Support NeoGAF

[typhonsentra]

I actually was watching Fox News, and when they announced the not Gyulty Verdicts, Shepard said that it was "No surprise to our analysts". From what I gather, they were on his side, and Mr. Smith was just sharing his personal feelings regarding Jackson.

 

[Dilbert]

unless you were in the room when Michael Jackson was sucking off 12 year olds, you don't know that they are two very different things. The case presented against MJ was largely a joke, and thats all we, the jury, or anyone else has to go on.

I can't believe I'm actually sticking up for Kobun on ANYTHING, but he's quite right. The purpose of a jury trial is not to determine the "truth," whatever THAT means. Both sides present their purposefully biased interpretation of the evidence, and it's left to a group of "average people," whatever THAT means, to sort through the evidence and the spin to come up with some kind of decision. People can interpret evidence incorrectly -- hey, what percentage of Americans believe there are still WMDs hidden somewhere in Iraq? We agree to abide by the outcome, because that's our system and because we don't (yet) have the network of a billion cameras hovering over us to document our every move in exacting detail. It still does not mean that the verdict represents what actually happened.

For what it's worth, I think the outcome of the case was correct, given what was presented. It was a weak case with little physical evidence. But I don't think rolling your eyes at people saying "a likely child molester got away with it" is fair. Given an eccentric 40+ year old man sharing his bed with young boys, you actually think it's an unreasonable conclusion that he might have been up to no good? Shit, I'm supposed to respect people who believe in God, and there's even less evidence behind that belief.

 

[bionic77]

is he gonna bring the body double?

"Haha, you're gonna have to stay home for this one, honey. Remember what
happened the last time i took you to one of Jacko's parties and got drunk..."

:lol

Poor Jordan. He has the rings, but look what he has to come home to every single night. Didn't he get the memo on trophy wives?

Oooh Nancy Grace, you never fail to impress

"Others are also disappointed, because now it seems like the only way you can win a verdict in a US courtroom is to have a deep pocket to be going up against a little boy."

I absolutely despise Grace. I have seen her just make up shit to try and make it look like someone is guilty as well. I understand she was a prosecutor and saw some horrible things on the other side, but she has never shown any logic or intelligence when discussing a case.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Given an eccentric 40+ year old man sharing his bed with young boys, you actually think it's an unreasonable conclusion that he might have been up to no good? Shit, I'm supposed to respect people who believe in God, and there's even less evidence behind that belief.

Thanks. Appalled as I am to be making the sme argument as Kobun, yet that's what I think. It amazes me that people take this as innocence proven.

 

[DMczaf]

:lol

Poor Jordan. He has the rings, but look what he has to come home to every single night. Didn't he get the memo on trophy wives?

At least he didnt cheat on his semi-hot (Sorry, those new pics from Italy are NOT hot!) with a motel maid.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I can't believe I'm actually sticking up for Kobun on ANYTHING, but he's quite right. The purpose of a jury trial is not to determine the "truth," whatever THAT means. Both sides present their purposefully biased interpretation of the evidence, and it's left to a group of "average people," whatever THAT means, to sort through the evidence and the spin to come up with some kind of decision. People can interpret evidence incorrectly -- hey, what percentage of Americans believe there are still WMDs hidden somewhere in Iraq? We agree to abide by the outcome, because that's our system and because we don't (yet) have the network of a billion cameras hovering over us to document our every move in exacting detail. It still does not mean that the verdict represents what actually happened.

For what it's worth, I think the outcome of the case was correct, given what was presented. It was a weak case with little physical evidence. But I don't think rolling your eyes at people saying "a likely child molester got away with it" is fair. Given an eccentric 40+ year old man sharing his bed with young boys, you actually think it's an unreasonable conclusion that he might have been up to no good? Shit, I'm supposed to respect people who believe in God, and there's even less evidence behind that belief.

i agree with you, my only point is what makes him an "obvious" child molester? Was Kobun privy to some super secret special info that even the jurors didn't see? A videotape of Jacko in the act? All we have to go on is the juror decision, thats why they are given that job. Thats the point of our system. You can't just dismiss their verdict and act as if your opinion is superior just because you don't like the outcome they reached. (well you can, but it'd be ridiculous to do so)

 

[DarienA]

Thanks. Appalled as I am to be making the sme argument as Kobun, yet that's what I think. It amazes me that people take this as innocence proven.

Why? Why is it amazing that some people choose to believe he's innocent? Does that make you sleep worse? Does that hurt your ego?

The insult tossing is unnecessary... but unsurprisingly whenever there's a controversial topic in this forum someone has to start hurling them...

The trial's over there was enough evidence, the man was found not fuckin guilty.

THE END.

Obvious child molester? No. Obvious assholes in this thread? Yes.

One of these days we'll have a conversation on a controversial topic without the usual breakdown.

 

[DaMan121]

Is sexual assault pretty much always a he said she said?

That's weird cause I thought in some cases of sexual assault there was you... this thing called... physical evidence.....

Like what? Semen? Not always. You do realise that sexual assault still occurs without climax by either party. What kind of evidence - besides the accused admitting he actually sleeps in the same bed as stranger's children do you want?

 

[SolidSnakex]

I absolutely despise Grace. I have seen her just make up shit to try and make it look like someone is guilty as well. I understand she was a prosecutor and saw some horrible things on the other side, but she has never shown any logic or intelligence when discussing a case.

The woman is such a goof and has no credibility. Remember that runaway bride case? She said there was no way that the woman ran away and that her husband definetly killed her. What happened after that? The very next day it was revealed that she actually did run away.

She's now hounding people about the comment one of the jurors made about how could the mother allow this to go on. She seems to think that means that the woman believes Michael molested the kid. If you listen to the quote it sounds more like the woman is wondering why in the world would you let any grown person, whether it be Michael or another person sleep with your kid?

 

[Do The Mario]

Like what? Semen? Not always. You do realise that sexual assault still occurs without climax by either party. What kind of evidence - besides the accused admitting he actually sleeps in the same bed as stranger's children do you want?

Pubic Hair, Skin and marks of resistance/assault for example.

 

[DarienA]

Like what? Semen? Not always. You do realise that sexual assault still occurs without climax by either party. What kind of evidence - besides the accused admitting he actually sleeps in the same bed as stranger's children do you want?

Skin samples, pubic hair... any DNA traces... this is 2005 you know.

Yes because sleeping in the same bed with children is a lock on his being a molester.... let's just say I'm glad you're here on a forum... and not in a jury some where...

 

[etiolate]

And the average citizen feels even more so that they only have as many rights as they have dollars.

 

[Poody]

did anyone else lay on there bed and listen to "Beat It"?

 

[DarienA]

And the average citizen feels even more so that they only have as many rights as they have dollars.

Hell that I at least agree with... more money often gets you better lawyers... that's a sad truth to this misguided country.

 

[DaMan121]

Pubic Hair, Skin and makes of resistance/assault for example.

Months after the alleged assault? Besides Jackson admited the kid slept in the same bed - thats not in question. People have been found guilty of child abuse on testimony alone - the jurors didnt believe him.

Yes because sleeping in the same bed with children is a lock on his being a molester.... let's just say I'm glad you're here on a forum... and not in a jury some where...

Not with any children - stranger's children - So you sending your kids around to Neverland for celebrations?

 

[DarienA]

Months after the alleged assault? Besides Jackson admited the kid slept in the same bed - thats not in question. People have been found guilty of child abuse on testimony alone - the jurors didnt believe him.

Really? Can you give me somewhere to read on that? Because I've dealt with many caseworkers here in the Baltimore area and they'll tell you he said/she said testimony on it's own is not enough, hell it's not even enough to take a child OUT of a home.

Not with any children - stranger's children - So you sending your kids around to Neverland for celebrations?

I love how people always pull this argument out... "well you wouldn't send your children would you?" Like that's some magic f'n bullet.

I won't send my child ANYWHERE I don't know about.

If this alleged abuse was taking place why did the mother when she had ample opp to let folks know there was a problem do so? Did she? No she instead told folks everything was fine... oh yeah she also went on several shopping sprees.

That definitely sounds like a family in duress.

 

[SolidSnakex]

:lol :lol Holy shit, Nancy Grace just got owned.

Defense Attorney: You're just going to have to swallow the bitter pill that you've had sitting next to you for the past year. *holds up newspaper saying Michael is guilty* You've been living in your fantasy world for the past year and making up a story to go with it. So you're just going to have to accept that he's innocent and stop trying to retry the case which is what you're doing now.

Nancy: ... *eyes get really large*

 

[borghe]

he was acquitted. cleared of charges. found to be not guilty. I do agree that innocence is a term thrown around lightly, and even though it is an objective term (you either did it or you didn't) there are obviously instances (OJ) where the accused was acquitted but still did it.

that being said you guys who feel he is a molestor but should have been acquitted are alright in my book. I don't agree with you in the slightest that he is a molestor, but at least you have common sense enough to see that there was no fucking evidence whatsoever and that the only eye witness testimony was from two boys who's statements were inconsistent and flawed at best.

to those of you who feel he was guilty and should have been found guilty, you have no idea whatsoever how the US Justice system was designed. I suggest staying in school because you won't be doing yourselves any favor dropping out at this point.

and to any of you knocking the us judicial system, aside from no plaintiff acountability (whatever the proper term is), the US has one of the fairest judicial systems in the world. both sides have equal rights and opportunity to present their case to a jury of twelve people who are also selected equally by each side. blame the jury on this as much as some of you want, but the bottom line is that the prosecution has just as much a part in picking the jury as the defense does. and while you can certainly argue that jackson has money on his side in regards to hiring the best lawyers, it's not like he was up against joe schmoe with no money for a decent lawyer or investigation. he was up against the state of fucking california.

anywho, justice was served. I still don't think he is a molestor, but if he is a molestor, hopefully next time the prosecution and sherrif's department will build a better case against him before taking it to court.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Thanks. Appalled as I am to be making the sme argument as Kobun, yet that's what I think. It amazes me that people take this as innocence proven.

Just as we are appalled that the first charge, beaten, then used to give a hefty cash settlement carries any weight with you. Once again, we are all looking at the same thing from different angles. I just hope he's not stupid enough to sleep in the same bed as another kid. Either that or MJ goes broke. I'd wager the number of molestation charges after bankruptcy hovers around zero.

 

[DarienA]

MJ should sell Neverland and move on.

There was a rumor a bit back that he had done so... and that he was simply waiting until the case was over to turn over the keys.... I hope for his sake he has. Because he's just too much of a target now regardless of whether he is guilty or not.

 

[Luscious LeftFoot]

:lol :lol Holy shit, Nancy Grace just got owned.

Defense Attorney: You're just going to have to swallow the bitter pill that you've had sitting next to you for the past year. *holds up newspaper saying Michael is guilty* You've been living in your fantasy world for the past year and making up a story to go with it. So you're just going to have to accept that he's innocent and stop trying to retry the case which is what you're doing now.

Nancy: ... *eyes get really large*

:lol The look on her face was priceless.

 

[DMczaf]

MJ should sell Neverland and move to Harlem

Where all famous retired black men go!

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

And isn't it evident, after Star Jones rise to power off of OJ, that there is a shit ton of money to be made off accused Black stars? Yeah, I said it. If there is one thing we can all agree on was his antics unleashed the beast on an unsuspecting public. (and if you listen to Wendy Williams, a fraud of a marriage. How you doin? ahaha)

 

[DarienA]

MJ should sell Neverland and move to Harlem

Where all famous retired black men go!

:lol :lol :lol

Wow Paula Zahn is trying SO hard... give it up girl...

 

[Defensor]

I can't believe I'm actually sticking up for Kobun on ANYTHING, but he's quite right. The purpose of a jury trial is not to determine the "truth," whatever THAT means. Both sides present their purposefully biased interpretation of the evidence, and it's left to a group of "average people," whatever THAT means, to sort through the evidence and the spin to come up with some kind of decision. People can interpret evidence incorrectly -- hey, what percentage of Americans believe there are still WMDs hidden somewhere in Iraq? We agree to abide by the outcome, because that's our system and because we don't (yet) have the network of a billion cameras hovering over us to document our every move in exacting detail. It still does not mean that the verdict represents what actually happened.

Those "average" people had a freak'n hard task about them!!! Did you guys not watch the news or something, their jury instructions were hard enough to confuse law students!!!!! They were able to take in past precedent and use that to help their judgement on this case and evidence. Know wonder why he was not guilty. First OJ, then Robert Blake, now MJ just keep them coming, you got money your free its America come on people. :lol

 

[DarienA]

OMG Larry King is coming on.... I can't wait....

 

[ShadowRed]

Really? Can you give me somewhere to read on that? Because I've dealt with many caseworkers here in the Baltimore area and they'll tell you he said/she said testimony on it's own is not enough, hell it's not even enough to take a child OUT of a home.

Darien there was a case in California where a family running a daycare was convicted of molestaion on the word of the children. Turns out they were later released, but it has happened that people have been convicted of molestation without physical evidence. I'm sure it's happened before. People have been thrown into jail on eye witness accounts of murder or assault.

 

[DMczaf]

God damn, white news women really hate Jacko!

"Kiss my black ass."

 

[DarienA]

Darien there was a case in California where a family running a daycare was convicted of molestaion on the word of the children. Turns out they were later released, but it has happened that people have been convicted of molestation without physical evidence. I'm sure it's happened before. People have been thrown into jail on eye witness accounts of murder or assault.

Right but those cases are not the rule... they aren't the norm. People have evidence that says they didn't do it ... and they still aren't found guilty.

That's how it is.

 

[borghe]

Months after the alleged assault? Besides Jackson admited the kid slept in the same bed - thats not in question. People have been found guilty of child abuse on testimony alone - the jurors didnt believe him.

umm.. if hackson did do it, and they waited until months after the assault to come forward and thus have no physical evidence, well, that would suck for the victim and all, BUT THAT IS REALLY FUCKING STUPID AND TOO FUCKING BAD!!

seriously, so now we are supposed to feel bad for people who's houses get robbed but they don't call the police on it until 3 weeks later? someone gets mugged and they file a report 15 days later?

as for people found guilty of child abuse on testimony alone, this isn't entirely true. usually there are consistent stories. a child's mood changes right at a specific point and there are many people to corroborate this change, as in most who know the child. in this case many official people, school officials, people who knew the family and kid, all came forward and said that immediately after the alleged dates they didn't notice any changes in the boy and the changes others did mention afterwards were mentioned by these officials to exist before the alleged incident. many times there is past evidence or testimony (in this case there was but when you have every witness who was said to have been molested and didn't receive a payoff come forward and say they weren't molested, it is hard to build a pattern).

but the biggest thing I think that many of you jacko bashers dismiss is just the flat out dates of the alleged incidents. So here is jackson, a documentary airing on the craziness of his life and showing the public how weird he is. he is now under IMMEDIATE AND VAST SCRUTINY as a result of this special, so immediate and vast that it causes him and his employees to fly into extreme damage control instantly.. during all of this, at what point do you say "now would be a good time to do what everyone thinks I am already doing anyway."? seriously.... even if you believe he molested the children in the past (the only two that didn't say he didn't molest them, you know, the two who traded their justice for a briefcase full of cash), at what point in a molestor's mind does it become rational to molest another boy now with the entire world watching you?

I can understand many of you wanting him to be a molestor to try to understand why he is as weird as he is. it makes sense to you and is simpler than trying to look at it any other way. and that's your perogative.. but seriously.. either he didn't do it "this time", or he did do it and planned out one of the biggest and most elaborate conspiracy's ever in the history of man...

 

[DarienA]

Marsha Clark and Pat Lalama(Fox News) are a trip.

 

[borghe]

Darien there was a case in California where a family running a daycare was convicted of molestaion on the word of the children. Turns out they were later released, but it has happened that people have been convicted of molestation without physical evidence. I'm sure it's happened before. People have been thrown into jail on eye witness accounts of murder or assault.

there is a difference between multiple victims, many victims, coming forward at the same time with the same story, especially toddler-ish children, and a teenage boy and his brother with inconsistent accounts and flawed testimony. yes it can obviously happen (getting convicted on testimony alone), bus as has been said, that is the exception and not the rule, and usually it is truly exceptional on why they are convicted.

 

[borghe]

Marsha Clark and Pat Lalama(Fox News) are a trip.

"And you fuckers BETTER not bring up OJ!! Sons of bitches!"

 

[DarienA]

Bob Massia just OWNED Pat and Marsha :lol :lol

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Why? Why is it amazing that some people choose to believe he's innocent? Does that make you sleep worse? Does that hurt your ego?

The insult tossing is unnecessary... but unsurprisingly whenever there's a controversial topic in this forum someone has to start hurling them...

The trial's over there was enough evidence, the man was found not fuckin guilty.

THE END.

Obvious child molester? No. Obvious assholes in this thread? Yes.

One of these days we'll have a conversation on a controversial topic without the usual breakdown.

I am not at all amazed that people believe he is innocent. I have zero problem with that. It's the number of people who say this *proves* his inocence. That's what amazes me. I hope that's not an insult-- it's amazement at the lack of basic logic. It's not so far off from Manabyte's Double Jeapordy misunderstanding.

Also: I don't think it's "obvious" that Jackson is a molester (that's somebody else)-- I said I *believe* he is a child molester. And that's not based on the evidence of this trial, but rather on the earlier settlement and the descriptions of his relationships with boys, pressure alarms around his bed, etc. I doubt he was gulty of these specific charges, in fact. The witness has no credibility with me.

But-- I know that I would never leave *my* son alone with him.

 

[DarienA]

I am not at all amazed that people believe he is innocent. I have zero problem with that. It's the number of people who say this *proves* his inocence. That's what amazes me. I hope that's not an insult-- it's amazement at the lack of basic logic. It's not so far off from Manabyte's Double Jeapordy misunderstanding.

Also: I don't think it's "obvious" that Jackson is a molester (that's somebody else)-- I said I *believe* he is a child molester. And that's not based on the evidence of this trial, but rather on the earlier settlement and the descriptions of his relationships with boys, pressure alarms around his bed, etc. I doubt he was gulty of these specific charges, in fact. The witness has no credibility with me.

But-- I know that I would never leave *my* son alone with him.

So do you believe that every financial settlement in every case is an admission of guilt?

 

[strikeselect]

Fox News has completely abandoned MJ trial coverage :lol :lol

 

[DarienA]

Fox News has completely abandoned MJ trial coverage :lol :lol

Uh no they haven't the Hannity & Colmes show is still talking about the case.... at least for the first segment.

 

[borghe]

I honestly believe the pressure sensors around his bed and outside his bedroom are there for, as others have said, just due to the fact that he DOES have children there unsupervised, and all he needs is for some parent to convince the kid to sneak into his bedroom when he is sleeping, plant some evidence or take some quick incriminating photos, and pow.. instant criminal and civil success..

at least my belief, though I can see how some of you might believe it is the molestalarm.

 

[DarienA]

Folks who believe he is innocent aren't going to convince those who believe he isn't... and vice versa....

certainly not in this forum.


(correct me if I'm wrong...) didn't some of those past kids testify that nothing happened?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

So do you believe that every financial settlement in every case is an admission of guilt?

No, but if the financial equivelent of alarms and sleeping in bed with boys were involved, I sure would.

Look, this is what I *believe* and as I have said, I don't have eny problems with poeple believing he is innocent. So what's your problem with me believing he is a molester?

 

[DarienA]

No, but if the financial equivelent of alarms and sleeping in bed with boys were involved, I sure would.

Look, this is what I *believe* and as I have said, I don't have eny problems with poeple believing he is innocent. So what's your problem with me believing he is a molester?

Wait I never said I had a problem with what you believe. I simply asked you an additional question.. and I thought I worded it in a way that you wouldn't consider it to be hostile.

I said.. So do you? Which is just asking a question... I didn't paint it that you believe that. I simply asked what you believe in regards to that.

 

[borghe]

(correct me if I'm wrong...) didn't some of those past kids testify that nothing happened?

there were basically five past allegations (though only two kids ever made claims). the three where the kids never made claims were the ones where the kids (now adults) came and testified that nothing happened. one of the two that ended in a settlement came forward and said that something did happen. the other one that ended in settlement could not be found to be subpoenaed(sp?). the problem with the one that did testify that ended in settlement was, well, that it ended in settlement. it is hard to believe someone who foregoes criminal justice on a sexual assault in exchange for some cold hard cash. (note to future assault victims)

 

[SteveMeister]

Folks who believe he is innocent aren't going to convince those who believe he isn't... and vice versa....

certainly not in this forum.


(correct me if I'm wrong...) didn't some of those past kids testify that nothing happened?

And we ALL need to remember is that the point is now moot. MJ's been acquitted -- it now NO LONGER MATTERS if he molested the kid or not. He cannot be tried again for this particular set of charges.

That said, MJ would do well to stay away from other peoples' kids in the future, whether or not he ever molested anyone.

 

[borghe]

not only can he not be tried of it again, but if he is tried in a new case along similar lines they CANNOT use this case as any sort of basis for the new case. I get what some of you (Ignatz) are saying about the difference between acquittal and true innocence, but in the terms of the law, he is innocent. nothing from this case can be used in a new case if one were to be brought up by a new (or same) accuser.

 

[Socreges]

This thread was hilarious, but I'm bothered by a couple things...

The people that are outraged that he wasn't guilty. How do you know?

The people that so strongly defend Jackson, and seemingly not just because they feel he's innocent. Maybe because they're fans. Or a black/white thing. Who the hell knows.

Anyway, my opinion is that he should be kept away from children. Maybe even his own. It's just not healthy. Not to mention the cloud of suspicion that surrounds him still. God help any parents that allow their children to spend time with Jacko alone.

 

[Dilbert]

So do you believe that every financial settlement in every case is an admission of guilt?

(Boldface added.)

Asking the question in this way is almost certainly going to get a response of "no". One absolute wasn't enough for you?

A settlement is the result of a cost/benefit analysis. If you have the money for the settlement, and judge the alternative of not settling to cost you more, then you settle. The problem is that "cost" in this case could be calculated in dollars and cents (loss of income due to damage to one's reputation, for example), or it could be calculated in how much your freedom is worth (if you believe there is a significant chance of being found guilty at trial).

 

[borghe]

but as far as settlements go, this is not a case of "which will cost you more, a financial verdict by a hury or an out of court settlement". what is being argued here is "is he guilty of a felony or not."

so of course every defendent would love to be able to offer a financial settlement to avoid going to jail, but the fact of the matter is that if something was done wrong, legally and criminally, why on earth would the victim take the settlement? I mean it's not like the victim is paying to try Jackson. It's not like the identity is even revealed by most news organizations because of the victim being a minor. So what benefit is there in a potentially criminal case to reach a financial settlement instead of going for a criminal indictment, for free essentially, getting a guilty verdict, and then continuing with a civil settlement?

 

[Dilbert]

but as far as settlements go, this is not a case of "which will cost you more, a financial verdict by a hury or an out of court settlement". what is being argued here is "is he guilty of a felony or not."

I am perfectly aware of the difference between a criminal and a civil case. I was responding to DarienA's question about the "meaning" of a settlement.

 

[DarienA]

(Boldface added.)

Asking the question in this way is almost certainly going to get a response of "no". One absolute wasn't enough for you?

A settlement is the result of a cost/benefit analysis. If you have the money for the settlement, and judge the alternative of not settling to cost you more, then you settle. The problem is that "cost" in this case could be calculated in dollars and cents (loss of income due to damage to one's reputation, for example), or it could be calculated in how much your freedom is worth (if you believe there is a significant chance of being found guilty at trial).

In this forum NO one gives straight yes or no questions.. asking the question that way guarantees that the respondent will hopefully give me a full fleshed out answer stating their views thank you very much.