Jump to content

Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Michael Jackson Verdict Reached

Crime Michael Jackson Verdict Child Molestation Case

  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#101 eloisel



  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 15 June 2005 - 10:34 PM

That is an interesting verdict - "Not Proven."  Does the double jeopardy rule still apply?  Or can it go to trial again until proven one way or the other?

#102 John Galt

John Galt

    The Myth Is True

  • Islander
  • 192 posts

Posted 15 June 2005 - 10:45 PM

DWF, on Jun 15 2005, 09:52 PM, said:

Beware of Jackos!

Posted Image


That is the absolute last thing I expected to see in this thread...or anywhere for that matter.  Thanks for putting that image in my head. ;)

Sigh...poor Jacko.  Well, he got off.  I always admired MJ...he's a self-made man.  While I personally wouldn't sleep with several 8 year old children, apparently he found motivation to do so.  As long as he wasn't molesting them, I suppose there's no real harm in it.

But he'll have to stop now.  In fact, he'll have to change quite a few habits due to the claptrap minds of others.
"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice - which means: self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction - which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good."            —Ayn Rand

#103 Smiley



  • Islander
  • 937 posts

Posted 16 June 2005 - 07:51 AM

John Galt, on Jun 15 2005, 09:45 PM, said:

Sigh...poor Jacko.  Well, he got off.


Sorry, but they found him not guilty of that! ;)

Sorry sorry sorry...I just couldn't resist.
Ha...that's what Jacko said...er..I mean didn't say.
Okay...sorry. It's too early...sorry.
[/exit stage left]
Friends are just enemies that don't have the guts to kill you.
See Ya Space Cowboy

#104 Kosh


    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 16 June 2005 - 08:08 AM

DWF, on Jun 15 2005, 10:52 PM, said:

"Leave me alone, yeah leave me alone, woo, hooo, hoo!!!!!!
Can't Touch This!!

#105 Kosh


    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 16 June 2005 - 08:11 AM

Digital Man, on Jun 14 2005, 05:57 PM, said:

Nonny, on Jun 14 2005, 04:48 PM, said:

Kosh, on Jun 14 2005, 01:15 PM, said:

One thing that made me a bit ill yesterday, was the woman outside the court room who was releasing Doves for each verdict. Don't these folks have something better to do?


Well, at least the doves have something better to do now.  :rolleyes:  



Yeah, like crap all over the heads of those IDIOTIC Michael Jackson fanboys/fangirls.  :angry:  :glare:

Talk about having too much free time on your hands.  :sarcasm: Don't these idiots have  jobs?! Find something constructive to do with your time, insteading of crying crocodile tears over some friggin wierdo of a celebrity who doesn't give a flying f**k about anything but the green-backs you give him.  :angry:

Gah-I HATE fandom.  :angry:


I don't know about everywhere, but here they use white pidgons, who are trained to return home when they are released. They did it at a cousins funeral a couple of years ago, it was very cool.
Can't Touch This!!

#106 Zwolf

  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 17 June 2005 - 09:33 AM

Nice article on the case by my favorite author.   I'll paste the whole thing in since it's one of those "sign up to read" articles, and I hate those.  


Op-Ed Contributor
Unsafe at Any Age
             E-Mail This

Published: June 15, 2005
A TRIAL is not a search for truth. It is a contest, and often, one that produces no winners. In certain cases - the Scottsboro Boys and Roy Bryant and J. W. Milam in the murder of Emmett Till - a trial produces an outcome so repulsive that we are shocked into individual and collective self-examination. Other trials cost us much, but teach us nothing. Guess where the Michael Jackson verdict fits in?

With that verdict, the pious waves of outrage are as misguided as the verdict was predictable. Overwrought posturing to the contrary, "pedophilia" was not on trial; a celebrity was.

Does that mean that if a noncelebrity had committed the sex acts alleged in the Jackson trial, he would be facing the endless years of incarceration we were constantly reminded of throughout the proceedings? No. The truth is that a defendant who pleaded guilty would probably have disappeared into the probation-and-treatment maw without a ripple, resurfacing later as a (possibly) registered and (supposedly) rehabilitated ex-offender. Until the next time.

Ask any experienced defense lawyer: the real risks are for an accused person who is innocent. A guilty defendant has many more options available.

Sure, it's easy enough to blame the Santa Barbara County District Attorney's Office, and hard to imagine a softer target. But a calmer look at the probable motivations behind the acquittal will suggest that the jury could certainly have perceived Mr. Jackson's accuser as a victim, and yet have been unable to come to a decision as to the identity of the true perpetrator.

No matter what the experts proclaim, this trial was not a "swearing contest," not the classic "he said, she said" situation. The jury heard the testimony of the accuser, but not that of the accused. Indeed, had the district attorney presented only the accuser, the verdict might have been otherwise. The prosecution's decision to showcase the accuser's mother - even to the extent of vouching for her in closing argument - was the skull-and-crossbones label on what it was asking the jury to swallow.

The jurors might have believed a child was sexually assaulted by Michael Jackson. But they surely believed the mother of that child was a professional scam artist, a perjurer and a fraud. (Even the prosecution acknowledged that she was a welfare cheat.) And it is certainly within the realm of possibility that they regarded her as something far worse: a mother who trafficked her own child to a potentially dangerous individual in the hope of a multimillion-dollar payoff.

How many jurors wondered why that mother had not been indicted for, at minimum, gross neglect? After all, wasn't this case all about the district attorney's office protecting a child?

Whatever Michael Jackson did or didn't do to the accuser, he didn't lie on the witness stand about it. And some juries take such things very personally. Whatever Michael Jackson may have done, the jury knew he didn't jump out of the back of a van wearing a ski mask and kidnap a victim. The child had been delivered to him. And whatever Michael Jackson may have done, he wasn't wearing a disguise. His most prominent public persona is not that of a musician. (Quick, name his last hit single; extra points for its decade.) Instead, he is best recognized as a bizarre, secretive, hyper-privileged human being who believes that sharing a bed with a little boy is something to which he is entitled.

Michael Jackson has another reputation, too. It is a matter of record that he has paid many millions to settle allegations of child sexual abuse. The jury heard all about that. Did this convince them that Mr. Jackson was more likely to have committed crimes against the accuser in this case? Or that he was more likely to be the target of an extortionist using her own child as bait?

So what have we learned? Inherent in American law is the "clean hands doctrine." You cannot commit a bank robbery and then sue your accomplice when he cheats you out of your share of the loot. This doctrine is applied in civil, not criminal, cases. But perhaps we have just witnessed the birth of a new form of jury nullification, one that demands not only innocent victims, but innocent motives for bringing the case.

The judge would have warned the jury against being influenced by news reports on the case, but could any judge excise from the minds of modern-day jurors the overwhelming impact of "fictionalized fact" TV shows like "Law and Order" and "C.S.I."? When a defense lawyer challenges, "Where's the DNA?" how many jurors, acculturated to the (misguided) belief that there is "always" forensic evidence, nod their heads and hold its absence against the prosecution?

The trial of Michael Jackson was a badly scripted melodrama, rendered even more insipid because we could so easily guess the ending.

IN the months since charges were filed, I have heard people profess intense anguish that Michael Jackson might "get away with it." Each time, I asked these people what other possible miscarriages of justice concerned them, past or present? I asked if they knew that in many states, including New York and California, the penalties for sexual abuse of one's own child are markedly less than those for abusing an unrelated child. I asked each of them if this incest loophole also provoked their outrage; if they were prepared to actually do anything to change such laws. Not one ever answered.

Let us not pretend that the fanatical interest in the Michael Jackson case signals a new wave of concern about child protection throughout the world. Sure, producers are emptying their Rolodexes, and professional pontificators are clogging the airwaves. Yes, the "false allegations" crowd is already crowing that this case proves the validity of their contention that most such prosecutions are a witch hunt. At the same time, the contingent that claims that children never lie about sexual abuse is bemoaning how power and privilege overruled justice. But not one single word of any of this represents change. The only thing altered by the Michael Jackson verdict is that now we won't have to listen to the prison rape "jokes" that would inevitably have followed a conviction.

What does the Michael Jackson verdict mean to the future of child protection in America? Nothing. The verdict only underscores one fundamental, persistent truth: when it comes to child sexual abuse, from public perception to prosecution, nothing has changed. Nothing at all.
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#107 Ilisidi



  • Islander
  • 1,616 posts

Posted 18 June 2005 - 03:11 PM

I saw something on news the other day with Jermaine Jackson saying that Michael never said he slept with boys!!  :eek2:

Er, he said he did on that Bashir special.  

What I've wondered after reading this thread is this, however.  Did he say he slept with the boys in his bed or the boys slept in his bed without MJ??  I think he said he slept with the boys in bed with him.  Whether or not he molested them while they were in his bed with him, I feel its highly inappropriate for a grown man to sleep with anyone's children.  It just doesn't look right.  And for someone in the limelight like himself, he should always be careful about appearances, especially with children.  

Far as allowing children over for a sleepover with someone you know or don't know -- I think different parents do different things.  Whereas, I would hardly allow my child to spend time over some other parent's house let alone sleepover I didn't know (or barely knew), there's someone who doesn't have a problem with that.  Some, just the idea that the person is ok and that your child is friends with their child is ok -- and with MJ's persona to be so Peter Pan-like, child-like and innocent, I could see how its possible that these parents allowed their children to sleepover at his place without suspicion that something untoward was/might happen/ing.

What I've considered especially sad about all this is that -- one, MJ just might well be a bonified pediphile (sp) going untreated and unpunished and if he isn't, he obviously has serious problems that no one, family included, appear to be helping him with.
found this tidbit in the note section!  

Words of Zack RE Tyr: This is just one ex-writer speaking completely non-canonically, but in my mind the most fascinating thing about Tyr was that despite his breeding and socialization to be treacherous, opportunistic, and selfish, it was pretty clear that underneath it all, another aspect of Tyr's personality was to be gentle, loyal, and altruistic. We saw this most clearly in "Distant Drum," where with his memory gone Tyr's default mode was to protect the weak and risk his life for kludges, but it also surfaced in "Its Hour" with Tyr's obvious pride in and protectiveness toward Harper, and then in "All Too Human" (the title says it all), where Tyr is confused and enraged by his own compassion toward Harper. In my own mind at least, Tyr's growth as a character was ultimately to try and merge what was best about the Nietzscheans (energy, intelligence, never say die attitude) with what was best about humanity (empathy, altruism, connectedness with others.)As always, YMMV.

How I remember those days....

#108 GiGi


    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 20 June 2005 - 12:45 AM

^ Yes, on the Bashir video Jackson says something like "the most loving thing someone can do is sharing your bed with someone" and he goes on from there (saying this while holding the boys hand).

It is more revisionist spin like the claim that Michael only had one nose job (ya right).

The Jackson clan is more like a cult if you ask me with all of the half truths and associated twists and turns of a cult. (speaking as someone kidnapped by the Moonies)
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#109 eloisel



  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 21 June 2005 - 10:54 PM

I'd have to listen to the documentary again.  I remember raising an eyebrow over the sleeping in his bed thing, then the explanation was given that MJ gives the bed to his kid friends and MJ sleeps on the floor.  I think several people that have testified on MJ's behalf said that was the case with them also - MJ slept on the floor while they slept on the bed.  Still odd but not quite the same thing as sleeping in the bed with kids.

Now - one little thing I'd like to note about cancer.  If you've ever had it or known someone who has, there is a time during treatment when one isn't very pretty - in fact, one is down right scary -  hair gone or only hanging on in patches, bones visible underneath stretched skin, and worse.  People act weird just being around you.  Not that I ever wanted anybody touching me because my bones hurt, but sometimes somebody not being afraid to touch you helps.

Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Crime, Michael Jackson, Verdict, Child Molestation Case

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users