Jackson Not Guilty !!!

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.

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.

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

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?

Wow,Maani,you know that Jackson's innocent.

Heterosexual men do not share a bed with adolescent boys.

Discuss.

 

 

I would be interested to read a study regarding the number of Progressive Rock fans who have atteneded specialized Pedophile Recognition classes. Seems like quite a few, judging from the above comments.

 

I've had more than my fair share of these courses and let me outline a few stereotypes.

(disclaimer: stereotypes, in this case, are compiled through case studies of behaviors of ACTUAL CONVICTED CHILD-MOLESTERS, not cariactures of individuals.)

1. Socially inept with adults, but very open and comfortable with children, (victims). Sexual relations with other adults has regularly been denied.

2. Use of controlled substances to gain compliance. (I was shocked that he didn't, at least, get a misdemeanor count of contributing.)

3. Chooses victims who are least likely to complain, i.e.; impoverished, socially invisible.

4. History. C'mon, he had AT LEAST three previous pay-offs to avoid prosecution.

5. Under-developed maturity level. Does that really need to be explained?

6. Many frequent places where children hang out; festivals, parks, malls.... This guy has his very own amusement park, fer chrissakes.

There are more, but enough is enough.

Let's talk about "Reasonable Doubt" which is the biggest load of horse-sh*t ever developed, "reason" rarely gets involved. Doubt in a courtroom is also referred to as smoke screens, red herrings, or basic confusing the facts... all tools of the defense trade. Remember Scott Peterson's "Occult" defense? Luckily the jury wasn't that stupid.  

It's time for the jury system to go bye bye, except in misdemeanor or traffic court. Felony cases should be tried using professional jurors, persons who have at least passed a critical thinking course in college. Some of the jurors who were interviewed had a hard time remembering facts minutes after the case was settled.

 

And, pedophilia is an addiction. He'll likely do it again.

Edited by danbo

^

Listen to Dan,he is not making these things up.

Jackson,will probably kill himself if he ever gets caught "in flagrante delicto" and of course there will be the people who will say he was driven to suicide by the media/police/jealousy/vindictiveness and what a shame it is.

He will not stop,because he cannot.That is the reason he keeps getting caught-not because he is an easy target but because he continually offends!

Edited by Tony R

I have no personal or professional experience of these things. However my best mate works in Child Protection and I have taken time to study the subject.This does not make me an expert nor does it make Jackson guilty.

I find it incredible that people here are making judgements based on gut feelings!

If you read up on the subject and how these people "groom" their victims you will be staggered how it all falls into place. This is not the same as reading a set of symptoms in a medical book and deciding you have a rare disease,this is someone exhibiting all the "litmus" test behaviours for paedophilia.

At least try an make an informed judgement......

Edited by Tony R

He may have got away over this one, but he's guilty of far worse - CRIMES AGAINST MUSIC!!

Tony said:

"If you read up on the subject and how these people "groom" their victims you will be staggered how it all falls into place. This is not the same as reading a set of symptoms in a medical book and deciding you have a rare disease, this is someone exhibiting all the "litmus" test behaviours for paedophilia."  Yes, Tony, but you know as well as I that "it is the exception that proves the rule."  Thus, despite your protestations to the contrary, you, too, are (in your own words) "making judgements based on gut feelings."  Even if Jackson did/does exhibit all the "traits" of a pedophile, that does not make him one.

Ivan asked if I would let my minor son sleep with Michael Jackson in the same bed.  Let's keep in mind that these children - and their parents - grew to know Jackson over a period of time.  For whatever their reasons - and they may very well be good ones - they established a level of trust, and believed that Michael was/is exactly what he claims: an "innocent" who meant/means their children no harm.

If I had a child, and I were to meet Jackson and get to know him, and believed from my own feelings and observations that he was trustworthy, then, yes, I would allow my child to visit with him, and even sleep in the same bed.  After all, as a parent, I would expect to have my child (or children) in my bed on numerous occasions - when they can't sleep, when they are scared, when we are simply having fun and cuddling on a weekend morning, etc.  Why, if I felt that Jackson was completely trustworthy, would I not permit my child to visit him and even be in the same bed?

It seems to me that many of you have been so oversensitized by priest child abuse and other pedophilia issues that your skepticism has turned to cynicism and you will permit no one to be alone with your child.  Soon, you will all be pulling them out of school because the teachers or others might be molesting them.  It will get to the point where fears will become so intense that parents will keep their children at home 24/7, home schooling them, only permitting friends to visit them, and not even trusting them to nannies and au pairs (who are likely perpetrators of pedophilia, by the way...but don't let me scare you or anything...)

Ivan also rewrites history vis-a-vis the OJ trial.  OJ was not "found with the murder weapon, covered with the blood of the victims."  In fact, there were two murder weapons, one of which was conveniently misplaced and "forgotten about" only days after the murder.  This is fact, and was reported in the major media.  Indeed, the original medical examiner's report stated that the wounds on Ron and Nicole were "dissimilar," and were "almost certainly created with two different instruments."  This report, too, somehow mysteriously disappeared only days after the murders.  Thus, not "murder weapon," but "murder weapons" - plural.  Are you suggesting that OJ murdered Ron, and then grabbed a different knife and murdered Nicole?  Why would he do that?  Why would anyone do that?  It defies logic, and, sadly for those so quick to revise history, leads down a path that many do not want to consider...

Ivan suggests that "the system doesn't work if a rich guy can avoid being taken to court only because he has money to bribe greedy parents."  As for the five (or is it 3? or 4?  How come no one can give a definitive answer?) settlement agreements for past allegations against Jackson, it is way too easy to presume guilt simply because someone settles "out of court."  Indeed, this, too, is "making judgments based on gut feelings."  It is just as likely, from the standpoint of a rich and famous person, that Jackson offered those settlements simply to avoid exactly the kind of circus that this trial became.  I am not one to presume guilt simply because someone settles out of court: I have actually done that when I was "in the right" simply to avoid a lengthy, costly trial, even though I knew I would be exonerated.  After all, it is easier to offer someone $1000 than go through a trial that will cost you, say, $10,000, even if you are innocent (because recouping court fees is not always a given).  Assuming Jackson's innocence in those instances, it would make perfect sense for him to pay three or four people a total of, say, $10 million, in order to avoid legal fees in the many tens of millions, despite his innocence.

Ivan also doesn't know that there is nothing in the law that prevents a defendant from appearing in pajamas.  Yes, proper dress is a sign of "respect."  But as long as your body is fully clothed, there is nothing "illegal" about wearing pajamas: after all, Vincent "The Chin" Gigante did it through his entire trial and was never cited for contempt of court.

As for "outside influence" and the fans "camped out" outside the courthouse, again Ivan does not understand our system.  The fans were not considered "outside influence."  They are not influencing anything.  They were simply expressing their First Amendment "right to assemble" within the legal parameters of the court building; i.e., as close or as far as the law permitted them.  Indeed, this type of free assembly is a part of almost every celebrity trial ever held: there were Martha Stewart fans outside her trial, Robert Blake fans outside his trial, etc.  And these types of free assembly occur outside the court in almost every "death penalty" trial, where anti-death penalty protestors express their right.  Apparently, Ivan, you either do not understand or do not respect the freedoms and civil liberties provided by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

As for Ivan's comments that "in this case, all of them are poor and can't afford an expensive lawyer," again he shows his lack of understanding of the system.  The plaintiff in this trial was the "State of California" - as it (the specific State having jurisdiction) is in every criminal trial in the U.S.  Thus, the "complainants" in this case were being represented by Tom Sneddon, one of the best district attorneys in the U.S.  Were Sneddon permitted to charge fees (he is paid by the State, not by the complainants), his would be at the same level as Jackson's attorney.

Finally, with respect to one of the jurors comments after the trial, what he said was that he believes that Jackson "is probably" guilty of molestation "in the past," but that no one on the jury believed he molested the child in question, because no one on the jury believed either the mother or the child.

Jackson was on trial for molesting a particular child - not for possible past instances of molestation.  Thus, in this case, the system worked, and the jury reached the correct verdict.  Not because Jackson is a rich celebrity, and not even simply because there was "reasonable doubt."  They arrived at the verdict because, in their own words, they did not believe that Jackson molested the child who was the complainant in this case.

It can't be any clearer than that.

Weirdness does not equal nefariousness.  Childlike innocence does not equal sinister intent.  Settling out of court does not equal "bribing" or "presumed guilt."  A rich and famous celebrity being acquitted of an alleged heinous crime does not imply a broken system.  And even having most, or even all, of the "litmus test" character traits of a pedophile does not make one a pedophile.

The fact that so many of you cannot bring yourselves to even consider that Jackson may be exactly what he purports, and that he has never engaged in child molestation, is more a product of "prejudice" (based on admittedly bizarre behaviors) than of sound reasoning.

I will add one final comment.  I happen to know someone (a famous someone, though I will not under any circumstance betray a trust) who, as a child, spent a great deal of time at Neverland, including sleeping in the same bed with Jackson, both alone and with other children.  I know this person for over 20 years, and trust him in a way that I trust few others.  When the trial began, he told me that, in his four or five years as a Jackson "pal," Jackson never even intimated anything other than real, honest friendship: Jackson never touched him - or any of the other children who were with them - in an inappropriate way, much less molested any of them.  Jackson never shared pornography with them, or allowed them anywhere near alcohol.  In fact, he tells me that while Jackson was quite "loving" in an honest, human way, he was almost consciously careful not to touch them in any way that might be construed as inappropriate.

True, this is only one person's experience; though, as stated, they were with Jackson as much or more than most children.  And no, I do not believe he is "repressing" or "in denial" about anything (I am a counseling minister, and quite familiar with the signs, especially with friends).  However, I will take the word of an honest person with no axe to grind and no agenda over a group of possibly phony accusers who very well may have (and I believe did) seen an opportunity to get "easy money" from a rich and famous celebrity by making him choose between going through a lengthy, costly trial (even if he were likely to be exonerated) and "paying them off" to avoid that kind of circus.

Peace.

Edited by maani