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

#41 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 13 June 2005 - 04:56 PM

This has really got to upset the DA...the one who dealt with Jackson before, and who Michael dissed in a song, calling him a dirty dog. Because, IMO, that's the only reason these charges were pressed. He had a thing for Jackson, and wanted revenge.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#42 Vapor Trails

Vapor Trails

    In a world where I feel so small, I can't stop thinking big.

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 16,523 posts

Posted 13 June 2005 - 05:08 PM

eloisel, on Jun 13 2005, 04:49 PM, said:

No wonder MJ paid off the kids from before.  Even with his day in court, even found NOT GUILTY - there will always be people who will insist he is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

HE BEAT IT, BEAT IT, BEAT IT, BEAT IT-


:eek4:

Well, he did!!

:oh:
Posted Image

Politicians are like bananas; they hang together, they're all yellow, and there's not a straight one among them.

"We're relevant for $ and a vote once every two years. Beyond that, we're completely irrelevant, except of course to consume, and preach the gospel according to [insert political demigod here]."--Cait

#43 Josh

Josh

    He stares...

  • Islander
  • 13,774 posts

Posted 13 June 2005 - 05:11 PM

Was there even any CONCRETE proof that he was guilty, ignoring people's preconceptions of the man? This case strikes me as about as nebulous as the OJ one was (and about as annoying).
"THE UNICORNS ARE NOT TO BE TRIFLED WITH!" - John Burke.

#44 eloisel

eloisel

    Non-sequitur

  • Islander
  • 1,998 posts

Posted 13 June 2005 - 05:12 PM

Where is Weird Al when you need him?

#45 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,634 posts

Posted 13 June 2005 - 05:13 PM

I knew he would be acquitted, because the accuser and his family were so obviously out for dough that there would never be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  I do hope that someone who cares about the obviously very emotionally disturbed Mr. Jackson will keep him away from children.  On the other hand, who is ever going to believe an accusation from a parent crazy enough to have left their kids alone with Jacko after all this?

I think it's conceivable that Jackson gets sufficient jollies from playing with kids and sleeping with them without touching them inappropriately.  He had no childhood and is clearly trying to recapture it by creating a child's paradise for himself and his little friends.   He is obviously sexually aroused by little boys, but he may be able to satisfy this attraction without ever touching them.  Unlikely, I'll admit, but not impossible.

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#46 Vapor Trails

Vapor Trails

    In a world where I feel so small, I can't stop thinking big.

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 16,523 posts

Posted 13 June 2005 - 05:15 PM

Josh, on Jun 13 2005, 05:11 PM, said:

Was there even any CONCRETE proof that he was guilty, ignoring people's preconceptions of the man? This case strikes me as about as nebulous as the OJ one was (and about as annoying).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


..which was my point-he beat the guilty rap. ;)

All jokes aside-my feelings? Josh makes good points. But I dunno. I'm kinda on the fence, leaning towards Jackson being guilty of somesort of odd behavior with kids.

The guy needs to grow up.
Posted Image

Politicians are like bananas; they hang together, they're all yellow, and there's not a straight one among them.

"We're relevant for $ and a vote once every two years. Beyond that, we're completely irrelevant, except of course to consume, and preach the gospel according to [insert political demigod here]."--Cait

#47 Lambsilencer

Lambsilencer

    Shh... the lambs are sleeping...

  • Islander
  • 6,685 posts

Posted 13 June 2005 - 05:35 PM

And here's a more detailed article from E! Online:

Quote

Michael Jackson Not Guilty!

by Joal Ryan
Jun 13, 2005, 2:35 PM PT

Time and again, Michael Jackson said he would never hurt a child. On Monday, a jury of his peers agreed.

Jackson, the former child prodigy who once was the world's biggest-selling music force and the lifelong curiosity piece who remains the world's most famous pop oddity, was found innocent by jurors in Santa Maria, California, of molesting a teenage boy and essentially of groping a series of young males in the late 1980 and early 1990s.

A sweeping victory for the defense, Jackson was cleared of every charge facing him, including conspiracy and plying a minor with alcohol.

If convicted of the 10 criminal counts at issue in the trial, Jackson faced 20 years in prison.

The 12-member jury, eight women and four men, one of whom visited Jackson's Neverland Ranch as a child, spent some 33 hours deliberating the case over seven days. An announcement that verdicts had been reached was made about 12:30 p.m. PT. Jackson arrived at the courthouse about 80 minutes later, delivered to his judgment day from Neverland via a slow-moving motorcade of black SUVs. The defendant looked as numb and somber as his dark suit. He was accompanied into the courtroom by his lawyers and several family members, including superstar sister Janet Jackson.

He reportedly dabbed his eyes after the verdict was read and then hugged his attorneys and family members. He exited the courthouse to an ovation from fans, climbed back into his SUV and was whisked away, presumably to Neverland.

Jackson's future now lies everywhere, from Africa, where the Reverend Jesse Jackson said the entertainer wants to build a theme park, to Europe, where he continues to pack arenas, to Las Vegas, where a since denounced report had him signing on as a casino headliner. A Jackson Five reunion tour with his brothers also has been floated.

The verdict was another defeat for Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon, who'd once before tried, but failed, to pin charges on Jackson, and who was derided for his efforts in the 1995 Jackson song, "D.S.," featuring the taunting lyric, "Dom Sheldon is a cold man."

Jackson's latest clash with Sneddon began more than 18 months ago when police swarmed the grounds of Neverland, questioned the estate's employees and boxed up truckloads of adult magazines and perfectly legal but questionably tasteful art books depicting young, naked males.

The Nov. 18, 2003, raid was prompted by the allegations of a Los Angeles boy, then 13, who told authorities that Jackson "put his hands in my pants...[and] started masturbating me."

The boy, now 15, recounted his allegations at the trial. Also taking the stand was the boy's younger brother, 14, who told jurors that he twice saw Jackson touch his sibling as the child slept. Both teens talked about tasting alcohol and viewing pornography at Jackson's behest.

The alleged seduction and molestation occurred at Neverland between February and March of 2003, around the same the singer was plotting to hold the brothers, their mother and their sister captive, the indictment charged.

Prosecutors argued that Jackson maintained a long-held prurient interest in dark-complected boys, aged 10-14. The current accuser fit the profile precisely.

The defense argued in the bluntest of terms that the accuser and his family were making up the accusations. Jackson attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. called the clan "con artists, actors and liars" in his closing argument.

The boy's family wasn't the defense's only problem. A series of ex-Neverland workers were brought to court by the prosecution to tell lurid tales of Jackson groping boys, including Home Alone star Macaulay Culkin, in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Culkin testified for the defense and denied being molested. Two other alleged Jackson victims, Wade Robson and Brett Barnes, did the same.

The most salacious allegation of the trial concerned the boy whose allegations a decade ago first found Jackson publicly accused of molestation. An ex-Neverland security guard testified that he saw Jackson perform oral sex on the boy in a shower. The alleged victim, who refused to cooperate with authorities after reaching a reported $23 million settlement with Jackson in 1994, did not testify.

In his closing argument, prosecutor Ronald J. Zonen said the prosecution had proved Jackson had "molested [the current accuser] and numerous other boys."

Jackson denied any wrongdoing, from the 1993-94 investigation to the current trial. In both cases, he issued the denials via videotaped appeals and TV interviews. Despite hints from his own lawyers that Jackson would take the stand in the current case, the singer remained silent.

If Jackson had remained silent and not talked to journalist Martin Bashir in 2002, he might have avoided his current straits.

In an interview for Bashir's Living with Michael Jackson, the entertainer raised red flags about his conduct by holding the hand of a boy--his future accuser--while talking about how he routinely cuddled in bed with children.

The special aired on ABC on Feb. 6, 2003, creating a public-relations disaster for Jackson, the prosecution argued, and setting in motion the chain of events that led to the molestation and conspiracy.

The defense maintained that Jackson was the victim--a ripe, rich target for the accuser's family to exploit.

Born Aug. 29, 1958, in dirt-poor conditions in Gary, Indiana, Jackson was performing onstage at five. If it was a childhood lost, as Jackson would say, it was not a childhood entirely misspent. By the time he was 11, Jackson and his older brothers--Jackie, Marlon, Tito and Jermaine--were topping the charts with a trio of infectious hits, including "I Want You Back," "ABC" and "The Love You Save."

The group was known as the Jackson Five; Jackson, its lead singer, was known as its star.

While Jackson scored his first solo number-one hit with 1972's "Ben," his career as a singular act, right down to the singular sequined glove that would become a trademark, began in earnest with 1979's Off the Wall. The disco-dance-R&B album sold 19 million copies worldwide and spawned the hits "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough" and "Rock with You."

Then came Thriller. The 1982 album was a greatest-hits collection onto itself--seven of its nine tracks became top 10 singles, including "Billie Jean," "Beat It" and "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'." In the end, it won Jackson eight Grammys, sold 59 million copies worldwide and arguably made him bigger than the Beatles, whose song catalog he snapped up at the height of his buying power.

With the increased fame came increased scrutiny about his apparent penchant for plastic surgery (he would later swear he'd had but two nose jobs), about his quirks (he once supposedly bid on the Elephant Man's bones), about his bank account (his lavish spending and litigious ways raised speculation that he is teetering on insolvency) and about his habit of surrounding himself with young boys.

The 35-year-old bachelor took a wife, Lisa Marie Presley, in 1994, shortly after the original child-molestation case forever damaged his career, especially in the U.S. market. The two divorced in 1996. Later that same year, Jackson wed Debbie Rowe, a nurse at his dermatologist's office.

Rowe bore Jackson two children, but as she told jurors during the trial, the two never shared a home. The couple divorced in 1999. Jackson welcomed a third child, believed to be the product of a surrogate, to his growing family in 2002.

It was the youngest child, known as Blanket, whom Jackson dangled over a hotel balcony in Germany in November 2002. The incident and its aftermath were captured on tape by Bashir, then traveling with the entertainer.

The Zelig figure of the Jackson case, Bashir would become the first witness at the singer's trial.

To another journalist, 60 Minutes' Ed Bradley, Jackson denounced the latest allegations that put his life and livelihood in jeopardy.

"Before I would hurt a child, I would slit my wrists," Jackson said in that December 2003 interview. "I would never hurt a child."

OK, I guess that's enough on that subject, since in the OT forum, theres's already a discussion going on about it. Click here if you rather like to participate there than to start a new one here.

Greets
Lambsilencer

#48 achile444

achile444

    Mashmallow Man

  • Islander
  • 109 posts

Posted 13 June 2005 - 05:48 PM

They will surely go in appeal
Poosy? Poopsy? where are you? Poopsy?

#49 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 13 June 2005 - 05:52 PM

^
In the U.S., the prosecution can't appeal. Once someone has been found not guilty of a crime, the Fifth Amendment prevents him/her from being tried a second time.

Edited by Dev F, 13 June 2005 - 05:55 PM.


#50 JchaosRS

JchaosRS

    Ordered Chaos

  • Islander
  • 2,373 posts

Posted 13 June 2005 - 06:04 PM

^They can appeal the ruleing by going to a higher court, if they chose to hear the case.
Will be eternally Rommie's Slave
Jays Music Videos | Jeremy Farnum | LexaFans

#51 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 13 June 2005 - 06:22 PM

Cyncie, on Jun 13 2005, 09:54 PM, said:

Well, a "not guilty" verdict doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do it. It just means that the prosecution didn't prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't surprise me, given the lack of integrity of everyone involved.

I just hope, for the sake of all those kids who will no doubt wind up sleeping over at Neverland in the future, that he actually isn't guilty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



Exactly... a not guilty verdict does not mean he is innocent.  Just as the same for anyone else.  Not Guilty simply means that the jury as not convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt of his guilt.  

Michael does a lot of things  that fit the pedophile profile...which also includes finding victims and their families that can be fairly easily discredited

So don't be so quick to say that the boy and others lied....there is a difference between lying and people just not believing you for whatever reason

Edited by trikay, 13 June 2005 - 06:24 PM.

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#52 Cardie

Cardie

    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,634 posts

Posted 13 June 2005 - 06:44 PM

Rommies Slave, on Jun 13 2005, 06:04 PM, said:

^They can appeal the ruleing by going to a higher court, if they chose to hear the case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


No, they can't--not in the US.  It's a principle called double jeopardy, designed to protect citizens from being repeatedly tried by the state until the state wins.  Someone convicted of a crime, on the other hand, may appeal to a higher court, all the way up to the Supreme Court.  The founding fathers were used to innocent people being persecuted and hounded by the authorities for having politically unpopular views, so US law is weighted very heavily in favor of criminal defendants.  Once acquitted by a jury of your peers, you cannot be prosecuted again for the same crime.  Prosecutors also have no right of appeal.  And the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Cardie
Nothing succeeds like excess.

#53 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 13 June 2005 - 07:46 PM

Rommies Slave, on Jun 13 2005, 04:04 PM, said:

^They can appeal the ruleing by going to a higher court, if they chose to hear the case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


No they cannot.  It's double jeopardy.  Once of a aquitted of a crime, he can't be retried nor the verdict appealed.
Posted Image

#54 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 13 June 2005 - 07:46 PM

Cyncie, on Jun 13 2005, 04:54 PM, said:

Well, a "not guilty" verdict doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do it. It just means that the prosecution didn't prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't surprise me, given the lack of integrity of everyone involved.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


This statement bothers me on a couple of levels.

First, it implies that he IS guilty.

Second, it STATES that he is guilty...even though found not guilty.

It's like saying: "Just because John Doe was found guilty doesn't mean he ISN'T innocent. It just means the defense didn't present 'reasonable doubt'."

If a person is found not guilty, IMO, it means he is just that: NOT GUILTY.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#55 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 13 June 2005 - 07:47 PM

Actually all it means is that the prosecution did not prove its case.  Look at OJ.  He was found not guilty under the criminal burden of proof but under the lesser civil burden of proof he was found liable for wrongful death.

Lil

Edited by Una Salus Lillius, 13 June 2005 - 07:48 PM.

Posted Image

#56 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 13 June 2005 - 07:48 PM

I'm curious...from a purely legal standpoint, can the DA decide to prosecute those witnesses that got on the stand and said they witnessed the molestation? I mean if the Jury found Jackson not guilty it sort of implies that those witnesses committed perjury, doesn't it?
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#57 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 13 June 2005 - 07:48 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jun 13 2005, 07:47 PM, said:

Actually all it means is that the prosecution did not prove its case.  Look at OJ.  He was found not guilty under the criminal burden of proof but under the lesser civil burden of proof he was found liable for wrongful death.

Lil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Good point. I stand corrected.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#58 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 13 June 2005 - 08:00 PM

LORD of the SWORD, on Jun 13 2005, 07:48 PM, said:

I'm curious...from a purely legal standpoint, can the DA decide to prosecute those witnesses that got on the stand and said they witnessed the molestation? I mean if the Jury found Jackson not guilty it sort of implies that those witnesses committed perjury, doesn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not necessarily. The verdict simply implies that the witnesses did not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Jackson did the things they claimed. To convict them of perjury the DA would have to actively show (again, beyond a reasonable doubt) that he didn't do the things they said. That's a much trickier proposition.

Edited by Dev F, 13 June 2005 - 08:00 PM.


#59 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 13 June 2005 - 08:05 PM

I can't really say I'm surprised. Posted Image
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#60 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 13 June 2005 - 08:11 PM

I would like for folks in this thread to look at the words they are using regarding this case, specifically the word "kids."

Michael hangs out with "young boys" not girls, not women.  "Kids" are not the issue, "young boys" are. All I can hope is that more parents will get smart and not let their boys play with MJ.  But as sure as the sun will rise in the morning, this will not happen.  They believe Michael is love incarnate.  They believe he is pure and innocent.  THey believe that he has only had one nose job, they believe all of the other lies put out by the Jackson clan, and there are many, MANY!!

Sad really, really sad.  Sad because if there is a chance this is true (and human nature being the way it is I do believe it is true) there have been victims of his abuse and will be more.

And I do believe that the case wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Like OJ, Michael may escape prison and the judgement of the court, but the judgement of the world is quite another matter.

I only hope he can get the help he desparately needs, I really doubt it will happen though.
"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



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