Jackson Not Guilty !!!

Ivan:

You said, "Please Maani, we know most of those parents are leeches that took their kids to Michael Jackson's ranch hoping something will happen and they could get their hands on big bucks. But the behavior of the parents doesn't excuse any felony."

Actually, dozens - maybe hundreds - of children have visited Neverland, and many of them slept over, some, if not all, with Michael.  Yet of those dozens, maybe hundreds, only a handful have accused him of molestation.  Doesn't that seem strange to you?  If Jackson were such a serial child molestor, why haven't dozens of parents made similar accusations?  Indeed, you undermine your own case by pointing out that, of those dozens, maybe hundreds, only a handful ever accused him of molestation, and all of those now appear to have been the very type of "leeches" you note.  So what does that tell you?  That the ones who accused him and accepted out of court settlements were telling the truth, and Jackson paid them off to avoid trial?  That dozens, maybe hundreds, of other parents are either willfully ignorant, in denial, or even complicit in their own child(ren)'s abuse?  Or, rather, that the few who did accuse him are phonies who were just looking for easy money, and that the reason the other dozens, maybe hundreds, of parents have not come forward with accusations is because Jackson is innocent of any wrongdoing?  It doesn't take a rocket scientists to figure this one out...

You then said, "But you didn't answer my question: Would you let yor son sleep with Michael Jackson in the same bed after various settlements and rumors of sexual abuse?"  But I did answer it.  I said that, whatever Jackson's past - settlements, rumors, etc. - if, as a result of my own personal observations and feelings, I felt that Jackson was trustworthy, then, yes, I would let my child stay at Neverland unaccompanied by me.  Is that a plain enough answer?

You then said, "I never said that the plaintiffs were unprotected for being poor, I know the State pays the District Attorney's case.  I was talking about the 1,000 innocent persons condemned to death (most of the extremely poor) by a jury and later found they were innocents woth DNA test, that the court refused to pay or even admit."

I don't disagree. I just fail to see what this had to do with the topic at hand.

You then say, "I don't know if you're naive or too confident, no innocent and honorable person will allow to be presumed guilty when he is really innocent paying MILLIONS OF DOLLARS just to avoid a circus."

You are not a major celebrity with a reputation and an image to uphold.  How in God's name would you know what such a person might choose to do when that needs to be weighed in the balance?  It is much easier to pay people off in order to "make things go away" as quickly and quietly as possible - even if one is innocent - than to "prove" one's innocence through a very public and costly trial.  I'm not even a celebrity and I "get" this.

You then add, "Jackson has enough money to pay a competent staff of lawyers to clean his name once and for ever, if he paid those large amounts, it was to hide something, and he made sure with the confidentiallity clause."

And this is coming from a lawyer?  You know very well that there is no such thing as "cleaning one's name once and forever."  Any person with an agenda can always accuse someone of something, creating yet another reason for a costly, ultra-public trial, no matter how "clean" that person's name may be.  Please, Ivan, your statement is not worthy of a serious legal mind...

You then say, "Seems the one that doesn't know about laws are you, people are every day sent to jail in contempt because of their clothing in the court, the pijama scene was part of the circus, because MJ is not a poor guy that has nothing else to wear. If you add that he went to the court late at least 10 times, he deserved toi be sent to jail for a couple of days in contempt. Any normal person would have suffered that."

I challenge you to find me where - in the law, in any U.S. jurisdiction - it states anything whatsoever about courtroom "apparel," and what is permitted and what is not.  Unless and until you can, there is a difference between "respect" - which is not mandated - and "law."  Again, you know this as well as I.

Finally, you note that "You don't miss a chance to accuse the Catholic priests, but have you ever considered that all those cases were based in simple accusations with no physicall evidence? But everybody considered all the priests guilty.  I know some of then must be guilty and some not, but if they are convicted only for accusations with no evidence, why Michael Jackson is set free with more than that?"

I only brought up priest child abuse as a notable issue in the news relating to the molestation and/or alleged molestation of children.  I did not mean to imply that every priest who has been accused is guilty.  Indeed, many of these priests (guilty or not) have not yet stood trial, so they are, as anyone else is, presumed innocent.  It was meant only for reference as to why people (in general) are becoming "hyper-sensitive" to even the remostest possibility of molestation or other abuse.

I welcome your responses.

Peace.

Just on a "small" point ...  I would not let my two boys sleep in the same room/bed with any male friend or relative ...  no matter how much I trusted them on other issues ... I'm pretty sure that a significant percentage of child molest/rape cases are perpetrated by friends, relatives and yes spirtitual/religious leaders too who are trusted beyond question ... I may trust someone with my own life ... but I'm not going to take any risks with the lives of my children, not for anyone ...

gdub411 wrote: So they raided his house with dozens of cops, scouring it from top to bottom and all they came up with is the flimsy evidence that they presented in court. He  is no doubt a strange dude..but judging from his life who could blame him. He may be a pedophile, but in this particular incident ,where the law, IMO overstepped their bounds the evidence just wasn't there.

I agree. Not ENOUGH evidence was found. I do blame the DA for putting forth a weak case, but all the earmarks are there. Any parent who would allow their child to sleep with an adult is NOT a parent and should either be placed into therapy or summarily shot. The whole CELEBRITY thing is truly sickening.

 

IN RED: Who could blame him for being a pedophile or for the self mutilations?

 

Maani wrote:

Actually, dozens - maybe hundreds - of children have visited Neverland, and many of them slept over, some, if not all, with Michael.  Yet of those dozens, maybe hundreds, only a handful have accused him of molestation.  Doesn't that seem strange to you?

Not strange at all Maani, if you would worked in pedophile cases you would know each one has his own "modus operandi" and determined preference for specific children, some prefer blonds, others black, other choose those who have a weak relation with his parents and others only those who have a determined sickness.

Neverland was a super market for Michael Jackson who could search for the kid he wanted from a wide number of children.

And remember, for one case of rape you have 20 not declared because the kid is ashamed and believes he's guilty, for one public settlement there are at least 10 that were kept in the dark because fathers accepted the first proposition.

Just to use your arguments, there are hundreeds of Hollywood stars and musicians, but only Michael Jackson is repeteadly accused for child molesting. Can you explain this?

I know this argument is not valid, but it's exactly similar to the one you're using.

So what does that tell you?  That the ones who accused him and accepted out of court settlements were telling the truth, and Jackson paid them off to avoid trial?

YES, 100% sure

Maani wrote:

You then said, "But you didn't answer my question: Would you let yor son sleep with Michael Jackson in the same bed after various settlements and rumors of sexual abuse?"  But I did answer it.  I said that, whatever Jackson's past - settlements, rumors, etc. - if, as a result of my own personal observations and feelings, I felt that Jackson was trustworthy, then, yes, I would let my child stay at Neverland unaccompanied by me.  Is that a plain enough answer?

Honestly, I can't believe you're so naive, there’s a popular saying in my country, "When the river makes sounds is because it's dragging stones".

One case, I believe it could be a false accusation, two cases maybe but three, four or five settlements for millions of dollars it's not casual there are some stones that river is dragging.

Maani wrote:

challenge you to find me where - in the law, in any U.S. jurisdiction - it states anything whatsoever about courtroom "apparel," and what is permitted and what is not.  Unless and until you can, there is a difference between "respect" - which is not mandated - and "law."  Again, you know this as well as I

Michael Jackson has commited Direct and Indirect contempt:

In US courts, there are two types of contempt. "Direct" contempt is that which occurs in the presence of the presiding judge (in facia curia), and may be dealt with summarily: the judge notifies the offending party that he or she has acted in a manner which disrupts the tribunal and prejudices the administration of justice, and after giving the person the opportunity to respond, may impose the sanction immediately. US Legal Dictionary

Dressing code is not a law, but going to a session in pajamas when you have the resources to use normal clothing is a disruption in the order of the court, plus a disrespect for the court in the case of Mr. Jackson.

Defendants are constantly ordered to remove gang clothing or any piece of dress that could beconsidered a disrespect to the Court, there are hundreed of precedents that have the same value as a law, and pajamas in the case of  a millionare who can afford to buy a suit or even street clothing is a joke to the court and manipulation of the jury pretending to be sick.

A judge has an enormous power and freedom to send a person to jail in contempt, even more, if a person gets repeatedly late to Court sessions, normally his bail is revoked, but Mr. Jackson went late when ever he wanted and the Judge didn't even gave him the penal warning.

Indirect" contempt occurs outside the immediate presence of the court, and consists of disobedience of a court's prior order. Generally a party will be accused of indirect contempt by the party for whose benefit the order was entered. A person cited for indirect contempt is entitled to notice of the charge and an opportunity for hearing of the evidence of contempt, and to present evidence in rebuttal. USA Legal Dictionary

Defendants on bail are ordered to keep a certain number of rules, dancing in the roof of a van in the door of the Court is clearly a provocation, any other person's bail would have been revoked.

Sanctions for contempt may by criminal or civil. If a person is to be punished criminally, then the contempt must be proven beyond a : reasonable doubt, but once the charge is proven, then punishment is imposed unconditionally. The civil sanction for contempt (which is typically imprisonment) is limited in its imposition for so long as the disobedience to the court's order continued: once the party complies with the court's order, the sanction is lifted. US Legal Dictionary

But this is not the most important factor, only a prove that he had preferential treatment, and nobody can deny this, because the Judge didn't ever started the procedures

Maani wrote:

And this is coming from a lawyer?  You know very well that there is no such thing as "cleaning one's name once and forever."  Any person with an agenda can always accuse someone of something, creating yet another reason for a costly, ultra-public trial, no matter how "clean" that person's name may be.  Please, Ivan, your statement is not worthy of a serious legal mind...

Again Maani, if he knew he was innocent (and with all the advantages he has), he would surely be declared innocent in the first trial, unless he has something to hide.

It's largely more expensive to pay 4 or 5 bribes than one single trial that will put an end to his troubles,. unless all the previous cases had better evidence and his lawyers ordered him to pay instead to be sent to jail.

A settlement leaves the doubt of his innocence in 100% of the people, a person declared not guilty is innocent and his name is clean unless it's obvious that something strange happened.

The best way to clean at least partially your name is a not guilty verdict.

Just to end, any well intentioned adult that sleeps with children in a pure way (if this exists) would have stopped sleeping with them after the first accusation, if he continued doing it despite the risk and the millions paid, it's clear he can't avoid that behavior and he's a sick person that needs to be separeted from society to keep the children safe from him and their greedy parents who are willing

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

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

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

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.

 

 

 

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

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