What do you think of the Michel Jackson Verdict?

What do you think of the Michel Jackson Verdict?
Happy
Pissed
Indifferent


Come on tell us how you feel and why.

Torn.

I'm firmly convinced he's guilty. Maybe not of the worst of this one, but at least some of the minor ones. And child molestation yes, even if maybe not this specific child.

But they screwed up the trial (The prosecution that is), and there was too much doubt... So I'm glad the system sorta "worked", in that he wasn't just conviced on emotion.

Dunno.

Mostly pissed.

It's better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer."

Do I think he ever did any thing sexual with a child? I really don’t know.
Do I think he is sick and needs help? YES!
The Man is Innocent, Innocent till proven Guilty by a court of law.

Personally I am indifferent about the verdict. I am not happy or pissed.

The only thing i'm really pissed about is that he still has custody of his children.

If this were just a normal person, they would have been in care a looooong time ago. (well in NORMAL society).

But would he be doing some of the things he is a bad father for if he was a normal person? I mean no one would care about the baby so he would never put the baby over a railing for pix.

Not QUITE the point, but I see your take on things.

Pissed, but not at all surprised.

Even one of the jurors has said in an interview that he thinks Jackson probably molests kids, but he had to let him off the hook because- technically and legally- he had to determine whether Jackson was guilty with this particular kid.

Interesting dialema here. If you conclude someone has a habit of molesting kids, should you break the rules/law and convict him on a particular case that's less convincing than the others to keep him from doing it again? Or should you do as you're told and find him not guilty since the case you're expected to try him on isn't as strong as other cases presented to you?

Like Llympia im not surprised. This trial really isn't going to affect my life, but I do think Jackson is guilty of child molestation. I wouldn't say I'm pissed about the verdict, but I'm definitey not happy.

I don't think it matters.... poor judgement is poor judgement, whatever the reason.

I follow the letter of the law. If I brake the law to put him away make us no better then him. The ends does not justify the means. Next we will be removing our rights, oh wait we did that with the (un)patriot act.

I prefer generally to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. There are bad laws out there, and there are times the law doesn't work right.

I feel slightly pissed but only because I read how a member of the jury said that he thought MJ was guilty!

In Scotland though, we have a worse verdict called 'Not proven' which pisses people off even more as the jury say the person may be guilty but there is not enough evidence to convict. The person on trial also loses out as although they are free, they don't get proven innocent.

I just don't care. It was all a smokescreen, anyway.

I hope that:
1) The verticts were accurate, and
2) He would just go away

As of Monday, he is an innocent man wrongly accused. Tried by 12, not guilty.

Not that he'll ever be alone with my kids...but then again, O.J. and Baretta will never be alone with my wife either...

When this trial was getting ready to head to jury deliberations, I said, "If the jury comes up with a decisive verdict within a week of going to deliberations, Michael Jackson's going to walk."

I was correct.

'Nuff said.

Bye bye for now,
Alexis

I am shocked and surprised that not a single persn on this thread thinks he is innocent, and that most are pissed that he "got off." I think if someone was accusing you of the same and dragging your name throught the papers everyday you would be happy that the law still requires proof.

I am also shocked that our "inclusive" and "alternative" comunity here is so adamant to label this guy a "freak" (mostly based on his appearance?) and people talking about how "normal" people would run away from him.

I mean really,...
Isn't it ironic for a bunch of cross-dressing virtual "sex-pot's" to lay down the law on what is "normal?"

What a bunch of hypocrites we are.


I think the DA should be fired for conducting a baseless vendetta, and the judge was in error when he failed to dismiss the case for lack of (any) evidence.

You may have a "feeling" that he is guilty, but there is no evidence. To suggest that your feelings about him are worthy of judicial respect is to legalise and institutionalise bigotry.

.

Got nothing to do with his appearance. It has everything to do with how he acts. Again. And again. And again. And again.



Actually, there is 'evidence'. Just not enough to convict, much like OJ Simpson.

Well Id like to make a point that has nothing to do with his actual guilt or not.

There is a huge disparity of the quality of Lawyers in the United States.

Why I say this,

Major Police departments gather evidence and arrest celebrities. Enough evidence to get a trial. The District attourney's procecute on this Evidence.

Presumably the same amount of Evidence they would acquire to convict any other non famous criminal.

However the impression I get at least is that those who can afford the Top notch lawyers have a MUCH smaller chance of being convicted.

I would be very intersted in seeing a Study comparing conviction rates Idexed against how well paid the Defense Lawyer(s) is.

I think this issue needs to be addressed, somehow.

Maybe allow the DA office to hire high priced lawyers in these sorts of cases so that the "FAIR TRIAL" is fair for the victims also.

Unless you sat through every minute of testimony, one has no way of clearly judging this case.

Opinions about verdicts are just that....opinions.

Network and cable TV (like Court TV) make a joke out of the preponderance of evidence.

Bleh... I guess that's the only reasonable position there is to take.

I really hope that crazy bastard isn't guilty, because if he is there's gonna be alot more screwed up kids around...

Michael Jackson stated...and I quote " it is a very beautiful and sweet thing to share your bed with a child" any mid 40's man who thinks it is acceptable to sleep with children that arent his is a pedophile. Lets not even remember that he paid off the previous child with a reported 20 million. If he wasn't hiding something then why pay the kid off?

That is suspicious behavior. Can you imagine a non-famous person justifying sharing his bed with kids as "a beautiful and sweet thing?" He (or she) would be laughed at.

While I certianly can't prove he's up to no good, I find his behavior very suspicious.

I don't buy the "he's a grown-up child" idea. I knew someone who portrayed himself similarly- as an innocent, childlike "kid who never grew up" person. Turned out it was a facade, used in part to gain people's trust and in part to mask some very non-innocent behavior.
Also, the grown-up-kid explanation doesn't explain the bed sharing. Sure, kids have sleepovers, but do they regularly cuddle up in the same bed and gush about how loving it is?
The attention and gifts to his pet kids is also a red flag. That's what pediphiles (and some seducers of adults, for that mater) do. Find someone needy, shower them with attention, entertainment and goodies, gain their trust, and take liberties.

Well as an attorney and former prosecutor I take exception to this.

The most significant difference between a private criminal defense lawyer and a public defender or prosecutor is work load. In smaller cases this can make a difference, but in a high profile case, since substantial resources are diverted, this difference is negated.

Most prosecutors win or plea bargain most of thier cases. The system is set up that way. A prosecutor has control over which crimes to charge. In gerfneal if the case is a dog, why charge it? (note we are not even going to discuss what has been done to the 4th amendment in the name of safety). So in most cases the role of the defense attorney is just to get a better deal.

In high profile cases though, the rules are different because the suit is a photo-op or a forum for a personal vendetta. Yes high profile attorneys can be very impressive, but so can low profile attorneys. The problem comes, at least some of the time, from when a mistake has been made by the DA's office in evaluating the case initially.

A dog case is a dog case. It is a lot more about the facts than about out lawyering the opponent. Sometimes I think DA want to make thier name with high profile cases and thus they pursu conviction without regard to the actual facts. I think the michael jackson case was not great to begin with, and MJ was only charged cause the DA has a hard on to run him out of Santa Barbara County.

The victim and his family were always the weak link in the case, especially the mother. The jusry was never going to like her and the brother's story kept changing. There was plenty to cause reasonable doubt. I do think the mother was an unneccessary witness, as the conspiracy charges were silly: I mean the only memeber of the conspiracy charged, was MJ. Well shit, how does it look a to a jury when you tell them four people did this, but only one is prosecuted? The problem with that is that the jusry was never going to like the victims mother, she came off as a gold digger. The defense hammered this..but it wasn't because the defense lawyers were better paid, anyone would have.

And this particular victim had a prior history of charges and lawsuits and really it was pretty easy to sow doubt as to his credibility based on these charges.

And that really is it. The jury cannot decide to convict based on past acts. The jury must evaluate the case in front of it, and convict or acquit based on proof of these particular charges, beyond a reasonable doubt. There was plenty of doubt to go around. The defense didn't create it.

Also, in other high profile cases, well paid defense counsel have lost: Scott petersen and David Westerfield come to mind. In general if you take a good look at the evidence in a case, you can see why the jury acquits or convicts. A good lawyer will evaluate the case early on. However in high profile cases sometimes the pressure to convict will over ride insticnts about the circumstances and quality of proof.