Of course she didn’t base her decision on that. However, I got the impression from her, and others, that they were prejudiced against the mother, not because of testimony, but because they just plain didn’t like her, and I felt that contributed to their verdict. Not because they believed that Michael wasn’t guilty, but because they plain didn’t like the accuser and his family.
It’s sad, but hey, sometimes the victim isn’t always likable.
Seriously, who do you think most pedophiles will target-the son of Ward and June Cleaver, or the one with a shady family?
KGS-there HAVE been people who came forward-they were all paid hush money. Most of them were the children of his staff-most of them poor, uneducated, possibly illegal immigrants or even legal ones who just didn’t know their rights and were easily intimidated. Some were probably over seas.
He coerced people who were under the age of consent—forget the hair-splitting—into doing stuff they didn’t want to do; that likely would never have even occurred to them to do. Or he did it without their knowledge while they were asleep. (Yeah, I know, alleged, alleged.) In my book, he’s as much of a rapist as a teenage guy who puts roofies in a girl’s drink and has intercourse with her while she’s unconscious.
Dude! The woman knows how to get publicity! An artist! Though I was almost hoping for a guilty verdict where Michael collapses, is rushed to a hospital and the crowd tears the town apart. Would’ve made better tv.
Well, first I gotta ask for a cite on this one. Second, you’re deluding yourself if you really think the ONLY kids MJ had the opportunity to molest were poor, illiterate immigrants. The '93 case, for instance, came from a family that was fairly well off. And what about Macauley Culkin? Webster? All those other flash-in-the-pan child stars? Certainly they are in a prime position to levy an accusation, if for no other reason than to get their name back in the press and pay off their drug dealer bills.
Aha! Didn’t notice that part. Of course, now I gotta bookmark that site and hope the LOTF pics get posted soon…that’s one of my favorite movies.
Check this out. Triumph the Insult Comic Dog takes on the MJ supporters outside the courthouse. Not sure when this was recorded, but at one point he mentions “three months”. Anyway, it’s interesting. One of the people reacting with hostility, the one with the platinum hair, is BJ Hickman, a contender for the Looniest of the Loons title.
But they’re allowed to, Guin. A large part of the decision is based on which witnesses they believe to be credible; they didn’t think she was credible, and I’m sure part of that came from not liking her, but that’s what goes into deciding whether she’s believable or not. That’s just the way it is. The prosecutor should have rehearsed her for a year before he put her on the stand.
My two cents are that Jackson was guilty, and that the prosecution didn’t prove it. For what that’s worth.
Did he? Were they? The jury didn’t think so. If the prosecution had any proof aside from a grifter who put her kid in jeopardy and saw $$ potential, they might have convicted. Instead, the prosecutor had an axe to grind and put forth an ugly case that yielded a result that neither he nor you wanted.
There was no proof of coercion. There was no proof of conspiracy or molestation or administering an alcoholic beverage to a minor with the intent of molestation. It was an incomplete case and if he got off then it was a travesty, but the blame lies on the DA’s behalf.
Why do we have to do this every time jury of an emotionally charged trial/subject decides against what public opinion feels is the “right” decision?
Did he? Were they? The jury didn’t think so. If the prosecution had any proof aside from a grifter who put her kid in jeopardy and saw $$ potential, they might have convicted. Instead, the prosecutor had an axe to grind and put forth an ugly case that yielded a result that neither he nor you wanted.
There was no proof of coercion. There was no proof of conspiracy or molestation or administering an alcoholic beverage to a minor with the intent of molestation. It was an incomplete case and if he got off then it was a travesty, but the blame lies on the DA’s behalf.
Why do we have to do this every time jury of an emotionally charged trial/subject decides against what public opinion feels is the “right” decision?
I don’t think the problem is being likeable though, but rather, believable. I heard one juror say that he basically felt sorry for the kid because he had been taught to lie by his mother. I feel sorry for the kid as well. I think the mother is the one that has done the abusing though.
It was a good verdict. There was reasonable doubt. Now I suppose that, just like OJ, Michael will be sued in civil court, where the legal standard of guilt is much lower, and pay a zillion bucks to that woman.
But could someone please tell me exactly what evidence there is against Jackson, other than the testimony of a very dubious witness? Given that the people who have actually been subpoena’d to testify have said Jackson didn’t do anything to them?
The thing is, a weird celebrity like this is going to attract gold-diggers and con men like a magnet. So the little boys being introduced to him were not exactly coming from a random sampling of the population.
Michael Jackson claims that he’s just a strange guy who never had a childhood, is scared around adults or whatever, and just enjoys the company of little children. He likes to be a child, to sleep with them, play with them, watch TV with them, go on rides with them, etc. Given the target he painted on his forehead, he would have faced charges like this whether or not he was guilty. Someone was going to go after his money and use their kid to do it.
So given all that, we actually need some fairly good proof of his guilt before locking him away.
Oh, and I don’t think BJ Hickman has platinum hair. Here’s his blog. This is the fan that Diane Dimond had to get a restraining order against, because he kept harassing her.
I did wonder about that, and decided that the prosecution probably was afraid of what it would find - something that might prove Jackson is a loon and possibly not responsible for his actions. I’m just speculating, but whatever the shrink would have found would have been fair game. They probably didn’t want to take the chance.
[SUB]Am I the only who got the Friends reference?[/sub]
Sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest there wasn’t any evidence. I was asking sincerely. I never followed the trial, and I was literally wondering what the physical evidence was against him, because from what little I saw I didn’t hear of any. I just kept reading headlines of witnesses either A) corroborating Michael’s story or B) turning out to have shady pasts.
My personal belief is that, since he’s an adult, any ‘play’ he did with the kids probably involved sexual play, and that makes him a pedophile or a pederast or whatever. I just don’t know what proof there is. Was the security guard a credible witness?
Large Marge- No good attorney will allow his client to have a psych eval unless his client is nuts. As such, even though it’s SOP on TV, it hardly ever happens in the real world unless it’s court-ordered, and the court doesn’t like to force the hand of a citizen unless there is some seriously compelling reason, and his attorney is open to it-at least, this is my experience in my region/county of California with psych evaluations.
Sam- According to reports given at the time of the Security Guard’s testimony, he and another house worker were both fired and there was some compelling dirt on the two of them that shot their credibility to shit.
So the defense attorney wouldn’t allow a psych exam unless the client suffered from some sort of mental illness? Wouldn’t it be the other way around? In other words, wouldn’t you only allow your client to be tested if you knew they were sane?
Depends on the case. If there is some sort of advantage to being found insane(like in a criminal case where his actions could be explained by his mental condition), then they might opt to accept a psych-eval. If you were hiding someone’s mental illness, or if someone values his medical privacy, then you might refuse the eval. The third situation that came up often in the office in which I worked was that the attorney would refuse an eval no matter what on the grounds that it was none of their fucking business.
As I said, it’s hard for the courts-at least here in my county in California-to force a person to undergo an evaluation(if not hard, then it’s one of those things judges don’t like to do unless absolutely necessary). Occasionally we’d have people evaluated independently and depending on the outcome we’d share it with the opposing side or the courts. Occasionally an independent eval would come out bad for the client so we’d bury it and hope that the Opposing counsel wouldn’t ask for it or obtain a court order.