Michael Jackson

[Kenneth Mann]

I think you'll find there were two trials going on; the trial in the court, and the trial in the media: - - - and they came to completely different verdicts (as is very often the case).

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.

The media doesn't have to be bothered with such niceties as reasonable doubt. The can just dish up all of the unfiltered garbage, and from it come to what is, more or less, a consensus; then go from there.

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.

It appears that he was guilty of one thing at least; - - - and that was of 'being an incredible fool', but that doesn't make him guilty of other things, an important little technicality in our system which the press, in its rush for the sensational seems to often leave behind.

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

Again, the press (especially cable news and other tabloid-like entities) had him very nearly convicted, and speculated extensively into that alternative.

What I'd like to see on this forum some day is a thread, or two, or three; looking at the role of the press and whether or not they are living up to their implied responsibilities. Do we leave them entirely free, without accountability, or are they expected to live up to those extraordinary liberties in some way?

KM

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I guess there was a huge bash at the Jackson ranch last night. The tricycles were lined up for miles.

 

[TOKAMAK]

Don't they have jobs they need to be at or something?

Questions like these keep me awake at night.