http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/na...d-jackson.html



I guess he can go back to beating it now.

 

that's just wrong.... oh well, maybe next time...

 

In other news, a California jury also acquitted this man of cutting down a tree...

 

Regardless, that man is not normal, sleeping with kids other than your own is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Courtesy of the lounge lizards...


(prepare to laugh your @ss off)


http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2672935

 

Thats funny amur. good old triumph.

 

...Its the money I tells ya..or maybe he told all the jury "If you guys acquit me, I won't sleep with your children".

 

I always thought he was innocent

 

I think its proven now, you simply cant convict a celebrity in California, its become a state motto...Max

 

HAHAHAAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA, that is one funny video clip...

i do wonder how much it costed him to pay off the jury though.

and did anyone see the interview with the jurors? these have to be the 12 dumbest ******* people in california, congradulations to the lawyers for finding these people

 

Watch it turn out the same as OJ's trial. In six months they'll be interviewing jurors on 20/20, and they'll be confiding, "Maybe we were wrong..."

 

Hahahaha ya probably. Oh god i love jurors...the almighty wisdom of a group of idiots pre-selected by the defense. (I think thats how it works...ah crap i dunno)

 

I don't think he molested the kid. They just want money plus the prosecuter has been after him for a while after failing the first time.
Sure he admitted he sleeps with the kids on the documentary but that doesn't prove he molested them. I'm sure the parents knew the child slept in the same bed. So tell me what kind of parents would let their childern stay there still?
Just because its wrong and sick doesn't mean hes guilty. You gotta look at the facts and history of the case and people.

 

Didn't have to wait 6 months - there's already a juror saying this morning that they thought he was guilty but didn't have enough proof.
The video was great - lmfao.

 

Actually he said that maybe MJ has molested kids, we don't know, but he was innocent of the charges brought against him in court.

 

So yes, the juror apparently thought Jackson was a child molester, but may not have molested the child in question - oh, but wait, he goes on to say:
- source cbc.ca

So, its apparently okay to be a child molester, as long as the child in question comes from a messed up family, where the parent(s) don't exactly present well, to put it kindly. Of course, children such as this are exactly the sort pedophiles tend to seek out - their messed up family life makes them more pliable when someone comes along and seems to be nice and really interested in them.
Congratulations to Mr. Hultman on managing to hold 2 contradictory views - "he's a child molester"- and "maybe not with this particular kid" - well, what other child in the evidence presented convinced you of the first opinion?! But apparently he and 2 others were swayed by their peers - other people who can likely manage to put 2 contradictory statements together and believe it is reasoned judgement. Of course, sticking with what he believed would have just meant a hung jury, so why not give in and get it over with?
When it comes to celebrities, it seems that "beyond a reasonable doubt" would seem to require the jurors to be eyewitnesses.

 

This whole reaction to the MJ verdict is starting to **** me off.

There is a real feeling that he is guilty just because of the nature of the charges. If they charged him with murder, people would almost universally be happy - but if I hear another person say "He got away with molesting kids..." I'm going to loose it! THAT IS JUST WHAT HE WAS CHARGED WITH!! THAT'S IT!!! It's not like they caught him on tape fondling a child and he then got away with it!

I could go on the radio tonight and say that 20 years ago Paul Martin molested me. It may not be true but because of the nature of the charges he would be percieved as guilty until proven innocent - and even if he was proven innocent, there would be those who would still feel like he "got away with it".

The fact is that all these charges stemmed from a lady who claimed that MJ molested her son. The same woman who was found guilty of falsly accusing a JC Penny worker of doing the same thing! If this case was so cut and dry, he would have been convicted of at least a few of the 10 charges against him! It has nothing to do with his celebrity - the facts weren't there, and the procecution couldn't prove that anything happend.

Personally I believe that MJ didn't molest any children. That is MOLEST them. I do believe that he is VERY guilty of improper conduct with a minor - Many times over - and I guess I am a bit confused as to why they would take a chance and try to nail him with all these weird charges, when they could have easily nailed him with MANY smaller ones? Maybe one of the legal egales on this board could shed light on that.

The bottom line is that it's all a bit stupid. MJ is fucked up - that is not in dispute. And so too are the parents that let their children sleep over with him.

 

I totally agree with Nick86 on this one. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? What happened to "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Yes, he is a sick man, an odd bird, whatever you want to call him, but that does not make him a criminal. Fact is, nobody can prove for certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he molested those children. Sleeping in the same bed as children does NOT mean he molested them! Just like sharing a bed with two other women in a business trip does not mean there was any lesbian action

Anyway, the main thing that makes me wonder is what kind of mother would let her child sleep over, unsupervised, at Neverland, knowing that he was already charged with child molestation ten years ago (because EVERYBODY knows that, even those people that lived under a rock). Maybe she was hoping her child would be molested so that she could sue him for money, people can be fucked up like that.

By the way, I am not in the least a Michael Jackson fan, never was, but I still believe in beyond a reasonble doubt as the basis of a good justice system.

 

Liar, I know you can moonwalk.


I have to agree with those coming to Michael's defence. I think David Letterman said it best last night when he said the Jury was heard saying "we the jury find the accused creepy" but not guilty.

I think it would take a completely honest person to admit to the world all aspects of their lives as MJ has done. He knew that when he announced to the world that he has sleepovers with little boys that his statements could be misconstrued. But when you know you are innocent why should you state anything other than the truth as well as live your life any other way than how you want to.

I am not saying that I think it is a good idea for parents to let MJ sleep in a bed with their child but I don't think anything happened. I say this becauce I have had my children,nieces, nephews and young cousins all sleep in my bed over the years. But who other than myself and the kids can say what happened. Of course nothing did or ever will but I don't expect anyone else to ever trust me with their kids nor would I trust anyone with mine. So what I am saying is that child molestation is a charge that one cannot overcome regardless of acquital since the stigma attached to it is so strong.

I feel bad for MJ for not having good advisers around him through the years.

 

How does this:

equal this?

 

It only goes to show you that there are two legal standards, one for celebrities and the political elite, and one for everyone else.

I remember my dad saying that as a kid while he watched US Senator Edward Kennedy get acquitted for murdering that young girl at Chapaquidik. Anyone else would have got 20 years to life.

We see it everywhere. Why should Canadian scumbag Members of Parliament get fat indexed pensions on the backs of Canadian workers? Less than a third of working Canadians have pensions but if you're a "nobody" MP you have the "right" to one. As far as I am concerned the term "Canadian justice" is an oxymoron - now we see that the term "US Justice" is one too.

 

He's a smooth criminal, so just beat it!

 

As for those people crying that there is a double standard for celebrities...

Saying that Jackson was acquitted because he's a celebrity is a pretty weak argument, as week as the arguments the prosecutors used to try to put him to jail. Vague correlations vs hard facts. If celebrity status has an impact, it's probably just the public image acting as a character witness.

Jackson got let off because there was no hard proof. A nobody would have been let off with this amount of proof as well.

By the way ChristopherL, those accusations don't fit your usual rah-rah-USA style!

 

Because on the one hand the guy says he believes Micheal is a child molester - but then goes on to say the accuser's mom lacks credibility - so apparently he can believe on one hand MJ is guilty, but find him not guilty. I can understand the mother's previous lawsuits cast doubt on the vercity of the claimed abuse - in which case you find the accused not guilty. My point is simply that this juror seems to be of two minds - and it seems they're not on speaking terms with each other! I can certainly agree the mother lacks credibility - but I can also see that that certainly isn't the only evidence presented in a three month trial. So the juror seems to be saying, "yes, I think he molests children, but I think the alleged victim's mom is a gold digger, so he's not guilty"?! If he thinks MJ is a child molester, why did he vote not guilty? Did he come to this conclusion from something other than the evidence presented at trial? And if he voted not guilty, why is he shooting off in the press that he believes other than how he voted? Regardless of whether a person thinks Micheal is a pedophile or not, this really damages the integrity of the trial by jury system - how do you trust the outcome? He had decision to make - were the charges proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Not 100% conclusively, mind you, but beyond reasonable doubt. I'm saying that its ridiculous that this juror seems to have made two, contradictory conclusions based on what he saw and heard.

 

See, here's where you're gettting confused.

MJ was not on trial being accused of being a child molester as a blanket characteristic, he was on trial to determine if he molested this child. The charges brought against him accused him of doing specific things to a specific person, and the evidence that these things occured just wasn't credible.

So there is no conflict. The juror can think that MJ has the capacity to be a child molester; hell, he can even think in his opinion that MJ has molested other children. But his duty as a juror was not to say "well I think this guy is creepy so he's going to jail" but to determine if MJ did, beyond a reasonable doubt, molest this specific boy. The evidence didn't fit, the testimony from the mother kept changing, and the timeline didn't make any sense.

In short, despite our opinions of MJ and our theories of what mighth have gone on behind closed doors, the jurors who looked at the evidence found there was no proof that he commited the specific crimes he was accused of.