MJ not guilty…
whatever…
I wonder if he’ll stop needing to go to the hospital so much now…
Ah, well. I felt that Michael’s problem is more that he wants to -be- a little white boy than that he wants to do anything perverse with one.
I didn’t follow the whole trial closely, but it did sound as if the defense had some evidence and testimony to bring forward, something about the boy having previously been questioned closely on the topic and thoroughly denied anything untoward had happened and all, only changing his story later. So, maybe so, maybe no, but I’m willing to trust the jury on this one.
And no, I don’t think MJ will stop visiting the hospital… I don’t think that really had anything to do with hiding from the trial, I think it has to do with having bleached himself with who-knows-what-chemicals and starved himself down to ninety-three pounds (or whatever), he’s probably wrecked his health thoroughly.
Mmmm..I was convinced he would have been found guilty of the lesser charges - their term,not mine - but maybe the jury remembered the Rodney King riots and were of a NIMBY persuasion.
Just a thought…
Slan,
D.
Wacko Jacko might not be guilty, but if it smells like a pile of BS then it is BS. Now, let’s see how long it is before he is in a civil court trying to pay his bills or those that are trying to collect what he owes.
MarkB
Gee, I can’t figure out how he was acquitted.
Lets see, 1) A DA primarily interested in getting even for getting spanked the last time he tried…
-
basing his case primarily on the ‘evidence’ of a gold-digging mother with a history of welfare fraud, bogus lawsuits and tax fraud…
-
who deliberately allowed her kid to stay over at Neverland Ranch, and…
-
who changed her story repeatedly WHILE ON THE WITNESS STAND…
-
and whose charge of false imprisonment was even more bogus than the weight on my three year old driver’s license.
Oh, yeah, now I remember.
I wouldn’t expect a civil suit in this one - can you imagine the fun the defendant’s attorney would have with this doting, concerned mother on the stand?
Guess I’ll buy more stock in Vaseline after all.
Smeachael is Freeeeeeeeee!
http://www.funnydan.com/media/snipits/MichaelJacksonGollum.jpg
Edited to spare Missy’s sensibilities. 
Gary - that picture is just WRONG!!!
Unfortunately, he gave the One Ring to the Dark Lord:
So I am wondering who pays the defence bill for MJ now, surely he should not be out of pocket being legally innocent?
Also in America does he get compensation for the time that he could not work?
It is not as though he wanted to go to court and if proven innocent then does the State or the proscecutor have to pay? I am just curious how this works in the USA?
Brigitte
Brigitte - MJ will be paying his attorneys, etc. And there’s no compensation.
There can also still be a “civil” case against him, if the plaintiffs so desire (this is what happened in the OJ case). A civil case is different in that a defendant doesn’t have to be found “guilty” beyond a reasonable doubt, as was what the charges were in the criminal case.
The problem in this particular case seems to be (and I by no means followed the case closely, so am just going on bits I gathered here and there) that the prosecution failed to present their case in such a way that there would be NO doubt that MJ did what he was accused of. Testimony of witnesses was contradictory (including the chief witness), and things that would have “clinched” the case were never presented for whatever reason.
It’s not a perfect system, and a lot of times people that commit crimes get off on technicalities - NOT because they are innocent of the crime - but it’s what we have.
In case its not clear, MJ pays his lawyers but the county pays for the trial because its a criminal case. It was the “state” versus Michael Jackson.
Recently I heard on the radio that the county where Scott Peterson committed his crime paid San Mateo County (where they moved the proceedings) for the trial: $800,000.
That’s a really tendentious way of putting it, Missy. My understanding of it, also fragmenatary, is that the prosection simply didn’t have a credible case.
If MJ really did what he is accused of, it’s obviously a pity he got off. But, from what I’ve heard about the case, it’s mildy surprsing it even got to court. Everything depended on the testimony of witnesses whose credibility was close to zero. Apparently their stories also changed during the case.
wombat - I know it’s different venues (counties) but I’m seriously wondering what it “is” with the grand jury in both the OJ and the MJ cases. Surely if these cases were as poorly proven as they ultimately were in court, there was no reason to charge either of them?
Sometimes the justice system (not just in America, but everywhere) simply does not work properly.
In cases such as O.J. Simpson’s and Michael Jackson’s it’s more evident because they’re on the news all the time.
Murderers and paedophiles walk free all the time, though, but the majority of them aren’t rich and famous so we don’t know about it.
I don’t think there are many parallels between this case and the OJ Simpson case. I really doubt whether anybody would mount a civil case against MJ. The problem seems to be that the witnesses, with low credibility ratings to start with, blew it further by contradicting themselves in court. That isn’t a gap in the evidence nor is it a failure to present the evidence well. It would give the jury good reason to believe that the evidence was trumped up.
I’d only be guessing if I speculated on how this ever got as far as court. Perhaps with serious charges like this, there is a presumption in favour of testing them in court however long the odds might be. I also seem to remember him facing similar charges earlier; if so maybe that influenced the prosecution. Whatever, his chances of getting back into show business would seem to be minimal. If he really is innocent, that is a very high price to pay for community bloodlust. Think of the countless priests who weren’t innocent who have been successfully shielded from public scrutiny and often simply moved to another parish at the first hint of exposure.
let me say up front that I’m about the worst “celebrity watcher” you will find - I could care less about most of them, I probably know very little of their names even, or can tell you what they do (did), etc. Except George Clooney, but that’s only cuz I went to gradeschool with him! 
Anyway, wombat wrote:
“Whatever, his chances of getting back into show business would seem to be minimal.”
Nah - he’ll probably be quite fine. He’s made a ton of money already, and gets gobs of royalty payments that will continue forever (or 75 years), etc. Supposedly there were people all celebrating outside the courthouse and outside of “Neverland” Ranch.
And you are probably correct about the correlations of the trials being the publicity.
And Cran, I realize that this happens a lot. It happens because of “technicalities” where people don’t say they aren’t “guilty” but get off because of some misstep by the proscecution, by some governor trying to make their “mark” their last day in office, whatever.
At least one of the priests around here “got” his yesteday. He was convicted a while ago (in fact, his was one of the first cases brought to trial in this area) and has been in jail ever since. He was dying of cancer and had petitioned the courts to be released so he could die “in peace”. He died yesterday, in prison, before the courts could render a decision.
Cranberry, I don’t understand how you can know that these two individuals are guilty and are examples of the justice system not working.
He’s lucky he’s not Black…a Black man would have been crucified for those alleged crimes
Slan,
D.