Michael Jackson

I did a search for "Michael" and "Jackson" and "Michael Jackson" but I didn't see a thread but if this is redundant please give me a link because I suck at finding things. It was a tossup between social sciences and politics and world affairs so I put it here.

But I need to vent. I haven't posted here since forever but maybe I'll get feedback..

After the verdict was read almost everyone I heard a comment from was upset, because that "sick" guy got to walk and he should be deported, etc. because he's so guilty, this is like O.J., and only in America etc. etc. but really what do they know? They did not see the evidence, or hear the testimony first hand. They have only their perceptions founded on something outside the courtroom, most likely skewed media. Watching lame reenactments on E!, viewing drawings, reading transcripts etc. are not true forms of viewing a case, especially as unbiased. To say an incorrect verdict was rendered not only accuses Michael Jackson of all counts, but also accuses the jury of purjury. I say to these people, maybe YOU should have been prosecutor. The jurors made their statements.

I never said whether or not Jackson was guilty (until today) but when asked what I thought, "If I had to guess, I'd say not guilty cuz I grew up with his music and dude's got some moves," but never acted like i knew for sure like others did. So this is not meant as "I told you so" at all, just that my faith in the justice system of USA is not lost due to THIS trial.
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
14
I think the trial was true justice. If you look at the jury and theri backgrounds and who the guy was, you felt like he was going to be found guilty before the trial started. The evidence must have been so insanely weak or he must have plain and simple been innocent because there were like 8 months or something, a cop, and someone who was molested on the jury and if THEY found him not-guilty... i cant even understand how you could question it.

People right now are going "ohhhh he bought his freedom!" but im sure if he was found guilty, thered be other people going "ohhh its because (haha) he was black" or that the DA just wanted to make an example out of him to make a career.
 

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
I have to agree that it bothers me that people who have not seen or heard the evidence or testimony are just assuming he's guilty even though he was determined not guilty on all counts. So much for innocent until proven guilty, huh?

As for whether he really did it vs what the prosecution was able to prove, well, I didn't see the testimony and evidence either, so I don't know. The little I've seen in the media suggested it could go either way, so I hadn't made up my mind in advance. It could have been that he molested the kid, or it could be that the parents used that kid to extort money from Jackson. Either way, the only thing I do know for certain is that someone victimized that kid.

I don't understand why you, or others, assumed he was not guilty (or guilty) just because they grew up with his music either. To me, there's no relationship between the two. I can enjoy his music and still think he's a weirdo I wouldn't trust with a kid...just the whole dangling his kid off a balcony incident was enough to convince me of that part. I could think he's a talented artist and still have criminal potential, likewise, I could understand how someone who stands out as bizarre could be an easy target for extortion.
 
Just to clarify I meant growing up to his music would be the "best" evidence I could use for his guilt/innocence I could have just as easily used because leprechauns are orange it's just to illustrate I had no good basis for an opinion on his guilt (unlike the jury).
 

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
False Prophet said:
Just to clarify I meant growing up to his music would be the "best" evidence I could use for his guilt/innocence I could have just as easily used because leprechauns are orange it's just to illustrate I had no good basis for an opinion on his guilt (unlike the jury).
Ah, gotcha! :wink: I missed that point on my first reading of your post.
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
14
what about those freaks out there cheering for him? I mean what the hells with these weirdos. You kinda wonder if the biggest freak in that town was inside the court house or outside
 
The radio talk show I listen to on the way to work followed the whole trial day by day. From what I have heard of the evidence, which is plenty I assure you, I would say the he is most likely guilty. I think that it just came down to reasonable doubt. There was no evidence that could prove it definitively and there were reasons to be suspicious of the validity of the evidence that was available.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
At first I assumed that he was guilty. With so much publicity ten years ago followed by a buy out, it didn't look very good. But as the trial progressed I could certainly see how he would be an easy target. And according to the news reports and interviews, his accusers lacked any credibility whatsoever. What surprises me is that Jackson wasn't even convicted on the charge of serving alcohol to minors. Early on its was stated that this point wasn't even disputed by Jackson. He is a hard one to figure...and I understand that his plastic surgeon agrees. :uhh:
 

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
Pengwuino said:
what about those freaks out there cheering for him? I mean what the hells with these weirdos. You kinda wonder if the biggest freak in that town was inside the court house or outside
Well, there were freaks for both sides out there. I don't understand how anyone has time to stand around protesting anything day in and day out like those people did. Don't they have jobs they need to be at or something?
 

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
Ivan Seeking said:
At first I assumed that he was guilty. With so much publicity ten years ago followed by a buy out, it didn't look very good. But as the trial progressed I could certainly see how he would be an easy target. And according to the news reports and interviews, his accusers lacked any credibility whatsoever. What surprises me is that Jackson wasn't even convicted on the charge of serving alcohol to minors. Early on its was stated that this point wasn't even disputed by Jackson. He is a hard one to figure...and I understand that his plastic surgeon agrees. :uhh:
Well, this case doesn't mean he's not a child molester (we have no way to know for certain one way or the other), it means he probably wasn't a molester of this one particular child. Seeing the sort of publicity this trial got, it would be hard to imagine someone who was really molested being willing to step forward and say something; not many could withstand such grilling in the public spotlight.
 
3,073
3
This case reminds me of how much observers really know in this Age of Information, yet how the best of us are willing to admit honestly to a reasonable doubt.
 

SOS2008

Gold Member
18
0
Note that he was found not guilty on ALL counts--even giving alcohol to minors.

There isn't any law against being weird, or laws about avoiding the "appearance of evil" and proper behavior for grown men in regard to sleeping, showering, etc. with other people's children. The guy should get it through his head that socially unacceptable behavior is bound to bring criticism, as well as people who may use this in pursuit of his money--he could just stop it.

As for parents who allow their children to be exposed to such situations/activities, they should be prosecuted.
 
Last edited:

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
SOS2008 said:
Note that he was found not guilty on ALL counts
That's what gets me. If these jurors really thought that Jackson was a child molester, I think they would have convicted him on something.
 

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
Ivan Seeking said:
That's what gets me. If these jurors really thought that Jackson was a child molester, I think they would have convicted him on something.
That's what I was thinking as well, that they'd have convicted him on one of the lesser charges if the evidence wasn't strong enough to convict on child molestation, but they still thought he was guilty. I was expecting them to find him guilty at least on the charges of providing alcohol to a minor, and there was also one of attempted lewd act on a child, which they could have found him guilty on if they thought he might have tried something but the accusations were exaggerated.
 
Perhaps they decided that it would be conflicting to assume part of the testimonies were true but the other parts weren't considering that lack of credibility is about all that saved his case.
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
14
TheStatutoryApe said:
Perhaps they decided that it would be conflicting to assume part of the testimonies were true but the other parts weren't considering that lack of credibility is about all that saved his case.
Ive seen differently. People convicted of one thing adn not the other and they were connected in such a way that one was impossible without the other happening. I think the example im thinken of is the scott peterson case where they like, got him on murder but not .... ok no thats not the right case... but yah, whatever im thinken :D
 
3,761
8
I haven't really followed this trial but, am just wondering what would have happened if he was found guilty. I mean, were they planning on building a separate jail cell for him ? I think implementing Michael with other prisoners would certainly not have been a 'healthy thing'

Or do they have some kind of special jail just for convicted celebrities ?

regards
marlon
 

vanesch

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,007
16
marlon said:
I haven't really followed this trial but, am just wondering what would have happened if he was found guilty.
They would have delivered him to the masses to be stoned :devil:
 

dextercioby

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
12,949
532
I don't think artists have a problem with being stoned,wouldn't you say...?:tongue2:

Maybe feeding him to the lions would be more spectacular.:devil:

Danievil.
 
91
0
marlon said:
I haven't really followed this trial but, am just wondering what would have happened if he was found guilty. I mean, were they planning on building a separate jail cell for him ? I think implementing Michael with other prisoners would certainly not have been a 'healthy thing'

Or do they have some kind of special jail just for convicted celebrities ?

regards
marlon
Most of the talk seemed to be headed towards sharing the same prison as Charles Manson. Jackson would have to be given "preferential" treatment for two reasons....his celebrity status, and the fact that he would be going to jail as a child molester. Hate on criminals all you want, but they at least have their own ethical code, and molestation certainly doesn't rank favourably with them.
 
3,761
8
vanesch said:
They would have delivered him to the masses to be stoned :devil:

ohh, come on man...this is a genius we are talking about.
Besides, i think geniuses should be given an 'adapted way of sentencing', if you know what i mean...there should be a special law just for outstanding people like the pope or great scientists, or great sportsmen like Pete Sampras


here you go...i really should get into politics, wouldn't you say ? o:) :cool:
marlon
 
3,761
8
bross7 said:
Hate on criminals all you want, but they at least have their own ethical code, and molestation certainly doesn't rank favourably with them.

true

marlon
 
310
2
marlon said:
I haven't really followed this trial but, am just wondering what would have happened if he was found guilty. I mean, were they planning on building a separate jail cell for him ? I think implementing Michael with other prisoners would certainly not have been a 'healthy thing'

Or do they have some kind of special jail just for convicted celebrities ?

regards
marlon
Alas, we have stumbled upon the answer. They let him go because it would be inconvenient to imprison him.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Smurf said:
Alas, we have stumbled upon the answer. They let him go because it would be inconvenient to imprison him.
No, but he surely would have been a favorite sweetheart. :uhh:


Saddam Hussein has requested that his trial be moved to Santa Maria, California.
David Letterman
 

Pengwuino

Gold Member
4,854
14
marlon said:
I haven't really followed this trial but, am just wondering what would have happened if he was found guilty. I mean, were they planning on building a separate jail cell for him ? I think implementing Michael with other prisoners would certainly not have been a 'healthy thing'
He would have found his way here...

http://www.corr.ca.gov/InstitutionsDiv/INSTDIV/facilities/fac_prison_CORCORAN.asp [Broken]

And prisons probably have something to accomdate special people like him (not special because hes a celebrity, special because he would have been a convicted child molester.... and hes pretty weird ;))
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads for: Michael Jackson

  • Posted
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Posted
4 5 6
Replies
149
Views
13K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
29
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
273
Replies
2
Views
697

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top