Michael Jackson is innocent

[Must_B_Free]

Doesn't matter what all you people thought, you didn't see what the jury did. It was clear from the jury that the mother was a fraud and they all seemed to agree based on the facts presented to them.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. No, he's "not guilty"

"Innocent" is not a legal state.

It's what people might believe him to be.

Those people would be wrong.

[JimmyJazz]

3. thank you.

[HawkerHurricane]

16. Innocent until proven guilty...

they failed to prove him guilty, so he's (considered) innocent.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

18. "Not guilty"

is not the same as "innocent."

To the layman, it looks like it's the same, but it's not.

You will never hear a jury come back with an "innocent" verdict, since the concept does not exist in that frame of the law.

[HawkerHurricane]

21. You're right, and wrong.

He's been found not guilty. Since he wasn't found guilty, he's innocent in the eyes of the law.

No, I won't argue what the verdict was, because there are only 2 verdicts, and innocent isn't one of them. But not guilty is innocent in our legal system.

(last post on the subject for me, I've made my point and don't want to argue in circles)

[Lindacooks]

29. No, 'not guilty' is not the same as innocent.

Have you been to law school? If you have, you know that the two are quite different.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

33. Good

I get the last word.

You've gone off in a rarefied and ill-conceived direction. The law has no interest in "innocent," and there are no provisions for such a finding. In fact, the huge role of the presumption of innocence is what makes prosecutions so difficult, and what make the concept of reasonable cause so significant.

"Innocent" is a state reserved for things outside the legal system. Within it, it's simply an abstract concept that has absolutely no place and less bearing on the workings of the system.

(I should bill you for this, but I'm feeling beneficent tonight.)

[ebayfool]

47. Isn't there a finding - not proven - in Scotland, or somewhere?

Not to sure where I saw it, but I think it's Scotland. Not proven seems a good one to add to our court system, would clear up some of these misconceptions vis-a-vis notguilty/innocence?

Don't charge me, Lefty! I'm so broke you'd have to let me work it off ... need a housekeeper? LOL!

(there I go - swore I was gonna stay OFF these MJ threads ... dayum!)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

48. You'll detail my car,

or clean some bathrooms. (I used to go into these Bondage and Discipline rooms on AOL and pretend to be a dominatrix. I'd get all these IMs from guys who wanted to be my slaves. They'd disappear in an instant, though, when I commanded them to detail the car, clean the bathroom, do my taxes, clean out the fridge, etc. Some slaves they were .....)

It is Scottish - you're right - and it's the famous "third verdict." We have some things that are comparable, but not in the way of verdicts. Mostly in how some things are answered - as in civil law, there is the "demurral," which is, essentially, in response to the complaint that I did something to you for which I should be entitled to damages, the demurral says, "Yeah, I did it. So what?" That is, that what you did wasn't actionable in the eyes of the law.

But "not proven" still has nothing to do with "innocence." There is no legal status for that state - innocence. It is a moral one, and, simply put, the law is not concerned with personal morality, but only with what offends the State.

Nice catch, dj. This isn't - come with me on this one - an MJ thread; this is a jurisprudence thread.

Better? :hi:

[ebayfool]

81. I'm a killer bathroom cleaner! LOL

Jurisprudence thread ... yup, that's better! I learn alot reading the threads our DUer legal people post on, you guys do 'good'. Give me enough time, I'll be the smartest housekeeper in town (gonna have to raise my rates, though!).

I like the concept, not proven.

[H2O Man]

73. "Not guilty" only means the jury

decided the prosecution did not meet the standard of proof needed for a conviction. It does not equate with "innocent." For the most obvious example, had OJ's "not guilty" been equal to innocent in the criminal trial, he could not have lost the civil trial.

Last night, there was a discussion about "innocent until proven guilty." This is only in regard to the procedures followed within a court. Obviously, people can and do make judgements about cases before they are heard in court. Those who have made up their mind have not commited a crime; they have merely rendered themselves unqualified to serve on a jury.

Should there be a third finding in trials, where a person is found "innocent"? It certainly is troubling that innocent people are never found "innocent" under our system of law. But it is not perfect, and as it stands, we only have "not guilty."

[ck4829]

2. Whatever happened...

See the MJ story at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3851070

[liberalnurse]

4. I'll stand by the jury verdict.

Thats what the system is all about.

[drdon326]

10. LIBERALNURSE....I disgree with the jury verdict.....

but i love your sig picture.






We got pie.

[liberalnurse]

37. I have this very pic....

as a mouse pad! I found it sold on e-Bay a while back.

"Let's shake dust children".

[troubleinwinter]

5. He was not found "innocent". He was found 'not guilty'.

They also did not find "that the mother was a fraud".

[Must_B_Free]

58. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

He was not proven guilty, therefore he remains inocent. This is America.

[WearyOne]

6. the best possible verdict..now Fox News etc can get back to

reporting the real news about the Bush government !

##OK I can dream can't I ?

[alarimer]

7. Acquittal does not mean innocent

When celebrities are involved, it seems like the standards for conviction seem to be a lot higher than it would for normal people. Plus they can afford better lawyers.

[Must_B_Free]

8. yeah? and those WMDs will show up any day, right?

[CatWoman]

11. hahahahahahaha

[Igel]

14. I agree, he was found not guilty.

What if it wasn't a famous singer, but some some high muckity-muck corporate guy involved in the Enron debacle was found innocent, with lots of people out beaucoup bucks? Or what if it was a Catholic priest accused by a SNAP activist of molesting him that was found not guilty? Would people be protesting as strongly, saying "But he's found not guilty!" Or would we all be on our soapboxes decrying the inherent injustice of the system?

Sure, found not guilty. But a legal verdict doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do it. It just means that the jury found that the prosecution didn't bring sufficient, or sufficiently compelling, evidence, to support the charges.

Personally, I have no opinion on the matter, except to say I hope that the jury's finding squares with reality.

[alarimer]

31. The difference is that with Enron it's "only" money

I know people's pensions are very important and may be the difference between them working at Walmart and a good retirement. But you have charges involving children and that's always emotional. Add in celebrity and the whole thing is a circus. Celebrities almost always win. Look at OJ- I don't know who else could have killed those people.

We can only hope that he doesn't get another chance to hurt some kid and that parents keep their kids away. There is nothing "normal" about a man of his age sleeping with little boys. Nothing. Perhaps they were unable to make the case- this time. They guy needs serious mental help. I hope he gets it and learns that what he is doing is wrong.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

12. Celebrities are acquitted in CA

But poor Martha Stewart (boo hoo) had the misfortune to be tried in NY.

[Walt Starr]

9. Michael Jackson is acquitted

It doesn't matter what anybody other than twelve people think. The prosecution did not in any way, shape, or form prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nothing other than that singular fact matters now.

[NashVegas]

19. There Was One Thing That Truly Bothered Me

And I wish I'd rerun the newscast to get the exact quote.

But one of the jurors interviewed came down on the mother for allowing her son to sleep in MJ's bed in the first place.

Smacked of 'got what they deserved' to me.

[Avalux]

26. That jury's combined IQ was probably 100.

I heard it too and couldn't believe she said that.

[NashVegas]

28. Jury Selection

Trial lawyers seek out the 12 most easily pursuadable people they can find. Both sides do it.

[Tomee450]

41. Why is it

that when a prominent black person is acquitted, the IQ of the jurors is questioned? That did not happen in the Robert Blake or Robert Durst cases. I also did not see the same kind of outrage expressed at those verdict. Durst admitted his crime and most people believe Blake was guilty.

[Avalux]

50. I didn't hear from either of those juries -

My opinion on this one came after listening to their interview on MSNBC. I didn't consider race in this.

[JI7]

82. the Los Angeles District Attorney insulted the intelligence of the Blake

jurors. he is a Republican so i'm not too surprised. interestingly he won in part because the other DA who was a Democrat had fucked in in cases such as OJ trial.

[ProfessorGAC]

51. Sorry, But I Don't Agree

I think the prosecution team's collective IQ was 100, though. I think they grossly overreached by bundling charges when they weren't even able to prove ONE beyond a reasonable doubt.

They shot their entire arsenal at once, knowing that they likely couldn't prove all the charges. But, if they are unable to prove half, the other half looks suspicious, even if there is proof! They diminished their whole case by shotgunning at multiple targets instead of taking dead aim.

The prosecutors screwed this up, big time. They are the ones who deserve derision, not the jurors.

The Professor

[KurtNYC]

52. I think you nailed it - they hated the mother

The defense strategy worked.

I think the prosecution knew they had problems with this case -- no physical evidence (beyond jackson's porn being found where the accuser said it would be), the mother was a lying grifter, the kid has a smart mouth and is not likeable. This is why they brought in prior acts.

In hindsight, the prosecution should have prosecuted the whole case differently. First arrest the mother for pandering prostitution, put the victim in protective custody and proceed from there. This way the jury can hate the mother and still find both she and Jackson guilty of endangering the welfare of a child, etc. It would let the prosecution treat the mother as a hostile witness.

[SW FL Dem]

77. Well Put Walt

I wasn't there in the courtroom and I didn't see or hear all the evidence presented. The only fact that matters to me is that 12 people didn't think that the prosecution met their burden of proof.

[Avalux]

13. The mother wasn't on trial -

The defense was successful in fixating the jury on her obvious criminal behavior. But we must remember this was about the child, not the mother. From what I heard from the jury afterwards, their statements were simplistic and they could not state what they found as reasonable doubt.

You're right, I did not see the evidence (and neither did you) - if Michael Jackson was found not guilty because of the mother as I suspect, then an injustice was done.

[B Calm]

17. What kind of mother would send their child to spend the night with

a child molestor? GOLD DIGGER

[NashVegas]

20. That Is Irrelevant

As was previously stated: the mother was not on trial.

[B Calm]

23. As a parent myself I don't find it irrelevant, I find it strange!

[NashVegas]

27. Yeah, Sure It Is

But it is irrelevant to the matter of MJ's alleged criminality.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

36. No, for at least count one, the mother's credibility HAD to come into play

Count one was the conspiracy count. The victim was the mother. It came down to, was she believable. Evidently, the jury believed she was not.

[springhill]

46. Did you see her testimony?

I know I didn't. But I sure heard and read about it. That's all any of us could do. And she LIED. I keep saying it, and I'll keep saying it. Along with her son, they were caught LYING, and therefore how could you believe what they had to say?

[Avalux]

22. And that's the kind of mother Jackson targeted -

think about it. The parents who would allow their kids to spend the night did it for $$ without concern for the child. Tell me, if the accuser's mother had been squeaky clean, would the verdict have been different? If you can say yes, then the jury did not do their job.

[mondo joe]

55. Right. Predators like Jackson target vulnerable kids. Nothing new there.

[mondo joe]

57. Even the children of unwise or opportunist parents can be molested.

In some ways they're the most likely to be.

[wakeme2008]

24. the boy also admitted on the stand lying in the JC Penneys case

so if he would lie there for $$$$$$...

[Avalux]

25. Can you give me details on that?

I hadn't heard specifics. Thanks!

[springhill]

45. He was probably found not guilty........

Because the mother and the son and the brother all were caught LYING! They lied, they had no credibility.

[lonestarnot]

15. Absofuckinglutely!

Justice prevails... hopefully...LOL

I told my kid about the verdict and he said, "Good, now maybe they'll shut-up about him." LOL again. Only out of the mouths of babes.

[boohootwo]

30. What if he really molested all those kids?

[B Calm]

32. God would of seen that the verdict was guilty.. Have faith in GOD

[CatWoman]

34. God?? Or ZOD!!!!

KNEEL!!!!!

[boohootwo]

53. We control our own actions - not God.

[Speed8098]

83. What if he didn't?

:kick:

[Nye Bevan]

35. Yes. Just as innocent as OJ Simpson and Robert Blake (nt)

[CatWoman]

38. I happen to think they were both not guilty

and last time I looked, so did the Jury.

[bdot]

44. I just call them guilty.

[CatWoman]

56. who? the jury?

[H2O Man]

85. To be accurate

we need to remember that OJ faced two juries: one in criminal court, one in civil court. The second jury determined that he was responsible for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend. Hence, a person can say with equal accuracy that a jury of his peers found OJ guilty or not guilty of murder.

[King Coal]

62. Which two, Cat?

MJ and OJ, OJ and RB, or MJ and RB?

Trinity and Sneak (I meant Streak) look pretty suspicious to me.

[CatWoman]

65. Streak is ALWAYS fucking guilty of something!!!

:hi:

[King Coal]

68. I know. I heard he tried to give Male and Female some Jesus milk.

:hi:

[Redleg]

39. Yes- and he admits to taking young boys into his bed with him.

He's still a fucking freak in spite of being found "not guilty." Perhaps MJ doesn't have sex with the kids he takes to his bed- but taking them there in the first place is pretty fucking strange if you ask me.

[CatWoman]

40. ah, good old Redleg

what the fuck are we waiting for??

let's have a good ole fashioned bonfire!!

that'll teach him!!!!

[Tinoire]

63. Bonfire? Why a bonfire when you can have a good old fashioned lynching?

Lynch mob and all :shrug:

[CatWoman]

66. in view of the present climate, I was trying to stay away from the

"L" word

:hi:

[Redleg]

71. I am not suggesting a bonfire or a lynching.

I said I don't know whether MJ had sex with the kids- what I did say was that he admits to laying in bed with them.

[Tomee450]

42. Having young boys in one's

bed is not the best thing to do but does that mean a man is a pedophile? Thousands of children have been at that ranch. Where are all the other children to claim that he molested them. Pedophiles usually molest a lot of children. Those catholic priests are good examples.

[OneBlueSky]

43. one more time . . . there's a difference between a pedophile and . . .

a child molester . . . most pedophiles do not molest children . . .

[Redleg]

72. Did I say he was a pedophile? I said he was a freak.

EOM

[Divameow77]

75. Unfortunetaly it's not a crime for him

to sleep in the same bed as children.

[Rich Hunt]

49. oh, lordy

I'm beginning to think that DU should have a separate board for the hot issue of the week. When something gets too hot, you just move all of those threads into that corner.

I'm telling you, there is going to be an avalanche of MJ stuff now, just like the Dean stuff earlier.

[mondo joe]

54. Yes yes, and Bush won Florida in 2000. You didn't hear what the

Supreme Court heard so you don't know.

<sigh>

[misanthrope]

59. Where are...

...all the little girls that slept in Michael's bed?

Jackson claims he just has a soft spot for kids. Where are all the little girls who were allowed into his inner sanctum?

[drdon326]

61. He's not into little girls.....hes got a HARD spot for little boys.

no jesus juice for you.

[CatWoman]

67. they are in my den, fucking up my DVD player

and ruining my DVDs with their sticky fucking fingers.

[RBHam]

60. And Bush is guilty of war crimes...

Let us compare the corresponding outrage...

Shall we???

Fuck!

[Zomby Woof]

64. Most of the jurors think he is a pedo

From cnn.com:

We actually challenged one another in the deliberation room," said Juror No. 1, a 62-year-old man from Santa Maria, later identified as Raymond Hultman. "We challenged the issues, and we came to the decision that pointed to reasonable doubt."

Later, in an interview on "Larry King Live," Hultman said he believes Jackson "probably has molested boys."

"I can't believe that this man could sleep in the same bedroom for 365 straight days and not do something more than just watch television and eat popcorn," he said. "I mean that doesn't make sense to me, but that doesn't make him guilty of the charges that were presented in this case and that's where we had to make our decision."

-snip-

It came down to the jury doing their job: deliberating on the facts of the case. Their personal feelings about Jackson are hardly complimentary to his character.

The fact is, the mother may be exploitative, but that doesn't exclude Jackson from being a pedophile creep. Those 2 factors are NOT mutually exclusive.

[rinsd]

69. You have "convicted" the mother of "fraud"

yet we have to reframe from calling freak-o a child molester?

[CatWoman]

70. didn't the legal system establish her as being a fraud?

yet, at the same time, didn't establish Jackson as a "freak o child molester"?????

[rinsd]

74. I don't believe that she was the one on trial....

....and as far as I know while her activities were unsavory and portrayed as such was she convicted by any court prior to this?

Which is hilarious considering the original poster's supposition that the jury is the end all be all of whether we should think Jackson is a molester.

[CatWoman]

79. i was just doing my bit to help spread disinformation.

I'm a team player, you know.

[Zomby Woof]

76. It didn't establish Jackson as a pedo in THIS CASE

THIS CASE only. Jackson is not guilty ONLY in this case. Period. The jury did a good job deliberating on the facts and testimony given. If they had ruled based on their feelings, instead of the facts, he would have been found guilty. I do commend the jury for sticking to the merits of the case and deliberating the way they were supposed to. The mother AND Jackson deserve each other, on the freak-o-meter scale. Her exploitative ways do not excuse Jackson - it is not an either/or proposition.

He is disturbed, no matter what. The plastic surgeries alone are a cry for help, regardless of his predilection for sharing his bed with young boys. But it isn't against the law to have bad plastic surgery, so the jury was right in not allowing their personal feelings to intervene.

From the jury foreman:

The jury foreman, Paul Rodriguez, said jurors were "very troubled" that Jackson, by his own admission, had overnight sleepovers with children in his bed.

But Rodriguez, a 63-year-old retired high school counselor from Santa Maria, said jurors were instructed by the judge to base their verdicts on the facts of the case, not "our beliefs or our own personal thoughts."

Read more of the jurors' thoughts here:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/14/jackson.trial/index.html

[XanaDUer]

78. Thanks.

This about says it. I personally cannot stand Jackson, even though I remember him as a cute little kid, singing his heart out.

Is he weird now? Yes. Do we lock people up based upon weirdness? No, not yet, at least.

Can kids of strange dysfunctional parents get molested? Sure, and ofttimes do because that is just the kind of unstable family situation a predator looks for.

But the jury did what it was supposed to do in this case: Deliberate on facts, not assumptions, feelings, weirdness (so far, from what I have seen, none of these jurors seemed star struck).

The did not find the preponderance of the evidence compelling, and ruled not guilty.

[CatWoman]

80. see my response above

and how many cases are we trying here?

[mandyky]

84. I am sure MJ is not "INNOCENT"

but the state did not prove it's case, and the jury felt there wasn't enough evidence to convict. I am not an MJ fan or detractor, but I have felt the prosecutor was out to get MJ all along. I think it all started when he held his son off that balcony. One of those big mouth lady lawyers (maybe Gloria Alred) went ballistic and reported MJ to family services.

MJ is a troubled person, I hope he gets the help he needs. I do not know if he is a child molestor but there is enough doubt, that any parent who lets their child go to Neverland sleepovers shares responsibility if something happens.