Jackson Not Guilty !!!

Snow Dog wrote: I actually never believed he was guilty judging from what I know of him and the whole case seemed suspect to me!

Me too. Yeah, he's weird, but pedophilia didn't seem to be an aspect of his strangeness. I don't know, just an impression I guess. Maybe justice was served, maybe not... how can we really know?

I am shocked that so many people are so quick to equate an adult having children in their bed with sinister intentions.

Answer me honestly Maani, will you let your minor son sleep with Michael Jackson in the same bed?

And contrary to Ivan's assertion, I believe that this case shows that the U.S. judicial system can and does work the way it is supposed to.  A person is innocent until proven guilty.  And that guilt must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt."

No Maani it doesn't work:

If any normal person was found with the murder weapon, covered with blood of the victims after running away from the crime sacenario and escape for hundreed of miles from the police, he would have been found guilty. But O.J. Simpson wasn't, how curious.

Any person with at least 5 settle agreements with privacy clause in cases of child abuse, who sleeps with children (other than his own sons), and if pornography and alcohol is found in the same room he sleeps with children will be found guilty by any jury, but Michael Jackson not, how convenient, he's also a millionare.

If any person goes to the court in pijamas would be sent to Prison in contempt for disrespect to the court, but again Michael Jackson not.

In almost every case any outside influence is removed blocks away from the place where the jury deliberates, but Oh Mystery, hundreeds of Jackson are allowed to make a circus in the door of the court even when at least one jury has accepted she was impressed by the crowd.

More than one thousand innocents (proved by DNA) have been wrongly condemned to death by this juries, but in this case all of them are poor and can't afford an expensive lawyer.

I know I work in other country, but I've seen people condemned with less evidence than the gathrered by the prosecution in Jackson's case.

No Maani, the system will never work until professional judges decide wheather a person is innocent or guilty, because the normal citizen (usually the juries are the people with less preparation, because the wealthy or succesfull can avoid the jury duty).

So don't tell me this system works.

However, if the adult is a person who is trusted and whom the child(ren) "think of" as a parent figure, then there is nothing inherently wrong with the practice - except for the "dirty" minds of a lot of sexually repressed people.

Ok Maani you have mentioned many interesting issues.

First, I have no sexual repression, but I wouldn't let my kid sleep in the same bed with a stranger, much less if that same guy has paid millions of dollars to avoid trials when he was accused of paedophilia (To be honest I wouldn't even let my cat sleep in Michael Jackson's bed).

Again, the system doesn't work if a rich guy can avoid being taken to court only because he has money to BRIBE greedy parents. Civil agreements are one thing, but nobody should avoid being taken to a criminal trial if he was accused of a felony.

Iván

BTW: I know the mother of the kid is probably a greedy b!tch that only cares for money and that she probably was happy that wacko Jacko raped her kid because of the millions involved, but the fact that she is here for the money doesn't make Jackson innocent.

I believe this is a prove that the system doesn't work, giving ridiculous big indemnizations for any thing show that everything is corrupted.

If you want to give the kid some money for the pain suffered, ok, but put it in a bank account away from the reach of his parents until the kid is 21 and can decide what to do with it.

Edited by ivan_2068

Not to seem cruel but i really don't care about this anymore. It's been on the news constantly and frankly i'm just glad it's over.

A few thoughts in a few moments:

I never, for one moment, thought that Jackson was guilty.  Yes, he's weird.  Yes, he has issues.  But that doesn't make him a pedophile.

The case was weak from the get-go, and Sneddon had an outrageous, unfounded personal agenda against Jackson that stank almost as much as the charges themselves.

I am shocked that so many people are so quick to equate an adult having children in their bed with sinister intentions.  Almost every parent I know has done or does it.  And simply because the adult is not the parent of the child(ren) does not imply nefarious intent either.  I believe our soceity has become so oversensitive re sexual issues that it is quick to assume the worst.  (And this, by the way, is coming from a minister!  How interestingly some roles have been reversed with some members who accuse me of being "prudish."  And before I hear the obvious comments, no, this is a different issue than the sexual abuse of children by priests...of which I am not one.)  Yes, it sounds strange for an adult who is not the parent to be "sleeping" with children.  However, if the adult is a person who is trusted and whom the child(ren) "think of" as a parent figure, then there is nothing inherently wrong with the practice - except for the "dirty" minds of a lot of sexually repressed people.

Jackson clearly has issues, and could almost certainly use some good therapy.  For example, there is nothing illegal about owning porn or alcohol.  But when those items are potentially "available" to children who are given the run of his estate - i.e., when even basic precautions are not taken - then a case can be made for "corrupting the morals of a minor," at very least.

And contrary to Ivan's assertion, I believe that this case shows that the U.S. judicial system can and does work the way it is supposed to.  A person is innocent until proven guilty.  And that guilt must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt."  There was an enormous amount of reasonable doubt here, and almost no truly hard supporting evidence provided by the prosecution.  Jackson was accused by a man whom everyone knew had a personal agenda (Sneddon).  And the very family that he represented turned out to be their own worst enemies - and such bad liars that even Sneddon winced at one point.

No, Ivan, the system works, most of the time.  And in this case, it worked perfectly.  Because it was not Jackson's money that got him off, but his proven innocence - at least vis-a-vis the charges brought against him.

Peace.

P.S.  Re OJ, I am not entirely certain that the verdict in that trial was wrong either - or that OJ is guilty - at least of the killing of Ron and Nicole.  I could take all the evidence as presented and provide a scenario in which OJ did not actually commit the murders - though I believe he was "complicit," either of his own free will or not.

Here's the way I look at it:

As much as I can't stand the guy, and I think he's a wacko, those jurors know 1000 times more about the case than us, so I guess I'll trust their judgement. I think the case, and the family in question, was fishy from the start. If they would have found him guilty, I would have stood behind that as well. But face it; they are the experts on the case, not we.

EDIT: And before anyone brings the O.J. case up to me, I think HE was guilty no matter what that jury said. His jury was set up totally in his favor, and that whole investigation was fouled up so badly that it cost the prosecution the case in many respects. The Jackson jury seemed to be much more well-balanced in terms of things like age, race, and gender.

Edited by Ben2112

I think he reeks of pedophilia, but in this case not true. the whole think stinks frankly, because i dont want to see a scumbag like the mother get away with that kind of bullcrap but at the same time, im worried that MJ could really be harming children.

I knew he was innocent!

Snow Dog wrote: Tony R wrote: Snow Dog wrote: I actually never believed he was guilty judging from what I know of him and the whole case seemed suspect to me! Regularly pops into your local for a pint does he??? Well...no,but we all no that he's basically a child in a mans body don't we?

And sometimes he's a man in a child's body

Edited by tuxon

Tony R wrote: One cant help but worry about a situation where an adult male takes young boys into his bed....It is easy in these days of lost-innocence to always believe the worst,but I believe he exhibits the major "symptons" of paedophilia..

 

Oh, believe me I concur.  It's just proving it in court with a bunch of nuts that were accusors is hard to do.  Of course one thing I might have considered about the mother is she had to be a bit deranged to let the boy sleep with Jackson anyway. And the fact that celebrities will circle the wagons when one of their own is accused.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Garion81

Thanks Tony. Whether he was voted guity or not, I find myself incredibly
creeped-out with what he did.