Michael Jackson Verdict

[flguy]

Not guilty on ALL charges, major and lesser.

[noviceny]

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...this should make for some interesting conversation this evening.

 

I really dont know much about what happened and what the facts were...just heard some shit about Jesus juice...so I wont comment with pure speculation (how new for this board:-) )

[Guest ReturnOfS]

So the verdict has been made? If thats the case then this is the first place that I heard it.

 

Imagine, the m4m message center being my source for news today. lol

[Boston Guy]

I have three words: Trust the jury.

 

BG

[Guest skrubber]

I for one am happy. Though I do not in anyway condone having sex with children and honestly beleive that something did happen I feel this case was brought by an overzealous prosecuter who did not prove his case. Hurray for Michael Jackson.

[JT Brooklyn]

I luv it when Big Time Lawyers Screw Up Big Time...MJ will move on to The "WYNN" in Vegas to pay off the Lawyers. He could have never paid for all the Free Advertising! MJ.. 46 years old and "Moon Walking" though I doubt it...Maybe he and OJ can make a "Reality" Show Deal! LOL :+

[JT Brooklyn]

I luv it when Big Time Lawyers Screw Up Big Time...MJ will move on to The "WYNN" in Vegas to pay off the Lawyers. He could have never paid for all the Free Advertising! MJ.. 46 years old and "Moon Walking" though I doubt it...Maybe he and OJ can make a "Reality" Show Deal! LOL :+

[Guest ChgoBoy]

>I have three words: Trust the jury.

>

>BG

 

BG, you were just the jury, by your own pen, in a sense, in your opinion on how BN was guilty of Blackmail toward Donnie in the "ask an escort" thread, that you just reversed your passionate decision on. How can we believe that tomorrow you will not be shouting that MJ is guilty? I'm just curious about that.

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

>I have three words: Trust the jury.

 

I have three words: Sell the Llamas!

 

It is hard for me to judge as I don't know all the details and I only know what I see in the first 10 minutes of ANY news broadcast BUT he should be thankful and sell his NeverHAND Ranch, downsize and take some kind of spiritual retreat to recuperate from all of this. Also, his poor mother looked so worn down today ... she needs a vacation as well. I truly hope the allegations were false and that no child was hurt. But Michael, if you are reading this, SELL THE PLACE!

 

IMHO....

VDN

[Boston Guy]

>It is hard for me to judge as I don't know all the details ...

 

Exactly. Nor do I or most other Americans. The juries I've been on have been composed of very different people who came together and attempted to find justice on behalf of people they had never met before and weren't likely to meet again. I've consistently been impressed with how average Americans take this duty so seriously and try to do a good job as a juror. In the absence of a better system, I choose to trust the jury.

 

BG

[Rick Munroe]

>I've consistently been impressed with how average Americans

>take this duty so seriously and try to do a good job as a

>juror. In the absence of a better system, I choose to trust

>the jury.

 

Same here, BG. I served on a murder trial a few years ago and I too was impressed by how seriously my fellow jurors took their obligation to weigh everything through. Some seemed like real assholes when it all began but then when it came time to deliberate, the debates we had were fascinating. And, although I personally felt the guy probably did it, there was no DNA evidence and no eyewitnesses so we had to go with "Not Guilty."

 

Anyway, I have always felt Michael was innocent. Sick, but innocent.

 

Speaking of sick, I am now going to take my Michael Jackson doll out of the closet and have him do a victory dance.

 

http://www.vecchigiocattoli.it/michaeljackson.jpg

[Guest ReturnOfS]

>I luv it when Big Time Lawyers Screw Up Big Time...MJ will

>move on to The "WYNN" in Vegas to pay off the Lawyers. He

>could have never paid for all the Free Advertising! MJ.. 46

>years old and "Moon Walking" though I doubt it...Maybe he and

>OJ can make a "Reality" Show Deal! LOL :+

 

I think that Mike would move to Vegas permanently before he would become just another Vegas act. I wouldn't blame him. He seems to have plenty of fans there.

[OneFinger]

Well, since he's now free and able to travel, here's what I think he'll do.

 

1. Sell Neverland (keep the money and avoid paying off his debts and legal fees).

 

2. Immediately move outside the USA and never return again. (This will be done to avoid the anticipated civil case, to keep his children away from his ex-wife and her rumored fight for joint custody, and to avoid creditors.)

 

I trust the jury system and have to believe their evaluation of the facts presented. But, I'd never allow Jackson to be alone with any of my young male relatives.

 

As one reporter mentioned today, there were no "winners" in this case. Jackson has been hurt for life as a result of the trial. The young boy (accuser for lack of a better term) has also been through hell.

[Txpaytoplay]

Now that he's "Beat It"..now maybe he will "make that change by looking at the man in the mirror!"

 

 

Ok...sorry guys I couldn't resist. :-)

[Guest zipperzone]

>I have three words: Trust the jury.

>

>BG

 

And I have just one question to put to you.....

 

Would you let your 12 year old son (or nephew) do a sleepover in MJ's bedroom?

 

If you answer is "no" - then why would you trust this particular jury?

 

Oh well - I guess they will get him eventually. Pedophiles will continue to molest - they can't help themselves - and sooner or later he will be found out and convicted. Too bad small children have to be put at risk in the meantime.

[Holden]

Rick writes: "And, although I personally felt the guy probably did it, there was no DNA evidence and no eyewitnesses so we had to go with "Not Guilty."

 

Anyway, I have always felt Michael was innocent. Sick, but innocent.

 

Just exactly what kind of DNA evidence would you rely on in this case? There was an eyewitness...the victim's brother.

The jurors indicated that they didn't like the mother. Well, he didn't molest the mother...he molested her son. Can it be justified that since the mother is a flake, her son WAS NOT MOLESTED?

They had fingerprints of the kid on the porn magazines and witness to the fact that he served liquor to the kid.

 

I will agree that the defense attorney spun circles around many of these prosecution witnesses but anyone who believe that a 45 year old man who continually sleeps with a 12 year old boy (not girls....but boys) and does a fabulous job of picking his victims and "grooming them" and then DOESN'T TOOUCH THEM when they've been viewing porn magazines has to get a grip on reality.

 

Michael Jackson is as innocent as OJ Simpson,Robert Blake. The jury didn't like the mother so they find Jackson not guilty. WHEW....

[JT Brooklyn]

Unfortunately.. he will always have a "Fan Pool of Parents" who will Gladly expose there "Little Boys" to his "kind-ness"! Without "Neverland" The "Spider" has Lost his Web! IF he keeps it, we know what the future holds also! :+

[RM]

I was a jury on a murder trial too, and I thought half the jury members were idiots. The defense attorney stated that this was not a case of self defense, but half the jury thought he was innocent because of self defense. So we were a hung jury.

[Retired Fly Boy]

Michael will move to South America and retire to the small country of BOYLIVIA.:9

[ted]

Holden- reread Ricks reply

He made a comment about how seriously most juries take their responsibilities. The comment you highlighted was made about the case on which Rick was one of the juror's, not about MJ.

My jury experience is similar to Rick's. I also was on a jury about 5 years ago for insurance fraud. Construction worker injured on the job- in pain constantly, couldn't work, couldn't bend over, etc. However the video showing him putting a new roof on his house and catching a softball game painted a different picture, as did his doctor's appointment report for treatment when he was actually on vacation at the beach. We deliberated for about 10 hours, mainly because there was one soft heart, who although she agreed he was guilty, didn't want to convict because she felt sorry for him. She was finally convinced. Unfortunately, he wasn't sent away for nearly long enough-if at all-as I saw he was arrested for murdering his wife a few years later.

[Guest zipperzone]

>Michael Jackson is as innocent as OJ Simpson,Robert Blake.

>The jury didn't like the mother so they find Jackson not

>guilty. WHEW....

 

And they can't even blame the "Race Card" as there were no blacks on the jury (which surprised the hell out of me.

 

I think this jury was ripe with double digit IQs

[Guest zipperzone]

>Unfortunately.. he will always have a "Fan Pool of Parents"

>who will Gladly expose there "Little Boys" to his "kind-ness"!

 

There are many many parents out there who would pimp their kids out for the possibility of a multi-million $$$ payoff.

 

>Without "Neverland" The "Spider" has Lost his Web! IF he keeps

>it, we know what the future holds also! :+

 

Keeping or not keeping Neverland does not enter into the equasion. Haven't you heard how quickly a spider can spin a new web?

[woodlawn]

What are we supposed to "trust the jury" to do, exactly?

 

A petit jury, unlike a grand jury, is not an independent investigative body. All a petit jury can do is listen to the evidence presented in court and make a decision on the basis of the instructions given by the judge. If the prosecution does a poor job of presenting the evidence, the jury may, by following its legal obligations, come to a result that is at odds with the truth. That is clearly what many people feel happened here. Including me.

 

I think there is something seriously wrong with people who are "celebrating" Jackson's "victory" or blaming an "overzealous prosecutor." When a middle aged man invites children into his bed and into a place where they are exposed to pornography and alcohol, the fact that our legal system fails to hold him accountable is something to celebrate only if you think pedophilia is something to celebrate.

 

And when a prosecutor becomes aware that this sort of behavior is going on in his jurisdiction for a period of years, it seems to me utterly absurd to call him "overzealous" because he tries to put a stop to it.

 

Not for the first time, I see an implication in the comments of several posters that because they don't want the state to regulate their sexual behavior, they feel they must oppose regulation of ANY sexual behavior, including that between adults and children. Such an attitude does incalculable damage to the gay community. I'm sorry to see it expressed here again.

[Guest zipperzone]

Very well put. Never thought I ever say this - but I agree with every word Woodlawn has written. This verdict is as disgusting as the OJ debacle

 

>What are we supposed to "trust the jury" to do, exactly?

>

>A petit jury, unlike a grand jury, is not an independent

>investigative body. All a petit jury can do is listen to the

>evidence presented in court and make a decision on the basis

>of the instructions given by the judge. If the prosecution

>does a poor job of presenting the evidence, the jury may, by

>following its legal obligations, come to a result that is at

>odds with the truth. That is clearly what many people feel

>happened here. Including me.

>

>I think there is something seriously wrong with people who are

>"celebrating" Jackson's "victory" or blaming an "overzealous

>prosecutor." When a middle aged man invites children into his

>bed and into a place where they are exposed to pornography and

>alcohol, the fact that our legal system fails to hold him

>accountable is something to celebrate only if you think

>pedophilia is something to celebrate.

>

>And when a prosecutor becomes aware that this sort of behavior

>is going on in his jurisdiction for a period of years, it

>seems to me utterly absurd to call him "overzealous" because

>he tries to put a stop to it.

>

>Not for the first time, I see an implication in the comments

>of several posters that because they don't want the state to

>regulate their sexual behavior, they feel they must oppose

>regulation of ANY sexual behavior, including that between

>adults and children. Such an attitude does incalculable

>damage to the gay community. I'm sorry to see it expressed

>here again.

>

[Guest GUY]

Michael's Troubles Aren't Over Yet!

 

The Times Picayune - New Orleans, La.

 

"Beat it to N.O., judge tells Jackson"

 

July appearance ordered in lawsuit

Thursday, June 02, 2005

By Susan Finch

Staff writer

 

<<As Michael Jackson awaits a California jury's verdict on child molestation and other charges, the pop star is facing a command performance this summer in federal court in New Orleans.

 

Jackson, sued last fall by a Louisiana man who claims the singer held him prisoner and sexually assaulted and battered him for nine days in 1984, has been ordered to appear July 20 before U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon to discuss what lawyer will be defending him in the case.

 

Records in the case show that five Louisiana lawyers, four from New Orleans and one from Baton Rouge, hired to defend Jackson withdrew April 29 for reasons they described as "sensitive in nature" and that, at their request, Fallon filed under seal.

 

Fallon's order Tuesday, sent to the singer at his Neverland Ranch in California by certified mail, said Jackson must show up in New Orleans in July on pain of "imposition of appropriate sanctions" unless he engages a new attorney.

 

Jackson's former New Orleans attorneys, all with the firm of Schonekas, Winsberg, Evans & McGoey, sued him earlier this week in Civil District Court to collect nearly $47,000 they say he owes for their services between Nov. 16 and April 29.

 

Jackson's accuser in the federal case, Joseph Thomas Bartucci Jr., claims he was 18 and in New Orleans with two friends for the 1984 world's fair when a Jackson employee lured him into the singer's white limousine. He says he endured harrowing treatment during a drive to California and was returned to New Orleans nine days later.

 

Bartucci claims the experience was so traumatic that he repressed memory of it until he saw a 2003 Court TV report about a California investigation of Jackson for alleged child molestation.

 

Before Jackson's local attorneys dropped out of the case, they asked Fallon to limit pretrial discovery to Bartucci's alleged memory repression as it relates to the timing of his lawsuit.

 

"If plaintiff . . . is unable to prove that he had a total repression of all memory of the alleged incidents until Nov. 1, 2003, his claims are prescribed and this matter must be dismissed," they said in paperwork filed for Jackson in February.>>