Michael Jackson found NOT guilty

[Dak]

Mmmm. He's been tried and found innocent in a court of law. It's unjustifiably cruel to continue the trial outside of the courtroom. He is not guilty.

what if there were a blatant miscarriage of justice? wouldnt it be better to discuss (and therefore be aware of) it, rather than letting it slide by silently?

 

On the other-hand, i do agree... he's been found innocent in a court of law: even if he did do it, he is now to all extents and purposes innocent and, unless a subsequent re-trial finds him guilty, should be treated as such.

[Cathy Pa]

Bettina' date=' Cathy Pa. You did not sit on the jury. You did not hear the evidence, you did not hear the rebuttals, you did not hear the redirects. You did not see the witnessess. You did not have an opportunity to assess their demeanour. You did not take detailed notes during the trial. You did not spend eight days reviewing the evidence and the credibility of the witnessess and the quality of the evidence with a group of other individuals who had gone through the same experience.

What you have done is taken a justifiable disgust for child abuse, combined it with a questionable dislike for bizarre character traits, and unreasonably joined a witch hunt.

Bettina, you have spoken eloquently on other threads of the curse of your empathic abilities. I'm just wondering where is your empathy for an innocent (in both senses of the word) forty four year old boy, who is found guilty by rumour, gossip and presumption within one of the courts of public opinion.[/quote']

 

Well I can't speak for Bettina, but as for me, he did it.

 

True, he was found not guilty in court, but then, in court the deck is stacked in favor of the defendant as it is supposed to be. We, on the other hand, don't have to give him the benifit of the doubt. We can judge him on any suspicious little incident about him and his colorful past that we wish, because all we are expressing, is our opinion.

 

My opinion is that I wouldn't let a child of mine stay on his ranch for all the money in the world, and I will bet that most of his supporters wouldn't either. Unless, of course, they would be hoping for a fondling incident to cash in on.

[atinymonkey]

what if there were a blatant miscarriage of justice? wouldnt it be better to discuss (and therefore be aware of) it' date=' rather than letting it slide by silently?

 

On the other-hand, i do agree... he's been found innocent in a court of law: even if he [i']did[/i] do it, he is now to all extents and purposes innocent and, unless a subsequent re-trial finds him guilty, should be treated as such.

Meh, I see most of the arguments as pure conjecture based on Jacksons appearance and physical traits. Rather like Peter Lorrie, who was hounded after he portrayed a pedophile on film, the justification for branding him guilty is based on the most superficial of reasons.

 

Much as it discomforts people to know it, pedophiles do not have obvious traits. You cannot spot them in a crowd, no method of speech is common, they do not act in a particular fashion and they are not (for the most part) in any way conspicuous. If someone looks and behaves odd, the likely conclusion is that they are unbalanced or socially inept, not that they are a deviant.

 

I agree with Ophiolite, I'm not going to damn a man based on the court of public opinion. I certainly won't do it based on his appearance and demeanor. Unless it's Cherie Blair, of course (the evil baby eating cow).

 

We, on the other hand, don't have to give him the benifit of the doubt. We can judge him on any suspicious little incident about him and his colorful past that we wish, because all we are expressing, is our opinion[/i'].

You can be found guilty of slander. Unless you continue to express your opinions as ungrounded, bias and shallow judgements. Which I'm guessing you are not inclined to do.

[Dak]

Meh, I see most of the arguments as pure conjecture based on Jacksons appearance and physical traits.

which is another good reason why it should be discussed: so that people who base their assumptions on irrelivent things can have their logical inaccuracys pointed out. which segyouweeys nicely onto my next point...

Well I can't speak for Bettina' date=' but as for me, he did it.

 

True, he was found not guilty in court, but then, in court the deck is stacked in favor of the defendant as it is supposed to be. We, on the other hand, don't have to give him the benifit of the doubt. We can judge him on any suspicious little incident about him and his colorful past that we wish, because all we are expressing, is our opinion.

 

My opinion is that I wouldn't let a child of mine stay on his ranch for all the money in the world, and I will bet that most of his supporters wouldn't either. Unless, of course, they would be hoping for a fondling incident to cash in on.[/quote']yes, you may express your oppinion. however, this is a science site, so you should back up your conjectures with facts/sound reasoning.

 

on what are you basing your assumption that he is guilty?

[alibabba]

Meh' date=' I see most of the arguments as pure conjecture based on Jacksons appearance and physical traits. Rather like Peter Lorrie, who was hounded after he portrayed a pedophile on film, the justification for branding him guilty is based on the most superficial of reasons.

 

Much as it discomforts people to know it, pedophiles do not have obvious traits. You cannot spot them in a crowd, no method of speech is common, they do not act in a particular fashion and they are not (for the most part) in any way conspicuous. If someone looks and behaves odd, the likely conclusion is that they are unbalanced or socially inept, not that they are a deviant.

 

I agree with Ophiolite, I'm not going to damn a man based on the court of public opinion. I certainly won't do it based on his appearance and demeanor. Unless it's Cherie Blair, of course (the evil baby eating cow).

 

 

[/quote']

 

I don't think we are in a position to damn anyone, but if one has an opinion about his guilt/innocence, then I think that he/she is intitled to express it.

[Cathy Pa]

You can be found guilty of slander. Unless you continue to express your opinions as ungrounded' date=' bias and shallow judgements. Which I'm guessing you are not inclined to do.[/quote']

 

It is slander to express an opinion about the guilt of Michael Jackson?

 

Give us a break!

[MolecularMan14]

What is odd to me is that he was pronounced not guilty on all charges, when there was the evidence of the "Jesus Juice" for providing minors with alcohol.

It's no business of mine, I hate pop culture (I just typed poop culture but thought better than to leave it, just thought it was funny considering how idiotic it is)

[ku]

There is nothing wrong with sleeping with children so long as you don't touch them while sleeping in any illicit way. Many parents sleep with their children. Some argue that it is sick that Michael Jackson slept with someone else's children, but I don't see the problem with that. If Michael develops a relationship with someone elses child to the point that his relationship to that child is almost fatherly, then sleeping with the child would be expected. The same sort of logic applies to adopted versus biological children and their relationship with the parents. It depends on the circumstances of the relationship and not on similarity of genetic sequence. As many here have mentioned, Michael may be weird, but there is nothing wrong with being different.

[ku]

Atinymonkey is right. Pedophile experts have shown that the characteristics common to pedophiles do not match the stereotypical characteristics attributed to pedophiles. Michael Jackson is hardly a threat to children compared to the many pro-pedophilia advocates out there. There are many websites on the Internet that attempt to normalize sexual intercourse between adults and minors. The people behind these projects may be smart-looking academics, psychologists, etc.

[Digitals]

That was my take on it too. Throughout the trial' date=' the witnesses seemed to have been telling two stories, and their families were obviously exposing their own kids to this guy to get a whack at a multi-million dollar settlement.

 

Fair or not, a kid from that kind of family background has a problem with credibility--in my opinion.

 

As an observer, I can think MJ was guilty and no harm is done, but a juror is obligated to consider the defendant innocent until the prosecution proves otherwise--and that beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

If I had been on that jury, I probably would have had to vote not guilty too, which would have been a tough pill to swallow.[/quote']

 

OK! my BIGIST question is how the hell was the jury going to think for them selfs if there was a 96 PAGE !!! Rule BOOK! omg thats the most dumbest thing i have ever heard of !, Also if they couldent find that he actully sexualy assoult them. Why wosent he found guilty of giving Achohal to MINORS ?!?!?! He confesed to the achohal charge !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dak]

OK! my BIGIST question is how the hell was the jury going to think for them selfs if there was a 96 PAGE !!! Rule BOOK! omg thats the most dumbest thing i have ever heard of !, Also if they couldent find that he actully sexualy assoult them. Why wosent he found guilty of giving Achohal to MINORS ?!?!?! He confesed to the achohal charge !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The judge may not have passed centanse for the crime of administering alcohol to a child in light of the fact that, because of his actions re:kids, he had to endure an arduouse and damajing (ie punishing) trial on the charge of paedophillia -- its called natural justise. he did something; he suffered as a result. further punishment may have been demed unnesesary.

 

If someone starts a fight and gets the s*** kicked out of them by their intended victim , jurors oftern go light with, or forgo, the centansing for similar reasons.

[Pangloss]

I'm reminded of a story that came out during the Elian Gonzalez affair a few years back. He was the kid who escaped with his mother from Cuba, but she died on the way over, and his father wanted him back.

 

He was visited by his grandparents or aunt and uncle or something like that, who came up from Cuba to see him, and the women did something that struck most of us as *very* strange -- they grabbed his genitals and then called him a strapping young man (or whatever you might say in Spanish). There was a collective gasp over it, but in the end it was just viewed as a cultural thing and more or less forgotten.

 

But Michael Jackson is an American, from Gary, Indiana. You'd think he would know better, even if he does view himself as a culture of one.

[ku]

That raises an interesting issue because culture can be defined not only for groups but also for individuals. Each individual has a unique culture. Companies hiring you want to make sure there is a "cultural fit," i.e. is your individual culture compatible with the culture prominent among incumbent staff.