Only in America?

Another OJ scenario???

Discuss.

Money.
Money...

Lie for it
Spy for it
Kill for it
Die for it

So you call it trust
But I say it's just
In the devil's game
Of greed and lust

They don't care
They'd do me for the money
They don't care
They use me for the money

So you go to church
Read the Holy word
In the scheme of life
It's all absurd
They don't care
They'd kill for the money
Do or dare
The thrill for the money

You're saluting the flag
Your country trusts you
Now you're wearing a badge
You're called the "Just Few"
And you're fighting the wars
A soldier must do
I'll never betray or deceive you my friend but...

If you show me the cash
Then I will take it
If you tell me to cry
Then I will fake it
If you give me a hand
Then I will shake it

You'll do anything for money...

Anything
Anythang
Anything for money
Would lie for you
Would die for you
Even sell my soul to the devil

Anything
Anythang
Anything for money
Would lie for you
Would die for you
Even sell my soul to the devil

Insurance?
Where do your loyalties lie?
Is that your alibi?
I don't think so
You don't care
You'd do her for the money
Say it's fair
You sue her for the money
Want your pot of gold
Need the Midas touch
Bet you sell your soul
Cuz your God is such
You don't care
You kill for the money
Do or dare
The thrill for the money

Are you infected with the same disease
Of lust, gluttoney and greed?
Then watch the ones
With the biggest smiles
The idle jabbers...
Cuz they're the backstabbers

If you know it's a lie
Then you will swear it
If you give it with guilt
Then you will bear it
If it's taking a chance
Then you will dare it

You'll do anything for money...

Anything
Anythang
Anything for money
Would lie for you
Would die for you
Even sell my soul to the devil

Anything
Anythang
Anything for money
Would lie for you
Would die for you
Even sell my soul to the devil

Anything
Anythang
Anything for money
Would lie for you
Would die for you
Even sell my soul to the devil

Anything
Anythang
Anything for money
Would lie for you
Would die for you
Even sell my soul to the devil

You say you wouldn't do it
For all the money in the world
I don't think so
If you show me the man
Then I will sell him
If you ask me to lie
Then I will tell him
If you're dealing with God
Then you will hell him

You'll do anything for money

Anything
Anythang
Anything for money
Would lie for you
Would die for you
Even sell my soul to the devil

(Repeat 8 times)

tuxon wrote: Well maybe he isn't guilty

But would he have been convicted if he was guilty????

If there was hard evidence, I think so.

But Jackson faced 20 years imprisonment, for charges that couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt. IMO not even close. I don't know whether MJ is guilty or not, the evidence, and the stories around him are inconclusive, and open for all kinds of interpretation.

If he's innocent I think he's badly scared by the procedings, and nothing can compensate for that.

Tony R wrote: tuxon wrote: Well maybe he isn't guilty But would he have been convicted if he was guilty????

Hard to say Tony.  But I think this one had holes in it and Jackson's lawyers were sharp to expose every one.  The most critical was the mother of the accusors testimony (from the MSNBC artical):

The mother spent several days on the stand, offering testimony that was always dramatic, sometimes bizarre and occasionally incoherent. She described her last stay at Neverland as tense and scary, but never quite explained why she didn't called police or other authorities.

At first, she said, Jackson's aides tenderly offered to help her family from the barrage of media interest. Jurors heard a tape of associate Frank Tyson, whom prosecutors called an unindicted co-conspirator, telling her, “Let us take care of you. Let us protect you.” But she insisted that Jackson's associates, whom she called “killers” on the stand, eventually turned on her: holding her a virtual captive for weeks and plotting to take her family on a one-way trip to Brazil.

Yet testimony detailed that she could leave Neverland to shop and run errands.

The mother faced her own legal scrutiny during the trial, and Mesereau frequently underscored her credibility problems with jurors. She was forced to acknowledge she lied under oath in a 2001 lawsuit against JC Penney, and she took the Fifth over allegations that she committed welfare fraud. A welfare worker testified she had.

Other witnesses, including her former sister-in-law, portrayed the accuser's family as vindictive and money-hungry, the mother as a grifter who pleaded for help — often invoking her family's misfortunes — and always asked for more.

TV host Jay Leno told jurors how he grew suspicious when the accuser called him repeatedly, saying Leno was his hero.

On a nother note the only thing of real truth that came from the whole thing was this statement:

Talk show host Larry King appeared in court, but Melville ruled his testimony irrelevant.

That could be said about anything Larry says.

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???

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.

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?

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

Snow Dog wrote:  he's basically a child in a mans body don't we?

Nah, I think he was a man in a childs pants.

I believe USA judicial system is a joke, first OJ Simpson found with the weapon, with blood of the two victims, was pursued by the police after he escaped from the murder scene and the jury found him innocent.

Now Michael Jackson:

• Who publicly confessed he used to sleep with children and thought this was correct.
• His defense witness Macauly Caulklin (However his name is written) said that as a minor he slept in Jackson’s bed.
• Pornography and liquor was found with Jackson’s fingerprints in the same room he slept with children.
• ML he settled many cases paying millions
• His ex wife offered incriminatory testimony against Michael Jackson in the  Police and Prosecution’s office but she changed her version in the court, this is called torpedo and she should have been accused of  perjury.
• Who's behavior is obvious.
• It has been proved that he gave liquor to a minor but the jury decided he didn't do it with purpose of committing a crime, For God's sake, for what reason a grown man who admits he sleeps with children could give liquor to a minor?

Now, just saw the Jury’s press conference, what a bunch of ignorant and mediocres, they were laughing and enjoying themselves as if they were movie stars.

When a reporter asked if any parent would let his son sleep in the same bed with MJ, she said that she was suspicious but that was the mothers fault, everybody else refused to answer the question.

Jury N° 10 said she was impressed by that support for MJ in the door of the court.

A Latin (of those who give bad reputation to Latinos) said that the pornography and liquor in the same room where Michael Jackson slept with children was normal for an adult.

The Jury deliberated for only 30 hours in a ten accusations case, it's simply a joke to justice.

Can anybody believe he sleeps with minors only because he has a pure love for them? That he paid millions to avoid trials when he's innocent? Nobody can be that naive.

And the Judge who admitted this pedophile to be late whenever he wanted or to the court once in pajamas or admitted that circus with those fans shouting Michael Jackson is innocent while the Jury was deliberating, I can say his behavior is at least suspicious.

There’s one justice for the rich and famous and another for the simple mortals, I’m sure that if a priest was simply accused with no evidence of the same crime, the jury would have found him guilty without need for any prove.

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.

Jackson is guilty.  I dont' see why this case was dragged out so long. I could have toldy anyone the verdict five months ago. That man's a freak, and once again: "The biggest checkbook wins."

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.

Guilty or not, Michael Jackson is a sick person who needs proper psychological help. 

But there is another aspect of this which is a problem in most countries now. The media.

There have been two seperate cases recently in Australia which highlights just part of the problem.

A 28 year old woman called Chapelle Corby was discovered, while going through customs at Bali's airport, to have 4 kg of cannabis in her boogyboard bag. In the proceeding months the media has had a field day about her guilt or innocence. (Baggage handlers at Sydney airport have been invoved in using peoples luggage to smuggle cocaine, heroin etc) One of the reasons that they took sides was that Chapelle and members of her family and supporting party had given the rights for $ to a certain media group to cover the story. The opposition to that group (paper and TV) then proceeded to drag up dirt about her family from 30 years ago etc. Unsubstantiated and irrelevant copy was splashed all over the media at different times, all the while the trial is going on.

The most recent disgrace is the media coverage of an eight year old and her family in Qld who are 'suspected' of keeping her illegally since her 'apparent' real mother 'gave her away' when she was two days old. So even if the whole thing turns out to be bollocks because they are following this thing on a strong hunch, the repercussions are terrible for the child and her family as they have been depicted in an unkind light.

We need journalism to report the truth, but the world we live in has turned into a sespit with this kind of thing. The bottom line is fortune and fame and there is very little in the way of acutal truth and integrity. It is there but it is awful hard to find at times.

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

Heterosexual men do not share a bed with adolescent boys.

Discuss.

Is it only me or does Jackson look like an extra from Planet of the Apes.

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.

At the end of the day, we only know what the media tells us. And we all know how much the public love to build up stars just to tear them apart.

I personally always thought he was innocent. More people just trying to cash in on him. And the media there every step of the way to make him look bad.

In this day and age (as others have said), it only takes one person to point a finger to turn the whole world against you.

I'm happy this is (hopefully) over, and I'm happy he was found innocent.

However, he's still a weirdo.

^

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!

danbo wrote: 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.

Made for an interesting read, cheers.  In many ways I hope you are wrong, but I am inclined to agree with you on that last point.

Would a non-celebrity be found not-guilty, if they were in the same situation as jacko?  Somehow I doubt it.

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......

Tony R wrote: if he ever gets caught "in flagrante delicto"

Another good point.

Who would "catch" him in the act?

Someone who is on his payroll. If they come forward, they are considered a "disgruntled employee" trying to get even.

Seems Mikey's in a win-win situation. DNA is the only evidence that would convict him or any other big money celeb. Even video is suspect in todays photoshopped world.  

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

"Crimes Against Music"?

Aint that one of Gentle Giant's albums?

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.

As a lawyer I studied criminology that includes not only specialized classes but a whole course about the theme. We have worked in the field (jails), with psycologysts, policemen and prosecuttors, in a few cases even talked with victims and offenders, so I believe your question is answered Dambo.

And I must agree, Michael Jackson is a book case, he fits perfectly in the profile of a pedophile.

Maani wrote:

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.

Please Maani, we know most of those parents are leeches that took their kids to Micjhael 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.

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?

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.

Maani, don't insult me I'M A LAWYER and know how the system works. 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.

Maani wrote:

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 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. Rape cases are very hard to prove and Michael 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.

Maani wrote:

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.

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.

Maani wrote:

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.

Seems you try to simplify all my words, everybody has the right to join in a reunion, but the Judge has the power to send them two or three blocks away from the perimether of the court, not necesarilly duruing the trial, but in most cases The Judge does this during the deliberations of the jury.

And it's outside influence even if you don't think so, because when 12 persons are incomunicated, no phones, no television or newspapers during the deliberations but it's allowed a group of fans to shout 24 hours a day Michael Jackson is innocent, we can talk about outside influence.

Maani wrote:

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.

• OJ Simpson DNA was found with the  blood of the two victims,
•  the footprints from the floor contained blood of the two victims and DNA of Simpson.

A pair of bloody socks with OJ Simpson's and Nicolle's blood were found in his house,

Defense said: socks were planted at house by police, then blood was put on socks later at the police lab to frame Simpson  Please!!!!!

He escaped from tyhe crime scene without reporting it, and was captured after police chase, not confirmed if it was the murder weapon because of technicalities but the knife OJ bought was perfectly compatible with the wounds.

One dark, cashmere-lined Aris Light leather glove, size extra large, was found at the murder scene, another behind Simpson's guest house, near where Brian "Kato'' Kaelin heard bumps in the night. Ms. Simpson bought Simpson two pair of such gloves in 1990. DNA tests showed blood on glove found on Simpson's property appeared to contain genetic markers of Simpson and both victims; a long strand of blond hair similar to Ms. Simpson's also was found on that glove.

Defense said: glove behind guest house was planted by Detective Mark Fuhrman, a racist cop trying to frame Simpson; blood on glove may have been planted by police; gloated that evidence gloves didn't fit; hair analysis isn't sophisticated enough to be trusted. PLEASE, CAN ANYBODY BELIEVE THIS SAME EXCUSE AGAIN?

Small spot of blood found near driver's outside door handle of Simpson's Ford Bronco; other blood found smeared inside on console, door, steering wheel and carpeting; DNA tests showed some of the blood apparently a mixture with genetic markers of Simpson and the victims.

Isn't that enough for a conviction in 99.99% of the cases except in the one for OJ Simpson. PLEASE MAANI, you're an intelligent guy.

Just to end:

Maani wrote:

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

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?

BTW: Without paedophilia cases or anything in the news, I would never let my minor son sleep with anothe man in the same bed that is not his grandfather or me, simply it's not normal or correct.

I am sure that 100% of the members here agree with me and )I'm sure Maani that even if you say the contrary, you won't admit this kind of relation.

Iván

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.

danbo wrote: 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.

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.

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: 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...)

Where to start?

Maani:

I think it is rather patronising to claim 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". You may be the authority on Scripture on this Forum,but do not claim the intellectual high ground and then make ludicrous statements such as:

"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."

So you would not think it strange if an adult male asked if it was ok if your child shared his bed? The alarm bells would not ring at this request? Are you so naive that you wouldnt take a step back and consider the implications.Paedophiles try to build trust and rapport with a parent gradually over a period of time,especially ingratiating themselves with  the parent who is naive enough to be taken in by his interest.Sometimes they will try and "divide and conquer" setting the two parents against each other,providing a shoulder to cry on.
I am telling you now that anyone would believe your actions to be,and there is no other word for it,stupid. So,a child that is normally perfectly at ease at night in your home,expresses a wish to spend time in another adults house-which takes a lot of trust from a child,and then is so traumatised that he suddenly starts expressing the need to get into bed with this adult???  Alternatively this adult approaches you and asks if it is alright for your child to join him in his bed-Come off it Maani! Utter rubbish.....

The thing about not trusting my child with another adult-where do you get off thinking you can make that charge against me? That scenario is completely alien to my life and my personality.I appreciate that there are people like that,but dont confuse pragmatism with over-caution.

Re-the "priest child-abuse" reference-I never really give it any thought.At least 20% of my daughter's teachers are priests and apart from the occasional jokey remark,it is not a factor in my consciousness.Maybe it is "big news" in the US but not over here.

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

But the jury said he is innocent.

That's why I think on these charges, he should be considered innocent.

There are no other charges (yet) that I'm aware off. So as far as I'm considered he has the benefit of reasonable doubt.

It doesn't change the fact that sleeping with a pop-star is a serious offence, and the child should have known better

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 - 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

Ivan:

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?

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.

Peace.

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

maani wrote: Ivan:

and your response to me............

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

ivan_2068 wrote:   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: 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. 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. 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

I do care.

But all I see is a witch hunt.

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. And the prosecutors etc are really only after some money, with complete disregard of what these allegations and acusations can do to a man.

Personally I think he might have done something terrible wrong, but I am not sure of it.
If he did, he already has paid a small price, and is in full deservence of a lifetime imprisonment.

But I cannot ignore the possibility he's framed, and he didn't do it. In that case an innocent man is destroyed, because of some money hungry wolfes.

I don't know the truth, therefor I will have to trust the law, and hope they made the right dissicion   

We are not convinced he committed the crime,Sweetnighter.

We are not part of any vigilante group wanting instant justice.

We are not over-anxious parents wanting to protect our children from the outside world.

We are,however,free-thinking,intelligent and rational individuals.We are also not naive but neither are we cynical.

Open your eyes and your mind to something other than what might prick your little bubble.

You have a lot of growing up to do!

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.

Sweetnighter wrote:   If the court made the wrong decision, then I wholeheartedly believe that the case should be retried.

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. If new evidence was found, only that new evidence can be used in court. The DA will just have to wait until he does it again and leaves behind DNA or video evidence. In about five to ten years, the victims will begin to come forward when. Remember, it took a long time for the victims of priest abuse to finally speak up.

Tragic.

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

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!

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.

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

Tony said: "We are not convinced he committed the crime,Sweetnighter.  We are not part of any vigilante group wanting instant justice.  We are not over-anxious parents wanting to protect our children from the outside world. We are, however, free-thinking,intelligent and rational individuals. We are also not naive but neither are we cynical.  Open your eyes and your mind to something other than what might prick your little bubble. You have a lot of growing up to do!"

Actually, Tony, you are being cynical.  Indeed, I would say that it is your cock-sure attitude re Jackson's guilt that prevents you from "opening your eyes and your mind to smoething other than what might prick your bubble" - i.e., the possibility that Jackson is not only innocent, but that he is not, and never has been, a pedophile.

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.

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.
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."
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.
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!!
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.
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.

Ivan also said: "One juror admited he believes MJ is a child molester."  One juror?  Out of twelve?  What about the others?  So we should believe the only juror who says this, rather than the eleven who do not?

So far, Ivan, for all your law school, I would wipe you up in a courtroom if the standard was "reasonable doubt."...

Peace.

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.

How does the simple fact of sleeping with children make you a paedophile?

Why have you takenit as given that these items are in accesible places?

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

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.

For somebody who claims can wipe a lawyer in Court, you have many problems Maani.

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.

Even when I’m not an expert on USA laws, I believe that in molesting cases by exception, the minor can ask for a new trial when he reaches the age of 18 if he believes he was not well represented by his parents, but I’m not sure of that.

So Sneddon has no chances of an appeal by law

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.

danbo wrote: 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.

I believe that is called Double Jepoardy in laymans terms.

Ivan and danbo:

I stand corrected re the appeal issue.  I was not thinking; of course you are right that the prosecution cannot appeal a not guilty verdict without new evidence.  My bad.

Ivan:

For the record.  Although I am not a school-trained lawyer, I actually spent over 10 years as a legal assistant (primarily corporate, contract, real estate and IP law), and also spent 15 years as an "advocate" in Manhattan's civil courts, including litigating dozens of cases, from tenant-landlord to small claims to civil claims.  (This is permissible under New York State law under certain conditions, which I met.)  I litigated at least 40 cases.  My record?  35 wins, 5 draws, no losses.  In addition, I am one of only a handful of people ever to be allowed to argue pro se in a federal court.  I won that case as well.  This is not offered out of smugness or ego.  It is offered so you know that I am not simply talking out of my backside.

Thus, when I say I would "wipe the floor with you," I am speaking as an experienced litigator.  I don't know how the law works in Peru, but if you were across from me at the prosecutor's table, and we were arguing this case, you would lose because you offer your arguments almost entirely from "my experience" and certain presumptions - neither of which are admissible in court.  And even were they admissible, you offer not one shred of evidence - hard, submissible evidence - to support your arguments.

The downfall of every attorney who ever faced me in court was their reliance on unsupported (by evidence) claims and/or accusations, irrelevant statements, suppositions and the like, which they presented with all the pomp and grandeur one would expect of lawyers trying to impress judges.  However, I found that a reasoned, logical argument, based on the simplest citable laws, and supported by even a few pieces of hard evidence, went much further than all the supposed legal wizardry of lawyers who had decades of experience more than I did, cited obscure case law, and strutted around the courtroom like bigshots.  In one case, I took on the attorney for one of NY's largest real estate developers (bigger than Trump, though he's also quieter), and not only beat him, but got the judge to reprimand him for wasting the court's time with what amounted to a frivolous lawsuit.

The discussion in this thread is (or at least was supposed to be) Jackson's guilt or innocence, and how we felt about it, and why we felt the verdict was right or wrong.  Since some of us are either lawyers or have legal expertise, we have been engaging in what amounts to a sidebar "re-trying" of the case, based on what we know (which is admittedly not everything) about the evidence, etc.  It is in this regard that I believe that, based solely on your (and others') arguments thus far - i.e., "Ivan (and Tony and others) for the prosecution" as it were - if it were "Maani for the defense," I would, indeed, "wipe the floor with you" (in a friendly way, of course...); i.e., I would show more than enough "reasonable doubt" to obtain the same verdict with the same evidence.

Hope we're still friends...

Peace.

^

I believe you've left one defendant untried in the Prog Lounge.....

tuxon wrote: I wouldn't even bother to show up until the final day, wipe the floor and be home before supper

Thank you Petrocelli...

Great argument Maani:

I have attended Mass for 40 years and helped the Priest several times, also studied in a Catholic School.

So thanks to your inpiring post I will write a letter to the Pope asking him to name me Bishop 

Probably he will laugh, exactly as I am laughing now.

Iván

PS: This doesn't affect my frienship either, of course we're friends.

Maani wrote:

I litigated at least 40 cases.  My record?  35 wins, 5 draws, no losses.

Please Maani, explain me the legal meaning of Draw (???)

With my modest appreciation there's not such thing as draw veredict in a court of law.

Sounds more like the record of Box fighter.

Iván

Now seriously, there's a legal meaning for draw, but it has nothing to do with a tie as in sports, no lawyer in the world would say I won X cases, lost Y cases and draw Z cases, because a draw is impossible in court, the legal meanings for draw are:

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=585&bold= - draw
v. 1) to prepare any document. 2) specifically to have prepared ...
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=586&bold= - drawee
...
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=587&bold= - drawer
n. the person who signs a bill of exchange.
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=2255&bold= - withdrawal
n. 1) in criminal law, leaving a conspiracy to commit a crime

No comments required.

Just to end:

I stand corrected re the appeal issue.  I was not thinking; of course you are right that the prosecution cannot appeal a not guilty verdict without new evidence.  My bad.

Still wrong Maani, you can never appeal a not guilty veredict, not even whith new evidence, once you're declared not guilty, there's no chance for appeal.

The appeal process exists to help people who have been wrongfully found guilty, not for people who might have been wrongfully declared not guilty.

Once you're found not guilty you can not be judged for the same crime, as Garion said correctly this is considered double jeopardy.

Iván