OT: Jury reaches verdict in Jackson case

sportdan30 · Post by **sportdan30** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:48 pm

Details soon. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/13/jacks ... index.html

My gut feeling is that he is guilty, but he will never see a padded cell. He'll walk.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:52 pm

sportdan30 wrote:Details soon. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/13/jacks ... index.html

My gut feeling is that he is guilty, but he will never see a padded cell. He'll walk.

Agreed. Celebrity status + California court = acquittal.

Take care,
PK

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:16 pm

Not Guilty all around...WTF?

LAking · Post by **LAking** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:16 pm

looks like all not guilty, still watching.

The thing about this case is that i think Jacksons defense actually had something real to go on in that the accusor or should i say his family are not very believable. So at least it's not an O.J. type case where it was completely obvious that he should have been found guilty. I personally can't say for sure whether M.J. is guilty or not. I think i would have to really be in the qourtroom and hear every bit of information to make a decision like that.

That being said, those Jackson fans are some serious screwballs and obviously don't have the ability to look at a case like this with any hint of common sense. That Triumph thing on Conan was classic. Absolutely hilarious.

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:18 pm

With what was presented it's the right decision. It was basically her word vs his word. Nothing in the trial constituted -beyond a reasonable doubt-.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:21 pm

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

sportdan30 · Post by **sportdan30** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:24 pm

pk500 wrote: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.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:29 pm

I didn't follow the trial enough to make an informed opinion on his guilt. But Jackson clearly has a number of traits that flag him as a potential pedophile, if he is not already an active one. He needs help before he gets worse.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:32 pm

What a NY jury would have convicted him?

A lot of Wall Street crooks have gotten away scott free in NY court rooms, I believe.

LAking · Post by **LAking** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:33 pm

Brando70 wrote:I didn't follow the trial enough to make an informed opinion on his guilt. But Jackson clearly has a number of traits that flag him as a potential pedophile, if he is not already an active one. He needs help before he gets worse.

He has flags, but they doesn't automatically mean he is guilty. He does need help that's for sure. The thing is that he has so much money he can still get by without getting that help. Your average person with the kind of issues he has would have a hard time making it in this world.

reeche · Post by **reeche** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:35 pm

Brando70 wrote: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.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:42 pm

reeche wrote: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.

Don't you need to know the race of the defendent if you're going to pull the race card? I'm sure no one wanted to point it out because no one is 100% certain what the f*ck MJ is these days.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:43 pm

reeche wrote:
Brando70 wrote: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.

I'm not upset about the verdict -- being a fruitcake does not equal guilt. But he is obviously not normal, and if he hasn't already engaged in child molestation, he certainly seems headed down that path.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:44 pm

wco81 wrote:What a NY jury would have convicted him?

A lot of Wall Street crooks have gotten away scott free in NY court rooms, I believe.

True. If you're a Wall Street crook, there's probably no better court to be tried than in Manhattan. Then again, with Spitzer as New York Attorney General, that's changing.

But come on: You have to admit there's no better place for a celebrity to be tried than Southern California. It's the epicenter of celebrity worship in America.

Take care,
PK

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:46 pm

reeche wrote:
Brando70 wrote: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

Arkin710 · Post by **Arkin710** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:50 pm

The bottom line is that the prosecution put on a case filled with witnesses that had little, if any credibility. They also seemed surprised by their own witnesses testimony on numerous occassions. That spells disaster for any trial -- celebrity, black, white, or otherwise.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:50 pm

I don't think it's only about celebrity so much as wealth and power.

Ken Lay is still free isn't he? And wasn't he tried in Texas? They say he'll probably be able to keep much of his wealth.

BTW, last week, one of the cases that Spitzer actually tried instead of settling returned a not-guilty verdict. He was relatively a small fry (but posted an $800k bond somehow), a trader accused of doing favors for big clients.

Turned out Spitzers office offered immunity or some kind of plea bargain to the big clients in exchange for them testifying against this guy. The jury apparently felt while he technically did something wrong, he was being scapegoated.

So maybe it's a victory for the little guy, but then again, this guy was probably at least a high six-figure earner. Notice the real fat cats got a sweet deal. This is the American justice system.

dougb · Post by **dougb** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:50 pm

pk500 wrote:
reeche wrote:
Brando70 wrote: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

Certainly helps to be able to afford to hire a high powered legal team. An ordinary Joe with a Public Defender might not have faired so well in this case.

Best wishes,

Doug

reeche · Post by **reeche** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:52 pm

Leave it to Reeche to bring up the race issue.

Yes to say that it wasn't a major issue but then everybody has an ability to read in what they choose I suppose.

reeche · Post by **reeche** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:55 pm

wco81 wrote:I don't think it's only about celebrity so much as wealth and power.

Ken Lay is still free isn't he? And wasn't he tried in Texas? They say he'll probably be able to keep much of his wealth.

BTW, last week, one of the cases that Spitzer actually tried instead of settling returned a not-guilty verdict. He was relatively a small fry (but posted an $800k bond somehow), a trader accused of doing favors for big clients.

Turned out Spitzers office offered immunity or some kind of plea bargain to the big clients in exchange for them testifying against this guy. The jury apparently felt while he technically did something wrong, he was being scapegoated.

So maybe it's a victory for the little guy, but then again, this guy was probably at least a high six-figure earner. Notice the real fat cats got a sweet deal. This is the American justice system.

I agree with most of your points. Perhaps these people just presented bad cases as cases are supposed to be tried with juries and not in public opinion. Another fascinating thing to me is that whenever one of these cases comes up suddenly people love to point out that fame and wealth may have had something to do with an aquittal which to me is about as an astutue on oberservation as saying maybe gravity has something to do with us sticking to the ground. As if the jury system is somehow suddenly immune from the everyday ills of society.

Blublub · Post by **Blublub** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:58 pm

I don't know what the hell this all means, but I do know that it's a pretty sad commentary that 2000 years of Western civilization has come down to this

DivotMaker · Post by **DivotMaker** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:01 pm

Let see here...

OJ = Not guilty

Robert Blake = Not guilty

Michael (Diana Ross) Jackson = Not guilty

Anyone see a pattern? Celebrity + Boatloads of cash = High powered legal teams and certain acquittal.

While I have not personally seen Michael/Diana do any of the acts that he was accused of, sleeping with little boys (admitting as much publicly), child porn reported in his bedroom and the fact that the accused is trying desperately to become a caucasian female, doesn't make me too damn comfortable with this decision. I recognize that facts are needed and were obviously hard to come by. I see this freak taking this verdict and continuing what I think everyone knows he does behind closed doors. Makes me want 5 minutes in a rubber room with ANY parent who lets their child within 10 miles of this "thing"....

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:03 pm

Well ya, it's Hollywood, it is the epicenter of the entertainment industry so you're going to have an obvious celeb following, be it good or bad.

MJ imo is most likely a child molestor, but in the confines of this trial, the prosecution had nothing but allegations. This whole thing was a circus.

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:06 pm

DivotMaker wrote:Let see here...

OJ = Not guilty

Robert Blake = Not guilty

Michael (Diana Ross) Jackson = Not guilty

Anyone see a pattern? Celebrity + Boatloads of cash = High powered legal teams and certain acquittal.

While I have not personally seen Michael/Diana do any of the acts that he was accused of, sleeping with little boys (admitting as much publicly), child porn reported in his bedroom and the fact that the accused is trying desperately to become a caucasian female, doesn't make me too damn comfortable with this decision. I recognize that facts are needed and were obviously hard to come by. I see this freak taking this verdict and continuing what I think everyone knows he does behind closed doors. Makes me want 5 minutes in a rubber room with ANY parent who lets their child within 10 miles of this "thing"....

OJ was probably the only one on your list where the system didn't get right imo. Blake's verdict was correct, they had nothing to tie him with, no hard evidence that he pulled the trigger or got someone to do the deed for him. And with MJ, it was just he said vs she said.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:37 pm

wco81 wrote:Notice the real fat cats got a sweet deal. This is the American justice system.

I agree with you 100 percent. Acquittal is a legal commodity that's for sale to the highest bidder.

Take care,
PK

Digital Sportspage

OT: Jury reaches verdict in Jackson case

OT: Jury reaches verdict in Jackson case

Re: OT: Jury reaches verdict in Jackson case