am sure this will be analized and debated for eons
i like this take on it from msnbc.com
Where the defense won:
Cross examination of prosecution witnesses
Calling witnesses who corroborated their theory of the case such as Azja Pryor (actor Chris Tucker’s ex-girlfriend)
Not having Jackson testify, but getting his story in front of the jury through the outtakes of the Bashir documentary
Calling to the witness stand the paralegal of the law firm who handled the JC Penney lawsuit
Calling to the witness stand the lawyer who represented the accuser's mother in the JC Penney lawsuit
Proving the accuser’s mother committed welfare fraud
Prosecution's downfall:
The accuser's mother
Confusing graphics relating to telephone calls in connection with the conspiracy charge
Not addressing the problematic time line
Not making clear when Jackson was at Neverland at the same time as the accuser so the window of opportunity was clear
Not addressing the issue of the chimes. Jackson’s bedroom had a series of chimes that would ring when you were approaching the corridor to his bedroom and again once when you opened his bedroom door. The accuser’s brother testified he entered Jackson’s bedroom while Jackson was molesting his brother, but if the chimes went off, wouldn’t Jackson have heard them and stopped? Did the chimes go off? Were they not working? Was Jackson too intoxicated to have heard them? The prosecution should have done a better job of addressing the question of the chimes, because it is a fact against which the accuser’s credibility can be weighed.
--
i was surprised with the make up of the jury they didnt get him on at least something
i did not believe the kid or the mother--too many holes..incosistentcies
and for me as much as sneddon bringing up the past to show a pattern-- jc pennys and the families own attorney showed a pattern of lying for money...
what he is guilty of is being a idiot--
Thread
Posts in chronological order
shammon - oooooooowww oooooo hooooo *grabs crotch*
hmm, never happen again...didnt he have a trial like this some years ago?
fool me once, shame on you.
fool me twice, shame on me.
No, no, no...you got that saying all wrong.
President Bush got it right:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
I hear he had that embroided on a pillow.
It's a good thing he's found "not guilty". I think Jackson is a bit sick in his head (Wacko Jacko), but the accuser did it all to gain money and publicity.
People seem to be missing the point...
he was in court for "apparently" molesting this kid, however - there is a very definable difference between molesation and "JUST" sleeping in a bed with a kid even if, in your head, it is innocent with nothing bad or dangerous (he he) going on.
They weren't trying to send him down for that per se, but for molestation. They didn't have enough reliable evidence to prove the Arviso's were not fabricating the whole thing. Thus, not guilty.
Pleased for him. It's a relief. Let's hope he sorts himself out as much as Michael Jackson can.
he was in court for "apparently" molesting this kid, however - there is a very definable difference between molesation and "JUST" sleeping in a bed with a kid even if, in your head, it is innocent with nothing bad or dangerous (he he) going on.
They weren't trying to send him down for that per se, but for molestation. They didn't have enough reliable evidence to prove the Arviso's were not fabricating the whole thing. Thus, not guilty.
Pleased for him. It's a relief. Let's hope he sorts himself out as much as Michael Jackson can.
I agree. He was not charged for being weird or for his lifetsyle. That a jury of 8 women and 4 men, many of them parents themselves, found him innocent in ALL counts proves how weak the case was. It's a good thing that jurors did follow the rules and evaluated the actual evidence instead of expressing their own moral judgement in the verdict.
Definitely.
The jurors didn't just toss a coin and call heads for guilty tails for not-guilty... people seem to forget that it wasn't Michael Jackson who bought himself innocence, it was the decision of those people who had all the facts, who were there throughout, and who had time to sit and think about what was the right decision on the basis of what they had in front of them.
And in this instance, I like to think they made the right decision from the point of view of I think that there was more to suggest that the Arviso's were a bunch of scammers (given the instability of the majority of their arguments, the bent facts etc) than there was to suggest Michael Jackson had done more than sleep next to a kid in a bed.
The jurors didn't just toss a coin and call heads for guilty tails for not-guilty... people seem to forget that it wasn't Michael Jackson who bought himself innocence, it was the decision of those people who had all the facts, who were there throughout, and who had time to sit and think about what was the right decision on the basis of what they had in front of them.
And in this instance, I like to think they made the right decision from the point of view of I think that there was more to suggest that the Arviso's were a bunch of scammers (given the instability of the majority of their arguments, the bent facts etc) than there was to suggest Michael Jackson had done more than sleep next to a kid in a bed.
I just saw one of the Michael Jackson jurors being interviewed on television this morning. With his own mouth he said that he truly believed that Michael Jackson has most likely molested little boys, and that he felt like Jackson could not have possibly spent 365 straight days sleeping alone in bed with a young boy and nothing happen. But that the evidence in THIS particular case just couldn't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. So there you have it, the jurors themselves don't even believe he is innocent, but they had to follow the "reasonable doubt" rule and find him "not guilty".
Isn't that what a court should do, Janet? Even if a juror "believes" or "feels" that Jackson might have molested a child in his life - he was not a charged of "probably having molested some children" in his life.
He was charged of a specific crime and the prosecution was unable to prove this accusation. Therefore he was aquitted. And that is right. It's easy to blame people, spread rumours and ruin their reputation but the state is not allowed to throw people into jail based on such unproven rumours. The rule of law has to be observed for any citizen, rich or poor, weird or mainstream normal.
In Germany wre had a child abuse case some years ago when a whole family was tried in court and in the end they were all aquitted. The case had been started by a group of kindergarten advisors who believed they could read abuse from some drawings by children of the same family. During the 2 year trial nobody believed anyone was innocent but in fact they were. It became most obvious when a 5 year old child pointed to the prosecutor when asked who had touched her inappropriately. The children had been manipulated to an extent that was borderline abuse in itself.
He was charged of a specific crime and the prosecution was unable to prove this accusation. Therefore he was aquitted. And that is right. It's easy to blame people, spread rumours and ruin their reputation but the state is not allowed to throw people into jail based on such unproven rumours. The rule of law has to be observed for any citizen, rich or poor, weird or mainstream normal.
In Germany wre had a child abuse case some years ago when a whole family was tried in court and in the end they were all aquitted. The case had been started by a group of kindergarten advisors who believed they could read abuse from some drawings by children of the same family. During the 2 year trial nobody believed anyone was innocent but in fact they were. It became most obvious when a 5 year old child pointed to the prosecutor when asked who had touched her inappropriately. The children had been manipulated to an extent that was borderline abuse in itself.
Absolutely! The jury did exactly what they had to do under the circumstances. I was more making the point that just because someone is found "not guilty", it doesn't mean that they are innocent. It only means there wasn't enough evidence to convict them.
What chance he'll just retire quietly from the public eye, sell Neverland and downsize to a little house with a white picket fence and blend in?
Michael Jackson cannot afford to live the quiet life.
Invincible, despite what quick-to-judge people say, was all in all a good album. To Michael's standards, it perhaps wasn't. But when again is he going to make another Dangerous? Another Thriller? He's not. But, what he can do, is make more music. As long as he enjoys it, go for it. For all its - in places - over-production, Invincible was a good album. I for one will buy any further music he makes.
He needs to make some money, and I think other than selling Neverland and his Beatles' catalogue rights, his only sure fire way of making ALOT of money would be to tour, or do some of them shows in Vegas (as have been suggested) where they pay SHED loads of dollar. He is apparently gonna move to Europe (London and Paris being the main two places). I think time away from the Yanks will do him good. He needs to reinvent himself, take some time out etc. But I think he'll come back with a bang.
Maybe not a huge Michael Jackson sized bang, but a bang bigger than most can wish for.
Invincible, despite what quick-to-judge people say, was all in all a good album. To Michael's standards, it perhaps wasn't. But when again is he going to make another Dangerous? Another Thriller? He's not. But, what he can do, is make more music. As long as he enjoys it, go for it. For all its - in places - over-production, Invincible was a good album. I for one will buy any further music he makes.
He needs to make some money, and I think other than selling Neverland and his Beatles' catalogue rights, his only sure fire way of making ALOT of money would be to tour, or do some of them shows in Vegas (as have been suggested) where they pay SHED loads of dollar. He is apparently gonna move to Europe (London and Paris being the main two places). I think time away from the Yanks will do him good. He needs to reinvent himself, take some time out etc. But I think he'll come back with a bang.
Maybe not a huge Michael Jackson sized bang, but a bang bigger than most can wish for.
I'd have to say that 'Invincible' was good for the most part, but it had it's share of shit songs like '2000 Watts'.
Definitely.
Maybe ten years ago, 2000 Watts might have been good, but not now. The Lost Children wasn't a favourite of mine I have to say.
Although, Butterflies, Heaven Can Wait, Whatever Happens, that track with the clever rap thing made by speech from the dead presenter of The Twilight Zone or whatever were all very good. Especially Butterflies.
And a couple of the early tracks, Unbreakable, Heartbreaker etc werent too bad either. And it had some very good ballads too, Speechless and You Are My Life were good in my opinion. I think he wanted a Dagerous part 2, but it didn't quite get there.
Maybe ten years ago, 2000 Watts might have been good, but not now. The Lost Children wasn't a favourite of mine I have to say.
Although, Butterflies, Heaven Can Wait, Whatever Happens, that track with the clever rap thing made by speech from the dead presenter of The Twilight Zone or whatever were all very good. Especially Butterflies.
And a couple of the early tracks, Unbreakable, Heartbreaker etc werent too bad either. And it had some very good ballads too, Speechless and You Are My Life were good in my opinion. I think he wanted a Dagerous part 2, but it didn't quite get there.