• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Michael Jackson Found NOT GUILTY on all Charges!

This might sound silly . I honestly think the jury found him not guilty because they feared another Rodney King fallout . And I feel that's why O.J was found not guilty also . You know, if they did find him guilty what would he have gotten 1yr , 5yrs max , out after 6months , and maybe 5yrs probation . You know why ? Cause he's a celebrity ! For some reason the law is different for celebreties , stars ,and athletes then it is for us . As for those parents well ..... They're not all there either !
 
Innocent until proven guilty isn't exactly right. I remember reading a book called "RedRum the innocent". This book was about a man who was charged with the rape and killing of a young girl. (incidently, ten years later the man was exonerated by DNA evidence) The Author makes a very good point. While it's supposed to be "Innocent until proven guilty" (Though that has kind'a gotten thrown out the window of late but thats something for another thread) When a person is charged, then this causes people, including the jurors to assume guilt, simply because the question becomes, "Why would they charge somebody if they weren't sure they were guilty?". Now, of course not all people will, but i'd be willing to say many people make up there minds before even seeing half the facts.

Then finally there's the fact that even if your found innocent, the stigma can still stick with you. Particulerly if the crime is child molestation and rape. There are websites out there that wil find people accused or charged with such crime and will post a persons personal info. Where they live, work, names etc. Also, and this is IMO, cops are less likely to be supportive of a person charged with Child molestation, even if found innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty sounds great, but there's still a lot of problems with it.
 
I knew he'd walk.

I think Michael Jackson is diabolical. I think he purposely chose boys that came from broken homes and had parents with questionable reputations just in case something like this trial ever happened.

It's gonna be interesting to see what happens next. I'll bet he moves out of the country.


Okay, back to lurking.
 
Credit: MSNBC


SANTA MARIA, Calif. - Michael Jackson’s Web site trumpeted his courtroom vindication Tuesday, linking it with such historic events as the birth of Martin Luther King Jr., while his lawyer suggested Tuesday the singer will no longer share his bed with young boys.

During an interview on NBC's “Today” show, Katie Couric asked attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. whether or not Jackson would continue to share his bed with children. Mesereau, while refusing to admit that Jackson ever said he shared his bed with children, did say the singer would no longer allow children into his room “because of the false charges that were brought here.”

“He’s not going to do that anymore,” Mesereau said. “He’s not going to make himself vulnerable to this anymore.”

Jackson was acquitted Monday of child molestation, conspiracy and other counts by jurors who said the accusations of a young boy and his family were not credible — a legal victory that triggered jubilation among the pop star’s fans and embarrassment for the district attorney’s office.

The Jackson Web site mjjsource.com featured graphics declaring “Innocent” and showing a hand giving a victory sign as a fanfare plays. A scrolling calendar highlights historic events such as “Martin Luther King is born,” “The Berlin Wall falls,” “Nelson Mandela is freed,” and finally, “June 13, 2005, Remember this date for it is a part of HIStory.” The reference was to Jackson’s 1995 album “HIStory: Past, Present, and Future Book I.”

Mesereau said Jackson didn’t eat during the trial, didn’t sleep and lost weight. “It was a terrible ordeal for him,” Mesereau said.

A raucous welcome greeted Jackson as he returned to his Neverland Ranch on Monday afternoon. As a convoy of black SUVs carrying him and his entourage pulled through the gates, his sister LaToya rolled down a window, smiled widely and waved. The crowd responded with a euphoric cheer.

“All of us here and millions around the world love and support you,” proclaimed a banner strung across a fence by the compound in Los Olivos that Jackson said he created to provide himself with the childhood he never enjoyed.

“It’s victory,” said Tracee Raynaud, 39. “God is alive and well.”

Aside from the Web site message, there was no comment from Jackson or his family Tuesday. He has no media representative since Raymone K. Bain was dismissed last week, and neither he nor his family issued any statements Tuesday morning.

The acquittals marked a stinging defeat for Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon, who displayed open hostility for Jackson and had pursued him for more than a decade, trying to prove the rumors that swirled around Jackson about his fondness for children.

“We don’t select victims of crimes and we don’t select the family. We try to make a conscientious decision and go forward,” Sneddon said afterward, adding “I’m not going to look back and apologize for anything that we’ve done.”

Jurors may have acquitted Jackson of all charges of molesting a 13-year-old cancer survivor, but not all of them were convinced the King of Pop had never molested a child.

“He’s just not guilty of the crimes he’s been charged with,” said Ray Hultman, who told The Associated Press he was one of three people on the 12-person panel who voted to acquit only after the other nine persuaded them there was reasonable doubt about the entertainer’s guilt in this particular case.

Prosecutors presented testimony about Jackson’s allegedly improper relationships with several boys in the early 1990s, including the son of a maid who testified that Jackson molested him during tickling session between 1987 and 1990. Another, Brett Barnes, took the stand to deny that he was molested during sleepovers at Neverland.

But Hultman said he believed it was likely that both boys had been molested. He said he voted to acquit Jackson in the current case because he had doubts about his current accuser’s credibility.

“That’s not to say he’s an innocent man,” Hultman, 62, said of Jackson.

Some jurors noted they were troubled by Jackson’s admission that he allowed boys into his bed for what he characterized as innocent sleepovers.

“We would hope first of all that he doesn’t sleep with children anymore and that he learns that they have to stay with their families or stay in the guest rooms or the houses or whatever they’re called down there,” jury foreman Paul Rodriguez said. “And he just has to be careful how he conducts himself around children.”

Some jurors acknowledged they flatly disliked the accuser’s mother, portrayed by the defense as a welfare cheat who brought a trumped-up lawsuit against J.C. Penney, accusing store guards of roughing her and her family up. “I disliked it intensely when she snapped her fingers at us,” said one juror, a woman, who declined to give her name.

Another woman juror said she felt sorry for the accuser and his siblings, believing they had been trained by their mother to lie. “As a mother, the values she has taught them, it’s hard for me to comprehend,” she said. “I wouldn’t want any of my children to lie for their own gain.”
 
“He’s just not guilty of the crimes he’s been charged with,” said Ray Hultman, who told The Associated Press he was one of three people on the 12-person panel who voted to acquit only after the other nine persuaded them there was reasonable doubt about the entertainer’s guilt in this particular case.

Prosecutors presented testimony about Jackson’s allegedly improper relationships with several boys in the early 1990s, including the son of a maid who testified that Jackson molested him during tickling session between 1987 and 1990. Another, Brett Barnes, took the stand to deny that he was molested during sleepovers at Neverland.

But Hultman said he believed it was likely that both boys had been molested. He said he voted to acquit Jackson in the current case because he had doubts about his current accuser’s credibility.

“That’s not to say he’s an innocent man,” Hultman, 62, said of Jackson.


So, just to be clear...the boy who said he was NOT molested...he thinks they were. The boy who said he WAS molested he doens't believe when he's on the stand...BUT he thinks BOTH were really molested and he voted to acquit but thinks MJ is not neccessarily innocent. 😱

I see. :scared:

~ toyou
 
Tcklsh_Kandy said:
This might sound silly . I honestly think the jury found him not guilty because they feared another Rodney King fallout . And I feel that's why O.J was found not guilty also . You know, if they did find him guilty what would he have gotten 1yr , 5yrs max , out after 6months , and maybe 5yrs probation . You know why ? Cause he's a celebrity ! For some reason the law is different for celebreties , stars ,and athletes then it is for us . As for those parents well ..... They're not all there either !

Rodney King got his ass beat on video by a bunch of cops. I little see how this could even compare.

People rioted because of deep injustice and violence in the system that was supposed to protect them.
 
Being not guilty is far from being innocent. I took 3 business law courses from the same guy. He said that you do not have to prove innocnce, just reasonable doubt (And he had been a defense attorney for 25 years). He said all you need is to show that it's possible that you didn't do something, not that you didn't do it.
 
Originally posted by jugner
Being not guilty is far from being innocent. I took 3 business law courses from the same guy. He said that you do not have to prove innocnce, just reasonable doubt (And he had been a defense attorney for 25 years). He said all you need is to show that it's possible that you didn't do something, not that you didn't do it.

But it's the prosecution's job to prove the innocence, is it not? Defense attorney's have it easy. All you have to do is cast doubt about if the person did it or not. Prosecutor has the tough job, to prove the person did it beyond a reasonable doubt. If there's any doubt whatsoever, the jury has to find that person not guilty.

And that's what they did in the Michael Jackson trial. There was too much doubt so they had to find him not guilty. Yesterday (6/13) on Nancy Grace, she was talking to the jury foreman Paul Rodriquez (I believe that's his name) and he had said that it was really difficult to decide that Jackson was guilty. He said it was difficult to even decide guilty for only one of the counts without doing the same for all of them.

Honestly (and no offense to anyone) most Americans don't understand how difficult it really is on a jury. Going through all the testimonies, all the evidences they've gathered, and decide if there's no doubt that the person did it.
 
The state

I think the state had alot to do with the verdict. In other words, there are only a handful of states maybe even only CA that you could get away with this. Someone mentioned Martha Stewart, I would bet a load of money that if Jacko was prosecuted in the same court she was that he would be recieving an anal intrusion right about now. I just think that after so many different people making the same accusations against this guy that something at some point had to have happened. Nothing against liberals, but I think the overall liberal minded society in CA has leaked into the judicial system as well. Therefore, you have Jacko and Orenthal James Simpson playing golf together when they should both be in Pelican Bay. :ignite:
 
The prosecution's case was not strong enough.

This was not an O.J jury (re-tards, all of them, look at the three-hour verdict in the face of DNA evidence).

This was a good jury and they did their job well.

Michael's a diddler but the state couldn't prove it.

If I ever get hauled before a jury for anything, I want these 12 sitting in the jury box.
 
Actually

TKpervert said:
The prosecution's case was not strong enough.

This was not an O.J jury (re-tards, all of them, look at the three-hour verdict in the face of DNA evidence).

This was a good jury and they did their job well.

Michael's a diddler but the state couldn't prove it.

If I ever get hauled before a jury for anything, I want these 12 sitting in the jury box.


Actually, there was quite a bit of reasonable doubt in the OJ case as well. I just think the reasonable facts were a little more impressive and he should have hung despite of the doubt!
 
Hands up anyone......

.......who would let a 46 year old man sleep with YOUR kids?
 
hollywoodhoney said:
Actually, there was quite a bit of reasonable doubt in the OJ case as well. I just think the reasonable facts were a little more impressive and he should have hung despite of the doubt!

I can accept all recent verdicts (Peterson, Blake, Jackson) but the OJ verdict grates on my nerves.

The justice system failed miserably with the OJ case.
 
Shame on you who compare this case to the OJ Simpson case! There were so many errors in the OJ Simpson case. For starters, Forensics was introduced in OJ’s case. Everybody in the court room had difficulty comprehending Forensics. Evidence was also tampered with and contaminated. Organization is the key to success! The Michael Jackson defense team came prepared and organized. OJ's defense team came prepared and organized. Both prosecuting teams for OJ and MJ were not prepared or organized.
 
penny lane said:
Here's Triumph The Insult Comic Dog's coverage of the MJ trail. It's kinda long, but funny as hell.

http://poststuffx.entensity.net/061305/media.php?media=triumph-jackson.wmv


Right, now back to lurking...


"Because in the overall scheme of the things, who are we to pass judgement on this man? Who amongst us can honestly say that they have never slept with a twelve year old boy after sharing some alcohol and pornography in the company of a chimpanzee?"

ROFL! That was funny, thanks for the link! If you've got more funny stuff, please don't go back to being a lurker. 😀
 
toyou444 said:
I mean how could they not even find him guilty of providing alcohol to minors?!?! Oh well...its not like he would have been doing hard time anyway.

~ toyou

It probably had something to do with the fact that the lady who actually served the alcohol to the boys (not Michael) confessed it was she - not Michael - who did it??
 
tickletoy3 said:
It probably had something to do with the fact that the lady who actually served the alcohol to the boys (not Michael) confessed it was she - not Michael - who did it??


Still touchy if you ask me. If my wife gives alcohol to a minor in my home I would be held responsible too. This was a serveant I guess? Would not the home owner also be responsible if he was there?

I just wanted to ask the jury if they even believed that MJ slept with the boy!

~ toyou
 
Well I'm thankful for the verdict and I hope that Jackson gets the help he needs. Who knows? Perhaps he will be able to bring his career back from this.
 
I stick to my thoughts that his children were conceived in a lab. I just can't imagine MJ actually doing sexual acts of any kind with anything.
 
What a SMOOTH CRIMINAL. It's as simple as ABC: MJ said that BILLY GENE was not his lover, and the jury bought it. The case was a THRILLER, but the verdict makes me want to SCREAM! It's got me in a state...STATE OF SHOCK. Now he's all like LEAVE ME ALONE to the media, just beat it - BEAT IT! He's BAD. He's DANGEROUS. But I guess it's HUMAN NATURE to WANNA BE STARTIN' SOMETHING. I CAN'T HELP IT - BLACK OR WHITE, this guy is OFF THE WALL.

"I'm not like the other guys". Just like Budweiser - true, true.
 
Oddjob0226 said:
What a SMOOTH CRIMINAL. It's as simple as ABC: MJ said that BILLY GENE was not his lover, and the jury bought it. The case was a THRILLER, but the verdict makes me want to SCREAM! It's got me in a state...STATE OF SHOCK. Now he's all like LEAVE ME ALONE to the media, just beat it - BEAT IT! He's BAD. He's DANGEROUS. But I guess it's HUMAN NATURE to WANNA BE STARTIN' SOMETHING. I CAN'T HELP IT - BLACK OR WHITE, this guy is OFF THE WALL.

"I'm not like the other guys". Just like Budweiser - true, true.
I so agree with you. The guy, I hope justs beats it. I like the way you used his songs to express your views. Great job. I wish I would have thought of it.
 
What's New
11/7/25
The TMF Chat Room is free to all members and always busy!

Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Top