Nickerelastic Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Now he is planning another world tour bad 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tso310 Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Bugger ! I assume Gary Glitter will be the support act. I wonder if we will ever hear how the jury voted. I'm not sure how true this is but I understand a unanimous verdict is necessary and that a majority verdict of guilty is not permissable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 seems if you've got enough money in America you can do anything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDN Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 He's been found not guilty on all charges. Anyone making accusations against him had better realise that in the eyes of the law he is innocent. Any more "kiddie fiddler" posts will result in the accuser being banned either temporarily or permanently. Keep it clean, keep it sensible or these threads will be closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDN Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Bugger !I assume Gary Glitter will be the support act. I wonder if we will ever hear how the jury voted. I'm not sure how true this is but I understand a unanimous verdict is necessary and that a majority verdict of guilty is not permissable. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The jury are being interviewed live on BBC World and CNN right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Helper Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 It's an absolute 'Travesty' of justice, that he has been cleared!!! If he was tried in a British court before a British Jury, he wouldn't have been so lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDN Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 It's an absolute 'Travesty' of justice, that he has been cleared!!! If he was tried in a British court before a British Jury, he wouldn't have been so lucky. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You clearly have access to more evidence than the prosecution and jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Helper Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 (edited) RDN: Come on man. Read between the lines of the case!!! The answer lies there! Edited June 13, 2005 by Mr Helper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDN Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 RDN: Come on man. Read between the lines of the case!!! The answer lies there! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But isn't this the problem? People adding their own "facts" in between the lines, when those facts don't exist - except in the minds of the accusers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakhar Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 What I find hard to accept is that the family of this child does have a history of sueing. So because of their history, I am sure this raised some doubts to the validity of their claims. America has become a litigious society ruled by lawyers.... and this vedict may just reflect the negative outcome of this. He very well may have been guilty, and if so, it is a shame. If the family had did not have a past record of sueing, things may have been different. Also.... lets assume MJ is not guilty.... Think about the huge financial loss. Yep, the only winners were the lawyers in this one. (as usual) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Helper Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 (edited) RDN: Well I would state my full reasons why I think he is guilty, but I don't want to get banned, as I have been here since Jan 2001, and my member No. is an early "197", and I haven't been banned in all this time, and don't fancy getting banned anytime soon Edited June 13, 2005 by Mr Helper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveDaBlues Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 tso310, all 12 members of the jury voted 'not guilty'. Had even one voted 'guilty' it would be a 'hung jury'. A 'guilty' verdict also requires a full 12 votes for 'guilty'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDN Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 RDN: Well I would state my full reasons why I think he is guilty, but I don't want to get banned, as I have been here since Jan 2001, and my member No. is an early "197", and I haven't been banned in all this time, and don't fancy getting banned anytime soon <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have no problem with you - or anyone - stating facts. But no libellous posts, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tso310 Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 What I find hard to accept that the defence were happy to admit, and have people (at least 4 including Mcauley Caulkin) testify, that he did share the same bed with young boys. It was protrayed almost as an act of benevolance by MJ. At best this makes MJ a seriously sick person. Why have local social services not intervened. I cannot imagine this situation being allowed to happen in the UK. MJ's kids would have been taken immediately into care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tso310 Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 tso310, all 12 members of the jury voted 'not guilty'. Had even one voted 'guilty' it would be a 'hung jury'. A 'guilty' verdict also requires a full 12 votes for 'guilty'. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Cheers. Have yet to do UK jury service. I know in the UK you can have majority guilty verdicts of 11-1 or 10-2 but I do not know under what those circumstances they are allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveDaBlues Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 (edited) Social Services have not been involved because Mr. Jackson has not broken any laws of the State of California or the United States. There is NO LAW against an adult (male or female) sleeping in the same bed with a minor. Even if the minor is not a blood relative. In the USA the justice system was originally set up to give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Hence in a criminal trial it takes a unanimous vote to convict. Edited June 13, 2005 by LoveDaBlues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tso310 Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Social Services have not been involved because Mr. Jackson has not broken any laws of the State of California or the United States. There is NO LAW against an adult (male or female) sleeping in the same bed with a minor. Even if the minor is not a blood relative. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think in the UK that Social Services would have deemed that the child would be "at risk" and action would have been taken. I just happen to think that a middle age man befriending adolecant boys and sharing a bed with them, however innocent the intentions, is something which is fundamentally wrong and needs to be stopped immediately. There may well be societies where this is deemed as correct behaviour but I certainly would not want to expose my children to that type of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maerim Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Think about the huge financial loss. I am doing and as he was spending $38 million more in one year than was coming in I suggest we have a collection for Mr. Jackson so he can get a suntan as he looks awful, white as a sheet. Plastic surgery is not cheap either I should imagine, so come on dig deep it's for a worthwhile cause. It brings tears to a glass eye to read about these superstars down to their last couple of million as they are not like us mere mortals they really need the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeDanan Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Hi All, (very American) I did not watch the trial or have access to the evidence presented to the jury BUT! The prosecuting lawyer in his closing statement says that Jackson for one whole year slept every night with a “boy” in his bed, there is something not right with this! But then the USA is this fantastic paradoxical country, where it is ok to shoot your neighbour if you think he is about to rob you, but it is not ok for a lady to show her “boobs” in public! THIS IS NOT A ANTI USA STATEMENT. I just can not understand USA LOGIC some times (many times). Got that off my chest….. Regards Have a happy…. DeDanan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frodo Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 While I may not agree with MJ's behavior (holding boys hands, sleepovers, etc) and I think it's a "little off," there is no crime in that. Watching the jurorists speak on CNN and BBC, there was not any credible evidence. We can formualte a verdict based on what we see on the internet and other media forms, but it's limited. Truly, once you have it in your mind what you would have done, it won't change regardless of the verdict. He was found innocent, and rightly so. The law has worked. The case was shaky from the start. The magazines had not been tested for prints prior to showing it to the Grand Jury. It was then they boys were allowed to touch and flip through those "pieces of evidence." That's not evidence, it's a setup pure and simple. The accusers family have a very real problem of sueing everyone they can. They are no angels. The jury probably realized that that family was trying to blow smoke up peoples as***. It didn't work and maybe they should be held accountable for their actions. Anyone can make an accusation, but is it always true? These days it's about sensationalism and horrificism (if theres such a word). The more horrific and sensational, the more we thirst for it and in sick ways want to believe it true. He's not guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tso310 Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Hi All, (very American)I did not watch the trial or have access to the evidence presented to the jury BUT! The prosecuting lawyer in his closing statement says that Jackson for one whole year slept every night with a “boy” in his bed, there is something not right with this! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Listening to the jury it does seem that the prosecution blew it rather than is it was down to some spirited defence work. Arvizo's mother seems to take alot of the credit for putting reasonable doubt into the jury's mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickerelastic Posted June 13, 2005 Author Share Posted June 13, 2005 Any more "kiddie fiddler" posts will result in the accuser being banned either temporarily or permanently. Keep it clean, keep it sensible or these threads will be closed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frodo Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 I do agree that Social Services should take action right away! The mother is exposing her children to a life of crime and has placed them at great risk. Admitted lying under oath, malicious lawsuits against companies, having her children act as her agents for her (backing up unclaimed stories), extortion and welfare fraud. She is a clear abuser and must be dealt with to prevent future harm to those innocent darlings. The D.A. said MJ slept with those children for over a year. The mother should be investigated for this. What kind of mother would willingly allow her children to be exposed to potential threats such as this? Take the children away from this unworthy abusive parent before it's to late! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveDaBlues Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 In this PARTICULAR case I think he is innocent. Use some common logic. He paid off ($20,000,000 is the figure quoted) a young man some 12 years ago (roughly, I forget the time frame) in an out of court settlement. Why did he pay? Simple, he was guilty of the crime and bought his way out! Logic dictates that he would have chosen the same path in this case if he were guilty.....it worked before to get away with a crime. I believe he has molested young boys in the past; but in this PARTICULAR case I think the family was trying to blackmail him into a payment when no crime was committed. Just my .02. Oh, I understand he has vowed to leave the US and live in Europe....you guys can have him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickerelastic Posted June 13, 2005 Author Share Posted June 13, 2005 Poor poor mj <insert sarcastic remark> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickerelastic Posted June 14, 2005 Author Share Posted June 14, 2005 I hope his face rots off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 (edited) It's an absolute 'Travesty' of justice, that he has been cleared!!! If he was tried in a British court before a British Jury, he wouldn't have been so lucky. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Let us not be so quick to laud the legal system in the UK, over that in the US. There have been several instances of false accusation and wrongful conviction in child abuse cases in Britain:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,1504854,00.html http://www.inquisition21.com/article~view~...page_num~4.html http://www.childrenuk.co.uk/choct/oct2000/childabuse.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/child/story/0,7369,1505042,00.html There have also been cases where the Social Services and other agencies charged with child protection have been presented with prima facia evidence that abuse was taking place, and yet they failed to act:- http://society.guardian.co.uk/socialcare/n...,421467,00.html http://www.nspcc.org.uk/html/home/informat...sabledabuse.htm Having heard ALL the evidence presented to them - unlike the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade here at Thai Visa - the jury in the Jackson trial decided, unanimously, that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. Edited June 14, 2005 by Rumpole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarragona Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 At the beginning of the case I felt pretty sure he must be guilty. But hearing from and about that family put doubts into my mind. Jackson is a bizarre, and probably sick, individual but I'm not convinced in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_Pat_Pong Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 RDN: Well I would state my full reasons why I think he is guilty, but I don't want to get banned, as I have been here since Jan 2001, and my member No. is an early "197", and I haven't been banned in all this time, and don't fancy getting banned anytime soon <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well ... January 2003 anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Red Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 MJ seems really sick to me and needs some serious help, but I think the real travesty here is the apparent incompentence of the prosecution to prove the charges. I heard throughout the trial opinions leaning that direction, and it seems a big mistake to bring this to trial based on fairly flimsy evidence. Do I think he's guilty? Guilty as sin, but money fixes all (no different in US than here or most other countries) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts