Noncewatch - The Jacko Verdict

[daleyboy]

Hrmmmmm Scampy you and yer twin look like Marti Pellow!

That's an improvement on Stan Laurel.

Definately stan

[Wolfie]

I thought this topic was about "Noncewatch" - is the thread off topic or not?

[RDN]

That's an improvement on Stan Laurel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, now that you come to mention it....

So, Scampy, didn't you used to write about your early childhood, here on Thaivisa? I'm trying to remember if there's the possibility of a long lost twin brother that you never knew about? Anything is possible....

[The Gentleman Scamp]

That's an improvement on Stan Laurel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, now that you come to mention it....

So, Scampy, didn't you used to write about your early childhood, here on Thaivisa? I'm trying to remember if there's the possibility of a long lost twin brother that you never knew about? Anything is possible....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nah, we've all got dopplegangers mate.

[Soi Mongrel]

Let me see...in the OJ trial we had scads of evidence, yet he walked.

This time, we have zero physical evidence and little if any convincing testimony, yet the majority of people here think MJ will be convicted.

I'm betting on acquittal.

[Wolfie]

I think the jury will get him on something but not the child molesting charge. I do beleive he will go down for a length of time.

The ones who brought the charges against him have lost a lot of credibility, so i cant see the jury coming down on him too hard...but as said before, theres no smoke without fire and this is not the first time this question has been raised about MJ.

[Soi Mongrel]

In the US at least, you cannot be convicted if there is only "smoke" -- which is all the prosecutors have been able to come up with. He'll walk.

[The Gentleman Scamp]

I have no feeling or opinion whatsoever for Michael Jackson, but I think the way his country is handling this and treating his is far worse than giving a kid a handjob and a glass of wine or whatever he did or didn't do, I'm past caring.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he tops himself, I mean I would if I were him just from having a look at the man in the mirror.

[apdare]

That's an improvement on Stan Laurel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, now that you come to mention it....

So, Scampy, didn't you used to write about your early childhood, here on Thaivisa? I'm trying to remember if there's the possibility of a long lost twin brother that you never knew about? Anything is possible....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nah, we've all got dopplegangers mate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is this the same doppleganer who posted "LIFE AFTERDEATH"?

[bannork]

I have no feeling or opinion whatsoever for Michael Jackson, but I think the way his country is handling this and treating his is far worse than giving a kid a handjob and a glass of wine or whatever he did or didn't do, I'm past caring.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he tops himself, I mean I would if I were him just from having a look at the man in the mirror.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Michael will hurriedly move to Thailand before the verdict is announced, he will probably apply for a single entry visa, extendable every evening once the effects of the wine in the cola have taken hold. Next year he will be a regular feature on Thai TV, advertising the effects of Pond's cream lotion.

[Jockstar]

I have no feeling or opinion whatsoever for Michael Jackson, but I think the way his country is handling this and treating his is far worse than giving a kid a handjob and a glass of wine or whatever he did or didn't do, I'm past caring.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he tops himself, I mean I would if I were him just from having a look at the man in the mirror.

Michael will hurriedly move to Thailand before the verdict is announced, he will probably apply for a single entry visa, extendable every evening once the effects of the wine in the cola have taken hold. Next year he will be a regular feature on Thai TV, advertising the effects of Pond's cream lotion.

Maybe goto Cambodia and hook up with Gary Glitter.

[The Gentleman Scamp]

Sorry to change the subject, but I just recieved an e-mail from the manager of the moog hotel:

Hi Scampy,

The guy in question is actually International Superstar DJ Sasha from the UK!.

Cheers,

Simon Page

Mooghotel - Owner

Who the &lt;deleted&gt; is DJ Sasha?

Isn't that a tarts name?

Anyway, regarding Michael Jackson - his chin looks like a bottom.

[Nickerelastic]

Way, way off topic DJ Sasha

Back on topic, The guy I've seen in court doesn't quite look like Michael Jackson perhaps he's a doppleganger!

[Totster]

Hrmmmmm Scampy you and yer twin look like Marti Pellow!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's an improvement on Stan Laurel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ha ha... Now I'll never be able to look at you without that thought...

sorry about the

MJ will get off IMHO, can't really convict him based on the evidence..

totster

[george]

So if MJ goes free, he will start suing a whole bunch of "liers"?

[Totster]

So if MJ goes free, he will start suing a whole bunch of "liers"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is there any point...? they haven't got any money anyway have they... ? This was their plan to get some I thought..!

totster

[RDN]

Way, way off topic DJ Sasha

Back on topic, The guy I've seen in court doesn't quite look like Michael Jackson perhaps he's a doppleganger!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, Nicky, it's like this, you see, that program is not really a recording of the actual trial. No, I'm sorry, but it isn't. You see what they do is they get actors who look like the real people to say the words that the real people said during the trial and then they...

Oh, never mind.

[Nickerelastic]

OK, when I have a blonde moment I really go for it

[RDN]

OK, when I have a blonde moment I really go for it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[The_Moog]

Could be a 'Hung Jury' - and retrial

I was in one of those at the Old Bailey 10 years ago.

[kayo]

The following article from the BBC

Trial of the Century??

Michael Jackson: Trial of the century?

Michael Jackson's court case was expected to be the "trial of the century" - but after just three months and few of the promised celebrity witnesses, has it lived up to its billing?

Michael Jackson did not give evidence himself

There are few stars more famous than Michael Jackson and few charges more serious than sexually abusing a young boy.

Yet there is a sense that the singer's trial has not caught the public's interest as much as many had expected.

"Forget the century, it wasn't even the cultural story of the spring," says Robert Thompson, professor of popular culture and director for the centre for the study of popular television at Syracuse University.

"It turns out more people were talking about American Idol by a long shot."

The assumption that 24-hour news channels would go into a constant "Michael cycle" was wrong, he explains.

TV reconstructions have been filmed in the absence of real footage

"It turns out that as a massive news story over here, as another trial of the century, it really didn't live up to it. It was no OJ, by any stretch of the imagination."

For news channel CNN, there has been big interest in what is "a very important story on many different levels", according to Nick Wrenn, managing editor of CNN Europe, Middle East and Africa.

"There's been a fair degree of coverage - but not the kind of wall-to-wall you would have expected. Certainly not the kind of coverage we saw with the OJ Simpson trial."

That is partly because Judge Rodney Melville refused to let the trial be televised, saying he did not want it to become a "circus".

So, reconstructions aside, people have been unable to get hooked on following the soap opera-like drama in their living rooms every night.

When the OJ Simpson case became a media event as well as a murder trial 10 years ago, action such as Simpson trying on a pair of blood-stained gloves in court kept viewers hooked.

But this time, there has been little on-screen excitement, except Mr Jackson shuffling into court in his pyjamas.

"Even if there was complete access to cameras in the court, I still don't think this would have reached that [OJ-like] level of cultural penetration," Prof Thompson says.

Previous accusations

"What was happening in the courtroom was not that new or all that interesting to people who had been hearing about this Michael Jackson business since 1992 when the first accusation came in."

In the courtroom, there has been some drama amid proceedings that have ranged from the banal to the surreal.

But it has not been compelling enough for most ordinary observers to want to read or hear blow-by-blow accounts every day.

The dramatic moments included appearances by former wife Debbie Rowe, actor Macaulay Culkin and Janet Arvizo, mother of Mr Jackson's teenage accuser Gavin.

TV correspondents have been camped outside the court

Gavin and his brother Star described the alleged abuse - but such detail made many want to squirm in discomfort rather than discuss it with friends.

"There hasn't been a great deal of appetite for some of the quite graphic nature of the evidence that's been coming out," Mr Wrenn says.

"People have been inclined to switch off rather than switch on because it's been a bit too sordid."

For Mr Jackson, keeping up his performance and image became less important as the trial went on, and he chose not to take the stand in what would have been a fascinating finale.

But his image has become so bizarre that few people are shocked by anything he does any more.

And on the other side, the Arvizo family were not easy for the public to relate to or sympathise with either.

Mr Jackson was not the only celebrity missing from the witness stand.

Stars barred

At the start of the trial, we were promised stars including Elizabeth Taylor, Diana Ross and Stevie Wonder would come to defend their friend.

But the judge decided not to allow character witnesses, restricting the celebrity count to just Culkin, Jay Leno and Chris Tucker.

Although the trial has not gripped the global audience, it has still not been far from the top of the news agenda.

Mr Wrenn says viewers wanted to know about the main evidence, but not "a drip, drip, drip daily update".

CNN has "got that bit right", he says. But Prof Thompson adds the media as a whole has still given the story more time than it deserves.

"Even the amount of Michael Jackson coverage that was given was disproportionately large given its importance in any kind of rational journalistic universe," he says.

[rossiok]

What amazes me is after paying out 20 mill last time,how stupid do you have to be to put yourself in the same position again.

We all now that Jacko has had "problems"in his life that indeed may have an adverse affect on his personality.

But surely he has well payed and trusted advisors that could have steered him away from this situation.Isnt that what their paid for?

I think he will walk.

[ProThaiExpat]

Whatever the jury comes back with, short of acquittal, the case will most certainly go up on appeal. There is so much error in the record that it begs for review, especially with the use of the new evidentiary law, often called the Michael Jackson rule, that permits prior accusations into evidence.

This new evidentiary ruling is so fraught with ambiguity as to boggle the mind. The prejudicial nature of much of the testimony about prior acts allowed into evidence by the judge is sure reversible error.

Will the budget of Santa Maria County be sufficient to cover the cost of a re-trial.

There was legislation pending in California, five years ago, that called for statewide financing of criminal trials to help small counties cover their trial costs.

Most who refer to the OJ result fail to appreciate that if the D.A. for L.A. had left the trial in Santa Monica where it was orignially venued, there would have been a guilty verdict without a doubt as there was in the civil suit tried outside of downtown L.A.

The merchants of Santa Maria have to love their D.A.

The racial makeup of that part of California is largely white, but then again Jackson looks white!! Wonder what the bias is of the local jury that come from a largely rural area, although fairly close to Santa Barbara, but perhaps without the riches.

Having not been there, we are really at a disadvantage in assessing the political climate in a clearly political trial.

I haven't read much regarding the concept of "fresh complaint" which may have gone by the wayside in chld molestation cases where the accuser doesn't speak up until adulthood for obvious reasons.

It would seem to me that the ordinary juror, if pointed in that direction, would conclude that they are entitlted to a straightforward case based on clear evidence without a lot of ambiguity and conflicting statements and in the absence of such, acquit. On the other hand, trying the mother is an understood tactic and the jury may just fix on the final tape shown to them of the taped police interview that is reported quite convincing on its own.

[rossiok]

The racial makeup of that part of California is largely white, but then again Jackson looks white!! quote

Iwould also guess that a very large proportion of his fanbase is white.

[Kerryd]

Ha ! I TOLD YOU SO ! (caps intentional)

2005-06-05 12:39:14 "Wacko Jacko will prove that "Money Talks, Bullshit Walks" and he will "Beat It, Beat It, Beat It" (the rap). The verdict will be a "Thriller"."

Michael Jackson cleared on ALL 10 counts !

Apparently the jury was unanimous in their decisions. Rumours are that one juror was trying to peddle a book deal even while they were in deliberations.

Supposedly, the District Attorney is considering refilling the charges, but wouldn't comment after the verdict was handed down.

Funny, I thought that after being cleared, you couldn't be charged again for the same things (double jeopardy) ?

Not that I'm a fan of MJ, but it did seem like a set-up from the start.

[camerata]

What amazes me is after paying out 20 mill last time,how stupid do you have to be to put yourself in the same position again.

We all now that Jacko has had "problems"in his life that indeed may have an adverse affect on his personality.

His behaviour is probably compulsive if he is a paedophile. But this particular case looks like a set-up for money.

[Soi Mongrel]

Told ya so told ya so!

[aughie]

I watched the group interview of the jurors after they were dismissed. They were all pretty tight lipped w/ their answers until the question about the mother came up and they all mummered and shifted in their seats.

Here are four answers by ther hurors that I remember:

1. How could any mother let her child sleep w/ a man?

2. The other witnesses would look at us occasionaly during their testimony, she stared at us the whiole time.

3. She snaped her fingers at us and I thot hey lady don't you snap your fingers at us.

4. She snaped her fingers and winked at me and said, you know our culture. (juror is hispanic as is the mother)

They did not like her and they did not find her testimony credible. I assume they believe she tainted her son's testimony too. The closing statement of Jackson's lawyer stressed over and over reasonable doubt. This is what he was able to sell them on. They reached their verdict in 32 hours, about 2 1/2 days.

[dvk1951]

I just cannot believe any of us thinking of having any doubt concerning Jacko, since he happens to be a professional child molester pedophile, using wealth as the main means to get to them and then using his super fortified Neverland Ranch house to put his sicko jacko desires to work.

Now think about that for a moment and think about of the damage that has happened to the kid and (other kids whom also were victimized and not involved in this trial alone) who has to live with this incident(s) for the rest of their lifetime and perhaps never ever recover emotionally as a normal human being again.

Do you still have doubts of this kind of person who says right smack on TV as quoted """"""" There is nothing wrong for children to sleep with me on my bed"""""" and these kids are not even his!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Daveyo

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What a load of unsubstantiated verbal diarrhea.

Considering the recently announced verdict, was just wondering if u need any salt and pepper while eating the above.

[Sir Burr]

The verdict will be Not Guilty as there is "reasonable doubt" due to the mother being less than upstanding. If there is "reasonable doubt" the jury MUST find the defendant Not Guilty (even if they think he is guilty a la O.J.).