OT: Jury reaches verdict in Jackson case

[tjung0831]

Rockin out to Thriller as I type! Long live Michael!

[Badgun]

This is a good call. The accuser and his family had a history of trying to get money for nothing and I think the jury saw it that way.

Going back to 1993 the same thing happened there, but the accuser got a settlement to keep from going to court.

Jackson has a weird fascination with kids, I'll give you that, but I think the world he has created for himself and the kids he brings into it is quite innocent. If he was really a child molester, you'd have kids coming out of the woodwork as many as he's had at his house. I just can't buy the story of two kids from golddigging families 12 years apart. Someone that is sick like a child molester doesn't wait 12 years between tugs on a young johnson, he's be jonesing for one everyday.

He may be weird, but I think if he was really touching little kids, there would be a lot more accusations.

[reeche]

This is a good call. The accuser and his family had a history of trying to get money for nothing and I think the jury saw it that way.

Going back to 1993 the same thing happened there, but the accuser got a settlement to keep from going to court.

Jackson has a weird fascination with kids, I'll give you that, but I think the world he has created for himself and the kids he brings into it is quite innocent. If he was really a child molester, you'd have kids coming out of the woodwork as many as he's had at his house. I just can't buy the story of two kids from golddigging families 12 years apart. Someone that is sick like a child molester doesn't wait 12 years between tugs on a young johnson, he's be jonesing for one everyday.

He may be weird, but I think if he was really touching little kids, there would be a lot more accusations.

We don't agree often Badgun but that is also my own personal take on this one. Of course without being involved who knows what the hell he has done.

[PantherFan]

The sad thing is that this guy lives in such a f*cked-up fantasy world, surrounded by "yes men" handlers, that he will commit such deviant acts again on a child. No question in my mind.

Take care,
PK

What's even more sad is that some disillusioned parent will let their child correspond with this freak.

Yeah, but the next time they should also get the parents for endangering a child. Honestly, would any of you let your children spend unsupervised time with Michael? I may be overprotective but if you are not family, you are not spending alone time with my son....Heck I even keep a close watch on family.

[tjung0831]

This is a good call. The accuser and his family had a history of trying to get money for nothing and I think the jury saw it that way.

Going back to 1993 the same thing happened there, but the accuser got a settlement to keep from going to court.

Jackson has a weird fascination with kids, I'll give you that, but I think the world he has created for himself and the kids he brings into it is quite innocent. If he was really a child molester, you'd have kids coming out of the woodwork as many as he's had at his house. I just can't buy the story of two kids from golddigging families 12 years apart. Someone that is sick like a child molester doesn't wait 12 years between tugs on a young johnson, he's be jonesing for one everyday.

He may be weird, but I think if he was really touching little kids, there would be a lot more accusations.

We don't agree often Badgun but that is also my own personal take on this one. Of course without being involved who knows what the hell he has done.

And I agree with the both of you. Michael has done an extreme amount of good in his life. I could care less what a flipping nutjob that he is....I believe that he's a good person and he's done more for unfortunate people than most people would ever dream of doing

[pk500]

I believe he's a pedophile, which negates any of the good he's done for others. People who prey on kids are the lowest of the low, regardless of what drove them to pedophila.

Nothing annoys me more than when people try to rationalize Jackson's odd affection to children -- which I think crosses the line to pedophilia -- because he "didn't have a normal childhood and was forced to grow up so fast."

Take care,
PK

[tjung0831]

I believe he's a pedophile, which negates any of the good he's done for others. People who prey on kids are the lowest of the low, regardless of what drove them to pedophila.

Nothing annoys me more than when people try to rationalize Jackson's odd affection to children -- which I think crosses the line to pedophilia -- because he "didn't have a normal childhood and was forced to grow up so fast."

Take care,
PK

If you have the proof...we'll listen

[tjung0831]

I believe he's a pedophile, which negates any of the good he's done for others. People who prey on kids are the lowest of the low, regardless of what drove them to pedophila.

Nothing annoys me more than when people try to rationalize Jackson's odd affection to children -- which I think crosses the line to pedophilia -- because he "didn't have a normal childhood and was forced to grow up so fast."

Take care,
PK

Maybe Mike was being preyed on by greedy money hungry parents...

[JRod]

If this was one of us you we would all be in jail. Let's get something straight, he admits to sleeping with boys. Why don't you all go to work tomorrow and announce to the world you sleep with boys but you don't have sex with them. If his name was Paul, Dan, Bill, Steve, John, we'd all be in the grey bar hotel.

Prosecution might have had a weak case but geez you have an man on national television tell the whole world he sleeps with boys and they can't convict him what does the tell you about the prosecution in california.

Martha Stewart goes to jail and Michael doesn't. Think about that one for a while. They want to make a point with Martha. Yet with Michael they let him run his typical circus.

I'm also concerned with the message this sends in terms of general pedophilia. I can't say this is going to cause more adults to molest children but its not a good message to send to these creeps.

[pk500]

If you have the proof...we'll listen

Right back at you: If you have the proof he isn't a pedophile, I'll listen. You're trusting a SoCal jury in a celebrity trial with an ineffective prosecution team as your proof?

John, you nailed it. The cocktail of money and celebrity ensured freedom for Jacko. If I told the world I slept with boys, I'd be locked up.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Interesting about Martha. Does anyone think she was nailed because it was a Federal case and not a local case, with local-yokel prosecutors? Just because it's a large county doesn't guarantee that the prosecutors are competent. I present Marcia Clark as evidence.

But the Feds usually get their man or woman, which was the case with Martha. I think she was made an example because she was Martha Stewart. But then again, I think Lea Fastow getting only a year after helping bilk investors of billions through Enron is a joke, too. That broad should have received 10 years just like her crooked husband.

The sentencing of our justice system is completely f*cked. A 17-year-old kid around here got six months in county for recklessly driving a car on rain-slicked pavement to impress three girls in backseat, crashing and killing all three girls.

Meanwhile, an 18-year-old kid around here is going to get one to three years in state for crashing his father's Ferrari and killing his best friend. This kid is an A-student, excellent runner, basically a good kid who made a horrible mistake. But he's going to state because he was at 0.12 on blood alcohol level, and he comes from a very wealthy community. So the judge is making an example of him because he comes from Swellsville.

The kid who killed three girls is from a middle class section of town and had no booze in him. But he still killed three kids by being reckless yet he's getting six months in county. Makes no sense.

Meanwhile, a friend of mine got eight months in county for pushing paper the wrong way, essentially cooking the books, at a damn lumber yard. No consumers were ripped off, basically contractors just got a sweeter deal then they should have. He made a big, dumb mistake, a severe error in judgment, but eight months for pushing paper crookedly while a kid who kills three gets six months?

And don't even get me started on simple drug possession laws in this country. I may spontaneously combust. There are people who were caught carrying a couple ounces of weed who are doing as much or more time than people convicted of vehicular manslaughter.

Take care,
PK

[b_assassin]

I don't know if Jacko is guilty or not, but thinking of him as a pedophile certainly gives new meaning to some of his music. Remember that song PYT?

[wco81]

Presumption of innocence goes to the defendant.

Tie goes to the runner.

That's probably one of the better aspects of our jurisprudence.

MJ may be guilty but then the burden is on the prosecution to present a better case.

Martha Stewart's prosecution was politically motivated. And she wasn't nailed for the insider trading, it was the coverup that she attempted under panic. She probably would have been okay under the original investigation but she gave ammo to people who were out to get her. Even Republicans like Larry Cudlow said the case was BS.

[Inuyasha]

If you have the proof...we'll listen

Right back at you: If you have the proof he isn't a pedophile, I'll listen. You're trusting a SoCal jury in a celebrity trial with an ineffective prosecution team as your proof?

John, you nailed it. The cocktail of money and celebrity ensured freedom for Jacko. If I told the world I slept with boys, I'd be locked up.

Take care,
PK

Why does it matter if it was a socal jury? I think the same verdict comes out wherever the trail is held, west coast, east coast, midwest, anywhere. It all came down to he said she said, any rational jury would have come down with the same decision.

[anchester]

nobody has gotten off since the enron scandal. Lay and skilling have yet to be tried. Rich white collars are taking it pretty hard by the feds. Martha going to jail was just to set an example. Lea Fastow did not work for enron and profited on one deal (in which she was punished). Andrew Fastow will do 10 years time. Skilling will probably do 20.

[RobVarak]

Guys, this case was a joke from the word go. I have several friends who are former SoCal prosecutors, and they said months ago this thing never should've been brought to trial. Everything I've seen since then has justified their assesment.

The prosecutors made a classic mistake. They let the size of the prize prejudice their evaluation of the case. They saw a high profile defendant with admittedly bizarre personal beliefs and sensational charges. They deluded themselves into thinking this would outweigh the egregious lack of credibility present in their key witnesses.

There are few hard and fast rules where juries are concerned. Talking heads and jury consultants would have you think otherwise, but there really are just a few. One of those rules is that incredible witnesses will always, always, always haunt you. Unless you have physical evidence, your key witnesses have to be credible. This group of miscreants was simply awful. They were eviscertated by the defense team every day, and rightfully so. They had documented histories as liars and extortionists!

A smart DA never lets this get out of the Grand Jury (or even to it, frankly), but few DA's are smart enough to let a White Whale like Jackson out of their sites.

Please don't interpret this as a pro-Michael post. From what I can tell from the credible evidence and from his own mouth, he's a freak and potentially dangerous. But as for the charges in this case, and based on the evidence in this case, I think they got it right.

[wco81]

What would be the incentive of these accusers though in a criminal case?

If Jackson was found guilty, would it favor their chances in a civil action?

Or maybe they tried to shake him down and he refused so they convinced the prosecutors to bring this case.

[RobVarak]

If this was one of us you we would all be in jail. Let's get something straight, he admits to sleeping with boys. Why don't you all go to work tomorrow and announce to the world you sleep with boys but you don't have sex with them. If his name was Paul, Dan, Bill, Steve, John, we'd all be in the grey bar hotel.

Prosecution might have had a weak case but geez you have an man on national television tell the whole world he sleeps with boys and they can't convict him what does the tell you about the prosecution in california.

Martha Stewart goes to jail and Michael doesn't. Think about that one for a while. They want to make a point with Martha. Yet with Michael they let him run his typical circus.

I'm also concerned with the message this sends in terms of general pedophilia. I can't say this is going to cause more adults to molest children but its not a good message to send to these creeps.

I understand your outrage, but it doesn't take a million dollar legal team to beat this shitty case. Just abstractly saying that he thinks it's ok to sleep with little boys doesn't (and shouldn't) make any particular charge of lewd behavior an open and shut case.

It's not the high level of publicity and scrutiny that focused the jury on the holes in the prosecution's case. It's the technical elements of a jury trial: jury instruction, the rules of evidence and the burden of proof requirements that helps a jury to distill facts in a way that the public and media simply can't or won't.

[RobVarak]

What would be the incentive of these accusers though in a criminal case?

If Jackson was found guilty, would it favor their chances in a civil action?

Or maybe they tried to shake him down and he refused so they convinced the prosecutors to bring this case.

It would greatly help his civil case.

47 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments § 733 (1995) ("Under the modern approach, a judgment of conviction precludes the defendant from denying the allegations in a subsequent civil complaint as to issues that were actually litigated and adjudicated in the prior proceeding.").

Now you can fight a bit about what was actually litigated and adjudicated (lawyers love a good collateral estoppel fight), but it certainly doesn't help your civil defense any.

But that doesn't account for the extra-legal benefits they would've reaped. Publicity mostly. Book deals, TV movie of the week etc.

[Inuyasha]

Guys, this case was a joke from the word go. I have several friends who are former SoCal prosecutors, and they said months ago this thing never should've been brought to trial. Everything I've seen since then has justified their assesment.

The prosecutors made a classic mistake. They let the size of the prize prejudice their evaluation of the case. They saw a high profile defendant with admittedly bizarre personal beliefs and sensational charges. They deluded themselves into thinking this would outweigh the egregious lack of credibility present in their key witnesses.

There are few hard and fast rules where juries are concerned. Talking heads and jury consultants would have you think otherwise, but there really are just a few. One of those rules is that incredible witnesses will always, always, always haunt you. Unless you have physical evidence, your key witnesses have to be credible. This group of miscreants was simply awful. They were eviscertated by the defense team every day, and rightfully so. They had documented histories as liars and extortionists!

A smart DA never lets this get out of the Grand Jury (or even to it, frankly), but few DA's are smart enough to let a White Whale like Jackson out of their sites.

Please don't interpret this as a pro-Michael post. From what I can tell from the credible evidence and from his own mouth, he's a freak and potentially dangerous. But as for the charges in this case, and based on the evidence in this case, I think they got it right.

Good post. You said it better than me.

If the defendant wasn't a hollywood celeb and just a 'avg joe', this case doesn't even go to trial based on the weak case of the prosecution.

[Spooky]

Guys, this case was a joke from the word go. I have several friends who are former SoCal prosecutors, and they said months ago this thing never should've been brought to trial. Everything I've seen since then has justified their assesment.

The prosecutors made a classic mistake. They let the size of the prize prejudice their evaluation of the case. They saw a high profile defendant with admittedly bizarre personal beliefs and sensational charges. They deluded themselves into thinking this would outweigh the egregious lack of credibility present in their key witnesses.

There are few hard and fast rules where juries are concerned. Talking heads and jury consultants would have you think otherwise, but there really are just a few. One of those rules is that incredible witnesses will always, always, always haunt you. Unless you have physical evidence, your key witnesses have to be credible. This group of miscreants was simply awful. They were eviscertated by the defense team every day, and rightfully so. They had documented histories as liars and extortionists!

A smart DA never lets this get out of the Grand Jury (or even to it, frankly), but few DA's are smart enough to let a White Whale like Jackson out of their sites.

Please don't interpret this as a pro-Michael post. From what I can tell from the credible evidence and from his own mouth, he's a freak and potentially dangerous. But as for the charges in this case, and based on the evidence in this case, I think they got it right.

Good post. You said it better than me.

If the defendant wasn't a hollywood celeb and just a 'avg joe', this case doesn't even go to trial based on the weak case of the prosecution.

You know...I am starting to believe this more and more. The guys a freak, that is for sure. He mutilates himself and is eccentric beyond belief, but I am starting to think they poor guy is even too weird to have any sexual tendencies. He is probably a-sexual. A couple suggestive magazines lying around are probably a delusional approach to bonding with kids. The guy just doesn’t know any better.

Does he have some very ‘classic’ pedophile attributes, yes. But one has to wonder where all of the other allegations are if he truly has a problem. The more I heard about the credibility of the prosecuting family, the more I started to look at this from a different perspective. I remember even hearing reports of jury members laughing out loud at some of the ridiculous accusations and accounts that were coming from the prosecution/accuser.

The whole ‘sharing your bed with children’ thing has also been blown a bit out of proportion too, IMO. I really think that Michael has no problem stating that the kindest thing to do for someone is share your bed with them, because he truly believes that in an innocent way. This does NOT mean he sleeps in the same bed every night with young boys. In fact, he tries to make it clear that he does NOT actually sleep in the same bed at all. He gives the guest his bed and sleeps somewhere else. Would a true pedophile readily state these things to the entire world? I am not so sure. There really is a part of me that thinks that MJ does ultimately know right from wrong, but just could give a f*ck about what is socially acceptable. His ‘known’ actions that might come across creepy and a bit uncomfortable to us, may indeed be very socially different, but does not necessarily mean they are wrong and harmful to others.

Don’t get me wrong, I was leaning towards guilty during most of this trial, however, now hearing confirmations from jury members regarding the credibility of the accuser and his family, and hearing jury members going as far as saying they feel absolute pity for this young accuser because he has been shrouded and brainwashed into a world of lies, makes me rethink my outlook.

[Badgun]

Spooky,
That is one of the best takes on MJ that I've ever read. I've tried to say the same thing, but just couldn't find a way to put it where people could understand it.

Maybe he's weird because he was never allowed to be a child, but he's not a pedophile because he had a bad childhood.

I'll stop now before I ruin what you said, but I agree with you 100%.

[Teal]

I didn't follow the trial enough to make an informed opinion on his guilt.

I think that goes for 99.9% of Americans. I don't tend to get to worked up about these celebrity cases. Michael Jackson's innocence or guilt by comparison is small potatoes to me. The jury seems like they took their time and came to their own conclusion which is the way our system works. There were no blacks on the jury and race seemed to be a fairly low profile spectre in this case so hey that's the way the cookie crumbles on this one.

Leave it to Reeche to bring up the race issue. No one claimed in here that Jackson got a break because he's black. But I think he definitely caught a break because he's a celebrity, and I think others may feel the same.

If presented with the same evidence, I believe the jury would have convicted a regular citizen.

Take care,
PK

...Michael Jackson is black?!?

[Spooky]

Spooky,
That is one of the best takes on MJ that I've ever read. I've tried to say the same thing, but just couldn't find a way to put it where people could understand it.

Maybe he's weird because he was never allowed to be a child, but he's not a pedophile because he had a bad childhood.

I'll stop now before I ruin what you said, but I agree with you 100%.

Thanks Bad. Yeah, I really do believe more and more in the 'a-sexual' approach. I had always felt that MJ was probably more 'a-sexual' than anything, but this trial and allegations made me question that for sure. Now that the verdict is out and the jury has spoken out about the questionable reliability of the accusing family, it is easier to go back to my initial 'a-sexual' belief.

The guy just seems to have no sexual motives. Towards men, woman, kids, animals (well, there was Bubbles ), ect... None. Perhaps that is why he does the things he does. Take his actions from a totally a-sexual point of view. Imagine having absolutely no sex drive and actually being afraid of sex. Now imagine having the mentality of a 10 year old on many social levels. Now imagine being a billionaire and a international pop icon on top of all that. That mix can definitely make for some interesting and strange actions, but none of them necessarily mean he touches little boys penises.


Who knows...I could be totally wrong, but my take does have some interesting angles to view his situation from.

[TRI]

Guys, this case was a joke from the word go. I have several friends who are former SoCal prosecutors, and they said months ago this thing never should've been brought to trial. Everything I've seen since then has justified their assesment.

The prosecutors made a classic mistake. They let the size of the prize prejudice their evaluation of the case. They saw a high profile defendant with admittedly bizarre personal beliefs and sensational charges. They deluded themselves into thinking this would outweigh the egregious lack of credibility present in their key witnesses.

There are few hard and fast rules where juries are concerned. Talking heads and jury consultants would have you think otherwise, but there really are just a few. One of those rules is that incredible witnesses will always, always, always haunt you. Unless you have physical evidence, your key witnesses have to be credible. This group of miscreants was simply awful. They were eviscertated by the defense team every day, and rightfully so. They had documented histories as liars and extortionists!

A smart DA never lets this get out of the Grand Jury (or even to it, frankly), but few DA's are smart enough to let a White Whale like Jackson out of their sites.

Please don't interpret this as a pro-Michael post. From what I can tell from the credible evidence and from his own mouth, he's a freak and potentially dangerous. But as for the charges in this case, and based on the evidence in this case, I think they got it right.

Good post. You said it better than me.

If the defendant wasn't a hollywood celeb and just a 'avg joe', this case doesn't even go to trial based on the weak case of the prosecution.

I disagree, if this was a average Joe, not only would this case go to trial but he would go to prison for 25 or more years.