So Jacko The Wacko Is Backo!!...jaammoooo He He!

[Donna]

Well that's a three month trail over and done with.....and i knew he'd walk away!!! My opinion is he wasn't treated fairly like all other American citizens just because he's so damn popular!!! If it was anyone elso they would have been thrown behind bars ages ago!!!:angry: It's so flippin obvious that when he paid out a million to tell one family not to say anything that something pretty odd was going on in the first place!! WHATS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE!! I want to know what the rest of yaz think about this??????

[Lucy Locket]

Well that's a three month trail over and done with.....and i knew he'd walk away!!! My opinion is he wasn't treated fairly like all other American citizens just because he's so damn popular!!! If it was anyone elso they would have been thrown behind bars ages ago!!!:angry: It's so flippin obvious that when he paid out a million to tell one family not to say anything that something pretty odd was going on in the first place!! WHATS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE!! I want to know what the rest of yaz think about this??????


I think you're right & it happens over here too. If you're rich & famous you get off scot free ('scuse the pun). There was no way he was going to be locked up. Joe Bloggs would have been on death row!!!

[Gadget]

But would Joe Blogs be in the stand in the first place?

[under par]

I am not a Jackson fan.

I want a child molester locked up just like the next person but the first rule of evidence is direct evidence of the offence from a witness who is credible.

The family of the main accuser were proven liars in a previous attempt to defraud a big shopping mall re a law siut for damages. The boy was involved in that too.

How can these golddiggers be credible, would you want a member of your family jailed on the evidence of a proven liar.

It seems lots of children go to jacksons place and have done for years if this is the only and best evidence of the offence the local sherriff can come up with it is an extremly poor case.

Jackson is unwise and ill advised to think with his wealth and fame he can continue to allow kids in his home and bedroom. Some say there is no smoke without fire.. so be it.... but lets send people to jail on the strength of real evidence.

[stewart38]

Jackson is unwise and ill advised to think with his wealth and fame he can continue to allow kids in his home and bedroom. Some say there is no smoke without fire.. so be it.... but lets send people to jail on the strength of real evidence.

Agree

[DianaS]

I am not a Jackson fan.

I want a child molester locked up just like the next person but the first rule of evidence is direct evidence of the offence from a witness who is credible.

The family of the main accuser were proven liars in a previous attempt to defraud a big shopping mall re a law siut for damages. The boy was involved in that too.

How can these golddiggers be credible, would you want a member of your family jailed on the evidence of a proven liar.

It seems lots of children go to jacksons place and have done for years if this is the only and best evidence of the offence the local sherriff can come up with it is an extremly poor case.

Jackson is unwise and ill advised to think with his wealth and fame he can continue to allow kids in his home and bedroom. Some say there is no smoke without fire.. so be it.... but lets send people to jail on the strength of real evidence.

apparently I must spread it about before I rep you again,

Well Said!

[Groovy Dancer]

It seems lots of children go to jacksons place and have done for years if this is the only and best evidence of the offence the local sherriff can come up with it is an extremly poor case.

Jackson is unwise and ill advised to think with his wealth and fame he can continue to allow kids in his home and bedroom. Some say there is no smoke without fire.. so be it.... but lets send people to jail on the strength of real evidence.


:yeah:

[Little Monkey]

I am not a Jackson fan.

I want a child molester locked up just like the next person but the first rule of evidence is direct evidence of the offence from a witness who is credible.
{snip}

Totally agree.

I find Jacko's behaviour extremely odd and suspicious, but unless some real evidence is presented, you can't nail him. One can only hope that the justice system works as it should..... But it does very often seem like the rich and famous get away with rather a lot us mere mortals would have been arrested for....

What I find even more disturbing is the parents who let their kids stay with Jacko for several days alone, and sleeping in the same bed as him!! What normal, caring and sane parent would do such a thing?? :confused: :eek:

Worried Monkey

[Gojive]

apparently I must spread it about before I rep you again,

Well Said!

I'm a little short on my rep giving Diana, so I have some spare :wink:. Since I whole heartedly agree with UP's post, I will gladly oblige :cheers:

[Minnie M]

I am not a Jackson fan.

I want a child molester locked up just like the next person but the first rule of evidence is direct evidence of the offence from a witness who is credible.

The family of the main accuser were proven liars in a previous attempt to defraud a big shopping mall re a law siut for damages. The boy was involved in that too.

How can these golddiggers be credible, would you want a member of your family jailed on the evidence of a proven liar.

It seems lots of children go to jacksons place and have done for years if this is the only and best evidence of the offence the local sherriff can come up with it is an extremly poor case.

Jackson is unwise and ill advised to think with his wealth and fame he can continue to allow kids in his home and bedroom. Some say there is no smoke without fire.. so be it.... but lets send people to jail on the strength of real evidence.
:yeah:
We need a pot for stored rep please :flower:
- great post UP -

[Trousers]

I am not a Jackson fan.

I want a child molester locked up just like the next person but the first rule of evidence is direct evidence of the offence from a witness who is credible.

The family of the main accuser were proven liars in a previous attempt to defraud a big shopping mall re a law siut for damages. The boy was involved in that too.

How can these golddiggers be credible, would you want a member of your family jailed on the evidence of a proven liar.

It seems lots of children go to jacksons place and have done for years if this is the only and best evidence of the offence the local sherriff can come up with it is an extremly poor case.

Jackson is unwise and ill advised to think with his wealth and fame he can continue to allow kids in his home and bedroom. Some say there is no smoke without fire.. so be it.... but lets send people to jail on the strength of real evidence.

Spot on Mr Par. I feel the same way exactly.

Big rep!

[Barry Shnikov]

It seems lots of children go to jacksons place and have done for years if this is the only and best evidence of the offence the local sherriff can come up with it is an extremly poor case.

Jackson is unwise and ill advised to think with his wealth and fame he can continue to allow kids in his home and bedroom. Some say there is no smoke without fire.. so be it.... but lets send people to jail on the strength of real evidence.

So what about the fact that one of his victims - Jordy Chandler, in fact - was able to tell the police about unusual marks on the underside of Jackson's penis? Evidence not aired previously - because Jackson paid $40m to shut him up - and ruled inadmissible (rightly) in this trial. This is why Jackson is free, because he can afford mammoth blackmail payoffs, and enormous legal fees.

And of course, because Californian juries appear to have difficulty telling real life from films. There's a difference between opportunistic lying to get money from a shopping mall (hands up everyone who failed to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth on an insurance claim...) and setting out to entrap Jackson with some scheme that Robert Harris couldn't make us believe...

[Barry Shnikov]

What I find even more disturbing is the parents who let their kids stay with Jacko for several days alone, and sleeping in the same bed as him!! What normal, caring and sane parent would do such a thing??

Oh, I don't know - somebody who lives in a country without free health care and who thinks their child is dying of cancer, and has found a 'celeb' with (apparently) untold millions who uses every ounce of his charm and every cent of his persuasiveness and every one of his well-paid hangers and every glittering thing of his earthly possessions to convince you that something you know in your heart of hearts is questionable is actually OK, oh, and how would it be if I took care of your financial needs for the time being? :what:

[under par]

So what about the fact that one of his victims - Jordy Chandler, in fact - was able to tell the police about unusual marks on the underside of Jackson's penis? Evidence not aired previously - because Jackson paid $40m to shut him up - and ruled inadmissible (rightly) in this trial. This is why Jackson is free, because he can afford mammoth blackmail payoffs, and enormous legal fees.

And of course, because Californian juries appear to have difficulty telling real life from films. There's a difference between opportunistic lying to get money from a shopping mall (hands up everyone who failed to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth on an insurance claim...) and setting out to entrap Jackson with some scheme that Robert Harris couldn't make us believe...

Barry, I'm not saying that Jackson is innocent!

I am merely stating that if the case for the prosecution relies on such poor credible witnesses how can there possibly be a conviction beyond all reasonale doubt. You MUST doubt this evidence.

No one should be convicted on the strength rumour and innuendo or unsubstantiated evidence from doubtful witnesses.

If there is no smoke without fire for Jackson surely the same must true of the Traviso (sp?) child and family.

Justice if there is such a thing must be transparent.

The californian judiciary and the u.s. media circus make a mockery of normal rules of evidence we are used to in this country (not that our system is perfect, but we do make an effort to keep evidence sub-judice!).

In California the evidence from witnesses and opinions of lawyers are paraded on every tv channel and news programme going before during and after the trial.

The trial becomes a PSEUDO popularity competition between the defence and prosecution.

This is great tabloid entertainment for most ......but somebodys liberty is at stake eventually.

Money can buy an election so it goes that money can buy witnesses.

If this has occurred in this Jackson case then he has bought himself out of trouble but do we know this occurred beyond all reasonable doubt?

I only pose the questions I don't claim to know all the answers.

But I would rather 10 guilty persons are found not guilty than one innocent person is incarcerated.

Therefore the evidence should be enough to be beyond all reasonable doubt
not on the balance of rumour and media.

[Barry Shnikov]

But I would rather 10 guilty persons are found not guilty than one innocent person is incarcerated.


Well, quite.

But my gripe is with the fact that the jury could not be convinced by the prosecution apparently as a function on the fact that the Arvizo's were little better than trailer trash.

What do they think, that Jackson or someone like him is going to pick on smart, well-educated and reasonably well off families?

[under par]

Well, quite.

But my gripe is with the fact that the jury could not be convinced by the prosecution apparently as a function on the fact that the Arvizo's were little better than trailer trash.

What do they think, that Jackson or someone like him is going to pick on smart, well-educated and reasonably well off families?


Well you already contradict that by the mcCauly Caulkin (sp?) "evidence"

He was no poor kid!!

But my point stands would you like your family member convicted on the say so of a confirmed liar and cheat!

If he is a confirmed child molester and 1000s of kids have been to Neverland over the years where are all the innocent victims of his assaults????

The Sherriffs office came up with a very poor prosecution if their main witnesses was the Arveso (sp?) family in my opinion. The phrase clutching at straws comes to mind.

I again say if he is a guilty man let the evidence be heard and lock him up after a fair hearing.

[Amir]

I think you're right & it happens over here too. If you're rich & famous you get off scot free ('scuse the pun).


Plenty of famous people have been convicted for plenty of things. Just from memory:

Gary Gliter (child porn)
Hugh Grant, (that prostitution thing)
James Brown (been in prison twice for wife beating)
Robert Downey Jr (in prison twice for drugs, I think)
Lil'Kim (perjury)
Christian Slater (drugs and battery)
Puff Daddy, DMX and a whole bunch of other rappers for anything you can name
Jeffrey Archer (fraud?)
Courtney Love (air rage or something)


Celebrities have the same advantage that all rich people have: they can afford better legal representation.


I don't think the fact that Michael paid another family a lot of money to keep quiet is evidence that he is guilty. If you have the money and the trial is emotionally painful and damaging to your reputation, then what is a few million when you have the rest of your life to get on with, and an income of several million a year anyway.

The previous settlement can also be looked at in a very different way: If my child was molested by a celebrity then no money in the world would convince me to let the culprit off, and go on and do the same to other children.

To me, the fact that the family accepted an out of court settlement causes me to doubt the truth of their claims in the first place. To me, allowing someone go free if you believe abuse took place is like prostituting your own child.


Like others on this thread, I am not saying I know that Michael Jackson is innocent or that he is guilty. But I don't think the jury was sure either, and if you're not sure, you can't send someone to jail.

[stewart38]

This is why Jackson is free, because he can afford mammoth blackmail payoffs, and enormous legal fees.



According to papers , so it must be true, he is very broke

[David Bailey]

According to papers , so it must be true, he is very broke
"Broke" for celebs is different from "broke" for us. As the saying goes. if he owes $150 million to the bank, it's the bank's problem, not his.

I can certainly see him launching his nth comeback with a Live8 performance, then a tour of Europe / Asia.

[Donna]

And of course, because Californian juries appear to have difficulty telling real life from films.


Ha ha, that is soooo true!!! :rofl:

[Donna]

[QUOTE=Amir)


I don't think the fact that Michael paid another family a lot of money to keep quiet is evidence that he is guilty. If you have the money and the trial is emotionally painful and damaging to your reputation, then what is a few million when you have the rest of your life to get on with, and an income of several million a year anyway.

QUOTE]


This did cross my mind in fact.....I think if he's got any sense he wouldn't let anymore kids in his home. Mind you, after all he's been through its bound to have put him off.

[Piglet]

I've got to say that I am disappointed that the *evidence* the jury needed wasn't plain and simple enough to throw everything at Jackson.

Does anyone know how he managed to get away with the charges about giving alcohol to minors? I believed that he'd definitely get a couple of years for that for sure, but heard something on the news where the judge advised the jury that that outcome wasn't necessary a foregone conclusion or something (as you can see I didn't get the whole picture). Can anyone put me in the picture?

[under par]

I've got to say that I am disappointed that the *evidence* the jury needed wasn't plain and simple enough to throw everything at Jackson.

Does anyone know how he managed to get away with the charges about giving alcohol to minors? I believed that he'd definitely get a couple of years for that for sure, but heard something on the news where the judge advised the jury that that outcome wasn't necessary a foregone conclusion or something (as you can see I didn't get the whole picture). Can anyone put me in the picture?

I've got to refer you back to my earlier post on the credibility of the witnesses.

If the jury disbelieve that sex offences took place on the strength of evidence why on earth should they believe any other part of the evidence re lesser offences?

From your tone it appears you want jackson locked up
to throw everything at Jackson where does innocent until proven guilty come into that.

Surely a trial is the oppurtunity for the state to produce evidence that someone has committed a crime and for that evidence to be tested for validity.

If the best case brought against jackson is as flawed as it seems and I'm no expert or regular follower of the trial, but if you take the tabloidism away from the evidence it was a poor case.

Hence no conviction.

[David Franklin]

Does anyone know how he managed to get away with the charges about giving alcohol to minors?Probably because the actual charge was (according to CNN) for "Administering alcohol to enable child molestation".

As far as the main verdicts - a lot of the more convincing evidence was about prior actions; their only relevance to the actual charges was to indicate "he's probably done things like this before". And on those actual charges, there wasn't much evidence other than from witnesses with clear vested interests and histories of being economical with the truth. Reasonable doubt would make it very hard to convict under those conditions - the jury have voiced their disappoinment at the lack of any real evidence.

[Piglet]

Probably because the actual charge was (according to CNN) for "Administering alcohol to enable child molestation".


Cheers for that David - kind of makes sense I suppose.

And to answer Under Par's question - nope, I don't believe the guy is totally innocent. (And I don't read tabloid newspapers so not sure what I said there to make you think I did). But, I also appreciate that the jury came to the best decision they could in the given circumstances and no doubts I would have done the same - however, I don't necessarily believe that the truth comes out in a court case - mainly its clever people using clever words and its a battle of who comes up with the best word argument. Call me cynical - I can take it. :flower:

[Graham W]

Plenty of famous people have been convicted for plenty of things. Just from memory:

Gary Gliter (child porn)
Hugh Grant, (that prostitution thing)
James Brown (been in prison twice for wife beating)
Robert Downey Jr (in prison twice for drugs, I think)
Lil'Kim (perjury)
Christian Slater (drugs and battery)
Puff Daddy, DMX and a whole bunch of other rappers for anything you can name
Jeffrey Archer (fraud?)
Courtney Love (air rage or something)


Celebrities have the same advantage that all rich people have: they can afford better legal representation.


I don't think the fact that Michael paid another family a lot of money to keep quiet is evidence that he is guilty. If you have the money and the trial is emotionally painful and damaging to your reputation, then what is a few million when you have the rest of your life to get on with, and an income of several million a year anyway.

The previous settlement can also be looked at in a very different way: If my child was molested by a celebrity then no money in the world would convince me to let the culprit off, and go on and do the same to other children.

To me, the fact that the family accepted an out of court settlement causes me to doubt the truth of their claims in the first place. To me, allowing someone go free if you believe abuse took place is like prostituting your own child.


Like others on this thread, I am not saying I know that Michael Jackson is innocent or that he is guilty. But I don't think the jury was sure either, and if you're not sure, you can't send someone to jail.

a member of my fav band years ago actually got a longer sentence for drugs possession as he was in the public eye and had to set an example according to the judge (Hugh Cornwell-1981)..

MJ has suffered greatly whatever, maybe for something he hasn't done whereas lots of unconvicted child molesters haven't as they are within family,
& friends. circles.

G