So Jacko The Wacko Is Backo!!...jaammoooo He He!

[Donna]

[QUOTE=Amir)


I don't think the fact that Michael paid another family a lot of money to keep quiet is evidence that he is guilty. If you have the money and the trial is emotionally painful and damaging to your reputation, then what is a few million when you have the rest of your life to get on with, and an income of several million a year anyway.

QUOTE]


This did cross my mind in fact.....I think if he's got any sense he wouldn't let anymore kids in his home. Mind you, after all he's been through its bound to have put him off.

[Piglet]

I've got to say that I am disappointed that the *evidence* the jury needed wasn't plain and simple enough to throw everything at Jackson.

Does anyone know how he managed to get away with the charges about giving alcohol to minors? I believed that he'd definitely get a couple of years for that for sure, but heard something on the news where the judge advised the jury that that outcome wasn't necessary a foregone conclusion or something (as you can see I didn't get the whole picture). Can anyone put me in the picture?

[under par]

I've got to say that I am disappointed that the *evidence* the jury needed wasn't plain and simple enough to throw everything at Jackson.

Does anyone know how he managed to get away with the charges about giving alcohol to minors? I believed that he'd definitely get a couple of years for that for sure, but heard something on the news where the judge advised the jury that that outcome wasn't necessary a foregone conclusion or something (as you can see I didn't get the whole picture). Can anyone put me in the picture?

I've got to refer you back to my earlier post on the credibility of the witnesses.

If the jury disbelieve that sex offences took place on the strength of evidence why on earth should they believe any other part of the evidence re lesser offences?

From your tone it appears you want jackson locked up

to throw everything at Jackson

where does innocent until proven guilty come into that.

Surely a trial is the oppurtunity for the state to produce evidence that someone has committed a crime and for that evidence to be tested for validity.

If the best case brought against jackson is as flawed as it seems and I'm no expert or regular follower of the trial, but if you take the tabloidism away from the evidence it was a poor case.

Hence no conviction.

[David Franklin]

Does anyone know how he managed to get away with the charges about giving alcohol to minors?

Probably because the actual charge was (according to CNN) for "Administering alcohol to enable child molestation".

As far as the main verdicts - a lot of the more convincing evidence was about prior actions; their only relevance to the actual charges was to indicate "he's probably done things like this before". And on those actual charges, there wasn't much evidence other than from witnesses with clear vested interests and histories of being economical with the truth. Reasonable doubt would make it very hard to convict under those conditions - the jury have voiced their disappoinment at the lack of any real evidence.

[Piglet]

Probably because the actual charge was (according to CNN) for "Administering alcohol to enable child molestation".

Cheers for that David - kind of makes sense I suppose.

And to answer Under Par's question - nope, I don't believe the guy is totally innocent. (And I don't read tabloid newspapers so not sure what I said there to make you think I did). But, I also appreciate that the jury came to the best decision they could in the given circumstances and no doubts I would have done the same - however, I don't necessarily believe that the truth comes out in a court case - mainly its clever people using clever words and its a battle of who comes up with the best word argument. Call me cynical - I can take it.

[Graham W]

Plenty of famous people have been convicted for plenty of things. Just from memory:

Gary Gliter (child porn)
Hugh Grant, (that prostitution thing)
James Brown (been in prison twice for wife beating)
Robert Downey Jr (in prison twice for drugs, I think)
Lil'Kim (perjury)
Christian Slater (drugs and battery)
Puff Daddy, DMX and a whole bunch of other rappers for anything you can name
Jeffrey Archer (fraud?)
Courtney Love (air rage or something)


Celebrities have the same advantage that all rich people have: they can afford better legal representation.


I don't think the fact that Michael paid another family a lot of money to keep quiet is evidence that he is guilty. If you have the money and the trial is emotionally painful and damaging to your reputation, then what is a few million when you have the rest of your life to get on with, and an income of several million a year anyway.

The previous settlement can also be looked at in a very different way: If my child was molested by a celebrity then no money in the world would convince me to let the culprit off, and go on and do the same to other children.

To me, the fact that the family accepted an out of court settlement causes me to doubt the truth of their claims in the first place. To me, allowing someone go free if you believe abuse took place is like prostituting your own child.


Like others on this thread, I am not saying I know that Michael Jackson is innocent or that he is guilty. But I don't think the jury was sure either, and if you're not sure, you can't send someone to jail.

a member of my fav band years ago actually got a longer sentence for drugs possession as he was in the public eye and had to set an example according to the judge (Hugh Cornwell-1981)..

MJ has suffered greatly whatever, maybe for something he hasn't done whereas lots of unconvicted child molesters haven't as they are within family,
& friends. circles.

G