Micheal Jackson - Guilty? Innocent?

Post Reply New Topic

The trial portion of the micheal jacksons trial is coming to a quick end. The prosecution gets to present it's rebuttal, and then the case goes to the jury.

From a logical standpoint, I think he's doomed. The defense didn't really do anything to in my eyes to try and prove that he didn't get fresh with that teenage boy. Instead I saw a parade of character witnesses brought in by the defense to try and influence the jury.

What do you think?

The thing is scott, in the USA, the defese really does not have to do anything except show that the prosecutions case does not hold water. It is up to the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reason of a doubt.

That is why it is harder to be a prosecutor than a defese attorney.

guilty

Since both Michael Jackson and Gregory Haidl will need special protection, maybe they can be cell mates?

Deleted

Last edited by Ante on 09 Nov 2005, 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Guilty.

He's guilty. Whether they'll find him guilty or not, I don't know. It appears that some of the boys who testified against him were lying about some things. Hmmm...

I'm well aware that the pressure is on the prosecution, but having followed the trial on a daily basis, I don't see that defense really did anything to put "reasonable doubt" into the prosections case.

He's probably guilty...

I mean when you think about it... and look over the evidence...

How about...

Guilty of being an utter nincompoop?

Well that's obvious...

And Donald Trump is guilty of wearing a wig that would seem ugly in the 1950s...

He's guilty of being a first class nutbar, with added nuts. Not sure if I'm convinced enough that he's a kiddy fiddler to convict him though... I wouldn't like to be on that jury.

This is an interesting quote. If MJ is guilty of anything, it would be of being naive in regards to the intentions of other persons. I am not saying he has AS (I think his problems were drug induced, whether he took them himself or were forced to take them is another debate). However, MJ has problems dealing with people. That in and of itself is not a crime but can lead to problems with the legal system.

Speaking of being socially naive, how many of use have ended up in a situation where we got in trouble because we did not understand the intentions of others. I would bet that if I set up a poll with that question, the yes column would total near 100%.

if he's found guilty, which he very likely won't be, the verdict will be thrown out on appeal.

i'm not saying he hasn't fondled little boys in the past. i'm just saying he didn't touch this one -- the prosecution picked the wrong case to try.

the accusation rests solely on the credibility of the accuser and his brother, the only "witness" to the alleged incidents, as well as the mother, the only "witness" to the alleged conspiracy and kidnapping charges. everything else is just a song and dance and has nothing to do with the specific accusations brought before the jury.

the credibility of these witnesses is nil. they have each been absolutely proven to have lied on numerous occasions about the alleged incidents. i've read all the transcripts (stupid obsession with public trials, i know), and this family is just a bunch of con artists. not one of them can report the same "facts" in two consecutive sentences, and respond, barbarino-like, with, "what, huh, where, huh, i don't understand what you're talking about... what?"

that's all there is to it. there's no other evidence before the court. the jury can't just say, "well, all the witnesses are lying, but we think this guy is a pervert so let's just convict him anyway." if they do, the case will not hold up to any appeal.

additionally, there have been numerous inappropriate rulings from the bench throughout the case in favor of the prosecution and against the defense. just one small example - allowing "prior bad acts" in on the bases of civil court settlements is absolutely unheard of. prior criminal convictions or plea bargains, yes, but not civil settlements where both parties, accuser and accusee, agreed to settle out of court.

if the prosecution had had enough evidence to bring the 93 case to trial at the time it would have done so. to do so now, when the alleged victim is missing and apparently unwilling to participate, and to add to that the shameful 3rd party accusations made on behalf of young men who completely deny that they were ever abused is ludicrous in a free court system is a travesty.

again, i'm not saying jackson hasn't molested boys; i wouldn't know whether he has or whether he's just incredibly naive and immature. i've read the 93 accuser's statement, and it's very credible and plausible, very much unlike the current one. there are a lot of details and the details make complete sense.

what i am saying is that no matter what you may think you know about someone, if you can't walk into a courtroom and judge a case on its merits, putting aside your personal feelings, you don't belong in a jury and i don't believe the defense would have allowed this type of person to sit on the case.

Not Guilty.

He does need someone, to help him understand what society deems appropriate and what it does not, since his life is so closely watched/judged by the media.

I said guilty earlier. That is because I believe he suffers from a few psychological PROBLEMS (not AS, AS is not considered a problem by me)

And believe me, if you have spent a year in a room learning psychology where 1 of the posters lists the problems MJ has, you know about them...........