Jackson Not Guilty !!!

And a lot of people are convinced he's guilty, and he deserved the treatment and the gossip of the last year(s), but what if he really is innocent, and his relation with children is purely a platonic love.

Ok Sweetnighter:

1. He sleeps with kids and publicly accepts that
2. Has paid millions of dollars to kids parents (who are not betterthan huim I agree) to keep previous felonies away from courts.
3. Two persons from his staff declared he had relatioins with the kids.
4. He doesn't declare in the trial (Very important issue) an innocent man almost always declares, unless he's afraid of the prosecutors's questions.
5. Staff of Neverland declared he saw kids intoxicated.
6. Liquor and porn magazines were found in the same room he shared with kids.

As a lawyer I done more than one hundreed settle agreements (even though in the civil law), and in 100% of the cases my clients settled because they had something to hide or something that was wrong.

Nobody settles for millions if he is innocent because this leaves the doubt in the mind of all the people.

After the trial oinly 70% of USA Citizens believe he is guilty. (At least he won 30%)

One juror admited he believes MJ is a child molester.

Another Juror disqualified a witness because she believed a snap of fingers was an insult against her

Please, you don't need to be a genius to notice that 2 + 2 doesnt give 5 and something is wrong here.

If I have to choose between Michael Jackson and a  kid's physical and mental health, I go for the kid in all the cases.

Iván

Edited by ivan_2068

Tony, ever heard of an ad hominem argumentative fallacy? It states that a personal attack on somebody is not a valid argument. Do I have growing up to do? Damn straight I do, I'm just 17 after all. Regardless, I can still argue a point if I so wish. I am keeping open to things that don't "prick my little bubble." If I wasn't, I wouldn't be arguing with you here, would I? Its not as if I'm a rich boy with overprotective parents who only thinks about getting laid and buying expensive crap (trust me, i know these kinds of people ). You may disagree with my standpoint, and thats fine. Regardless, I'm still allowed to voice my opinion, however stupid or immature you may see it.

For the sake of conversation, pm me if you want to continue this conversation tony. This is getting off the thread topic.

bluetailfly wrote: Look, this is a crazy argument. Everyone is scrambling for the moral high ground. All opinions expressed here have their merits. Everyone here doesn't want kids raped, and everyone here doesn't want people railroaded into prison on the basis of evidence that is reasonably questionable. These are complex issues and not the kind that allow for moral superiority posturing.

Re-read Sweetnighter's post.One would only have to leap 1mm to gain the higher moral or intellectual ground.

Tony R wrote: Sweetnighter wrote: I'd like to make two intersting points: 1) Who the f**k knows? 2) Who the f**k cares? Honestly. If somebody was a victim of a crime, its an issue between the defendant, the prosecutor,a nd the rest of the justice system. Did I like "the public at large" in there? No. Honestly, I hope that the decision of the courts is right and just, and if its not then thats unfortunate and should be corrected, but that particular case does not affect me or most anybody else, children included. Any claim that money had the final say in this case is absurd. One, there's a jury of uninvolved citizens, and two, its HIGHLY illegal to pay off jurors. If you don't like america or its economic system, so be it, but don't start attributing those political opinions to this case. Little known fact, but not every person involved in the American government (justice system included) is being payed off by monied interests. Fascinating, really. Guess you dont have children then SW! I don't, but even if I did, I still wouldn't care. Let me explain. First, pertaining to the boy in this case. If the court ruled that Jackson was innocent and did not sexually approach the boy, then based on my limited knowledge of the case, I'll take that verdict at face value. I still recognize that Jackson may have committed the crime. If the court made the wrong decision, then I wholeheartedly believe that the case should be retried. Even so, if he won the case and was actually guilty AND i had children, I STILL wouldn't care. I wouldn't care because the Jackson case sets down no judicial precedent. His case is entirely independent of any case that might involve a child of mine. He's a superstar... what happens in his life cannot be paralleled to mine in any way. I know we seem to get thrown into opposition frequently but these words you have written sum my perception of your whole philosophy: I AM ALRIGHT JACK,NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. Thats absolutely not true. Yes, my main concern is my personal well-being. It should be everybody's concern. Even so, I still believe that justice should be served and that everybody should have the opportunity to succeed in life. I don't like war, I don't like poverty, I don't like racism... I don't like a lot of things. They should be fixed. When I am in the position to do so later in my life, I intend to aid in these causes. Right now, I'm trying to get into college and make a secure future for myself, so nobody has to come to my aid down the road. Re-read your words.What you are basically saying is: 1.There is no way of knowing if he is guilty so leave it at that. For us, yes. For the people involved in the case, no. 2. You dont care if he is guilty-because it doesnt impinge on your existence. Pretty much. I would like to think he's not, but then again, with the information I've been given, I have no way of knowing. I have to leave that up to those involved in the case.  3.That any one crime only affects the victim of that crime-like a unique happening. No. When did I ever say that? Thats obviously not true. Take Brown vs. Board of Education. That was a case that involved a much larger group of people than those simply involved in the case. 4.That the prosecution of one "criminal" has no bearing on any other criminal act.Hence efforts to deter crime are futile. Not necessarily, but this case is exceptional because it involves pop's greatest star with a camera constantly in his face. He went to court wearing pajamas for crying out loud. This case is too isolated to effect pedophilia on a larger scale. I don't think fifty year old men will suddenly be like "awesome, jackson got away with it, so i can too." Not going to happen. Pedophiles will be pedophiles regardless of whether they're catholic priests or pop stars or whatever. Combating one pedophile does not prevent pedophilia as a whole. There are greater measures that need to be taken for that, i.e. medical treatment, psychotherapy, etc. 5. That jurors do not get bought off. They certainly won't be in a case like this with so much publicity! Yet you are literally punching the air in joy that you have met a musical instrument vendor who just happens to have the same name as the star of Jethro Tull. Cute... except I posted this before I went to Guitar Center. I know you're jealous tony! Normally I would go into a rant,making observations about you that you feel are over-the -top and generalised,but I will let this speak for itself.

*rolls eyes* here we go again...

my comments are in blue text

and why is everybody here so convinced that he committed the crime? i mean, are you all clairvoyant, or am i just a fool who can't see the obvious? don't just assume he's guilty. maybe he is, but you can't assume it.




Edited by Sweetnighter

its just sick for a man to sleep with a young boy (if not the father) but even if he didn't do anything to the boys! then he should still go in jail as he malestered his monkeY

Edited by arkitek

 

Tony R wrote:

Sweetnighter wrote: I'd like to make two intersting points: 1) Who the f**k knows? 2) Who the f**k cares? Honestly. If somebody was a victim of a crime, its an issue between the defendant, the prosecutor,a nd the rest of the justice system. Did I like "the public at large" in there? No. Honestly, I hope that the decision of the courts is right and just, and if its not then thats unfortunate and should be corrected, but that particular case does not affect me or most anybody else, children included. Any claim that money had the final say in this case is absurd. One, there's a jury of uninvolved citizens, and two, its HIGHLY illegal to pay off jurors. If you don't like america or its economic system, so be it, but don't start attributing those political opinions to this case. Little known fact, but not every person involved in the American government (justice system included) is being payed off by monied interests. Fascinating, really. Guess you dont have children then SW! I know we seem to get thrown into opposition frequently but these words you have written sum my perception of your whole philosophy: I AM ALRIGHT JACK,NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. Re-read your words.What you are basically saying is: 1.There is no way of knowing if he is guilty so leave it at that. 2. You dont care if he is guilty-because it doesnt impinge on your existence. 3.That any one crime only affects the victim of that crime-like a unique happening. 4.That the prosecution of one "criminal" has no bearing on any other criminal act.Hence efforts to deter crime are futile. 5. That jurors do not get bought off. Yet you are literally punching the air in joy that you have met a musical instrument vendor who just happens to have the same name as the star of Jethro Tull. Normally I would go into a rant,making observations about you that you feel are over-the -top and generalised,but I will let this speak for itself.

Can't agree more with you Tony.

In my case, I'm not from USA, I don't have kids yet (Even though I'm the Godfather of my sister's son who I love as he was mine) but I feel rage for any kid in the world that suffers this kind of abuse.

When I see a child molested I don't care if he's from USA, Uruguay or Timbuktu, for God's sake, it's a child who's life probably is ruined because it's almost impossible to leave behind a rape!!!

Seems that Sweetnighte worries more for the good name of some bureaucracy that MAY be corrupt than for children integrity.

Jury Raymond Hultman saidin hois own words, I believe he probably is a child molester, but the prosecution haven't proved that he raped in this case, well, at least this guy has an excuse (despite his stupid declarations) he was following the Judge's instructions, but a person that ignores the pain of a kid just because it doesn't affect him is beyond my undersytanding.

For your information Sweetnighter:

1. This case is a triumph for child molesters, because now the standard of prove is higher in this cases, probably some jurys will ask for a picture taken in the moment of the rape.
2. If Michael Jackson (as I believe he is) is a child molester, they are setting him free with almost an autorizarion to go on with this behavior, because he can't be set on trial for a similar case, now the prosecution needs a lot more of evidences.
3. Mr. Huttman's words are: You can rapé kids as long as you don't leave physical evidences. In other words he's giving a free lesson to the rapists.

I always thought that people who listens Progressive Music need to have strong sensibility, but I believe in some cases this is not true.

But why do I post this if you don't fu**ing care?

Iván

Sweetnighter wrote: I'd like to make two intersting points: 1) Who the f**k knows? 2) Who the f**k cares? Honestly. If somebody was a victim of a crime, its an issue between the defendant, the prosecutor,a nd the rest of the justice system. Did I like "the public at large" in there? No. Honestly, I hope that the decision of the courts is right and just, and if its not then thats unfortunate and should be corrected, but that particular case does not affect me or most anybody else, children included. Any claim that money had the final say in this case is absurd. One, there's a jury of uninvolved citizens, and two, its HIGHLY illegal to pay off jurors. If you don't like america or its economic system, so be it, but don't start attributing those political opinions to this case. Little known fact, but not every person involved in the American government (justice system included) is being payed off by monied interests. Fascinating, really.

Guess you dont have children then SW!

I know we seem to get thrown into opposition frequently but these words you have written sum my perception of your whole philosophy: I AM ALRIGHT JACK,NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

Re-read your words.What you are basically saying is:

1.There is no way of knowing if he is guilty so leave it at that.

2. You dont care if he is guilty-because it doesnt impinge on your existence.

3.That any one crime only affects the victim of that crime-like a unique happening.

4.That the prosecution of one "criminal" has no bearing on any other criminal act.Hence efforts to deter crime are futile.

5. That jurors do not get bought off.

Yet you are literally punching the air in joy that you have met a musical instrument vendor who just happens to have the same name as the star of Jethro Tull.

Normally I would go into a rant,making observations about you that you feel are over-the -top and generalised,but I will let this speak for itself.

 

 

Maani wrote:

Tuxon brings up an interesting point.  Both sides had to "voir dire" the jury.  So unless you are stating unequivocally that you believe that the jury was bribed (which would, in my opinion, make you cynical beyond all belief), both sides - Sneddon for the prosecution and Masereux for the defense - were satisfied well prior to the trial that none of the jurors were or would be swayed by Jackson's celebrity status, or anything related to it, or by potential testimony by other celebrities in Jackson's defense.  Are you suggesting that one or the other side completely and utterly failed in their voir dire responsiblities?

Honestly I don't know if it's only one reason ore more combined, I do believe the jurors were impressed by the fame of Michael Jackson (They clearly admitted this when they felt the eyes of the world on them).

About the prosecution, I believe it was a mistake to accept the MJ's ex wife as a wittness, he declared against him before the DA, the Police, and conviniently changed her declaration before the court.

The first rule for an attorney is not to be innocent, and this guy recieved a direct torpedo, this is a dirty trick and a stupid decision of the prosecution.

I also admit it's possible someone was bribed, this is not cynical, is realistic, some people are willing to recieve bribes a century ago, today and always.

Also, with regard to the mother's testimony and "snapping her fingers," you ask, "Is this a legal and reasoned position to disqualify a testimony?"  Actually, to some degree it is, since a judge can, and often does (and did in this case), instruct the jury that a witness' behavior - and not solely the words that come out of their mouths (i.e., "testimony") - can be used by the jurors, as individuals, to determine the truthfulness of the witness' testimony.

No Maani. I SAW THAT DECLARATION before I read it, the woman was in rage, she saw that as a lack of respect against her not as a sign that the mother was saying lies, she admitted she was furious for that and then added "nobody snaps her fingers at the jury".

Nobody should base his/her opinions in the dislike she feels for a person or in anger (this is the first instruction the Judge gives in every trial), that woman felt offended and didn't gave credit to a testimony because of that.

This lady saw the finger snap as an insult and took revenge, it's clear as water.

BTW: Why don't you quote the first wittness declaration?

Iván

Edited by ivan_2068

I don't have anything against USA or their system by the contrary, I'm closer the economic system that almost any other coutry in the world.

But I do believe there are jurors and judges all around the world capable of accepting a bribe, who cares of another felony for bribe is he/she are facing a long sentence in prison?

And I'm 100% sure that there are greedy bastards that are willing to send their kids to any risky situation if they are going to recieve a huge compensation.

Sweetnighter wrote:

1) Who the f**k knows? 2) Who the f**k cares? Honestly. If somebody was a victim of a crime, its an issue between the defendant, the prosecutor,a nd the rest of the justice system. Did I like "the public at large" in there? No. Honestly, I hope that the decision of the courts is right and just, and if its not then thats unfortunate and should be corrected, but that particular case does not affect me or most anybody else, children included.

Strange position, I don't live in USA but I care if any minor in the world is on risk, and leaving a supected rapist free is placing in risk all the kids that will still go to this guy's house to play and share bed with him.

About the jurors, here are some declarations from them:

All quotes from http://www.ktvu.com/news/4601573/detail.html 

One of the jurors who acquitted Michael Jackson on all counts said he believes the pop star is "probably" a molester, but the prosecution didn't prove it. In an interview on CNN, juror Raymond Hultman questioned the way Jackson has shared his bedroom and bed with young boys. Hultman said "that doesn't make sense" to him. But, he said, that didn't make Jackson guilty of the charges presented in this case.

Holy God, "He's probably a molester"!!!!! The way he sleeps with minors doesn't make sense!!!! Isn't this less than a reasonable doubt?????

Juror No. 5 said she remembered the woman snapping her fingers at the jury. The juror said she thought to herself, "Don't snap your fingers at me, lady."

Is this a legal and reasoned position to disqualify a testimony?

Another juror said she wonders why the accuser was allowed to stay with Jackson so long -- saying no mother "in her right mind" would let her child just go off and sleep with someone, Michael Jackson or anyone else.

For God's sake, Jackson ghas admitted he sleeps with minors!!!! this is beyond any doubt. Anyway, the criminal behavior of a mother (IMO it's criminal to place a son in risk) doesn't make the defendant less guilty.

After the innocent verdicts were announced, the judge read a statement from the jury that said: "We the jury feel the weight of the world's eyes upon us."

Who said they were not influenced?????

It's simply unbelievable.

BTW: Has anyone read the latest polls about MJ's case? Almost 70% of USA citizens believe he's guilty.

Iván

 

Edited by ivan_2068

I'd like to make two intersting points:

1) Who the f**k knows?
2) Who the f**k cares?

Honestly. If somebody was a victim of a crime, its an issue between the defendant, the prosecutor,a nd the rest of the justice system. Did I like "the public at large" in there? No. Honestly, I hope that the decision of the courts is right and just, and if its not then thats unfortunate and should be corrected, but that particular case does not affect me or most anybody else, children included.

Any claim that money had the final say in this case is absurd. One, there's a jury of uninvolved citizens, and two, its HIGHLY illegal to pay off jurors. If you don't like america or its economic system, so be it, but don't start attributing those political opinions to this case. Little known fact, but not every person involved in the American government (justice system included) is being payed off by monied interests. Fascinating, really.


Edited by Sweetnighter