Michael Jackson Jury Reaches Verdict

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:07 pm

It would be awfully hard to take the fight to them in a situation like that, though. The more money you spend on defense, the more people will scream out that you "bought" the trial, and they would still assume your guilt (killing your career, image, etc.). Our first hand experience here tells us that much. If he had fought any of the civil charges, he would have looked guilty (and like a sexual predator) in the eyes of many/most people, just as he does right now. It was a no win situation for him, especially if he is truly innocent. Placed in a similar situation, I am quite sure most everyone would pay to make it go away, even if they were innocent. It's hard to fight a charge like that without looking guilty.

The more I think about it, the less convinced I am of anything. I just think it would be hard for anyone to honestly say they had anything more than a hunch one way or another without better information.

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:30 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:It would be awfully hard to take the fight to them in a situation like that, though. The more money you spend on defense, the more people will scream out that you "bought" the trial, and they would still assume your guilt (killing your career, image, etc.). Our first hand experience here tells us that much. If he had fought any of the civil charges, he would have looked guilty (and like a sexual predator) in the eyes of many/most people, just as he does right now. It was a no win situation for him, especially if he is truly innocent. Placed in a similar situation, I am quite sure most everyone would pay to make it go away, even if they were innocent. It's hard to fight a charge like that without looking guilty.

The more I think about it, the less convinced I am of anything. I just think it would be hard for anyone to honestly say they had anything more than a hunch one way or another without better information.

It isn’t like this boy came out of the blue and made the accusations… MJ had sleepovers, had porn in his house and gave the kids wine. There was a lot of evidence against him… This wasn’t like some stranger coming up to the police and making up a whole unbelievable story! MJ made himself a sitting duck for those charges, and he didn’t even care! MJ ruined his own reputation years ago with his actions at Neverland Ranch (this case was just another day in the life of MJ). Hey at the very least this will make an entertaining made for TV movie.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:37 pm

All very true ... which is what made that article so interesting. From our natural perspective, that all points to pedophelic (sp?) behavior. However, the article presented another plausible view that explains all of those same behaviors from a completely different perspective.

The whole thing just truly makes me wonder what the real story is. Is this a story of a man who has abused children and gotten away with it, or is this a very sad story about a guy whose reality is so different from ours and so innocent in mindset that he doesn't even realize how strange his behavior truly is?

Keep in mind that what started this whole trouble for him was going on TV and, without being asked specifically about it, offered up that he sleeps in the same bed with boys. Would a pedophile offer that kind of evidence himself, or is that the sign of a person who doesn't even have an understanding of pedophelia and views it simply as a sleepover?

One way or another, this is a very sad story ... and he is a freak.

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:31 pm

You make an interesting point about him fathering a child -- clearly he isn't completely asexual (or maybe it was artificial insemination -- we are talking a freak here), but that still leaves the door open to the possibility that he just sees all of these kids as friends and not as targets of his sexual advances.

No doubt in my mind that he bought a surrogate mother to foster a child. Was it it to have a progeny, toy, doll, etc. ?

What's next? Incest?!!

To slay a vampire you drive a wooden stake through its heart. How do you slay a "freak"? I realize there are different kinds of "freaks" so we'll use the MJ stereotype in this case. I have my own thoughts- ramming a petrified.......

Never mind my sense of decency has once again prevailed.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:41 pm

I guess I, also, am guilty of looking at the MJ case and assuming, from the start, that he was guilty-in-fact (which is not the same as saying I thought he would be convicted).

After having a couple days to reflect on the verdict, I guess this is where I am: I'm certainly not naive enough to believe that a verdict of not guilty means that he is innocent-in-fact. However, the fact remains that twelve people who spent three months having the evidence presented to them and who, frankly, probably know considerably more about the facts of the case than anyone on this board, were not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.

Of course, we're all entitled to our opinions, but to anyone who claims that they "know" he is guilty, you might want to ask yourself: what do you *really* know, and where did your information come from? There is a reason why the judicial system, and not the media, is the final arbiter of these matters in this country.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:20 pm

i'm not as decent as gokats. i must train Dozer to "sick balls" so if my kids and I ever meet MJ I can give him a proper "hello".

-rebecca

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 9:19 pm

briannell wrote:i'm not as decent as gokats. i must train Dozer to "sick balls" so if my kids and I ever meet MJ I can give him a proper "hello".

-rebecca

I'm not all that decent. I have an Alaskan Malamute pup 5 months old and he chases "balls" all day long. Seeing that he's now about 80 lbs. and has about 40-60 to go I have to keep buying him bigger "balls" to play with, but on occasion he still prefers to bite on the "teeny" ones. I've bought him numerous furry toys witha "squeaker" inside. His favorite pasttime now is to chew the "squeaker" out of all those critters.

If Dozer needs help let "Kodi" and I know.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:34 am

According to vanity fair the Jackson jury was indefferent almost laughing when one of jacksons past accusors was on stand reliving his molestation:

During a break the judge took for a conference at the bench in the middle of Francia's testimony, I was alarmed by the indifference of the jurors. The young man sitting in the witness-box before them had just gone through one of the most humiliating ordeals of his life, but they did not exhibit the slightest sign of empathy. They ignored him as they laughed and talked together. I suddenly wondered if we have not all watched so much Dr. Phil and Oprah that we can no longer distinguish between real pain and entertainment.

http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/co ... 0411roco03
http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/co ... 0613roco01

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 8:48 am

Hell's Bells wrote:According to vanity fair the Jackson jury was indefferent almost laughing when one of jacksons past accusors was on stand reliving his molestation:

You've got to remember though, these jurors were together doing nothing but listening to trial testimony for three months. During breaks from the trial, of course they're going to talk to one another, and they're not supposed to talk about the trial during that time, so what do you think they're going to talk about? Are they supposed to never crack a smile or share a joke together for three months?

I would not read too much into stuff like this. By the end of the trial, each of them would have probably preferred getting a root canal over spending one more day listening to testimony, but that does not mean they didn't take their roles as jurors seriously.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:07 am

we can make it a tag team effort on MJ. at 196 pounds Dozer can hold him down and Kodi can teach him the ropes about sicking balls.

we can also form a non-profit group (may be Kodi & Dozer's ball biting school) to teach this in other cities as a way to handle their SA's. it would be a good thing. since men are so fond of their "parts", i'm sure it would make even the sick ones think twice before using it in offensive ways.

seriously, I'd like to give it a try.

but, i'm a little wacked anyway, so it make sense to me. if your still in Bozeman when Brian goes for his PhD, Kodi should be full grown at that point and we can try. I'll have more english mastiff's too!

-rebecca

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:37 am

yes true grizlaw but shouldn't the jury take their job seriously? seems to me that in a trial like this it is hard not to be starstruck. I guess jackson is pretty big down there

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:50 am

Hell's Bells wrote:yes true grizlaw but shouldn't the jury take their job seriously? seems to me that in a trial like this it is hard not to be starstruck. I guess jackson is pretty big down there

In my post I said that I think the jurors DID take their job seriously, didn't I?? I think jurors generally do.

My point was, these jurors spent THREE MONTHS of their lives doing absolutely nothing except sitting in that courtroom and listening to testimony. Is it so wrong for them to share a private joke among themselves during breaks from the trial? Or are they obligated to just sit there, stone-faced, and be miserable 24/7 for three months?

Being on a jury for a lengthy case like this one would not be a fun experience. They spend eight hours a day listening to testimony, and they're not allowed to talk about the case until it's over, so what are they SUPPOSED to do when the judge orders a recess? They're human; they're going to try to make the best of their situation, and if that means sharing a joke among themselves, I don't see why that's offensive to anybody.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:54 am

Hell's Bells wrote:yes true grizlaw but shouldn't the jury take their job seriously? seems to me that in a trial like this it is hard not to be starstruck. I guess jackson is pretty big down there

Would hell's bells have remained stoic for the entire duration of the trial, lest someone accuse him of being too relaxed, and thus obviously not taking his role seriously? I doubt it. I know I wouldn't.

We have to keep things in perspective.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 1:03 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:yes true grizlaw but shouldn't the jury take their job seriously? seems to me that in a trial like this it is hard not to be starstruck. I guess jackson is pretty big down there

We have to keep things in perspective.

you would have to remain calm, but personally i am not taking issue with the fact that the jury laughed, just that they laughed at a time when one of the past accusers was detailing what had happened to him and how it had affected him....would BAC think that is a little odd?

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 1:21 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:you would have to remain calm, but personally i am not taking issue with the fact that the jury laughed, just that they laughed at a time when one of the past accusers was detailing what had happened to him and how it had affected him....would BAC think that is a little odd?

Come on, Hells, you're killing me here...

The Vanity Fair author said he was referring to the jury joking and laughing with one another "DURING A BREAK THE JUDGE TOOK FOR A CONFERENCE AT THE BENCH." "During a break" does not mean "at a time when the accuser was detailing what had happened to him."

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the jurors were laughing AT the kid's testimony (actually I think the VF author was *trying* to give us that impression, because that's the sort of thing that sells magazines, but as a matter of practical reality, I am saying that does not appear to me to be the case).

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:06 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:yes true grizlaw but shouldn't the jury take their job seriously? seems to me that in a trial like this it is hard not to be starstruck. I guess jackson is pretty big down there

We have to keep things in perspective.
you would have to remain calm, but personally i am not taking issue with the fact that the jury laughed, just that they laughed at a time when one of the past accusers was detailing what had happened to him and how it had affected him....would BAC think that is a little odd?

If the transcript went like:

Kid: And then Michael grabbed my ying yang and made me cuddle his wazoo and then--

Jurors 3, 5 and 8: [Hysterical laughter and knee slapping reminiscent of of a Def Comedy Jam]

Kid: ...and then he told me to do a shot of tequila.

Jurors 4, 6, and 9: [Simultaneously] That's what I'm talkin' about! You da man, Michael! Woohoo! [More laughter]

Then, yes, I would find that more than a little odd. However, if they were acting relaxed during one of the courtroom breaks in the long testimony, and even sharing a casual laugh, then I am not too worried about it.

That's what I meant by keeping things in perspective.

catatac · Post by **catatac** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 3:17 pm

WOW - I shouldn't have laughed at that, but damn that was funny...

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 8:57 pm

personally i think it is amazing that anything from slate is the biblical truth however if it is in another form of media it has been "spun". The lady who wrote this article is the wife of Chris Matthews.

1) doesnt matter when the laughter occured, wouldn't you be a bit disturbed after listening to an entire days worth of testimony of a previous accuser getting molested a normal human being would be a bit distrubed...if it were me i'd be downing shots after the trial day.

2) Laughing after such dramatic testimony just would not happen normally. wouldnt you be a bit disturbed? kids that age just dont state molestation charges for giggles, as a matter of fact more then likley they won't, therefore i will bet you that there are more victims of MJ.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:34 pm

Ahhh, sweet Hell's... Slate is an opinion magazine -- obviously its articles aren't the Biblical truth (that's actually not a perfect term to use since the Bible isn't exactly... well, different conversation). They are, however, much more objective and intellectually honest than any political talking head's attack pieces and spin demonstrations ... and that's all the talking heads write.

That comment of course has nothing to do with the Vanity Fair article -- it's a decent magazine.

I laughed at my grandpa's funeral when I was in high school while sitting in the hearse with his body and some of my cousins, all of whom were pall bearers. We were all very, very sad and shaken up, but it was an awkward time, and somebody said something to break the tension, and we laughed. If somebody like you had walked by at that moment, we would apparently have been chewed out for not taking our roles seriously or not being sad enough. Fortunately, the windows were tinted.

You just can't make judgments of people based on so little evidence and insight. It just doesn't make sense to even try (unless one has a predetermined opinion and is just trying to fix a scant bit of evidence to back up what they want to believe). Well, you can, but you'd have to become a professional talking head, and they are really annoying.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:48 pm

true, very true.

what i am saying is how can anyone be lauging after such an emotional time for an indiviual? obviously some can but it has had to be hard just to hear sombody say somthing like that

and about the saying biblical truth it is just a saying my friend...no need to debate it i realise that people will have different opinions about the hear after