OK, the verdict to the Michael Jackson trial is out. He was found not guilty on all 10 counts of molestation. How do the gangsters of this board feel about this verdict? Was justice demonstrated?

Was the verdict of the Michael Jackson trial just? single choice
	Yes
	No
Votes accepted starting: 12/31/69 08:00 PM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

When one is NOT sitting in the jury box or even in the courtroom for that matter, it is virtually impossible to render an opinion and would not be fair to render an opinion, on a verdict reached by the actual jury.

Evidence presented in a courtroom and evidence presented in the media are two very different things. In a court of law a jury many times cannot take certain things into consideration when deliberating. However when you are on the outside looking in, you can consider whatever you want, and the media will report things to the pubic that is NOT ever presented in the actual courtroom.

Anyone who has ever served on a jury, especially a criminal case, will know exactly what I am saying here.

But what bothers me about this verdict is that there were several jurors who said that they felt that Jackson was a pedophile, but they basically voted not guilty because they were pissed off at the mother for snapping her fingers at them, or winking at them. To render a decision based NOT on evidence presented, but on personal feelings towards a witness, that have absolutely nothing to do with the evidence presented, is IMHO irresponsible on the part of those several jurors.


Don Cardi

Two funny jokes from late night tv I just heard:

David Letterman: "I hear Sadam wants to move his trial to Santa Maria, CA."

Jay Leno: "Good news, MJ not guilty on all counts. Bad news, he's going to Disneyland."

TIS

I'm not gonna answer. While I think he was innocent I also think that his celebrity effected the trial, although I thought he'd get convicted.

You are mostly correct DC, except that the jurors did not say that they acquitted Jackson because the mother snapped her fingers at them. They said they did not like her doing it. What they seem to have done is focus on whether Jackson committed the specific acts on this specific child. It was the prosecution that tried to snooker the jury into beieving some kind of "where ther's smoke there's fire" theory, and because the jury followed the instructions they did not bite. More often than not lawyers mistalenly underestimate the intelligence of jurors and the seriousness with which they take the cases they are given, and 99% of the time when that happens the right side wins.

And in my opinion thier not liking her doing this to them made them judge her credibility on a personal level, and not on the legal testimony. One of the jurors clearly said that he felt MJ did molested boys, but he did not deem the mother credible because of her actions towards the jury. Read between the lines here. But again, you and I were not in that courtroom, so it is not fair to say if the evidence presented was solid enough. It just troubles me that these jurors are making these claims about the mother's actions towards them. It tells me that they had a personal dislike for her and THAT is what decided, in thier minds, that she was not credible.


Don Cardi

I'm sure celebrity helped him a lot. But you have to give credit to his defense team. They did a great job of challenging the witnesses against him. What impresses me most is that they got the jury to focus not on whether Jacko molested boys, but whether he molested that boy. That's a pretty big leap, but the jury made it. If Jacko had been reasonably normal, he could have portrayed himself as a celebrity whose wealth and good nature made him an easy target for extortion. But he admitted that he likes to sleep with boys--and expected everyone to believe that he never touched them. I'd have thought that the jury would have strung him up.
Now all he has to do is to figure out how to get out of the quarter-billion debt he's run up. Perhaps Mike Tyson could advise him...

It disturbs me that this guy, or whatever he is these days, still thinks that there is nothing wrong with cuddling and sleeping in the same bed as little boys. Guilty or not, he has admitted to doing this and it is very disturbing. How in the world can a parent allow their child to sleep in a bed with Michel Jackson? Or with any adult for that matter?
Maybe the parents should be put on trial next. Knowing that this guy had been accused before of these sick acts, they still allowed their children to be with this sicko!


DS

I'm amazed at what some parents would do. The other day I watched Oprah, and there were two sisters on who were talking about being molested by a family friend. They told their parents, and their parents went to the guy and they made a deal that he wouldn't go to jail, as long as he got counseling. And the father continued to be this guy's best friend!! Can you imagine?? If somebody touched my kids, I don't know how I could hold in all my rage and keep myself from killing him. How could you continue to be friends with them?? So, seduced by the glamour and wealth of Michael Jackson, I guess there are parents who would be willing to let their kids go along.

Fair question, DS. That's why I voted that justice wasn't done in this case. Why would anyone in their right mind allow their kid to sleep with an adult--especially one with Jacko's reputation?

I agree totally with what you said in your original post, DC. (What;s this world coming to?)
As far as the above goes.....

Someone gets on the witness stand and "swears" to tell the truth. Now it's up to the jury to determine whether or not they beleive that person.

I guess "like" or "dislike" and personality and body language is as good a criteria as any for making that decision.

As far as the above goes.....

Someone gets on the witness stand and "swears" to tell the truth. Now it's up to the jury to determine whether or not they beleive that person.

I guess "like" or "dislike" and personality and body language is as good a criteria as any for making that decision. [/b][/quote]Plaw, liking or disliking a witness for their personality should have no bearing on the evidence that is presented or on that witness's testimony of that evidence. In this case the juror who made the claim that I am talking about did NOT say that she thought that the witness was lying or was not credible based on her testimony. She said that she did NOT like this witness because of the way that she acted towards HER! Did you see the actual interview?

We are not talking about the jury reading body language as far as the witness squirming in her seat because of possible lying, or not being able to look the lawyer in the eye when being questioned. This is just plain dislike, according to this juror, of the witness based solely on personality.

Several years ago I served on a jury in a criminal case. There was a witness who was called to the stand whom appeared to be an arrogant S.O.B. and would prance up to the stand. He clearly had a huge ego problem made obvious by his actions. However his testimony was solid and corroborated the testimony of several other witnesses who looked like sweet and innocent people. Their looks had absolutely no bearing on my decision. I did not allow my "personal" feelings of dislike to interfere with my abilities to consider his testimony.

If you are sitting on a jury and the accused is brought in and looks like the biggest lowlife on the earth, is dirty looking and stares into your face everytime you look at him, would the feelings that you have of him, because of his appearance make you disregard the testimony in the case?

I am not talking about THE JURY in this case, I am talking about several jurors who clearly stated that they were turned off by this witness because of the way she acted towards THEM and not because they thought that her TESTIMONY was weak.

Imagine if MJ was found guilty, and just one of the Jurors said that what pursueded them to vote guilty was that they didn't like the way that Michael Jackson pranced into the courtroom and the way that he looked? Every civil liberties lawyer in the country would be screaming re-trial, AND RIGHTFULLY SO!

Of course I am not suggesting that there should be a re-trial. I fully support the laws that state that if a person is aquitted then they cannot be re-tried for the same crime. I think that this law is probably one of the most important laws in our country in regards to our justice system.

What I am suggesting is that when one serves on a jury, they should take their serving on that jury very seriously.


Don Cardi

I'm not exactly sure how the system works in the States (or if it does :p ) but am I right in thinking that the Arviso family would get compensation if MJ had been found guilty?

You see, I think the possibility of bringing this case to a fair trial was minimal anyway, because there are very few people in the western world who don't have preconcieved ideas about Michael Jackson. How do you select an impartial jury, particularly from amongst americans who have grown up watching his every move?

But any chance in hell that this case had of being justly handled is blown out of the water if the person bringing the charges stands to claim money in the event of a guilty verdict. If the result of the conviction was a prison sentence and an acknowledgement of guilt, we could comfortably accept that the claims were at least valid. But a family with a history of trying to extort money from public figures, turning their attentions to Michael Jackson... well they certainly have a motive for making false claims.
I don't see how this system can work, unless all the victim stood to gain was justice, rather than millions of dollars. There should similarly be a law that victims, like offenders, cannot profit from the offence. That would soon stop liars coming out of the woodwork, and we could trust the trial a little more.

Having said all that, I have no trouble accepting that Michael acted on his innapropriate feelings towards children. I don't think he's malicious but I think he's mentally ill and his perception of what is appropriate is way out.
Furthermore, I can't imagine that your average 'black' suspected child molester would have been treated with such care as MJ has been. Many of them are assigned the shittiest lawyers available and slung in prison for twenty years, and nobody bats an eyelid. As someone on tv said, 'money talks and Michael walks'. Take away the media attention on this case and who really thinks the result would have been the same? It's all a big mess and that guy needs professional help, not a new world tour.

Funny enough, Mike Tyson became Michael Jackson's new music manager on Conan O'Brien last night.

Anyway, I agree that Michael Jackson did like to play Chocolate Bunny with the kids :p , but I'm not surprised by this verdict. Really, I blame the Prosecution in how it "charged" Michael Jackson. Instead of these silly "Conspiracy" and "Kidnapping" charges, they should have just went after Wacko Jacko on Molestation charges...and a good chance would be that he would have been convicted.

Neverless, lets not worry kids. He may have been acquitted, but Jackson is in BIG trouble. From a financial debt as small as $20 million to much larger reported sums, hes in BIG doo-doo. He'll have to sell his Beatles and Elvis record catalogs and Neverland Ranch(which reportedly cost more than a million dollars to operate each year). Not to mention that he is a total has-been pop star who's last record album was a mega-flop. He could have had a huge "retro" comeback, but instead he dropped the ball and well, his career isn't the only thing he apparently blew away.

No. The Jackson trial was a criminal proceeding. Any compensation would be as a result of a separate, civil trial.
Interestingly, Jacko's acquittal doesn't mean that the family can't sue him in a civil proceeding. In the most famous recent example, O.J. Simpson was acquitted in a criminal trial involving the death of his ex-wife and another. But the families sued him in a civil case, and won huge damages (which remain largely unpaid). US law basically says that in civil courts, anyone can sue anyone else for anything--it's up to a jury to determine the outcome. And a civil suit technically has no connection, under law, to a prior criminal case. In O.J.'s example, a many people thought he really was guilty of murder despite his acquittal, and had a lot of sympathy for the victims, who were innocent and appealing people. So the families of the victims felt emboldened to sue him in civil court, confident that they'd find a sympathetic jury--and they were right. In the Jacko case, I'm sure many people think Jacko was really guilty. But not a lot of people are going to have much sympathy for the Arviso family, given their history and their behavior at the criminal trial.

I heard this joke from a friend (Don't know where it's really from)

"Only in America can a poor, black boy grow up to be a rich, white woman."

As far as the case goes, I think everyone knows there is something seriously wrong with MJ, but I personally also blame any parents who allow their children to spend time with him. This is not new. These accusations have been going on for years. Parents can't plead ignorance. I would rather my children play on the street than in Neverland. Money is never an excuse for the well being of your children.

Amen to that!

I found this on the web today.

____________________________________
Jurors may have acquitted Jackson of all charges of molesting a 13-year-old cancer survivor, but not all of them were convinced the King of Pop had never molested a child.

"He's just not guilty of the crimes he's been charged with," said Ray Hultman, who told The Associated Press he was one of three people on the 12-person panel who voted to acquit only after the other nine persuaded them there was reasonable doubt about the entertainer's guilt in this particular case.

Prosecutors presented testimony about Jackson's allegedly improper relationships with several boys in the early 1990s, including the son of a maid who testified that Jackson molested him during tickling session between 1987 and 1990. Another, Brett Barnes, took the stand to deny that he was molested during sleepovers at Neverland.

But Hultman said he believed it was likely that both boys had been molested. He said he voted to acquit Jackson in the current case because he had doubts about his current accuser's credibility.

"That's not to say he's an innocent man," Hultman, 62, said of Jackson.

Some jurors noted they were troubled by Jackson's admission that he allowed boys into his bed for what he characterized as innocent sleepovers.

"We would hope first of all that he doesn't sleep with children anymore and that he learns that they have to stay with their families or stay in the guest rooms or the houses or whatever they're called down there," jury foreman Paul Rodriguez said. "And he just has to be careful how he conducts himself around children."

Some jurors acknowledged they flatly disliked the accuser's mother, portrayed by the defense as a welfare cheat who brought a trumped-up lawsuit against J.C. Penney, accusing store guards of roughing her and her family up. "I disliked it intensely when she snapped her fingers at us," said one juror, a woman, who declined to give her name.

Another woman juror said she felt sorry for the accuser and his siblings, believing they had been trained by their mother to lie. "As a mother, the values she has taught them, it's hard for me to comprehend," she said. "I wouldn't want any of my children to lie for their own gain."

who's jacko

That's Michael Jackson's nickname.