If ever I am convicted of a crime whereby I have to go to trial I would like to go ahead and reserve the same jury that found Michael Jackson not guilty of any wrong doing. Because if those twelve numbnuts are able to cast a blind eye towards the evidence against the King of Pop then I have nothing to lose with them as my "peers."
Letting OJ Simpson walk free, I get that — If they had found him guilty half of Los Angeles would still be a pile of ash, it was a very tense time. But I can't imagine anyone feared rioting and chaos if they had found Michael guilty of anything. I can only assume that each juror is now the proud partial owner of the Beatles catalog.
Beat it indeed.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
I agree this is truely a sad day. How anyone can find that sick freak innocent is beyond me!!!
If he had been anyone else (other than a celebrity), they would have already had him hanging from a tree.
Oh how I love people in this country.
Unfortunately, the case was based upon not evidence, but more on the seemingly-irrational and bizzare events that the prosecution brought to the stand.
The case was made and lost when they started to put people up who didn't seem to have much other than conspiracy theories.
It definitely wasn't a case based on the strength of the defence -- it was a case lost on the weakness of the prosecution. =\
It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the accuser's family to mount a civil suit against Jackson. The burden of proof is not nearly so weighted in the favor of the defendant in civil litigation. I think this will end up paralleling the OJ trial in more ways than one. (Michael's going to get his ass handed to him in a financial ruling for the victim)
I couldn't agree with you more - it's unbelievable. I won't say it's taken away my faith in the American justice system, but trials like Jackson's and OJ's does tarnish it a bit... It's really unfortunate.
It sounds to me like the case WAS based upon evidence, and that the jury - in incredibly difficult circumstances - found the prosecution witnesses to be too unreliable. Given that the jury needed to come to a consensus, there's no room for lingering doubts about witness credibility. Interestingly, the Australian media this morning is contending that Jackson was denied the presumption of innocence from the outset - in other words, that getting a not guilty verdict was an uphill battle for his defense - and that based on the evidence presented in the commital hearing the case would be unlikely to have gone to trial here. Michael Jackson is obviously a peculiar man with peculiar habits, but he seems emphatically asexual to me. I'm not totally surprised by the verdict, and I certainly wouldn't have wished jail upon him.
What evidence exactly? I think they did a commendable job given how much of a villan Jackson is made out to be in the media. (Everyone refers to him as Jacko. What's up with that?)
Lamenting this case, and OJ's as grand failures of the American justice system is stupid. How many nameless faceless black people do you think are sitting in Jail this very minute who probably don't deserve to be there. There is a problem with the US system of justice, but I don't get the impression it is in its inability to lock black people up.
Also, I really doubt the Jury on the OJ case thought to themselves, "Shit, we can't send him to Jail, there will be people rioting in the streets." What are you implying? Black people are going to rise up and protest the Juice going to Jail, but White people will behave when he doesn't.
I agree Ramanananan, what IS the evidence that he should have been convicted on???
The primary piece of evidence was the accuser's testimony which depending on most accounts, was not exactly stellar (which is the #1 reason why the prosecution decided to use his taped statemtent to police in their rebuttal). And once you factor in credibility based on the family/mother's past accusations and her pimping out her cancer-son to every celebrity in People, you can't help but wonder if the boy's simply following orders.
Outside of that, the police tore the dude's joint up, inspected his entire estate, searched warehouses he stored random shit at, and what did they find after all of this??? A couple porno mags and a semi-questionable photography book.
That's it.
Do I think the dude is weird? yeah.
Do I think the dude might be a boy-toucher? yeah.
Do I think the dude should have been convicted based on the evidence because it proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt? no.
Yes, I should say that the evidence I think the prosecution was based on was the testimony of the witnesses, and that that evidence was undermined by the witnesses' lack of credibility. I'm yet to hear of any Eureka! evidence that should've sent him to jail, and in the end, the jury didn't think they heard it either.
How do you know he was guilty? Did you see all the evidence the jury saw? Did you see or know something they don't know?
And how it less a travesty of justice to acquit Michael Jackson and not O.J. Simpson because you fear a small group of the people in the immediate area will be upset at the verdict?
What the hell. Of course he was found Not Guilty. He made Thriller! He can't go to jail!
*scoffs*
I believe in a criminal suit the jurors have to believe 90% or more that the defendant committed the said crime. From the evidence I saw in the media, I would have been around 60% at best - enough for him to lose a civil suit, but certainly not enough for a criminal case.
Michael Jackson is a wierd guy, but the evidence presented wasn't anything shocking - it was all he-said-she-said.
He is 40 something years old, he is allowed to have pornography and alcohol in his bedroom. The kid wanted to see him. There are plenty of people saying Jackson never touched them when they were at Neverland - including Culken.
I support Jeremiah's (from the first comment) solution. Hanging from a tree, indeed.
My only reservation is that Michael Jackson settled a lawsuit for millions of dollars and he did not change the habits that made him susceptible to these types of allegations. This doesn't mean he's guilty because the trial did prove that the boy and his mother's allegations were not credible. However, it does prove that Michael Jackson (to whom I personally believe is a repressed asexual) is incapable of realistic or decent thought and at least deserves to be villified by the media and public at large (i.e. blogs) for at least being an idiot.
This is why even though I thought OJ was guilty of double homicide and believe he needs to be held responsible for his actions, one can feel reasonably safe that he at least will never do anything like that again because the media has checked him into solitude.
Michael Jackson had that opportunity and has proven that he can not change even with public pressure and ridicule.
Ramanan wrote:
What are you implying? Black people are going to rise up and protest the Juice going to Jail, but White people will behave when he doesn't.
As Rodney King would say, "Can't we all just get along?"
To Virginia et al - would any of you let your child sleep over at Neverland? How about let that child sleep in the same bed with a man who settled a child-molestation case out of court? Yes, bad parenting, but bad touching, too. Better still, would any of you want to sleep with other people's children?
Did you know that one of the jurors is the grandmother of a convicted sex offender? Would you want her on the jury if your child had been molested? Shame on the prosecutors for allowing her in.
Child molesters, especially successful ones like Mr. Jackson who've beaten the system, do not change their behavior. The next child to fall victim to this monster is on the hands of this inept jury. Anyone who thinks it won't happen again is living in their own Neverland.
– Disgusted,
I really wasn't going to get into this argument - least of all because I'm heading off to dinner with a bunch of lawyers who'll want to argue about it all night - but I can't help myself.
1. I certainly wouldn't let my child stay over at Michael Jackson's place, but that's not the point. There are a lot of people whose care I wouldn't leave my (hypothetical) children in, and that's because as a parent the care of my children is my responsibility. It's all about judgement.
2.Settling out of court is not an admission of guilt, it's a pragmatic way of staying out of the limelight. Usually out-of-court settlements come with privacy clauses; I believe that MJ's did as well - but the molestation case allowed it to be admitted as evidence. Legal procedings aren't to be undertaken lightly; they're expensive, public, time-consuming and emotionally draining. MOST potential litigtation never makes it to court. Settlement isn't a crime.
3. I don't think that the grandmother of the sex offender has had her senses impaired in any way by that fact. That's the kind of discriminatory and offensive reasoning that has had black people chucked off juries in trials of black defendants for the last hundred years. If having been touched by crime was a criterion for disqualification from a jury, you'd struggle to find three people in the universe who'd stand.
4. The jury found Jackson not guilty because the evidence was shaky. The presumption of innocence is the hallmark of a good justice system, and if you ever found yourself accused of a crime you hadn't commited, you'd understand. All the evidence we've heard has been spun, in one way or another, by the media - perhaps we should accept that the jury had more of a grasp on proceedings than we ever could.
5. I don't like child molestors any more than you do.
Ah, shut up me. I'll stop now.
Fools to the left and jokers to the right and thank goodness for a jury system stuck in the middle. The jury member comments I saw on telly tonight were full of common sense. I think it's a bit rich to go laying blame on them and maybe more constructive to question the prosecutor who may need to take a long hard look at himself and his poor strategic approach to the whole case.
Virgina has summed up all my opinions quite nicely (better than I would have). I wouldn't let my kids sleep over at Jackson's house, the man is strange. That said, being strange doesn't make you a criminal.
It does make you a "Smooth Criminal."
Sorry, couldn't resist.
... was i the only person who stop caring about this entire thing? now... i did live though the late end of M.J. glory years (was in grade school at the time)
But knowing how much media went into this... i just stopped caring, and i think we all knew he was going to walk... no offence, but the all felt like a scam, now, would i trust him with my kids (... no kids atm.. but in the future) no.. + i heard rumor he sold neverland ranch and was moving to Europe?... could mean 1 of 2 things...
1. this time was a little to close for him, so he's gonna leave before it happens again
2. he's sick of the way he's been treated over here in North America and wants to get with some of this fan base in europe?
Who knows... hope it all just fades away...
My gut feeling -- based on a cursory understanding of the trial -- is that this was a con job by the accuser. I have not followed this trial closely (I have a life), but I have heard nothing that has convinced me otherwise.
Perhaps those (including Greg) who are vehement that the verdict is wrong know something I don't. I feel that Virginia and Ramanan have covered most of the argument I would make if I felt passionately about this, which I don't.
As far as parallels to the Kobe and O.J. trials, I think the former is apt, but the latter is not. I can't stand Kobe Bryant and think he is an arrogant and spoiled jerk, but the charges against him did not ring true to me, and like the MJ case, none of the subsequent facts that I heard subverted my initial assumptions.
The O.J. Case was a different breed -- there was a ton of physical evidence, past abuse, and a jury who was encouraged -- using racially charged rhetoric -- to try to right past injustices against African-Americans by aquitting a man who, from what I could see, was guilty beyond any doubt.
Did you listen to all of the evidence that the jury did? On what basis do you make these comments? I may *think* that he's guilty based on a pattern of behavior or just because I think he's a freak, but I the jury is a little better able to make this distinction than I am.
I gotta agree with alot of you, the prosecutor in this case was an absolute incompetent assclown. He did a piss poor job with this case, it was really pathetic. Some of these douche bags get too worked up with being on tv and forget how to actually practice law.
As for OJ's case, that's another one where the prosecutor should really just have been fired for. Why would you let him try on that glove unless you were 150% positive that it fit? Not to mention the numerous other debacles. The Cali justice system is so dysfunctional in some areas. These are two cases where there were incompetent prosecutors who couldn't convict clients with high priced lawyers.
By the way, that grandma juror was on Howard Stern this morning and actually said they wanted to find Jackson guilty going into the trial based on his past behavior. But she said the testimonay and evidence did not justify it for this particular case - pretty much sums it up, no?
*And her grandson's story - she said at 18 him and his high school buddies were running around and on a dare he flashed a woman. Felony. Big mistake, and a bigger consequence for the guy. But hardly something that breeds sympathy for a pedophile....
Honestly, I just don't get the way people are reacting to this. Would those disappointed in the verdict be happier if our judicial system was based on "Guilty until proven innocent"? Or would you rather decisions be based upon how people react to media spin without ever having heard real evidence?
As Dave put it on the Late Show's Top 10: #2) "I'm glad we live in a country where prison is reserved for dangerous outlaws like Martha Stewart."
I can't wait to see what asshat parents let their kids over to his house again. You know there will be millions..
He's been proven innocent. I'm not anywhere near knowledgeable about him, the kids, the evidence, the circumstance to pass judgement on him. That's done. I am, however, knowledgeable enough about his history to know no child of mine would be anywhere near the guy alone. So at some point, I think the parents should be held responsible for letting them go over there and sleep in the guys BED. Geez.
If you look at the way he acts you realize he's practically a child himself. Of course he wants to be around kids. Adults think he's a freak. Kids think he's santa. The Neverland title isn't lost on me - he never grew up, but everyone around him did. He believed he really could be Peter Pan.
I hope he learned something and no more children get hurt. I hope he gets some help and makes some friends his own age. I hope parents are more careful about celebrity and keep as close an eye on their kids with the guy in the Barney costume as they do with the guy in the ski mask.
Nobody won this case except the defense lawyers. The prosecution wasn't prepared and the defense jumped all over it. MJ certainly hasn't won anything. He gets to go home alone to the place that oozes kids knowing he can't have that dream back. There is definately some punishment in that - it's not the bars and prison uniform, but it is probably more punishment to him than many prisoners ever feel in jail.
We let OJ move on. Lets just deal with the justice or lack-there-of that the system handed down and let the victims (and there are many) move on already.
Sorry. That was a much longer rant than I thought it would be. I guess I'm just tired of the drama. These things go on too dam long.
Who's Michael Jackson?
I can't wait to see what asshat parents let their kids over to his house again.
Oh didn't you hear? He's not going to invite children to sleep with him anymore. I guess a fourteen week trial is all it takes to stop bad habits. Of course we'll see how long the new Neverland house rules last.
OJ - Not Guilty
Martha Stewart - Guilty
Robert Blake - Not Guilty
Michael Jackson - Not Guilty
What's this prove? Jurors love Richard Nixons.
Greg - Jack-o isn't going to invite "cheerdren" to Neverland anymore - he's just going to invite himself to Thailand. Perhaps he'll build a smaller, more powerful "Neverland II" there.
The best coverage of the trial focused not on MJ, but on Court TV's Nancy Grace and THE BIRD WOMAN OF SANTA BARBARA. Not to be missed:
http://www.nightcharm.com/?p=148
Jojo, funny you should mention Thailand. The music expert giving his analysis on NPR said that Michael might possibly move to Asia or Europe where his 'brand' is still popular.
I still can't imagine how many fans he has. It is interesting that most of them are not in the USA anymore (which I guess makes sense), but it's not like his music is getting better. He's been on the decline for quite some time, but Greg you nailed it, it might just be the "brand" name aspect that draws them in.
OJ - Not Guilty
Martha Stewart - Guilty
Robert Blake - Not Guilty
Michael Jackson - Not Guilty
What's this prove? That people are much more likely to punish a successful woman when given the opportunity than an African American. Sexism is the new racism.
I think there was a genuine lack of evidence. You could hardly say any of it was beyond reasonable doubt that he touched any kids up.....He may well have been guilty, but the evidence supporting this was piss poor.....The prosecution let this kid down in a big way if Jackson was REALLY guilty.
Figuring out the intended strategy of both the defense and prosecuting attorneys and then deciding as a "team" whether they proved their points is the most interesting part of serving on a jury.
I once sat on a jury for two men who were being tried for assault with a deadly weapon. It was clear to us that they were guilty of assault. But the prosecution never produced a [deadly] weapon and failed to really prove they used one in the assault. We found them guilty of assault but not with a deadly weapon.
Today's news reports that Jackson as decided he no longer will allow kids into his bed --not because it's wrong mind you, but because it makes him vulnerable to suits like this. Well, duh! It took him long enough to figure that out. Too bad he misses the point.
Sexism is the new racism.
Tom:
If you are being ironic: Haw, Haw!
If you are not: Oh, Brother.
What if I'm being both? : )
Then begins the ironic twist.
First of all, the evidence was all he-say she-say. There was no solid, if any decent proof of Michael doing anything. Second of all, it all seemed too rehearsed. The mother and the boys all seemed to have a close story, like they had rehearsed it. There was no time-line for it, it was all mixed up to the extent of not making sense. Another thing, Michael Jacksons room, is the size of a duplex, so yes, many people could sleep in their. A whole family could sleep in there. And last of all, Michael Jackson would not do anything like that to a child. He has spent most of his life fighting for children, trying to protect them from the dangers out there. Pages upon pages could be written for what he has done to help, foundations he has donated money to, foundations he has started. He will never stop trying to help provide better lives for children, and yet, there is always someone trying to cash in on him, old grudges and made up stories.
As for the trial, it WAS a fair trial, and the justice system has spoken rightfully. Everyone has their differences. Think of the people watching him constantly. Now think about it, anything done differently would be zoomed in on, and told repeatably to the media. Not many celebrities get away with having nothing that seems weird. (even though weirdness is just a state of mind, someone doing it their way and not following)
Don, how long have you been President of the Captain Eo Fan Club of the Calgary Metropolitan Area?
Don, that's what happens when you do a thing called preperation for the stand. All witnesses are prepared by laywers before taking the stand. Of course it sounded rehersed. It was.
Tom Mesereau on Leno (June 17) was interesting.
I'm just chiming in here, but watching from the UK it seems Jackson got away with it nicely.
Your legislature doesn't apply over here - so from my point of view Jackson bought himself out of trouble at the Jordy Chandler incident.
So, logically, any parent in the civilised world would think twice about letting their children - vulnerable children - alone with him. Overnight. In the same room. In the same bed.
I saw some footage with the jurors after the verdict, and was surprised that many of them seemed to acknowledge that Jackson might have molested children. So it was a fair trial in that there was scant evidence, but let's face it - there's something wrong with Jacko.
As a parent, I'm disgusted both in Jackson and the parents involved in this case. I acknowledge what Don said above, but in this specific case children have been put through a terrible ordeal which Jackson could have shielded them from if his behaviour was beyond reproach.
I'm surprised that I didn't see a parade in his honor when I was in Paris last week!