If there's something on your mind that just doesn't seem to fall into any of the other categories, well, it quite likely belongs inside Joe Finneman's marketplace. Think of it as a general store for general discussions!
SoccerLOTR wrote:Actually, Jackson did admit to some of those things in one or two interviews, but they did not count those interviews as evidence. I think it was rediculous, if you are famous in California, you can get away with anything. I heard someone say that if he had been tried just about anywhere else in the united states other than California, he would have been convicted guilty. I think the trial would have been a lot shorter too. Arrgghhhh...it really annoys me. Oh, and sorry for continuing on, but i heard a short interview with MJackson on the radio, oh my goodness, just the way he talks is creepy. I don't have any idea why people like him, no offence. Even his music...yikes.
I don't like his music either. The way I see it, we can say whatever we want now about his guilt or innocence and "proof", but fact is he went through the court system (or the equivilent of such in the state of CA) and was found not guilty, therefore we have to be content with the fact that if he DID do it, then he will pay for it..........if not at men's hands, then at Gods..........you can fool men and make them think you're nice, Christian, or whatever..........but God sees your (our) heart and knows exactly what went on...........you can't lie to Him.
Peace Out
-Gimp
God does not call the qualified, He qualifies the called.
God, Grant us the peace that comes from honest dealings so that no fear of discovery will haunt our sleep May we inflict no pain, bring no shame, and seek no profit by another's loss.
You know, you guys have to think about this. He has been singing ever since he was a little kid. Not only for the last fifteen years. He never got to do a lot of things. I think he was really trying to be nice to the kids and some greedy parents are trying to get money. We do not know the whole story. And time will tell what's true. If he gets away with it this time, then he will do it again, and will most likely get caught.
Monday wrote:You know, you guys have to think about this. He has been singing ever since he was a little kid. Not only for the last fifteen years. He never got to do a lot of things. I think he was really trying to be nice to the kids and some greedy parents are trying to get money. We do not know the whole story. And time will tell what's true. If he gets away with it this time, then he will do it again, and will most likely get caught.
That's true, Monday. You bring up an excellent point.
Just because the man is no longer black; and has a strange nose; doesn't mean he's a molestor.
It doesn't mean that he's not a molestor, either! I haven't followed the case that closely, partially because I know that it would just make me feel irritated, but whether he's guilty or not, he has now been declared innocent. There's nothing that people can do either way. I doubt that anybody will ever really know the whole story, and it probably isn't something that we want to know anyway. Hopefully Jackson's behaviour will be above board from now on, so that accusations won't even be a possibility, and the media can move on.
Loopy the Loon wrote:But of course we can't send HIM to jail, because he's a celebrity.
They didn't have evidence enough to make a guilty verdict. You can't decide someone is guilty on the charge that you dislike them, and the prosecution, in my mind, didn't have that great of a case put together -- it was awful.
Loopy the Loon wrote:Didn't someone say it was a fact that he was sleeping with children? That just one person saying it, can anyone back that up?
That was said in an interview, by Jackson himself, I believe...
I know this comes late, but I just stumbled across this thread again and have a few things to add.
Firstly, it is a mistake to conclude that Mr. Jackson went free due to his celebrity status. While this may occasionally be the case in some show trials, Jackson's fame had, if anything, the opposite effect here. He is, these days, more infamous than famous. Most people find him repugnant, and few would wish to "save" him regardless of the facts of the case. If anything, the difficulty in giving him a fair trial was finding a jury that was not too prejudiced against him from the outset of proceedings.
Furthermore, his fame, exorbitant lifestyle and wealth played no small part in precipitating the proceedings against him. While I personally suspect that Jackson may be guilty of similar actions to those described at trial, the prosecution's case was wholly inadequate. It is doubtful that the allegations were true, which then begs the question of why the case was brought forward in the first place. The answers, it seems, are easy. Tom Sneddon wanted to end his career on a high note -- snaring Jackson would certainly be one -- and claim his 15 minutes of fame (as well as, perhaps, a book deal, or a made-for-TV movie or a place on the roster of "experts" who pontificate endlessly on cable news about cases concerning which they know nothing); the family of the alleged victim coveted cash. In fact, had they collected, it would not have been the boy's mother's first swindle.
Several of you lambaste the jury for letting Jackson go free. What should they have done? The evidence did not support a conviction. Should their personal feelings have trumped fact? Some of you suspect that the legal process in said case was a sham, but on the contrary, they decided the case in the only way they possibly could given the paucity of evidence. If one is to build a circumstantial case, one should at least strive to make it compelling. The prosecution failed miserably.
A few other perceptions also need to be corrected. Jackson has, to my knowledge, settled similar charges out of court on at least one occasion, if not several. Pace LovedbyGod's comment, though, this is not tantamount to bribery, nor is it even an admission of guilt. It is merely a statement that a trial would not have been in his best interest.
Secondly, in response to Laurie, I doubt you meant it this way, but let us establish that being a "wacko" does not eliminate due process, and that no matter how we feel about the verdict, it is not a sad thing that the Constitution disallows double jeopardy.
Relating to another thing said by LovedbyGod, let me simply remind you that a sickening lifestyle is not a crime and should not constitute a reason to bring legal proceedings against anyone. This is, after all, a free country, for which we should be exceedingly grateful.
SoccerLOTR suggested that if the trial had been held anywhere but in California, the outcome would have been different. I must disagree; the simple fact is that there was no case, and this whole thing never should have even been brought to trial. No impartial jury would convict in the absence of a lot better evidence than this. We have a common law tradition of "reasonable doubt" in this country (even if it no longer means what it did at its British inception), and it ought to be impossible for even the most Jackson-loathing individual to argue that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Again, you may suspect that he is guilty, if not of this particular offense, of others like it. You may well be right. Fortunately for all of us, though, mere suspicion isn't even enough for probable cause in obtaining a search warrant, let alone finding someone guilty of a felony count.
To answer 2Cool4Skool's query, "houldn't that [the fact, established in interviews, that he slept with children] be reason enough to lock the guy up?" well, no. One must understand here that by sleep he meant slumber. That children slept in his bed is unacceptable, to be sure, but it is not a crime. Just because something offends our moral sensibilities -- even if it does so to an overwhelming majority of people -- does not make it a punishable offense. We subscribe, as a people, to the principle of nulla poena sine lege -- no penalty without a law. No law exists proscribing such action, and we certainly don't believe in ex post facto laws (nor is it clear that any such law would make even the smallest iota of sense), so however appalled we might be, it does not rise to the level of legal violation.
Even though many of us might think that Jackson deserves prison for some offense or other, the simple fact is that justice was served by that jury. We should be glad our system works, and that it is (usually) fair and impartial -- even when that means someone we don't like goes free. In the end, the rule of law is a lot more important than Michael Jackson or anyone else.
The way I see it, we can say whatever we want now about his guilt or innocence and "proof", but fact is he went through the court system (or the equivilent of such in the state of CA) and was found not guilty, therefore we have to be content with the fact that if he DID do it, then he will pay for it..........if not at men's hands, then at Gods..........you can fool men and make them think you're nice, Christian, or whatever..........but God sees your (our) heart and knows exactly what went on...........you can't lie to Him.
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
