Michael Jackson

[drizzt]

apparently money can get you a full walk away in our judicial system. im glad a high dollar defender can say "they lied" and our jury's beleive them because the man is famous....

[ISSAC RU]

What about the O.J. Simpson trail?

Now we can not make fun of Jaco no more...
A sad day in the Commedy history.............

[drizzt]

This wa just a fresher topic than oj lol :)

[h2o]

I guess that is the downside of having a jury consisting of ordinary people. God I am happy we don't have that :)

[Lockie Jackson]

Come on guys! Don't tell me you are actually surprised by the verdict. Blind Freddie could have seen this one a mile away! Need I remind you where the trial took place! Sheezzzzzzzz!

[Paikea]

I guess that is the downside of having a jury consisting of ordinary people. God I am happy we don't have that :)Interesting...how is it done in Sweden?

[drizzt]

Come on guys! Don't tell me you are actually surprised by the verdict. Blind Freddie could have seen this one a mile away! Need I remind you where the trial took place! Sheezzzzzzzz!

good point, only i california......or the eastern seaboard lol

[ISSAC RU]

How much money he spent on this trail?

[drizzt]

i know the DA racked up a four million dollar bill. im not shure how much jacksons in the hole. Its ok, hes ruined his career now, and is 250mill plus in debt...

[h2o]

Interesting...how is it done in Sweden?
Jurymembers are educated lawyers, or at least people with juridical education. Not sure exactly what's required, but I could find out if it is really important to you.
Then, from what I understand, lawyers in the US can make huge amounts on money on a case if they win. From what I understand this is not the case here, since the lawyer doesn't get a certain percentage of a suing-case. So, suing McDonalds for millions of dollars for getting hot coffee in your lap is not going to happen here.

[Berugijin]

So, suing McDonalds for millions of dollars for getting hot coffee in your lap is not going to happen here.

For your information, that wasn't a frivolous lawsuit... McDonalds has admitted that they keep the coffee too warm to hide it's bad flavour and save costs in some way...

And if that dog of yours poops once more on my lawn I'll sue you for emotional distress!

[rainmaker]

Before we blame MJ. what kind of parent let their kid to sleep with grown man for a year ? And then a years later, they are suing MJ for child molester ? If MJ indeed molest this kid, this kid's parents were also guilty of molesting.... I have 6 years old son and I wouldn't let him sleep with other grown man, never...



apparently money can get you a full walk away in our judicial system. im glad a high dollar defender can say "they lied" and our jury's beleive them because the man is famous....

[Phil-co]

Interesting...how is it done in Sweden?

It is difficult to explain, but in Swedish courts we usually have three judges, and two board members (and of course attorneys and prosecutors), depending on what kind of case it is. No jury is needed, and the board members are all well acquainted with the judicial system.

We do have a jury though in very special cases, all concerning freedom of the press (for some reason). It is highly uncommon though.

[nikolaj]

Before we blame MJ. what kind of parent let their kid to sleep with grown man for a year ? And then a years later, they are suing MJ for child molester ? If MJ indeed molest this kid, this kid's parents were also guilty of molesting.... I have 6 years old son and I wouldn't let him sleep with other grown man, never...

I absolutely agree, and if I were older and had kids, I would say the exact same thing.
That doesn't mean however that Michael Jackson is innocent.
(Wether he is or isn't, dunno and to be frankly I don't care all that much, there are bigger problems to be solved than MJ....)

[h2o]

For your information, that wasn't a frivolous lawsuit... McDonalds has admitted that they keep the coffee too warm to hide it's bad flavour and save costs in some way...
Ehm, coffee is always hot. If you don't consider that when you lift your mug and then drop the contents in your lap, how can that really be the manufacturers fault? Ok, so the coffee was a bit htter than usual and perhaps gave her larger injuries than normally, but still.... several million? :confused:

[T.Lee]

michael jackson does kendo.

[Andou]

michael jackson does kendo.

He's got a mean hiki-men.

[Berugijin]

Ehm, coffee is always hot. If you don't consider that when you lift your mug and then drop the contents in your lap, how can that really be the manufacturers fault? Ok, so the coffee was a bit htter than usual and perhaps gave her larger injuries than normally, but still.... several million? :confused:

See http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
(http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm)
McFact 1: McDonalds knew about the problem, their coffee was over 20 degrees C hotter than others.

McFact 2: They knew about the problem and that it caused burns.

About the several million dollars, the woman would have never filed suit if McDonalds had simply paid her hospital bill...

This was not a frivolous lawsuit.

[T.Lee]

excellent link!

"that mcdonalds case" everyone brings up on the topic of frivolous lawsuits is quite contrary to the facts. most ppl dont even know anything about it other than hearing some previous joke on late night television or something, and they still repeat it as if it was fraud.

the wendy's finger in chilli debacle was a sure case of fraud.

[drizzt]

See http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
(http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm)
McFact 1: McDonalds knew about the problem, their coffee was over 20 degrees C hotter than others.

McFact 2: They knew about the problem and that it caused burns.

About the several million dollars, the woman would have never filed suit if McDonalds had simply paid her hospital bill...

This was not a frivolous lawsuit.


im sorry, but she new the instant she picked that cofee up it was hot. She should have never been in the car trying to drink anyway. if you want to drink a beverage that can burn you, go sit inside

[drizzt]

Before we blame MJ. what kind of parent let their kid to sleep with grown man for a year ? And then a years later, they are suing MJ for child molester ? If MJ indeed molest this kid, this kid's parents were also guilty of molesting.... I have 6 years old son and I wouldn't let him sleep with other grown man, never...

thing is , it doesnt matter if the parents were to blame or not. that wasnt my point. he takes no less of the blame for what HE did because of a parents stupidity. personaly i think she should have been arrested for child endangerment to.

This case should have been thrown out . the jury was obviously prejudiced, they even admitted they did not deliberate, and had already acquited when they entered the room. they triedthe boy, not michael jackson. that IS NOT how are system of law works, you dont try the accuser

[kanyil]

This case should have been thrown out . the jury was obviously prejudiced, they even admitted they did not deliberate, and had already acquited when they entered the room. they triedthe boy, not michael jackson. that IS NOT how are system of law works, you dont try the accuser

The fact is, a defendant is fighting it out against the government, an entity of almost limitless resources when viewed from an individual's perspective. The defendant is entitled to use (almost) all means to defend himself/herself, and the right to confront one's accuser(s) is a basic tenent of common law. Swallowing everything the boy says as gospel and without cross-examination is, IMHO, NOT a better option.

Also, the jurors DID deliberate (see CNN's coverage). They deliberated and found the prosecution's case to lack sufficient evidence.

Not talking about the MJ case in particular, so what happens when the accuser is deliberately lying? The government spends millions prosecuting, the defendant spends millions defending (the other option is to rot in jail), and then 30 years later, DNA evidence proves that the accuser was, in fact, lying. What then?

The accuser who deliberately lied should be strung up and hung, that's what. The policemen who knowingly contaminated the evidence (ala OJ Simpson) under aggravating circumstances (i.e. racism, personal beliefs) should also be strung up and hung. The overzealous District Attorney shooting for that famous conviction to secure his/her aim at a judge's chair, despite facts to the contrary should also have a shot at that noose. But of course, the law doesn't permit that. :D The scary thing is, some cases do involve some or all of the above players.

Pretty bad deal for the innocent accused. The lesson is, accuse first, accuse often, and accuse with "any" evidence. Shock and awe. By the time the police/DA gets through with the other guy/gal, the last thing on their minds is to sue you back (of course, you would have all your assets tucked away safely by then just in case). Being physically in Brazil is not a bad idea either. :D

[drizzt]

hehehehe thats why they walked in, voted he wasnt guilty, then decided to deliberate.......wow

this was his trial not the accusers

[KhawMengLee]

well...not guilty in this particular case...

http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2005-06-15/

Jackson Jurors Suspect He Molested Children


The jurors who found Michael Jackson not guilty of child molestation on Monday suspected he did abuse children, but didn't have the evidence to convict him. The 12 jurors delivered a unanimous verdict at California's Santa Maria courthouse ending a 14 week trial - but two have admitted they believe Jackson probably did molest young boys at his Neverland ranch. Raymond Hultman says, "I feel that Michael Jackson probably has molested boys. I cannot 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. 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 - that's where we had to make our decision. That's not to say he's an innocent man. He's just not guilty of the crimes he's been charged with." Another juror says, "We had a closet full of evidence that always came back to the same thing - it was not enough." Another adds, "We expected some better evidence, something more convincing, but it just wasn't there. You hope that you will find a smoking gun, something you can grab on to one way or another and we had difficulty in finding that." Jury foreman Paul Rodriguez says, "The allegations of past abuse were considered credible to some extent. There are not too many grown up men we know who would sleep with children but we had to base it on the evidence presented to us. There were a lot of things lacking." The jurors claimed the prosecution case was damaged by the mother of Jackson's accuser, who they claim antagonized the jury with theatrical, over-the-top testimony. They also suspected her motives. Rodriguez adds, "As a parent you spend every moment of your day protective of what happens to your children. What kind of mother in her right mind would allow that to happen, to freely volunteer your child to sleep with anyone, not just Michael Jackson, but anyone?"

[louisvandalen]

Sneddon: Jackson accuser 'very surprised'



Friday, June 17, 2005 Posted: 235023 GMT (0423 HKT)

LOS OLIVOS, California (AP) -- Michael Jackson's accuser is completely surprised by the sudden change of Jackson's plead "Guilty under condition", the prosecutor in the molestation case said tonight.
Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tim Sneddon told NGC's "Today" that he spoke to the accuser immediately after the verdict. Appearantly Michael Jackson went back into court after the verdict and offered to plead guilty to all charges. He would do this only on the condition that he would be granted free choice of correctional facility and having the possibility to leave the United States. The gouvernement of Swaziland already accepted to detain Mr. Jackson according to the new verdict of the jury. Follow this link for more information on this news breaking item and Jackson's new "Never Never land": http://www.gov.sz/home.asp?pid=2799

[Berugijin]

Sneddon: Jackson accuser 'very surprised'



Friday, June 17, 2005 Posted: 235023 GMT (0423 HKT)

LOS OLIVOS, California (AP) -- Michael Jackson's accuser is completely surprised by the sudden change of Jackson's plead "Guilty under condition", the prosecutor in the molestation case said tonight.
Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tim Sneddon told NGC's "Today" that he spoke to the accuser immediately after the verdict. Appearantly Michael Jackson went back into court after the verdict and offered to plead guilty to all charges. He would do this only on the condition that he would be granted free choice of correctional facility and having the possibility to leave the United States. The gouvernement of Swaziland already accepted to detain Mr. Jackson according to the new verdict of the jury. Follow this link for more information on this news breaking item and Jackson's new "Never Never land": http://www.gov.sz/home.asp?pid=2799

In other news, kids in juvie promise "to be very good" and are begging for community service...

[ISSAC RU]

I heard Jakco bought houses some countries in Middle east and Africa
under his brother's name.

[Kendoka]

thing is , it doesnt matter if the parents were to blame or not. that wasnt my point. he takes no less of the blame for what HE did because of a parents stupidity. personaly i think she should have been arrested for child endangerment to.

This case should have been thrown out . the jury was obviously prejudiced, they even admitted they did not deliberate, and had already acquited when they entered the room. they triedthe boy, not michael jackson. that IS NOT how are system of law works, you dont try the accuser

"Justice" and "the law" are not the same!

[piggy]

i have to agree that it wasnt terribly intellegent to let thier kids sleep with him in the first place. but thriller was a pretty good album.

[drizzt]

i have to agree that it wasnt terribly intellegent to let thier kids sleep with him in the first place. but thriller was a pretty good album.


To quote chappel "he made thriller man....thriller...."

hehehehehehehe

I also love the fact that juror number 5's son was a registered sex offender. can we all say BIASED jury? jeez.....

[Toaster]

This case just ticks me off so much,
i mean this guy is obviously guilty,
but apparently the way that the prosecution "worded the charges" meant that Jackson got let off!
I also heard that the jury didn't like the mother of gavin arviso and this is another reason jackson got let off. I mean, as one of the jury said about the mother "don't look at me like that lady"! I mean, how stupidly petit can you get.......:mad:

[kanyil]

"Justice" and "the law" are not the same!

Of course, in the words of a very famous current Australian High Court judge:

"Justice has nothing to do with the law"

Funny enough, the phrase which sounded so repugnant to me as a first year law student, now makes sense. :D

But don't forget "innocent until proven guilty!"

(Michael was not proven guilty in accordance with the law, therefore he is innocent. The prosecutors just didn't do their job well, go spank them if you don't like the verdict) :D