Searching for Answers on Michael Jackson Trial

In summary: America is just a sick country and they all need to get out. Only a few people were saying that it might have been a false conviction. In summary, most people were upset because they thought the evidence was against him and he still walked free.
  • #1
False Prophet
85
0
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 because 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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
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 can't even understand how you could question it.

People right now are going "ohhhh he bought his freedom!" but I am 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.
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
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).
 
  • #5
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.
 
  • #6
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
 
  • #7
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.
 
  • #8
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:
 
  • #9
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?
 
  • #10
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.
 
  • #11
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.
 
  • #12
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:
  • #13
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.
 
  • #14
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.
 
  • #15
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.
 
  • #16
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 I am thinken of is the scott peterson case where they like, got him on murder but not ... ok no that's not the right case... but yah, whatever I am thinken :D
 
  • #17
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
 
  • #18
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:
 
  • #19
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.
 
  • #20
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.
 
  • #21
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
 
  • #22
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
 
  • #23
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.
 
  • #24
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
 
  • #25
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 he's a celebrity, special because he would have been a convicted child molester... and he's pretty weird ;))
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
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).


TheStatutoryApe said:
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.



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.

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.


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

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
 
  • #27
I guess there was a huge bash at the Jackson ranch last night. The tricycles were lined up for miles.
 
  • #28
Moonbear said:
Don't they have jobs they need to be at or something?

Questions like these keep me awake at night.
 

1. What was the outcome of the Michael Jackson trial?

The outcome of the Michael Jackson trial was that he was found not guilty on all counts in 2005. He was acquitted of all charges, including child molestation, conspiracy, and providing alcohol to minors.

2. What evidence was presented during the trial?

The prosecution presented several pieces of evidence, including testimony from the accuser and his family, photographs of the alleged victim's genitals, and items seized from Jackson's Neverland Ranch. The defense presented evidence of the accuser's family's history of making false accusations and evidence of financial motives for the family's involvement in the case.

3. How long did the trial last?

The trial lasted for approximately 5 months, from January to June of 2005. There were a total of 14 weeks of testimony and 4 days of jury deliberation.

4. What was the impact of the trial on Michael Jackson's career?

The trial had a significant impact on Michael Jackson's career. While he was ultimately acquitted of all charges, the allegations and media coverage surrounding the trial damaged his reputation and public image. He also faced financial struggles due to the high cost of the trial and the loss of endorsement deals and concert opportunities.

5. Were there any other legal consequences for Michael Jackson after the trial?

No, there were no further legal consequences for Michael Jackson after the trial. He continued to face civil lawsuits, but these were eventually settled out of court. He also faced public scrutiny and criticism, but no further criminal charges were brought against him.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
7
Replies
238
Views
25K
  • General Discussion
7
Replies
227
Views
48K
Replies
52
Views
5K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
60
Views
9K
Back
Top