's side. That's why he won.

My two,

Richard.

[Croc Hunter]

Guilty as sin.

Some say he is a 48yr old who still thinks he's a 13yr old boy.
When I was 13 and my friends slept over I never let them sleep in my bed.

[satis]

jeez, what a sheletered childhood, croc. :P Anyway, I figured he would be found innocent. Can't afford to freak out too many people, might have more riots. I think the verdict is as much political as anything else. I haven't a clue if he did it...sure, he's a freak, but can anyone say he's actually done THAT? Bleh....if he'd been found guilty I'd have been surprised. I think the parents should be shot, though. They knew what they were doing.... they were willing to trade their children's chance at a normal life for cash. That's just sad.

[fluKe]

I rekon that now the courts have found him innocent that people should stop accusing him of it.

I myself thought he may have been guilty but that's what the justice system is for and if the jurors who heard ALL the evidence have found him innocent then I guess he must be. I personally thought the case of him supplying alcohol to minors might be true but I guess there wasn't enough evidence.

In the end we have only heard the evidence against him on TV without any cross-examination. Clearly when cross-examined in the courts the witnesses were not so believable and if we had seen what they were like we might have found the same way.


I do think that if he was guilty he would at least have been found so on some of the lesser charges.

As he's been found to be innocent I think people should cut him a break.

[Autoload]

Fluke, let's all understand what "not-guilty" means. Not-guilty DOES NOT mean innocent. Not guilty means that "in this particular instance in time with the evidence at hand, we can't prove you did this particular crime beyond a reasonable doubt."

Perhaps you missed the live interviews today with two of the jurors, "... we believe Michael Jackson has molested children in the past. Just not this child."

I applaud our criminal justice system... the prosecution just couldn't prove THIS case beyond a reasonable doubt and while I'm upset there is a molester on the loose, I'm okay with the fact that the jurors followed the letter of the law in this case. The jury did their job and did it well.

With that said, he is not "innocent" as I (and the jurors) believe he has molested children in the past. There is a special place in Hell for Michael Jackson.

[Richard Adams]

This is in no way a response to anyone's post, but something that came into my mind when reading Autoload's above...

Do you think people tend to focus on the negatives? I'm not just talking this trial or even Jacko. But using him as an example, the millions of records he's sold, the millions of people he has entertained, do you think that this is how he will be remembered?

Richard.

[YvetteKuhns]

I feel that there was plenty of circumstantial evidence, but I am not sure about physical evidence for THIS case. The mother of the victim was not a good witness since she wanted/needed money.

Hearing Jackson's celebrity friends really would not sway me. Hearing witnesses lie for one side or the other was just annoying. There really weren't many credible witnesses.

The verdict was no surprise, but it is still disappointing. The jurors even believe that he was guilty.


let's all understand what "not-guilty" means. Not-guilty DOES NOT mean innocent. Not guilty means that "in this particular instance in time with the evidence at hand, we can't prove you did this particular crime beyond a reasonable doubt."

This is true. This will protect the innocent and unfortunately it can also help the guilty.

With that said, he is not "innocent" as I (and the jurors) believe he has molested children in the past. There is a special place in Hell for Michael Jackson.

This is my feeling which is sad since he was really a sweet boy in the 1970s singing nice songs. Watching him change over the years is like watching the sci-fi channel. He has turned into a monster even in appearance. What a shame. Too bad he couldn't use some of his money for psychiatric help. ;)

[fluKe]

What America needs then is to follow the Scottish system more closely then they have!

Over here we have three options a jury can give: guilty, not-guilty and not-proven. The last one being there so that if the Jury believes the person to be guilty but there is just enough doubt over the evidence to for them to fail to reach a guilty verdict they can find "not-proven" which means that the person is set free but that they can be re-tried later for the same offence when there is enough evidence.

[coldhead]

Maybe the should have tried him in Indonesia. I belive it's guilty til proven innocent over there.

[Mirzabah]

Do you think people tend to focus on the negatives? I'm not just talking this trial or even Jacko. But using him as an example, the millions of records he's sold, the millions of people he has entertained, do you think that this is how he will be remembered?So what are you telling us? That it's ok for a 48yo man to sleep with teenage boys so long as he cuts a mean moonwalk?

[Autoload]

What America needs then is to follow the Scottish system more closely then they have!

Over here we have three options a jury can give: guilty, not-guilty and not-proven. The last one being there so that if the Jury believes the person to be guilty but there is just enough doubt over the evidence to for them to fail to reach a guilty verdict they can find "not-proven" which means that the person is set free but that they can be re-tried later for the same offence when there is enough evidence.

Not wanting to go way off topic, but that's an interesting system. I was not aware of that third possibility. I'm a little troubled by that though. Are there provisions in place that limit the number of times a person can be charged and brought to trial? Without such a law limiting the number, could a overzealous prosecutor could bring you up on charges indefinetly (theoritically) as long as the jury kept passing down a 'not-proven' ruling?

[pilotdoofy]

Once again the race card was played, just as in the OJ trial. As Johnny Cochrane himself once stated, "The color of justice is green."

If we had placed more blacks on that jurey he would be guilty, but with a room full of whites, it would be considered blatanly racist that a black man was convicted on a white jurey.

Seriously, this fight for freedom and equality is completely predjudice and one sided. But Lord, don't get me into a political rant, I can go on for hours.

[Richard Adams]

So what are you telling us? That it's ok for a 48yo man to sleep with teenage boys so long as he cuts a mean moonwalk?

Not at all.

I'm just asking if you think that he will be remembered for doing/not doing what he's done/not done rather than the previous life he led, one of entertainment and showmanship.

Just a general thought.

Richard.

[Coolviper1985]

Hmm if I were powweb I would remove this thead the *(&#((# has already invaded my newspaper my magazines and even my TV :(

Where is it safe? WHERE I ASK!!!!!

[YvetteKuhns]

Hmm if I were powweb I would remove this thead the *(&#((# has already invaded my newspaper my magazines and even my TV

Where is it safe? WHERE I ASK!!!!!

I am sick of hearing about it, too. Just ignore this thread and try to get your mind of Michael Jackson. There are so many people doing the same crime, but when a celebrity does it, we have to keep hearing about it. :rolleyes:

[fluKe]

Not wanting to go way off topic, but that's an interesting system. I was not aware of that third possibility. I'm a little troubled by that though. Are there provisions in place that limit the number of times a person can be charged and brought to trial? Without such a law limiting the number, could a overzealous prosecutor could bring you up on charges indefinetly (theoritically) as long as the jury kept passing down a 'not-proven' ruling?

As far as I'm aware there must be new evidence which is likely to affect the outcome of the case before the defendant can be tried again. This verdict is not used very much though. But the burden of new evidence would stop that situation from happening as it would be likely that new evidence would be enough to convict the person.

If we had placed more blacks on that jurey he would be guilty, but with a room full of whites, it would be considered blatanly racist that a black man was convicted on a white jurey.

I don't agree with that. I don't think it matters (or at least should matter) what colour the jurors are. A guilty man is a guilty man if he is white or black regardless of the colour of the jurors. I really don't think anyone would worry about being called a racist for finding someone guilty of child molestation.

Also for all intents and purposes MJ is more white than most white people...

[YvetteKuhns]

I don't agree with that. I don't think it matters (or at least should matter) what colour the jurors are. A guilty man is a guilty man if he is white or black regardless of the colour of the jurors. I really don't think anyone would worry about being called a racist for finding someone guilty of child molestation.

I think some people are afraid of riots. Michael Jackson is no longer black and he is not white. He is a celebrity and they often can commit crimes and avoid jail time. Some celebrities steal, take drugs or even kill his wife (OJ and Robert Blake). Money and fame is more of a problem than race.

[KarlFry]

Point to Ponder:

Is the world really so tranquil that the "news" can afford to spend 10 minutes every evening on such a trivial matter?

Regardless of your stance on his guilt, innocence, or the way the American justice system does its dance, everyone can concede that there are hundreds of more newsworthy stories every day.

I'd like to hear more about the Downing Street Memo, for one.

-Karl F.
PowWeb Support
http://www.powweb.com

[YvetteKuhns]

Is the world really so tranquil that the "news" can afford to spend 10 minutes every evening on such a trivial matter?

Child molestation is not a trivial matter, but I agree that their was TOO MUCH time spent covering this case that would have been better spent with OTHER news.

Some of the media covers little or no news related to big bad Bush. The website moveon.org had many comments regarding the slanted issues before and after the "re-election". I sent emails and boycotted television stations for refusing to air ads that did not favor Bush.

What ever happened to reporting the news in an unbiased manner? Now it is more about sensationalism for ratings and the truth is warped, hidden or lost. :rolleyes:

[symo]

Back to Tom's original question...

Anyone else care to share their opinion?
Yes. I would.

I am Not crazy!! :D

symo

[Mirzabah]

I'm just asking if you think that he will be remembered for doing/not doing what he's done/not done rather than the previous life he led, one of entertainment and showmanship.So you're saying that people can only be remembered for one thing? Michael Jackson can only be remembered as either someone charged with child molestation, or as a very successful entertainer, but not both, right?

[symo]

So you're saying that people can only be remembered for one thing? Michael Jackson can only be remembered as either someone charged with child molestation, or as a very successful entertainer, but not both, right?
While I certainly wouldn't even dream of speaking on behalf of Richard, Mirzabah, what I got from his post was...

Twenty years from now, the poll will be taken:

Michael Jackson was:

1. A very popular entertainer from the late 1960's through the early 2000's who sung with a family group about teenage confusion, love, relationships, hopes and aspirations, or

2. A weired freak that took little boys to bed

As a Republican (and I'm not trying to interject one iota of politics into the thread), I believe Bill Clinton did a lot of GOOD things for the country, but darned if I can name any (without some help from Goggle), but I do know how to spell Lewinsky :D

I believe Richard Nixon did a lot of GOOD things for the country (Goggle again), but I do remember Watergate and the fact, "he was the President that quit."

I don't think it's about what a person is "capable" of remembering, it's about the fact a person does and will always have a "selective" memory. I believe MJ will be remembered for the bad not the good, since it was brought upon himself, by himself.

symo

[YvetteKuhns]

I will remember Michael Jackson as someone who was a gifted musician who later changed his appearance and molested children. Many people will not remember him as someone "accused of" even if they recall the trial. They will believe he is guilty because he was accused several times, he could not have a lasting relationship with a woman (or man), and he is a strange celebrity. We can still hear his music and remember that he was a gifted musician, too.

[Mirzabah]

Twenty years from now, the poll will be taken:

Michael Jackson was:

1. A very popular entertainer from the late 1960's through the early 2000's who sung with a family group about teenage confusion, love, relationships, hopes and aspirations, or

2. A weired freak that took little boys to bedThen it is ultimately a flawed poll, because most people will be looking for other options, such as:3. A weird freak that sold a bajillion records and was accused of taking little boys to bed.Let's have a look at some other polls:Albert Einstein was:

1. A brilliant physicist

2. Some dude with whacky hairGeorge Washington was:

1. The first president of the United States of America

2. A kid who chopped down an apple tree.

I don't think it's about what a person is "capable" of remembering, it's about the fact a person does and will always have a "selective" memory. I believe MJ will be remembered for the bad not the good, since it was brought upon himself, by himself.For a start, the "selection" is less in people's memories than in what they are asked to recall. Because they artificially force people to choose between a number of equally correct options, silly polls such as you describe are very poor indicators of public opinion. Unfortunately, most media polls are as bad, if not worse than the ones you and I have hypothesized.

Furthermore, the original question implies a homogeneity of opinion that simply does not and will never exist. You might only remember Nixon as a corrupt president who quit, but I can guarantee you that there are plenty of people out there who remember him as a president who was royally shafted by his own party. Even if he was convicted, there would still be a large number of people who will carry a torch for MJ and proclaim his innocenced, just as after his recent acquittal, there are people that believe he is a child molester. At the moment, it is the lynch mob who seem to be making the most noise and attracting the attention of the media, so it might seem that everyone believes MJ is a paedophile, but it is not necessarily the case.

The original question should not have been "how will MJ be remembered", but how will the media choose to portray him? And that too is not a very useful question because the answer will depend on which particular bit of the media you are asking and the prevailing conditions at the time of asking.

[YvetteKuhns]

The original question should not have been "how will MJ be remembered", but how will the media choose to portray him? And that too is not a very useful question because the answer will depend on which particular bit of the media you are asking and the prevailing conditions at the time of asking.

Your points are well taken and your analogies are good, too. I personally don't have selective memory and will remember both good and bad. Will I burn MJ's recordings because of this? No. I would like to remember and enjoy his music from his childhood (and mine). But I won't forget the media, either. And the media did portray him badly, but I think many people believe he is guilty since he has been accused several times for the same crime. Of course, some people may have been swayed by the media.

[symo]

For a start, the "selection" is less in people's memories than in what they are asked to recall. Because they artificially force people to choose between a number of equally correct options, silly polls such as you describe are very poor indicators of public opinion. Unfortunately, most media polls are as bad, if not worse than the ones you and I have hypothesized.
Good point and with which I agree.

Now, depending on how string theroy works into unification thing, I'm going to stick with whacky hair (Einstein) :D

symo