Sooooo Michael Jackson

[Stan]

NOT Guilty on all to counts..

thoughts??

[Robert]

Good...not "good" if he is really guilty, but rather "good" because our legal system is over-reacting to this pedophile problem. These non-violent pedophiles need help and not constant condemnation.

On another note, if this had been the average Joe, would the verdict be "not guilty"? Probably not!

[Dr. Shane]

While I believe he is guilty, if I had been on the jury I think I would have come up with the same verdict because, in my mind, there is reasonable doubt. That is, I think he did it but I have my doubts.

If it had been a civil trial the threshold would have been lower. In criminal trials one must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil trial the threashold is compilation of evidence - which means if you think there is greater than 50% chance that he did it, you rule against him. If this had been a civil trial and I had been on the jury I would have for sure said guilty.

Another note: he was not found innocent. The jury simply found him not guilty which means the prosecution did not present enough credible evidence for a guilty verdict.

[Jeannieb43]

I think some people get confused about "reasonable doubt." They seem to feel it has to be "beyond the shadow of a doubt."

In my mind, there's no reasonable doubt that he's a serial pedophile.

But of course one should never comment on the evidence unless one has been present in the courtroom every day....

[CyberGuy]

I read that the women on the jury did not like the mother of the boy at all. Evidently the mother of the boy shook her finger at the jury in her testimony. The woman of the jury took deep offense at that.

[CyberGuy]

The issue is if Jackson molested THIS boy or not. It may be that Jackson did molest other boys but the charges were that he molested THIS boy not that he molested someone in the past. That was the reasonable doubt.

The Fox Reporter Geraldo said that MJ told him he will never sleep in the same bed with boys again. People just take it wrong and he has learned his lesson.

Has Jackson learned his lesson? Time will tell.

[Neil D]

I have not been there...I have not heard the evidence, well, not as it was presented in the court room. Is there doubt that he is a pediphile? Yeah, but only enough to make sure that my children, grandchildren, children of friends and grandchildren of friends go no where near where he is.

Will Jackson recover? I am not sure...I suspect that he will wane mighty fast and that he might be penniless soon...His debts were reported to be over $300 million. And he is to MAYBE release his hold on the Beatles collection...

[CyberGuy]

Quote:

---

Is there doubt that he is a pediphile? Yeah, but only enough to make sure that my children, grandchildren, children of friends and grandchildren of friends go no where near where he is.

---

I agree. I would never let any of my kids near that guy. I find it just amazing so many parents not only allowed that but sought to have their kids go to Neverland. STUPID STUPID STUPID. I just cannot fathom that. Guilty or not it just puts the wrong thoughts into peoples heads of just what MJ is doing behind closed doors.

At the very least we all have to agree Jackson is not entirely stable.

[Kimberly]

Quite the contrary, I believe the legal system does not prosecute pedophiles enough!

There was so much evidence against him...what about when the boy was asked by law enforcement to "describe" Jackson's private parts, the boy did, they verified it when they made Jackson strip so they could look at the part the boy described!?? How else could the boy have seen his "parts" unless something happened?

What about the proof from the stewardess that she was instructed by Jackson to give the boys alcohol? I followed this whole trial on court TV, so I heard about all of the proof.

California is one of the most liberal states in the union, it doesn't surprise me that the jurors didn't convict him. But it does surprise me, what is this world coming to?

Is it my imagination or are we hearing more and more about sexual predators in the news? Especially in Florida!

I guess when you're rich and famous like OJ and Michael, you get away with murder and pedophelia.

I hope this hurts Michael's career... I know for one I will turn the station when one of his songs comes on, and I will tell my kids why...in fact I already have done just that!

Wacko Jacko...that's what he is...a total freak and child molestor. Why didn't he learn the first time around?

Once a molester, always a molestor.

Kim

[Kimberly]

Even if the parents didn't use good judgment, they were not on trial, Michael was!

Kim

[Kimberly]

I don't care if the women jurors didn't like the mother, it was the boy who was the issue.

Since she wiggled her finger, let's allow the molester to go free! Sounds good to me.

I better stop talking about this, or a heart attack is on it's way!!

Kim

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Wacko Jacko...that's what he is...a total freak and child molestor. Why didn't he learn the first time around?

Once a molester, always a molestor.

---

Currently, I have nothing that favors MJ.

But the above thought bothers me.

If the "once a molester, always a molestor" is true, then other things can also apply. For example, once a mother, always a mother...Once a thief, always a thief. Once a male, always a male....Once a teacher, always a teacher....Once a monster, always a monster....

Somehow, I don't think that the above statement is true, because the examples following it are not always true.

I don't want to become so harden that my views are skewed. There is the possiblity that the Holy Spirit can and does intervien and move upon people. I would like to let the Holy Spirit do so, and I would pray that MJ would allow the HS move upon him and let him learn from this close instance with the law.

[CyberGuy]

The jurors held a press conference and told the reasons for their decisions.

1. The mother was a proven liar and had tried to sue on false grounds a store once before.

2. The kids had acting lessons and the accuser when he testified would not look MJ in the face. That made the jurors suspicious he was lying. Remember a lot of these women were mothers. When your kid will not look in your face when he is telling a story would you believe him?

3. All the witnesses who gave damning testimony also had been fired for other reasons long before. Many had sold their stories to tabloids. They had a reason to hold to their story. Revenge and or profit. Reasonable doubt in anyone's mind.

Like it or not the prosecutor had a bad case and witnesses who were not credible.

Remember you were not there. These jurors were. WE have to trust their judgment. MJ was tried by the press and found guilty long before this verdict came out.

[CyberGuy]

A jury looks at the evidence but they also judge a witness's demeanor. How they say it. What they say. Do they look the accuser in the eye or do they hold their head down. That is what makes us human and not machines. These men and women were there and made a decision to the best of their ability.

Right or wrong it is final. Jackson cannot be retried on those charges. Will other charges be filed? The prosecutor refused to comment on that. So we may not have heard the end of this. However IMO it would be unwise to file new charges too soon. Already the prosecutor has been accused of having a vendetta against Jackson. I think he will proceed more cautious next time if there is a next time.

[antcreations]

it's very easy for us to judge people that are different and weird.

remember Jesus was different too.

and MJ is no exemption.

not that MJ is Jesus - but it's easy for us to judge "wackos."

[Robert]

Quote:

---

If the "once a molester, always a molestor" is true, then other things can also apply.

---

Yeah, like once a whore always a whore....But we see that Jesus had a diffferent approach to sinners!

• John 8:3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin [i.e., adultery].”

[Gregory Matthews]

I have to say that I have reasonable doubt in regard to some of the major charges. I think that I could have convicted on some of the lessor charges, such as giving alcohol to a minor. But, I was neither in court nor on the Jury.

Re: Once a child molester always a molester, and relation to once a thief always a thief.

They are not simular. We do not have credible studies that show that once a person is a thief that person is always a thief, in the majority of cases. But, we do have studies to show that an adult molester is likely to always be such.

A recent, professionally done study from Canada has shown that such is true and that more of them simply do not get coaught. The issue is that adults who are so attracted to children remain so attracted to children for the rest of thier lives, in the vast majority of cases. Sooner or later, most (not 100%) act on that attraction.

So, perhaps it is better to say that adults who are sexually attracted to children will typically always remain attracted to children. That is likely a more accurate statement.

[Guest]

As a Christian, not that I would agree with this saying by Thomas Jeffersen, but it does say something to a thinking person. His words were like this. What this country NEEDS to stay healthy is every 200 years have a revelotion by killing all the attornies and then go on about your business of being free". No wonder the bible says "WOE to you lawyers"!!!

[Paul Beach]

Dear individuals,

What we know is that Michael Jackson is weird and that the accuser's mother's demeanor did nothing to help the prosecution at all.

Not only did she have significant problems in her history, including admitted perjury, and multiple lawsuits that went nowhere, but she snapped her fingers at the jury, mocked the German accents of some of the people who worked for Jackson, and worst of all, let her child continue to stay with Jackson while apparently planning to cash in on the situation in some way. Contrary to popular belief, most juries have no mercy for arrogant people who lack any form of common sense.

Since there were apparently a number of similar incidents, it seems the prosecutors could have done their homework and found a "better" victim. Instead, the prosecutors seemed to enter this case thinking they had a winner, and overlooking some of the glaring weaknesses of their facts. They can't go to a courthouse and expect the other side not to point out the obvious problems with their witnesses.

Personally, Mrs. Gray believes that Michael Jackson has been given a "Get Out of Jail Free Card" and if anything like this surfaces again in the future, he is going to go away for a long time.

These big media trials are somewhat entertaining and it will be interesting to see what the next big one is. So far in the last two years we have had Scott Peterson, Robert Blake, and Michael Jackson. It is always ironic when the news people will do a segment on how much exposure a case is getting and how bad that is. Even then they are doing what they seem to claim is beneath them.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Gray

[Bravus]

As I overhead someone saying at the doctor's office yesterday: "So, Michael, learn! This isn't the first time: at some point you'd think you'd learn that, however much you like children, having them in your bed (if they're not your own) is a Bad Idea and is not right." I believe we have to uphold the justice system - as cyberguy has said, the jurors are privy to much, much more information than we are. If I were tried and found not guilty, I would want to be assumed to be not guilty, and the Golden Rule suggests we should apply the same standard to Michael Jackson. At the same time, given his documented history, I won't be sending my kids over to Neverland any time soon...

[CyberGuy]

Jurors Say They Were Bothered by Mother

By LINDA DEUTSCH

SANTA MARIA, Calif. (AP) - The jurors who acquitted Michael Jackson of child molestation had harsh words for the accuser's mother, who made them uncomfortable during her jumbled and volatile testimony.

Jurors said they were especially put off when the mother snapped her fingers at them while on the stand. ``I disliked it intensely when she snapped her fingers at us. That's when I thought `Don't snap your fingers at me, lady,' said juror No. 5, a retired widow.

Jurors spoke Monday in a tightly controlled news conference in a spare courtroom outfitted to look more like a TV studio. As a condition of their willingness to participate, they were identified by number, not by name.

Later, several used their names during interviews with the news media, including Juror No. 1, Raymond Hultman, 62. He told The Associated Press in an interview at his home that he believed Jackson may have molested at least two boys - but not the accuser.

He said he voted to acquit Jackson in the current case because he had doubts about the accuser's credibility. ``That's not to say he's an innocent man,'' Hultman said. ``He's just not guilty of the crimes he's been charged with.''

The foreman, later identified as Paul Rodriguez, said jurors made a plan from the start of deliberations that they were going to treat Jackson like any other individual and avoid being star-struck. After that, ``we were able to deal with it just as fairly as we could as with anybody else.''

They also found no ``smoking gun'' in the evidence.

``We expected probably better evidence ... something that was a little more convincing, and it just wasn't there,'' said juror No. 10.

They also had trouble with the prosecution's timeline of events. Prosecutors said Jackson molested the teenage boy while trying to deal with the fallout from a television documentary that prompted outrage over his sleepovers at Neverland.

``The timeline was really a concern,'' said juror No. 3, a 50-year-old woman.

Juror No. 10, a 45-year-old woman with one adult child and two teenage sons, discussed the panel's feelings about the 46-year-old pop star sharing his bed with boys.

``What mother in her right mind would allow that to happen? Just freely volunteer your child to sleep with someone. Not so much just Michael Jackson but any person for that matter. That's something that mothers are naturally concerned with,'' the juror said.

Rodriguez indicated he felt the mother singled him out because he was a fellow Hispanic.

``The mother, when she looked at me and snapped her fingers a few times and she says, 'You know how our culture is,' and winks at me, I thought, 'No, that's not the way our culture is.''

The mass of about 2,200 credentialed media representatives who gathered for the verdict surprised jurors. But juror No. 1 said, ``By the time we got to deliberations, we were all so conditioned to the media, we didn't pay any attention.''

The foreman said the jury took only two votes. They divided up tasks and used their copious notes to follow the timeline of events.

[Gregory Matthews]

I heard a legal commentator say today that the prosecution might have won if they had not placed the mother on the stand. That person felt that without the mother the boy, and others would have won the case.

[Jeannieb43]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Gregory Matthews said:

But, we do have studies to show that an adult molester is likely to always be such.

So, perhaps it is better to say that adults who are sexually attracted to children will typically always remain attracted to children. That is likely a more accurate statement.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

A pedophile is never cured, just as an alcoholic is never cured. He can be prevented from acting out, however, by the same methods as an alcoholic with A.A. -- by staying away from schools, playgrounds, Boy Scout groups, even churches; by being an active participant in group therapy and attending meetings regularly; by having to report to his parole agent regularly; by publicly admitting his problem and enlisting his family and friends in helping to make sure he's never around children alone; etc.

But the recidivism rate in pedophiles is extremely high.

And the "sins of the fathers... to the third and fourth generation" are so common it's unbelievable to those who don't work with these victims on a regular basis. The boys become so screwed up that often they're unable to hold down jobs when they become adults, or to make good marriages [or get married at all]. And if the victim is a girl it's sometimes much worse. She is permanently scarred, and comes to believe that that behavior is the norm--tends to become a perpetrator herself when she grows up.

This is NOT a victimless crime.

[Ron Lambert]

Since the jury was there and heard all the testimony and saw all the evidence, I am content to defer to their judgment. I did not exactly "immerse" myself in this case, so I am by no means an expert on it. I am just glad it is over with.

But it seems safe to say that the verdict affirms two things:

(1) On the positive side, you cannot be convicted just because you look weird and exhibit a classic "Peter Pan" syndrome.

(2) On the negative side, it is beginning to look like no famous black man can be convicted in this country. David Letterman joked last night that the only item of evidence the jury asked to be sent in for them to examine was O.J.'s glove.

Letterman also joked that Saddam Hussein has requested a change of venue, so his trial can be held in Santa Barbara County.

Jokes aside, there is a lot of speculation about where Michael Jackson will go from here. Can he resume his career as the number one pop star in the country? In the past he has made hundreds of millions. Can he do it again? There are reports in the media that he has serious financial problems, and obviously big bills to pay after this long and protracted trial.

He still clearly has many loyal fans, who now are feeling triumphant. I think that there will a number of producers who will be willing to capitalize on this and offer deals to Jackson. His next album will probably go gold overnight; and whether you hate him or love him, can you imagine what the ratings will be for his next TV special?

Margaret Gray referred to Jackson getting a "Get out of jail free" card. While it does my heart good to learn that in this electronic age, there are still some people who remember Monopoly, I think the "Get out of jail free" card means it is going to be nearly impossible to get a conviction for any similar charges against Jackson in the future. So he can now do anything he wants. If someone comes forward with complaints against Jackson in the future, are the police going to be inclined to listen? Will the county prosecutor want to risk getting burned again?

Hopefully Jackson won't commit any offenses in the future. Hopefully he was really innocent this time. If not, and he becomes over-confident now because of his "Get out of jail free" card, then he could do something so overt that he is caught plain for anyone to see. Then the legal system will really pile on him. But he would have to do something really overt and blatant.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The kids had acting lessons and the accuser when he testified would not look MJ in the face. That made the jurors suspicious he was lying. Remember a lot of these women were mothers. When your kid will not look in your face when he is telling a story would you believe him?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I am a sexual abuse victem and in my case my mother caught the perpetrator in the act. He at first pled not guilty and we thought I would have to testify. I didn't even want to be in the same room with him, not to mention looking at him in the face. Luckly he changed his plea to guilty and I didn't have to testify. However I am sure that had I had to testify, I wouldn't have been looking at him in the face.