Jackson Not Guilty !!!

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

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, 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.

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 R wrote: Sweetnighter wrote: 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. No it isnt. You are baling! Oh and I studied Latin for 5 years.........

tuxon wrote: Ivan, You state that a settle agreement, automatically means he's guilty?, and if he's innocent he would go to trial? HE ACTUALLY WENT TO TRIAL ON THE LATEST OCCASION, AND STILL PEOPLE THINK HE"S GUILTY. so no difference, only a settlement costs a couple of millions, a trial would cost more, either way he loses, but without the hassle, and less media-exposure which is bad for his carreer.

Have you asked what caused that? Maybe the several settle agreements he done before, after paying millions and millions he had to face justice, but he alone damaged his reputation.

Settle agreements aren't a prove of being 100% guilty, but in all the cases I seen (and are many) there's something the people involved wants to hide.

In this case I admit the evidence was not strong enough for some people, who knows what kind of evidence there was on the other cases and how much money was involved.

But the most important factor for me was that Michael Jackson in an intelligent move by his lawyers admitted publicly that he slept with children just before this evidence was disclosured to public.

February 3, 2003 British journalist Martin Bashir's documentary on Jackson reveals at least a few freakish facts. The 44-year-old Jackson admits that having "water-balloon fights and climbing trees" are his favorite things to do. He also admits he has "slept in a bed with many children." Claiming there is nothing sexual about these sleepovers at Neverland, he says, "It's very charming; it's very sweet." Asked if it was appropriate, Jackson answers that he is a child himself, "I am Peter Pan. I'm Peter Pan in my heart."

Add to this the fact he created a fake marriage with Lisa Marie Presley when the first rumors of pedophilia appeared in 1994.

May 26, 1994 Jackson marries Elvis Presley's daughter, Lisa Marie. The Rolling Stone calls it "a move which many observers saw as an attempt to downplay pedophilia rumors." The couple divorced in early 1996.

BTW: We are not talking about 1 or 2 million dollars:

August 23, 1993 Los Angeles Police Department investigates charges of Jackson sexually assaulting a 13-year-old boy. Boy refuses to testify after Jackson settles with boy's family for a reported 15 million dollars. Charges are dropped.

Nobody in the world pays 15 million dollars if he doesn't has something to hide.

Please, stop being naive, he's not Peter Pän even when he shouts this, add all this facts and the only posible conclusion is that the guy is guilty and has always been.

Iván

Edited by ivan_2068

Ivan said:

1. He sleeps with kids and publicly accepts that.  Tell me something: if Jackson were a pedophile, why on God's great earth would he admit to it in a public interview that he knew would be seen by millions of people?  He could just as easily never have brought up the fact that he sleeps with children in his bed.  That would certainly have served him better if he were a pedophile and wanted to continue to be one. Because he legitimises what he does by making it appear normal.Dont forget this guy lives in a very controlled environment where it is easy to to lose ones grasp of reality.
2. Has paid millions of dollars to kids parents (who are not betterthan huim I agree) to keep previous felonies away from courts.  "Previous felonies?"  Sorry, Mr. Lawyer: this is presumption on your part, with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.  Only your very unlawyerly assumption that "settlements=guilt." Whilst I grant you that just because he has settled out of court doesnt make him guilty,it does beggar the question:why does he put himself in this situation if he does not have a "sickness" he cant control?
3. Two persons from his staff declared he had relatioins with the kids.  How do we know that these people don't have agendas?  Whether they are disgruntled former employees (and such do exist, despite the overuse of that phrase) or maybe have a book deal in the works, we simply cannot accept at face value that these people do not have an axe to grind or a bank account to fill. Surely all employees are strictly vetted.Also if I was working in that environment and it was all obviously "above-board" then I would be shouting this from the heavens during the trial .
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.  And you're a lawyer?  You know damned well that one of the first things that a judge instructs the jury on is that the failure of a defendant to testify cannot be used to determine that defendant's guilt.  And yet here you are doing so merrily, happily and without reserve!  Shame on you!! We are not trying the case here,merely making observations about how the case was conducted...
5. Staff of Neverland declared he saw kids intoxicated.  I repeat my comment above: we cannot be certain that these people do not have agendas. But why presume that they do have agendas-you cant berate us for saying this very thing about Jackson then use the same logic against our argument.
6. Liquor and porn magazines were found in the same room he shared with kids.  Even assuming this is true, he lives in a mansion and we can only assume the rooms are alot bigger than anything we are used to.  And we don't know where in the room those items were found: they could have been in a locked closet, or on a high shelf in a non-visible place, or anywhere else for that matter.  Again, your statement is vague, and this is why you would lose this case were you to argue it. I think it is taken as "given" that these items were in easily accessible places.

Please forgive the size of my font,etc as I am finding it impossible to format this reply properly.

Macaulay Culkin hasn't aged well has he?

Maani wrote:

1- He sleeps with kids and publicly accepts that.  Tell me something: if Jackson were a pedophile, why on God's great earth would he admit to it in a public interview that he knew would be seen by millions of people?  He could just as easily never have brought up the fact that he sleeps with children in his bed.  That would certainly have served him better if he were a pedophile and wanted to continue to be one.

It's the oldest lawyers trick, which obviously you are unable to understand because you haven't studied 6 years of law and a master (very pedantic from your part to affirm you wipe me in court, almost as it would be to affirm that I know more of scriptures than you)

But back to the point: If a person talks something to the public and gives his own version even if it's disgusting or repulsive, he takes the surprise from the success, when the jurys heard he slept with children they stupidly said "That's not new, he already admitted it"

If the prosecutor would had disclosured that MJ  sleeps with kids before Jackson admitted it, the Jury would have instantly believed he was a pervert and wondered why MJ never admited it.

Believe me it works, I have used it.

Maani wrote:

2.- Has paid millions of dollars to kids parents (who are not betterthan huim I agree) to keep previous felonies away from courts.  "Previous felonies?"  Sorry, Mr. Lawyer: this is presumption on your part, with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.  Only your very unlawyerly assumption that "settlements=guilt."

Sorry mister reverend, but that's experience after hundreed of cases seen in court, not on TV.

Maani wrote:

3.- Two persons from his staff declared he had relatioins with the kids.  How do we know that these people don't have agendas?  Whether they are disgruntled former employees (and such do exist, despite the overuse of that phrase) or maybe have a book deal in the works, we simply cannot accept at face value that these people do not have an axe to grind or a bank account to fill

According to youy, the mother has an agenda, the kid has an agenda, the witness have an agenda, the Goivernment has an agenda against Michael Jackson. But Michael Jackson has no agenda.

He is a white dove, the angel of the children who with no interest sleeps with kids in the same room where liquor and porn was found......He is like Jesus when he said Let the children come to me.... Please, neither you believe that

 Maani wrote:

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.  And you're a lawyer?  You know damned well that one of the first things that a judge instructs the jury on is that the failure of a defendant to testify cannot be used to determine that defendant's guilt.  And yet here you are doing so merrily, happily and without reserve!  Shame on you!!

The defendant can also invoke the fifth amendment, but this is more obvious. Any person who has nothing to hide declares his version, and the lawyers encourage them to do so, unless the lawyer is afraid his client will discover his guilt.

Maani wrote:

5.- Staff of Neverland declared he saw kids intoxicated.  I repeat my comment above: we cannot be certain that these people do not have agendas.

Yeah, I forgot, according to you everybody has agendas against poor innocent Michael Jackson

Maani wrote:

6.- Liquor and porn magazines were found in the same room he shared with kids.  Even assuming this is true, he lives in a mansion and we can only assume the rooms are alot bigger than anything we are used to.  And we don't know where in the room those items were found: they could have been in a locked closet, or on a high shelf in a non-visible place, or anywhere else for that matter.  Again, your statement is vague, and this is why you would lose this case were you to argue it.

Not assuming it'sA FACT  Maani, the magazines and liquor were found with his finger prints IN THE SAME ROOM WHERE HE SLEEPS WITH CHILDREN. One of the charges was related with placing kids in risk because the magazines and the liquore were in accessicle places. If you add this to the declarations of drunk children, it's more than casual

If Michael Jackson is a child that refused to grow up or as he self proclaimed Peter Pan, why in hell he needs porn ond booze. Please Manni you're more intelligent than that.

Only time will prove my point, sadly this will affect more children

Iván

Edited by ivan_2068

ivan_2068 wrote: Maani wrote: Danbo said: "Just to be a touch pendantic. Once a case has been adjudicated, guilty or not guilty, it CANNOT be retried using ANY of the evidence already put forth."  Ever hear of an appeals court?  And it speaks volumes that Sneddon has no intention of appealing the case - because he knows that his case is flimsy. A person can’t be taken to trial for the same crime after being declared innocent, this is taught in the first day in every Law School in USA. Nobody can appeal a sentence of not guilty, only if the person is declared guilty this can happen and if new facts or evidence are found. Iván

Thanks for backing my play. I'm not a lawyer, but twenty years of LE work counts for something.