Michael Jackson innocent as a new born babe

[Greji]

Michael Jackson Acquitted of Molesting Boy

Jun 13, 5:18 PM (ET)

By LINDA DEUTSCH

(AP) Michael Jackson waves to fans as he arrives to the Santa Barbara County Courthouse in Santa Maria,...
Full Image
SANTA MARIA, Calif. (AP) - A jury acquitted Michael Jackson on Monday of molesting a 13-year-old cancer survivor at his Neverland ranch, vindicating the pop star who insisted he was the victim of mother-and-son con artists and a prosecutor with a vendetta.

A caravan of black SUVs delivered Jackson, wearing a black suit and flanked by family members, to the courthouse. Jackson was greeted by "Michael, innocent" chants as he walked into the courthouse.

The jury, which listened to 14 weeks of testimony and arguments, deliberated over seven days before sending word of a verdict at about 12:30 p.m.

The announcement came shortly after Judge Rodney S. Melville issued a statement saying that the jury asked and withdrew a question Monday morning. He also confirmed that on Friday the jury had a read-back of testimony and there were four meetings in chambers with attorneys. News organizations had filed motions seeking information on such developments.


(AP) Michael Jackson waves to fans as he arrives to the Santa Barbara County Courthouse in Santa Maria,...
Full Image


Jackson, 46, is charged with molesting a 13-year-old cancer survivor in 2003, plying him with wine and conspiring to hold the boy and his family captive to get them to rebut a damaging television documentary.

In the documentary, "Living With Michael Jackson," Jackson held hands with the boy and told interviewer Martin Bashir that he let children into his bed but it was innocent and non-sexual.

Jackson, who climbed to fame with the Jackson 5 and dominated pop music in the 1980s with the powerhouse "Thriller" and other albums, was portrayed at trial as a pedophile who lured boys into his bed at his fairytale Neverland ranch. The defense called the accuser and his family con artists.

Jackson's career began to lose its luster after 1993 allegations of child molestation that ended with a multimillion-dollar civil settlement paid to a boy, and his lifestyle, two marriages, and drastic changes in appearance became fodder for "Wacko Jacko" tabloid headlines.

---

[Maths Dude]

Just another case of the rich getting away with it. Just look at OJ Simpson! The rich are bunch of scum bags.

[Taro Toporific]

Etsuyo wept.

[FG Lurker]

Just another case of the rich getting away with it. Just look at OJ Simpson! The rich are bunch of scum bags.

Michael Jackson is a freak, there is no doubt of that.

This case isn't about "the evil rich" getting away with it though. It's about a family with a history of pulling cons and scams trying to extract money out of someone famous. Try reading some background for a change.

[American Oyaji]

He didn't "get away" with SHIT.

The evidence was put in front of a jury. Jury let him go.

If he had paid them off to disappear, then maybe you could say that.

[nullpointer]

Just another case of the rich getting away with it. Just look at OJ Simpson! The rich are bunch of scum bags.

How has his being rich helped him get away with it?

[maraboutslim]

I've always been puzzled when people say that a rich guy got away with something because he had a lot of money. No defendant, except maybe bill gates when he gets popped for something, has the kind of money that the government has. Think of all the hundreds of people working on the case from the governments side: the cops, the detectives, the scientists, the assistants and the DAs and all their staff. If the defendant is rich, maybe he can hire a few people on his side too and try to even the playing field a little... OJ spent way less on his lawyers than the government spent prosecuting him, and i'm sure the same goes for wacko jacko.

[ichigo partygirl]

Fuck yeah he is weird and his view of the world is screwed up. but according to the jury he is not a child sex abuser. I dont know all the facts like the jury members do,so i can only assume they made the right call and trust their judgment.

[fatslug]

michael jackson is innocent ???

And the poor CORBY girl has to sit in a BALI jail for 20yrs !!!?!!?!?


what the fuck ?_?!?!?

[FG Lurker]

michael jackson is innocent ???

And the poor CORBY girl has to sit in a BALI jail for 20yrs !!!?!!?!?


what the fuck ?_?!?!?

I'd say she's damn lucky to be in that Bali jail. Coulda ended up 6 feet under instead...

I think wacko jacko should go after that family for extortion.

[kurohinge1]

... If the defendant is rich, maybe he can hire a few people on his side too and try to even the playing field a little...

In my own experience, most of the best lawyers tend to be in private practice, as their ability allows them to command better reward than a government position. So, if you have enough money, you can usually hire a better quality legal team than the government, despite their limitless resources. It's quality v quantity.

There are of course great and committed lawyers in government positions, but I'm talking in general.

Just my two cents.

[Charles]

I've always been puzzled when people say that a rich guy got away with something because he had a lot of money. No defendant, except maybe bill gates when he gets popped for something, has the kind of money that the government has. Think of all the hundreds of people working on the case from the governments side: the cops, the detectives, the scientists, the assistants and the DAs and all their staff. If the defendant is rich, maybe he can hire a few people on his side too and try to even the playing field a little... OJ spent way less on his lawyers than the government spent prosecuting him, and i'm sure the same goes for wacko jacko.

Not true at all. Any decently wealthy defendant can outspend any District Attorney's office. They have limited budgets that have to be used to prosecute every crime in the county. Defendants can circle their wagons around their single case.
This is the conundrum the LA District Attorney's Office has been in for years. Every since the Fatty Arbuckle case, the Studios all arranged that anyone who makes big bucks is just not going to be prosecuted successfully. They'll put as much money behind a defense as they need to acquit, they'll outspend the whole damn State if necessary. There are too many jobs at stake. If Wacko Jacko wasn't out there generating millions of bucks, thousands of music industry middle executives would lose income, and wouldn't be able to afford cocaine and whores. And then the whole LA economy would collapse.

[maraboutslim]

Show me some numbers of dollars spent by OJ and MJ vs. dollars spent by the government in the two cases and I'll believe you. Until then, I'll not be convinced that my assumption is incorrect.

[AssKissinger]

He didn't "get away" with SHIT.

The evidence was put in front of a jury. Jury let him go.

If he had paid them off to disappear, then maybe you could say that.

Right on! Man, this may sound corny but I'm so glad Michael Jackson is not guilty. It would have been a bad day for American pop music if he was guilty. Those bastards falsely accused him of the worst kind of crimes imaginable. It's time we get back to thinking about Michael for what he really is: The King of Pop. ABC, I Want You Back, I'll Be There, Rock With You, Beat It and on and on and on. I hope those who've slandered his good name pay an appropriate price.

[NeoNecroNomiCron]

It would have been a bad day for American pop music if he was guilty.

How so, is he as dangerous as P2P?

[sillygirl]

Q: What does anyone with half a brain do when they need money?

A: MOVE TO JAPAN!

Michael Jackson's money troubles

I would think he is already fucked enough.....

[Adriatic]

In my opinion, he wouldn't get be accused that seriously that many times without some bit of foul play. But, in this case, there just wasn't any hard evidence and legally I suppose he's innocent.. however I think otherwise.

[FG Lurker]

In my opinion, he wouldn't get be accused that seriously that many times without some bit of foul play. But, in this case, there just wasn't any hard evidence and legally I suppose he's innocent.. however I think otherwise.

I think people have seen him as an easy target because he's rich and a freak.

Take this last round for example... The family has a history of this type of thing! The mother admitted to lying under oath in a past case. I think (but am not going to dig for a reference) that it also came out that the kids had been coached into testimony in past cases too. The whole thing reeks of extortion.

[Maths Dude]

Oh fuck it all to hell. I dont give a crap anymore. No point crapping on about all this shit.

[Andocrates]

He's a freak and all that, but in this case it was just some petty bureaucrats trying to make a name for themselves. Justice is served, (But damn how much did it cost him?)

[hakuman]

A couple people in this thread have stated that he is innocent, but no jury ever said that. They said he was "not guilty". That is radically different from innocent. It just means that there wasnt enough proof that he did it. Not that there was proof he didnt.

[FG Lurker]

A couple people in this thread have stated that he is innocent, but no jury ever said that. They said he was "not guilty". That is radically different from innocent. It just means that there wasnt enough proof that he did it. Not that there was proof he didnt.

So by your logic everyone who is charged and later acquitted is actually guilty? Or is this the case only for people you don't like? Or maybe only when your "gut instinct" tells you they are guilty?

It's called "innocent until proven guilty" for a reason.

[hakuman]

I believe it is actually possible in some states to get a declaration of innocence after being proven not guilty, but the burden is on the defendant to prove that they are innocent.

Or is this the case only for people you don't like? Or maybe only when your "gut instinct" tells you they are guilty?

I actually dont know if MJ is guilty or not. I didnt sit through the trial, so I dont presume to know either way.

And "innocent till proven guilty" is just how the system is based. What it means is that the onus is on the state to prove guilt, not on the defendant to prove innocence. In this case, the state didnt prove guilt. No one proved innocence.

So by your logic everyone who is charged and later acquitted is actually guilty?

Maybe, maybe not. I dont presume to decide either way. What I can say is that it has been decided that they are not guilty. Not that they are innocent.

[FG Lurker]

It is almost impossible to actually prove you are innocent in many (most!) cases.

This was one of the problems that Iraq faced before the war. The US refused to believe that Iraq had no WMDs. Clearly Iraq did not fully cooperate, but even if they had, would the US have ever believed them? Very, very doubtful. How can you prove that you don't have something? You can't.

A) I don't have it. See?

B) Yes you do, it just isn't here.

A) Well, let's look over here, shall we? See, it's not here either.

B) I don't believe you -- you just have it hidden somewhere else.

A) Well, look anywhere you want then, I don't mind.

B) You have it hidden so well that I can't find it, but I know you have it!

Unless the situation is one with hard proof (multiple alibis, video evidence, etc), proving innocence is impossible most of the time.

Hence we have a system of innocent until proven guilty.

[hakuman]

I agree, it is almost impossible to prove innocence. Thats why the burden is on the state.
However, as I already stated, innocent until proven guilty is only the theory behind which the onus is put upon the government to prove guilt. If it truely were innocent until proven guilty, then the verdict would not be "guilty" or "not guilty", it would be "guilty" or "innocent".
Ask a lawyer. They will tell you the same thing I am.

[Ketou]

You lucky lucky bastard......

[Mulboyne]

If it truely were innocent until proven guilty, then the verdict would not be "guilty" or "not guilty", it would be "guilty" or "innocent".
Ask a lawyer. They will tell you the same thing I am.

Not guilty does mean innocent. That was its intention when introduced into English legal proceedings. Scotland had a different system which asked for a criminal charge to be decided "proven" or "not proven". This is in effect what courts and juries are still asked to decide but the guilty/not guilty verdicts were introduced to establish that if a case against a defendant was "not proven" then he is innocent - "not guilty".
Under current Scottish Law, there are famously three possible verdicts now - "not guilty", "not proven" and "guilty"- where "not proven" is used when a jury is not certain that a defendant is innocent of the charges but accepts that the evidence leaves sufficient room for doubt to exclude a guilty verdict.
There continues to be significant debate about whether the third verdict should be retained. Judge Gerald Sparrow wrote about this difference: "I have often thought that the distinction typifies the different spirit of Scottish and English law: the Scottish being the more logical, the English more sporting."

[hakuman]

Thats all good and fine, except we are talking about the American legal system.

As I said, ask (an american) lawyer. They will tell you the same as I am.

[Mulboyne]

Thats all good and fine, except we are talking about the American legal system.

Which is derived from English Law. Certainly, the decision a court is asked to make is whether a charge is proven or not. The "guilty" "not guilty" dichotomy was introduced specifically to equate a not proven verdict with innocence. This is especially clear in the Scottish example where the third verdict - "not proven" - carries the legal weight of an acquittal but none of the moral connotations of innocence. The American legal system has not changed these concepts since adopting them. Anyone is free to comment on how society interprets verdicts and how the word "innocent" might be used in general conversation but the law is clear that not guilty of charges means innocent.
The waters certainly muddy, mind you, when you have, as in the OJ Simpson case, a successful civil suit brought subsequent to a criminal acquittal.

[kurohinge1]

That Scottish system sounds good, Mulboyne-san.

... The waters certainly muddy, mind you, when you have, as in the OJ Simpson case, a successful civil suit brought subsequent to a criminal acquittal ...

Perhaps because the burden of proof for a civil suit is only "on the balance of probabilities", whereas for a criminal trial the onus is the higher "beyond reasonable doubt". So it is harder to convict someone than to succeed against them in a civil suit.

Jackson's accusers may've hoped to let the state do all the expensive preparatory work in the criminal trial and then follow it with a civil suit.

Jackson is legally innocent, definitely unwise but only Jackson and his alleged victims will ever know if he's morally guilty.